ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1604/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Akamas Peninsula, Cyprus

Can the Commission confirm that in the accession negotiations with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, which are expected to be concluded in time for the Copenhagen Council, it has continued to stress, as Commissioner Wallström made clear in June 2000, that ALL new investments should comply with the environmental acquis, and, in particular, that any measures which may lead to the deterioration of areas, such as the Akamas peninsula, likely to be proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network, should be avoided?

When does the Commission expect to receive the proposals for Natura 2000 designation from Cyprus, and will the Commissioner confirm that if these do not embrace a sufficient area to protect the full diversity of the island's flora and fauna they will be returned for reconsideration?

Is the Commission aware of widespread expectations that the Government of Cyprus intends only to propose a limited area of the Akamas peninsula for Natura 2000 designation, despite the recommendations of its own advisors that a much larger area should be included, and that the Government intends to permit a variety of different tourism-related construction projects to proceed on the land where designation is disputed? It is also suggested that permission for development may be given before any Natura 2000 proposal for the area is submitted.

What steps can, and will, the Commission take to ensure that development does not take place in the Akamas either prior to the submission of the Natura 2000 proposals or in the interim period between their submission and subsequent review and final approval by the Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2002)

The Commission is able to confirm that during the accession negotiations with the Cypriot authorities it has continued to stress that all new investments should comply with the environmental acquis. It has also insisted that if an area is likely to be proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network, its conservation values should not be jeopardised by any ongoing or future development.

Cyprus is due to formally submit its proposals for Natura 2000 sites by the date of accession to the Union. It is currently undergoing public consultation on its proposals and the Commission understands that there has been a strong public reaction to this process. The Commission will closely examine these submissions and take appropriate steps to address any shortcomings or omissions.

The Commission is aware that there are many claims over intended actions for the Akamas Peninsula but has not been informed of any definitive decisions that have been taken. The actions that the Commission could take in the pre-accession period would be dependent on the exact nature of any decision taken by the Cypriot authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0709/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 March 2002)

Subject: Water pollution in Greece

Research by the Aristoteleion University of Thessaloniki regarding drinking water in 54 villages in the prefecture of Thessaloniki revealed high levels of pollutants including nitrate ions which are responsible for infant cyanosis. In reply to my previous question (E-0183/00(1)), the Commission indicated that it was aware of the pollution problems affecting ground water in not only the above area but also the areas of Thessaly, Ilia and Messinia.

1. Does the Commission have any further information regarding ground water pollution in Greece?

2. Is it satisfied with the way in which Directive 91/676/EEC(2) has been implemented in Greece?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 4.

(2) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2002)

1. In their year 2000 report on the implementation of Directive 91/676/EEC, the Greek authorities notified the Commission of the results of nitrate concentration monitoring. As the Directive requires, the data given concern only the designated vulnerable zones and not all of Greece's main bodies of water, so the data on nitrate pollution of this Member State's groundwater are not up to date.

The seven designated vulnerable zones represent about 70 % of the potential areas evaluated by the Commission, according to the information available on nitrate concentration in the groundwater in intensive farming areas. Four of these seven designated vulnerable zones now have their own action programmes.

2. Greece has very belatedly adopted national measures transposing Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources(1). Due to the substantial delay in transposing this Directive, the Greek authorities have failed to keep to the time limits imposed by it.

In the light of Greece's failure to fulfil its obligations under Directive 91/676/EEC, the Commission began infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

In the different stages of the pre-litigation procedure, the Greek authorities have sent the Commission information on surveillance measures taken, a new code of good farming practice, a decision designating four vulnerable zones, and action programmes for these four zones (the Kopaida, Argolida, Thessalia et Ileia zones). Furthermore, in 2001 they designated another three vulnerable zones: the plains of Thessaloniki, Strymonas and Arta-Preveza. On 20 December 2001 the Commission therefore decided to put this infringement on file.

The Commission will continue to keep an eye on Greece's proper application of Directive 91/676/EEC and will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure compliance with the obligations arising out of it.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0177/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Value of the Euro in terms of other world currencies

Can the Commission provide a list of those of the world's currencies which had risen in value against the Euro between the latter's introduction on 1 January 1999 and the end of 2001?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2002)

The European Central Bank (ECB) publishes reference values for 28 currencies. Out of these currencies, 22 have appreciated against the euro between 4 January 1999 and 28 December 2001:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1442/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(15 May 2002)

Subject: German wind farm near Bellingwolde

In October 1998 residents of the Dutch municipality of Bellingwolde learnt of the plan to build a wind farm 200 metres over the border in Germany (and approximately 300 metres from the nearby houses) consisting of 22 wind turbines with an overall height of 132 metres each with a maximum capacity of 1.5 MW. Following protests, 17 wind turbines were eventually built in September 2001 with an overall height of 135 metres each with a maximum capacity of 1.8 MW approximately 367 metres from the border. This wind farm is causing residents nuisance in the form of noise, by casting shadow, blocking the view, causing vibrations in the ground, electromagnetic interference, a fall in property values and a deterioration in quality of life.

