ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2649/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Building of a marina at Porto Rafti

According to complaints lodged by residents and environmental organisations in Porto Rafti, there are plans to build a marina there extending from the bay of Agios Nikolaos to the east of the Pounda peninsula.

Given that part of the building work is to be undertaken in a special habitat protected under Directive 92/43/EEC(1), Annex I, will the Commission say:

1. whether it has any information available regarding the building of this marina?

2. whether it is providing any funding for the project and, if so, how much?

3. whether the requisite environmental impact assessment has been carried out and published in good time, as provided for in Directive 85/337/EEC(2)?

4. what steps it will take to prevent the building of the marina, should there prove to have been infringements of the above directives, which represent both Community and Greek environmental law?

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

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Within the confines of subsidiarity the Commission only receives information as regards any environmental impact study carried out, and its publication as part of a specific problem or complaint.

Moreover, according to the information in the Commission's possession, the site mentioned by the Honourable Member is not covered by Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

If the Honourable Member has further information that is likely to constitute a complaint the Commission would like to receive this in order to act accordingly.

So far the Commission has not received any request concerning any joint funding for the building of a marina at Port Raft in Greece. According to the information in its possession moves have been made to build that marina with private funding but the procedure is currently blocked by the Council of State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3228/00

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Oil crisis

Mr Prodi, President of the Commission, and Mrs Loyola de Palacio, Vice-President, have recently met with the chairmen of Shell, BP-Amoco, TotalFinaElf, Repsol, ENI, Norsk Hydro and Statoil in Brussels.

Did Mrs de Palacio take this opportunity to mention the proposal, put forward by the Group of the Party of European Socialists during the debate of 20 September 2000 on measures to be taken in the wake of the oil crisis and the increase in the oil price, that the major European oil-importing companies should be urged to draw up their supply contracts in euros?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

It is true that using the euro as the transaction currency in the oil industry would offer numerous advantages for European economic operators and consumers. Generally speaking, with the euro as the benchmark currency in world trade European economic operators should be able to pay for their supplies in euros as well as invoicing in euros.

How quickly the euro is going to become a benchmark currency will be determined mainly by market forces. What will probably happen is that for example some of the main producer countries will prefer to keep the dollar as the transaction currency, while others, much of whose trade dealings are with Europe, might be interested in using the euro. The Community is, after all, the largest importer of oil.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2836/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 September 2000)

Subject: Renewed authorisation for harmful plant protection products

1. There is a discussion under way in the Netherlands on renewed authorisation for the use of environmentally harmful plant protection products. Existing legislation in this area is being scaled back on the grounds that if certain crops are to continue to be grown in the Netherlands, essential products need to be retained until the year 2002, with the option of an extension beyond that date. By contrast, the environmental movement says that sound alternatives to many of these poisons are available and that only a small rearguard of farmers still use the poisons classified as harmful. Is the Commission aware of this discussion which resulted, on 22 August 2000, in a debate in the standing committee on agriculture of the Lower House of the Dutch parliament?

2. The list of essential products consists of carbaryl, chlorpyriphos, fenbutatin oxide, penconazole, pirimiphos-methyl, simazine, carbofuran, chloridazon, dichlorvos, parathion-ethyl and propachlor. These are substances suspected of being carcinogenic, harmful to heritable genetic material or of being a serious health risk in some other way. Have these substances or products already been tested under the European programme of work and, if so, with what conclusions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer given by the Commission to written question P-2829/00 by Mrs Corbey(1).

In addition the Commission can confirm that all the active substances mentioned by the Honourable Member are included in the review programme of existing active substances. The detailed evaluation of chlorpyrifos, simazin and parathion-ethyl continues in the framework of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(2). No final conclusions have been taken yet. The other active substances mentioned are subject to Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000(3) of 28 February 2000 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC.

The Commission will inform by July 2001 the Parliament and Council, as provided in Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(4), on the progress with the re-evaluation programme.

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 226.

