ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3685/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: NHS authorities

Can the Commission confirm that the United Kingdom Government is not permitted, as a matter of European Community law, to forbid NHS authorities to contract for health services from suppliers based in other Member States in a situation in which such authorities are permitted to contract with private suppliers of health services who are based in the UK?

Is it permissible for the UK Government to prohibit NHS authorities from contracting with suppliers of health services in other Member States until UK regulations are adopted setting out the terms under which such overseas contracting can take place? In particular, is such a restriction acceptable when the NHS authorities are responsible by law for health care in their locality?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2002)

Any policy of contracting which would have the effect of favouring national suppliers or forbid the purchasing of services from suppliers from other Member States would not appear to be in conformity with Community Law.

In the light of the judgements of the Court of Justice in the Geraets-Smits and Peerbooms case (C-157/99) and in the Vanbraekel case (C-368/98), the British authorities informed the Commission of their intention to clarify their existing rules on the purchasing of hospital services under the NHS system. They also indicated that it was their intention to make clear to health authorities and primary care trusts that they are able to commission services from other European countries.

The press issued reports of British patients being treated in other Member States in order for them to avoid having to wait for NHS treatment.

The Court of Justice's rulings in the above cases have given rise to a number of issues and the Commission is collaborating with Member States to seek ways to resolve them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3592/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Agri-environmental measures and traditional olive groves

Agri-environmental aid to traditional olive-growing areas is vital for maintaining an ecosystem which is important to the preservation of biodiversity (plant and animal life) and natural beauty in Portuguese regions experiencing serious economic and social decline, as well as a worsening rural exodus, as illustrated in the latest census figures (2001). Olive growing is still an important source of income and jobs.

To a question about the criteria adopted in the national provisions governing agri-environmental measures to protect traditional olive-growing areas, the Portuguese Government answered that these had been decided by the European Commission.

These criteria in particular the use of the physiographic index (which, under national rules must be equal to 3, 4 or 5) are having the effect of disqualifying much of the traditional olive-growing land, in the regions of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, in Beira Interior and Alentejo.

The Commission:

- Will it explain what were its reasons for taking the decision?

- What measures does it intend to take to remedy this problem?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

The purpose of the agri-environment measures is to promote agricultural methods that are of greater benefit for preserving and improving the environment, natural resources and cultivated areas of high natural landscape value, and of greater benefit as regards the traditional characteristics of agricultural land and protection of genetic diversity. Consequently aid is granted under this heading only for agri-environment commitments that in a measurable way exceed the simple application of normal good agricultural practice.

The criteria to which the Honourable Member refers apply to agri-environment aid for traditional olive-growing and were included in the rural development plan negotiated in partnership with the Portuguese authorities on the basis of their proposal and approved by the Commission. They go beyond the parameters of good agricultural practice as mentioned above. The premiums are not an aid to olive-growing as such but are an incentive to agricultural practices that benefit the environment (e.g. prohibition on phytopharmaceuticals, pruning at least every three years, weed control etc.).

The aids paid are calculated as as to offset the income losses and additional costs incurred and at the same time provide an adequate financial incentive. They do not amount to a mere transfer of income. That would be incompatible with the rules applicable.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2695/01

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Funding from Regional Policy DG

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects which, in 2000 and 2001, were submitted by the Italian Regions of Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta for financing from the funds administered by the Regional Policy Directorate-General, and the names of those which were subsequently approved?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

The Regional Policy Directorate-General does not part-finance projects but regional and multiregional development programmes.

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), the evaluation and selection of the projects is not a matter for the Commission but for the regional and national managing authorities, to which these projects should in any case be submitted. These authorities are required to keep data available for the Commission for inspection purposes.

The Commission therefore invites the Honourable Member to ask the authorities of the regions concerned for a list of projects submitted and approved during 2000 and 2001.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3313/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Aids to encourage wine consumption in the EU

The Spanish wine-producing sector is currently in difficult circumstances as regards surpluses and low prices. As the present season begins, producers are faced with lakes of excess wine: the volume of table wine now being stored appears to be in excess of 10 m hl, thanks to which grape prices have fallen below the minimum threshold.

The producers' association has therefore asked for authorisation for commercial initiatives aimed at increasing external sales opportunities and undertaking promotion campaigns on the international market.

Can the Commission state whether, in line with its actions on other occasions for other agricultural products, it is willing to finance a campaign to promote wine consumption on both internal and external markets, so as to enable the Spanish wine-producing sector to overcome its present difficult circumstances?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2002)

The Commission has just adopted a decision approving the programmes to promote agricultural products in non-member countries. The 18 programmes approved include two on Spanish wines with designations of origin.

As regards promotion measures within the Community, the Commission will very shortly be submitting a draft Regulation laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 of 19 December 2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market(1) to the joint meeting of the management committees on agricultural product promotion.

Annex III to that draft Regulation sets out the guidelines on promotion in the wine sector.

(1) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3217/01

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Power stations in Megalopolis, Greece

A Commission research project, ExterneE, states that The obtained results confirm that lignite is one of the most polluting fuels used for electricity generation. This is especially true in Greece because of the inferior quality characterising the Greek lignite deposits and in particular their low heating value and the considerable sulphur content.

