ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3607/00

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Conduct of Spanish road transport authorities towards foreign motorists

The Spanish road transport authorities (Autoridad de tráfico) require foreign as well as Spanish motorists to be equipped with two warning triangles, a series of spare parts (lamps, spare wheel, etc), tools and until recently a spare pair of glasses where appropriate.

Will the Commission answer the following questions in this connection:

1. Are the requirements of the Spanish road transport authorities compatible with the relevant international legal conventions (the Vienna Convention, for instance) and with the reciprocal recognition rules at EU level?

2. What measures does it intend to take should this conduct by the Spanish road transport authorities prove to be in breach of bilateral conventions?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2000)

There is no Community legislation requiring the accessories referred to by the Honourable Member to be carried in vehicles.

Rules for vehicles travelling in the territory of Member States differ in this respect from one Member State to another. Despite the lack of harmonisation, the national rules are compatible with Community legislation provided they do not constitute an obstacle to freedom of movement.

That condition is met if the national rules apply only to residents of the Member State or to users of vehicles registered in the Member State. The rules on minimum, sufficient requirements concerning equipment to be carried in vehicles in international traffic are laid down in the Road Traffic Convention signed in Vienna on 8 November 1968, which Spain in particular also signed.

The Vienna Convention provides, for example, that States may require a warning triangle to be carried in non-nationals' vehicles, but not two triangles.

The Commission is not aware that the Spanish road traffic authorities require vehicles in international traffic to carry all the accessories listed by the Honourable Member. Freedom of movement is one of the Community's main aims and the Commission will be contacting the Spanish authorities in order to determine the exact nature of the requirements made of vehicles in transit.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3162/00

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: European programmes

What European programmes are there for rural and urban areas in mountain regions in Europe for the period 2000-2006?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Many mountain areas are eligible under Objective 1 or Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for the 2000-2006 period. With regard to Objective 2, the eligibility criteria established for rural areas in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural(1) Funds help highlight the difficulties faced by some mountainous areas.

Mountain areas are also eligible for aid from the Structural Funds under the Community initiatives Leader+ and Interreg III. Examples of this are transnational cooperation projects carried out in the Community's alpine regions.

The new rural development policy implemented under the common agricultural policy reform will also offer new opportunities to mountain areas. The development of the agri-environmental measures and the introduction of a premium for the maintenance of sustainable forests will be particularly relevant to these regions. The greater emphasis on the environment in the case of compensatory allowances for less-favoured areas, which include mountain areas, is accompanied by an increase in these payments of between 25 and 200 per hectare, without the farms concerned needing to make any major adjustments. Considered alongside other measures such as support for quality, diversification (rural tourism, craft industry) or the renovation of villages, this new rural development policy confirms the Commission's commitment to promoting these areas.

The Commission recently published a booklet(2) on structural policies and mountain areas which aims to make mountain regions more aware of the opportunities available to them under Community policies. This booklet is being sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Furthermore, during 2002 the Commission is planning to organise a seminar for the International Year of Mountains explaining how to better mobilise Community policies in mountain regions.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(2) ISBN 92-828-8976-9.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3484/00

by Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Charter of Fundamental Rights

Following the informal meeting of the Council in Biarritz on 13/14 October 2000 and the discussions that took place on the second day thereof, would the Council please confirm that it was always its intention that the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be legally justiciable? In the event of this not being achieved, what status in legal/constitutional terms would it wish the Charter to have?

Reply

(7 May 2001)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, in accordance with the conclusions of the Cologne European Council on 3 and 4 June 1999 and the proceedings of the Biarritz European Council on 13 and 14 October 2000, the Council, together with the European Parliament and the Commission, has solemnly proclaimed the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which emerged from the proceedings of the Convention established for that purpose as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. That proclamation took place in Nice on 7 December 2000.

In conformity with the conclusions of the Cologne European Council, it will now have to be considered whether and, if so, how the Charter might be integrated into the Treaties.

In accordance with the Declaration on the future of the Union issued at the Nice European Council, the question of the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU will be addressed as part of the follow-up process to Nice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3891/00

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Gaps in the Commission's websites

There are gaps in the Commission's websites. For example, on the pages dealing with the Directorate-General for External Relations no information is available about the northern dimension to the Union. The Internet is now one of the most important sources of information for the public about Union-related matters. The Commission's failure to provide up-to-date and comprehensive information about the way the Union operates thus runs counter to the spirit of the e-Europe initiative.

Why has the Directorate-General for External Relations ignored the northern dimension on its webpages which present current EU programmes? What steps does the Commission plan to take in order to ensure that the webpages in question are updated in future, not least as regards the northern dimension?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2001)

The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for her question, which simply anticipates the steps taken by the departments to fill existing gaps in the pages dealing with the Directorate-General for External Affairs. Since the pages are constantly being updated, the Honourable Member is no doubt aware that a speech on the northern dimension was recently included and further information will be added in the coming weeks.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3108/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(29 September 2000)

Subject: State laws on language issues

On 5 September, the French Presidency of the Council, on behalf of the European Union, welcomed the fact that the Latvian government had adopted the decrees implementing the law on the country's official language. The OECD's high commissioner for national minorities, Max Van der Stoel, claims that these decrees fully meet the undertakings given by Latvia at international level.