The project may cause considerable damage to the environment. Consequently, an environmental impact assessment is required before planning permission can be granted.

1. Can the Commission say whether or not the project complies with the relevant Community legislation and, in particular, the European Birds Directive (79/409/EC(1)) and Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC(2))?

2. Can the Commission say whether or not an environmental impact assessment was carried out for this project in accordance with Directive 85/57/EEC(3) and, if so, what was the outcome?

3. If no environmental impact assessment took place, does the Commission consider that there was failure to comply with Community legislation against which the Commission will take action?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2002)

1. From the summary information that the Honourable Member has provided about a wind farm in Germany near the Dutch municipality of Bellingwolde, firstly, the Commission sees no indication that either the Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds), or the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) may apply in this situation.

2. Moreover, there seem to be no particular indications for the Commission that the windfarm project might be subject to the Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(1).

3. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to give an assessment as to whether there exists a failure to comply with Community legislation. The Commission will examine any supplementary information that the Honourable Member may provide in this context.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1020/02

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Execution of budget items B2-1411 and B5-3003

The Community budget for 2002 includes the following items: B2-1411 (Support for regions bordering candidate countries) and B5-3003 (Pilot project on the impact of enlargement for the regions bordering the candidate countries).

Can the Commission state what measures have been funded and what actions it has undertaken or intends to undertake, and specify the percentage rate of execution for these items for both commitment and payment appropriations?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

The Commission intends to allocate EUR 30 million for support for regions bordering candidate countries (budget line B2-1411) to the fourteen existing Interreg III Community initiative programmes with candidate countries by adding a new priority. According to the objectives laid down in the different actions proposed by the Commission's Communication on the impact of enlargement on regions bordering candidate countries(1), this priority could cover projects in the following fields: strengthening of transport systems, supporting small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) particularly affected by enlargement, as well as supporting training and inter-cultural co-operation actions including those favouring the integration of different language and cultural groups. Special attention should be given to projects in the transport and SME sectors directly linked to the improvement of the environment.

The Commission intends to amend the above mentioned programmes by a single Commission decision. The budgetary commitment will therefore be made following the Commission decision, and payments will be made afterwards within the existing rules for Interreg III programmes.

As regards the pilot project on the impact of enlargement for the regions bordering the candidate countries (budget line B5-3003), the Commission intends to allocate EUR 2 million to finance measures in favour of young people in border regions according to the criteria and modalities applied in the YOUTH programme. An amount of EUR 18 million shall be used to launch measures to support SMEs in order to improve their capacity to react to the opportunities and challenges resulting from the enlargement process; employment, social and cultural actions focusing on information and awareness raising, employment promotion and cross border socio-cultural activities; assistance to local or regional bodies to prepare for the administrative and economic effects of increased migration and facilitate the development of contacts and networks between the representatives of these bodies across the border.

The Commission is currently preparing calls for proposals which will be published soon. In terms of financial support to the three above mentioned topics priority will be given to SME support.

(1) COM(2001) 437 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0847/02

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 March 2002)

Subject: Airport taxes

What measures is the Commission prepared to take, at a time when the airline industry is being severely streamlined, in order to ensure that a fairer system of taxation is implemented and that double/triple taxation on journeys through a single airport is brought rapidly to an end?

A passenger who buys an airline ticket and travels from Dublin to London Heathrow and from London Heathrow to Belgrade before returning from Belgrade to London Heathrow and then flying from London Heathrow to Amsterdam will find that, as a result of the current system of airport taxes, each ticket included an additional cost of GBP 27,50. In other words, the tax is paid three times by the same passenger for what is essentially a round trip.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2002)

Airport taxes have to be distinguished from airport charges. The latter, such as passenger charges and landing charges are a source of revenue for the airport and are meant to cover the costs for the airport operations.

Airport or environmental taxes on the other hand, are imposed by the national authorities and do not represent revenue for the airport but are ususally collected by the airport on behalf of the Treasury. As a result, the level of such taxes and the conditions on the basis of which these taxes have to be paid are part of the taxation policy of each Member State. However, such tax provisions have to comply with the general principles of the EC Treaty concerning the freedom to provide services and in particular the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality.