It has been brought to our attention that two power stations in Megalopolis, Greece, which apparently are lignite power stations, produce a large amount of pollution.

Does the Commission have figures on the levels of pollution emitted by these two power stations?

Is the Commission satisfied that these power stations are not in breach of EU emissions regulations?

Is the Commission funding any initiatives to explore alternatives to lignite power stations?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

In Community legislation emissions from power stations are currently regulated by Council Directive 88/609/EEC of 24 November 1988, on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants(1). This directive differs in its treatment of existing and new plants. For plants, for which the original construction licence was issued before 1 July 1987 (defined as existing plants), the Directive contains obligations in the form of ceilings and reduction targets for emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from this category of plants at the level of the Member State. For plants licensed after that date, the Directive sets obligations for compliance with emission limit values set down in the Directive.

The Commission will enquire with the Greek authorities as to whether the plants referred to can be considered as new or existing within the context of Directive 88/609/EEC and in relation to their compliance with the respective obligations.

Regarding the funding of initiatives to explore alternatives to lignite power stations in particular, a substantial fraction of the funding available through the Energie component of the Fifth Framework Programme (1998-2002) goes into renewable energy sources, with the ultimate objective of decreasing the Community dependency on fossil fuels, and in particular on coal and lignite.

For existing lignite plants, the same programme is funding initiatives to develop the co-utilisation of biomass in these plants, to decrease the use of lignite and the corresponding emissions, notably those of greenhouse gases.

(1) OJ L 336, 7.12.1988.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3204/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Illegal waste discharge in the Kotychi lagoon (Ileia)

Allegations have been made concerning the existence of an illegal and unauthorised discharge in the vicinity of the Kotychi lagoon (Ileia) which is being used to dispose of waste from the municipality of Lechaina and the surrounding area in a site protected under the Ramsar International Convention. The hundreds of tonnes of waste accumulated in the area are being incinerated producing highly dangerous fumes whose effects on the residents of Lechaina are as yet unknown and resulting in large quantities of toxic substances and plastics being carried through drainage channels into the Kotychi lagoon.

Will the Commission investigate these allegations and establish whether Community environmental rules are being infringed? If this proves to be the case, will it take steps to put an end to such infringements?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2002)

Greece has classified Kotychi Lagoon as a special protection area (code GR 2330006) under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1). The same area is also proposed under the same code as a site of Community importance pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2). With a view to the inclusion of the site in the European ecological network Natura 2000, the Greek authorities must ensure that the activities being undertaken do not cause any deterioration of the site, in accordance with Article 6 of the Habitats Directive.

On the basis of the Honourable Member's allegations the Commission has begun an inquiry. A letter has been sent to the Greek authorities requesting information on compliance with Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975(3), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, on waste(4). Once it has received the Greek authorities' reply the Commission will see whether there is any incompatibility with the Community measures referred to above and will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure compliance with Community environment law.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(4) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0301/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Demolition of a building in Viana do Castelo

In Viana do Castelo (Portugal), the local council has announced its plans, as part of the POLIS programme, involving Community funding, to demolish a building known as Edificio Jardim or Prédio Coutinho in the city centre. It was built around 27 years ago, but is still in good condition and houses some 90 families, mostly elderly people.

The residents have taken various forms of action against this position, but have been ignored. They questioned the priority given to demolishing a building in a good state of preservation, at a time when there are many other problems to be dealt with.

1. Was the Commission sent any proposal for action to be taken under the POLIS programme in Viana do Castelo, including the demolition of the above building?

2. If so, what was or will be the Commission's position on the matter?

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2002)

According to the information received from the Portuguese authorities, the demolition of the Prédio Coutinho in Viana do Castelo is to be funded by the national programme POLIS as part of the renovation of the city's historic centre. Demolition related expenditures will not be co-financed by the Structural Funds.

The intervention of the Structural Funds in the POLIS programme in Viana do Castelo during the period 2000-2006 covers:

- projects concerning the parking area in the market, closure of the surrounding ring road (Fecho do Anel Envolvente), and improvement of pedestrian walks (measure 2.6 of the Operational Programme Norte);

- studies and environmental awareness activities to minimise the impact of the works (measure 3.16)
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3527/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Capital and current spending

1. How does the Commission currently treat capital and current spending undertaken under arrangements such as the Private Finance Initiative or Public Private Partnerships when entering them into the public accounts for Maastricht comparability purposes?

2. What is the impact, if any, on both the flow and stock accounts (if stocks are measured)?

3. Has the Commission changed this treatment recently?

4. Is it considering a change in treatment?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

1. Partnership-type arrangements between the public sector and private enterprise may take many different forms. Private ownership may be introduced into state-owned businesses, or private sector expertise and finance may be used to exploit the commercial potential of government assets. There can also be arrangements whereby the public sector contracts to purchase services long-term, to take advantage of private sector skills, and where the risk of financing and making a return on capital is with the private sector. The service may include maintaining, enhancing or constructing the necessary infrastructure.