There can be no question that it is incumbent on the European Union to ensure that human rights and minority rights in the applicant countries are respected. These are essential prerequisites for the accession of any country, as laid down by the Copenhagen criteria. But within the European Union itself, there are Member States whose laws on language issues and the recognition of minorities leave a lot to be desired.

How does the Council view the discrepancy which exists between the rigorous application of the need to respect certain fundamental rights in the applicant countries, and the blatant failure to observe such rights in certain Member States such as France and Greece? Does the Council intend to mandate Mr Max Van der Stoel to draw up a report reviewing and assessing respect for minorities inside the European Union?

Reply

(8 March 2001)

The Council can only endorse the Honourable Member's analysis of the attitude to be taken in regard to the applicant countries concerning certain fundamental principles and values which are at the basis of the Union's very existence. Compliance with the political criteria laid down by the Copenhagen European Council stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, respect for and protection of minorities is a pre-condition for any accession and the Union has the necessary means to verify such compliance on the part of the applicant countries. As is clear from Articles 6 and 7 of the TEU, moreover, the Union is a community of shared values.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3409/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Obligations on olive mill-owners under Regulation (EC) No 2366/98

Regulation (EC) No 2366/98(1) imposes several burdens on olive mill-owners, including purchasing an electronic weighing system, installing separate electricity meters for each different type of activity and issuing certificates for each individual pressing.

In some cases these burdens result in the mill reducing its activities, or even ceasing operating.

In view of the employment level in this sector, which is already precarious, does the Commission not consider that provision should be made for granting financial compensation to olive-milling undertakings for fulfilling the obligations laid down by the above regulation?

(1) OJ L 293, 31.10.1998, p. 50.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Commission has already answered similar questions concerning the obligations of mills, under the terms of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2366/98 of 30 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of production aid for olive oil for the 1998/1999, 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 marketing years, and in particular on the rules laid down in Article 7 of the above Regulation (automatic weighing systems and electricity meters).

Consequently, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to consult the replies to Written Questions P-3026/00 by Mr Musotto(1) and E-3065/00 by Mr Berlato(2).

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 161.

(2) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 52.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4030/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: The killings at Racak

Has the Commission seen a copy of the Finnish autopsy report on the killings which took place in Raèak, Yugoslavia, in January of last year? Will it, at all events, press for the official report to be made public?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2001)

The Commission has received documents prepared by a team of Union forensic experts, under Joint Action CFSP/98/736.

The full report has been delivered to the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in the Hague. It will not be made public, in order not to interfere with the ICTY's ongoing investigations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2819/00

by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission

(5 September 2000)

Subject: Council annual report on human rights: Commission's position on calls made by Parliament

In its report on the Annual report by the Council on human rights in the European Union (1998-1999), the European Parliament states in paragraph 10 that it mldr regrets the disappointing nature of the report's content which is merely a statement of fact, and in paragraph 11 that it sincerely hopes that the next Council report will contain a country-by-country detailed analysis of developments in the human rights situation in the EU and proposes that monitoring systems and strategies be introduced in the future to improve respect for such rights pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of the TEU. In paragraph 92 Parliament also states that it considers that the role of the Council's annual report on human rights should be specified and should hold a European analysis of human rights developments, including rights for national minorities, in the various Member States and a definition of strategies to enable national and European policies in this field to evolve with a view to improving their coherence.

Does the Commission share the opinion of the European Parliament?

Does the Commission not consider that it would be useful for an insterinstitutional procedure to be launched in order to involve all of the institutions in the drawing up of an annual report of the Union on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Commission shares in principle Parliament's view that the Annual Report by the Council on human rights should contain an even more detailed analysis of human rights developments, including rights for national minorities.

The Commission does not take part in the drafting of a Council report; under the provisions of the EC Treaty, however, it keeps a constant watch on respect for fundamental rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3146/00

by Mario Mastella (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: High price of heating fuel in Italy

In Italy the price of heating fuel is twice as high as that set by the other Member States and has now reached ITL 1 700 per litre, compared with the European average of ITL 800.

This problem is particularly acute for Italians living in mountain regions, especially pensioners, who are obliged to heat their houses for nine months a year.

It is essential to bring the price of heating fuel in Italy into line with the European average.

Does the Commission intend to propose legislation setting out the conditions for establishing a uniform price for heating fuel in all the Member States?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2000)

The price of heating gas oil is indeed higher in Italy than in the other Member States. This is mainly because the level of taxation applied to this product is significantly higher in Italy than in other Community countries.