The Commission wishes to add here that generally, when an airline ticket consists of a number of coupons (as it is the case for a trip like Dublin London Belgrade London Amsterdam), each coupon mentions the same amount of airport taxes and charges, which represent the taxes and charges to be paid for the entire journey and not for each leg of the trip. It is likely therefore, that the taxes and charges reported by the Honourable Member of GBP 27,50 were due for the entire journey and not for each flight.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1215/02

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Situation of pomace oil

The food-poisoning tragedy caused by the alfa-benzopyrene contamination of Spanish pomace oil caused severe losses both to the pomace industries affected by that contamination and those which were not. In order to offset these losses and pull the sector out of crisis, the Spanish Government granted state aid to the industry. The Commission now has this aid in its sights.

What stage have the proceedings now reached, and when did the Spanish Government notify the Commission of this aid?

What analysis is the Commission carrying out in order to assess its compatibility with the rules laid down in the Treaty with regard to state aids?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2002)

By letter of 14 March 2002 the Commission informed Spain of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88 of the EC Treaty with regard to a scheme of aid granted by Spain to support the olive-residue oil extracting, refining and bottling industries.

The aid was notified to the Commission by letter of 4 January 2002 in response to a Commission request for information.

At this stage of the procedure, the Commission considers that on the basis of the information available the aid constitutes state aid which is intended to improve the industries' financial situation, but which in no way contributes to their development. Consequently, the aid could constitute operating aid which is incompatible with the common market. The aid could also be in breach of Community rules (common organisation of the market).

Initiating the formal examination procedure will enable the Member State concerned and third parties to present their comments. The Commission will then decide whether the aid is compatible with the proper functioning of the common market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0392/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 February 2002)

Subject: The application of the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners of war

Does the Commission believe that members of terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda fall within the category of prisoner of war under the terms of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, bearing in mind the requirement under Part 1 Article 4 that prisoners of war must be Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members or militias or volunteer corps forming part of such

armed forces or Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organised resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organised resistance movements, fulfil, inter alia, the following conditions:

- that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance;

- that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war;

or does the Commission believe that the American Government is correct to say that the prisoners currently being held at the American Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay fall outside the definition of prisoners of war, and can thus be interrogated, even if they must be treated humanely under customary international law?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0237/02 and E-0392/02given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

It is not for the Commission to determine whether or not an individual detainee falls within the scope of the Geneva Convention.

Nevertheless, the Commission notes that the United States announced on 7 February 2002 that the Geneva Convention will apply to detainees at the Guantanamo Bay base (Camp X-Ray) classified as Taliban soldiers. However, the United States continues to view those detainees belonging to Al Qaeda as falling outside the scope of the Geneva Convention.

The Commission also notes that the United States has nevertheless undertaken to treat all detainees in conformity with the requirements of the Geneva Convention, and that the United States has accepted the majority of the recommendations made by the International Red Cross regarding the improvement of conditions for the detainees.

Furthermore, the Commission notes that the representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross and of the British government who have visited Camp X-Ray have confirmed that detainees are being treated in conformity with international humanitarian law.

The Commission is following developments in the treatment of detainees during their transportation to and detention at Camp X-Ray, through close contacts with the authorities of Member States as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with access to the detention centre.

The Union also maintains a regular dialogue with the United States in the field of human rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1086/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Progress in implementing the Agricultural Development and Fisheries programmes in the third CSF in Greece

Could the Commission state:

1. Whether it is satisfied with the initial progress of the Agricultural Development and Fisheries programmes in the third CSF in Greece?

2. What the reasons are for the problems which have been detected?

3. What view it takes of the progress of these programmes in Greece as compared with the corresponding programmes in other EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

1. On 4 April 2001 and on 28 March 2001, the Commission adopted the National Operational Programme (NOP)-Rural Development (2000-2006) and the NOP-Fisheries (2000-2006) while the corresponding Programming Complements were adopted on 2 July 2001 and on 8 June 2001 respectively. Although Greece was one of the last of the fifteen Member States to adopt the programming documents, the Commission considers that the delays observed are to a certain degree justifiable.

2. Concerning the agriculture sector, other than the delays, some systematic weaknesses were identified during the verification mission and through other contacts by the Commission. The shortcomings were notified to the Greek authorities of which the most important were: lack of appropriate premises at the beginning of the programming period; understaffing of the managing authority; weakness of appropriate implementing mechanisms, including those at regional and departmental level and various other administrative and logistic deficiencies.

However, it should be underlined that in the meantime the implementation has been accelerated and progress has been made with the programme since early 2002.

Concerning the fisheries sector, the delay in getting access to the public aid foreseen by the programme is due to having comply with the internal procedures approving the national legislation and individual projects. This delay should start to be reduced from the second half of 2002.

3. The Commission considers that it is too early to evaluate the progress achieved by both the NOP-Rural Development (2000-2006) and the NOP-Fisheries (2000-2006) in comparison with the relevant programmes in the other Member States. This might be the case within the context of the mid-term review exercise foreseen early 2004, when the Commission will receive relevant reports providing an overview of the progress and results achieved.