General guidance on how capital and current spending should be treated statistically in such arrangements is found in the Eurostat ESA95 Manual on government deficit and debt. The key question is the extent to which risk is transferred from the government sector to the corporation sector. This helps to determine in which sector expenditure on the infrastructure should be recorded, and how payment flows between the two sectors should be recorded. Broadly speaking, the most significant impact on government finances is that many of these arrangements have the effect of spreading the cost of capital spending (fixed investment) over their period of use, thus avoiding a higher initial cost to the government. A description of the type of impact is given in the answer to question 2 below.

2. The type of impact of such arrangements on flows (affecting the government deficit/surplus as measured according to Community methodology) and on stocks (affecting the government debt) is as follows.

If the risk is mainly with the corporation, the fixed investment should not be recorded with the government, so the government deficit improves accordingly. However, the arrangements may involve regular service payments from government to the corporation, which would increase the deficit by these amounts over the contract period. There is not normally an impact on government debt

(although a higher deficit might result in an increase in debt). Nevertheless, in cases similar to financial leasing, where government is considered to bear most of the risk, the debt will increase initially by the amount of the investment.

3. There have been no changes recently in statistical treatment.

4. There are no plans for changes in statistical treatment. However, it is always possible that the methodology will be further refined.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3486/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: EIB

Does the Commission have a view on the European Investment Bank's bid to increase its capital?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2002)

The mission of the European Investment Bank (EIB) is to contribute towards the integration, balanced development and economic and social cohesion of the Member States.

The members of the EIB are the Member States, who have all subscribed to the Bank's capital, their respective contributions reflecting their economic weight within the Community. The Board of Governors, the Bank's highest decision-making body, is composed of Ministers nominated by each Member State, usually the latter's Finance Minister. The Board of Directors consists of 25 Directors and 13 Alternates appointed by the Board of Governors.

The EIB enjoys its own legal personality and financial autonomy. The EIB maintains close working ties with the other members of the family of Community institutions in pursuit of the Community's objectives. Such co-operation enables the Bank to co-ordinate its operations with those of the other institutions, while preserving its independence and its own decision-making procedures as provided for in the European Treaties.

To avoid a significant disruption of the lending activities of the Bank, proposals for a capital increase to take effect at the beginning of 2003 would have to be submitted to the next Board of Governors meeting in June 2002. Discussions in the Board of Directors have started so as to enable the EIB to consider in spring 2002 proposals on both strategic orientations and the capital increase, which will not necessitate a call on Member States to increase their paid-in capital but will instead be achieved by incorporating free reserves.

The Commission is represented on the EIB's Board of Directors and delivers an opinion on Bank financing proposals. As the Commission has no shareholding in the EIB, a capital increase would have no Community budgetary consequences. However, the Commission's representatives in the Board of Directors are actively taking part in the discussions, thereby seeking to ensure that the Bank retains its flexibility to cater for calls by Parliament and/or Council to contribute to specific policy actions or needs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3186/01

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Bush meat

Can the Council confirm that on 6 November it received 340 000 signatures from European citizens protesting against increasing European sales of African bush meat, which represents exports of four million tonnes a year?

Does the Council know that this meat comes from wild animals in Africa, including some that are under threat of extinction?

Is the Council prepared to introduce an import ban on this meat or strict, controlled import quotas because otherwise certain groups of African wild animals will become extinct within ten years as a result of these exports?

Reply

(18 March 2002)

The Council notes with interest the Honourable Member's reference to a document containing 340 000 signatures from European citizens protesting against the increasing European sales of African bush meat, but has, to date, not received that document.

The Council also notes the information provided by the Honourable Member that this bush meat comes from wild animals in Africa, some of which are under threat of extinction.

As for the imposition of an import ban or controlled import quotas, it is up to the Commission to examine this question thoroughly and to report to Council and, if appropriate, to come forward with a concrete proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1330/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Aircraft passengers and deep vein thrombosis

Further to the reply to my parliamentary question E-0191/01(1) given by Commissioner Mrs de Palacio on 15 March 2001, which stated that the Commission had written to various bodies urging airlines to take various actions, including advising passengers once on board aircraft on what to do to lessen the chance of thrombosis, what response has the Commission received?

Has it evidence that airlines are now taking such action and, in particular, including such advice in pre-take-off information briefings?

Is it satisfied with the response to date?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 131.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2001)

The Commission refers to the reply it has given to Written Question E-1189/01 of Mr Juan Naranjo Escobar(1), setting out developments regarding the Commission's involvement on this subject.

On the matter of action taken by the airlines, the Commission has since received replies from the Associations it had contacted and from a number of airlines regarding the specific actions they have taken. Such actions have included leaflets distributed to individual passengers, inserts in inflight magazines, inflight videos showing exercises passengers can do, etc. All will contribute to raise the level of information and awareness of passengers, and ultimately, to protect them.

In view of the relatively short timespan since the initiative was launched and of developments at international level, the Commission is at present quite satisfied with the serious approach to the problem, but will continue to monitor all initiatives.

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 195.