The approximation of the levels of taxation applied by the Member States to energy products is a longstanding Commission objective. The best way to make progress in this direction would be to establish appropriate minimum levels for the Community and review them at regular intervals. This approach is at the basis of the proposal for a Council Directive on the taxation of energy products presented by the Commission in March 1997(1). The aim of the proposal is to update and improve the Community legislative framework for the taxation of energy products, namely Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils,(2) and Council Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duties on mineral oils(3) (the latter already established minimum levels of taxation for petroleum products, which are included in the Commission proposal). The proposal has not yet been adopted by the Council: progress has been very slow, as the Council has to agree unanimously on it.

The Commission intends to pursue its efforts to achieve approximation of the levels of taxation applied to energy products;

(1) OJ C 139, 6.5.1997.

(2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.

(3) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3572/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Disclosure of EU documents

Over the summer, a working party of senior Coreper officials drafted a proposal for reducing the degree of disclosure of EU documents. The decision to do so was apparently prompted by a specific request from a citizen which the Council did not wish to grant.

1. When was this request submitted to the Council?

2. Who submitted it?

3. To what documents did it relate?

4. Why did the Council not wish to grant the request?

5. In what sense did the request and the subsequent refusal to grant it result in the Council's resorting to an expedited procedure to reduce the degree of disclosure of European documents?

Reply

(24 April 2001)

Should the Honourable Member of Parliament refer in his question to Council Decision 2000/527/EC amending Decision 93/731/EC on public access to Council documents, which was adopted by the Council on 14 August 2000 concerning access to highly classified documents concerning the European security and defence policy, the Council can only repeat what it already stated in its reply to his Written Question E-2846/00 of 11 September 2000. In case he refers to another question, the Honourable Member is requested to give more details.

The Council wishes to point out that in its replies to requests from the public for access to documents the Council always states the grounds on which documents are refused and informs the applicant of the remedies open to him, namely instituting court proceedings or making a complaint to the European Ombudsman, under the conditions laid down in Articles 230 and 195 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3533/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Programmes for young farmers

In Greece, money from the European Union programmes for young farmers ceased to be approved or paid ten months ago. Could the Commission say when it expects the programmes under Regulation 1257/99(1) for young farmers in Greece to be approved?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2000)

The Commission acknowledges that there was some delay in 2000 in implementing measures for young farmers in Greece. The reasons were as follows.

These measures form part of the 2000-2006 operational programme (OP) for rural development which in turn forms part of the national strand of the Community Support Framework (CSF III). According to the rules governing the Structural Funds, the OP cannot be approved until the CSF is formally adopted by the Commission, which took place only on 28 November 2000.

This OP has already been the subject of negotiations and discussions with the Member State. Following these negotiations, the Commission awaited the transmission of the final version of the OP during November 2000 in order to assess whether it could immediately begin the approval procedure. However, expenditure under the operational programmes has been eligible for Community part-financing as from the date of admissibility by the Commission, in this case April 2000.

The Commission would however like to reassure the Honourable Member that Commission Regulation (EC) No 2075/2000(1) of 29 September 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999(2) laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999(3) on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund states that, as regards applications for aid submitted by young farmers for the first time in 2000, the condition of being of less than 40 years old has to be fulfilled at the time of submission of the application (and not at the time of the individual decision to grant aid). This transitional provision partially offsets the effects of the delay in approving the OP for young farmers who were not yet 40 in 2000 and had submitted an aid application in that year.

(1) OJ L 246, 30.9.2000.

(2) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999.

(3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1095/00

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Aboño thermal power station (Asturias)

The residents of Pervera (Carreño, Asturias) are inconvenienced on a daily basis by local industry. Several days ago the Aboño thermal power station emitted a large cloud of ash, but incredibly, the firm's management refused to provide information concerning the cause and nature of the cloud to those affected by the incident.

Can the Commission check whether this power station complies with Community environmental legislation, particularly Directive 88/609, which sets limits for emissions into the air by large combustion plants?

What action can the Commission take vis-à-vis the competent authorities to ensure that this firm adopts the measures necessary to guarantee a decent quality of life for the residents and protection of the environment?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

The power station concerned is classified as an existing plant in accordance with Article 2(7) of Directive 88/609/EEC of 24 November 1988 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants(1). For this category of plants the Directive does not set emission limit values. Instead 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. On the basis of reports communicated by Spain emissions from this category plants are in compliance with the requirements of emission ceilings and targets contained in Annex I and II of the Directive.

The Commission requested data on air quality from the monitoring network in the region surrounding the power station at Abõno. On the basis of the information received there is no evident breach of the air quality standards laid down in Council Directive 80/779/EEC of 15 July 1980 on air quality limit values and guide values for sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates(2).

For the purpose of verifying compliance with Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants(3), additional information concerning the technical characteristics of the power plant at Abõno is required. The Commission will pursue this matter further with the Spanish authorities.

(1) OJ L 336, 7.12.1988.

(2) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.

(3) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984.