(2) OJ L 366, 15.12.1992.

(3) OJ L 55, 29.2.2000.

(4) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3597/00

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: The Emcdda and the Santa Maria de Feira summit

When the European Summit at Santa Maria de Feira adopted the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2000-2004, it decided as follows(1):

The Member States according to technical tools and guidelines provided by Emcdda to give reliable information on the five key epidemiological indicators in a comparable form drawn up by the Emcdda and adopted by the Council:

1. extent and pattern of drug use in the general population;

2. prevalence of problem drug use;

3. demand for treatment by drug users;

4. drug-related deaths and mortality of drug users;

5. drug-related infectious diseases (HIV, hepatitis).

Can the Commission say what steps it intends to take for the adoption by the Council of these five epidemiological indicators defined by the Centre, and specify the legal instruments it proposes to use for that purpose?

(1) EU Action Plan on Drugs 2000-2004, 9283/00.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 on the establishment of a European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (Emcdda),(1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2220/2000, states that the Emcdda is to ensure improved comparability, objectivity and reliability of data at European level by establishing indicators and common criteria of a non-binding nature, compliance with which may be recommended by the Centre, with a view to greater uniformity of the measurement methods used by the Member States and the Community.

In view of the non-binding nature of the indicators established by the Emcdda, when the Santa Maria da Feira European Council approved the Union's Action Plan on Drugs for 2000-2004 it urged Member States, in cooperation with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction mldr to enhance their efforts to provide reliable and comparable information on the key epidemiological indicators in order to better evaluate the impact of drug-related issues.

At its next Management Board meeting in January 2001, the Emcdda should present a progress report on the work on epidemiological indicators and the difficulties encountered in implementation at national level.

On this basis, the Commission will consider whether it is appropriate to prepare a legal instrument or to implement any other measure so that comparable, objective and reliable epidemiological data can be collected.

(1) OJ L 36, 12.2.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2910/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(7 September 2000)

Subject: Common Foreign and Security Policy (chemical weapons in Turkey)

In its joint reply to written questions E-1203/00, E-1204/00 and E-1205/00(1), the Council says: The specific questions referred to by the Honourable Member have not been raised within the Council or the Council bodies. Given the importance of the specific questions in written questions E-1203/00, E-1204/00 and E-1205/00 for the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy, I feel it would nevertheless be appropriate for them to be raised with the Council.

I should therefore like a reply to the following questions:

1. Will the Council now seek information from the University of Munich on the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of the shell bodies used by the Turkish army in a chemical attack on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999?

(a) If not, why does the Council refuse to seek information on the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of the shell bodies used by the Turkish army in a chemical attack on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999, given the importance of this question for the CFSP?

(b) If so, will the Council convey to the German and Turkish governments its displeasure at this violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention?

2. Will the Council now seek information from the German Ministry of Defence on the ministry's help in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey?

(a) If not, why does the Council refuse to seek information from the German Ministry of Defence on the ministry's help in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey, given that it may be a violation of the CWC?

(b) If so, does the German aid in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey conform with the CWC which obliges the states which are parties to it, including Germany, never, under any circumstances, to develop, produce, acquire in any other way, stockpile, possess or transfer directly or indirectly chemical weapons?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 146.

Reply

(16 November 2000)

The Honourable Member should note that, under Article 22 of the TEU:

Any Member State or the Commission may refer to the Council any question relating to the common foreign and security policy and may submit proposals to the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2925/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Apportioning of European grants

Can the Commission indicate what proportion of European Union grants is allocated to each of the Member States, and has it taken steps to ensure that there is not an imbalance in the distribution of grants in favour of some states at the expense of others?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

The Commission regularly reports on the allocation of Community expenditure by Member State in an annual report entitled Allocation of EU Expenditure by Member State. The latest report for the year 1999 has just been released and is available to all on the world wide web at the following address:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/pdf/agenda2000/allocatedreport99.pdf.

The allocation of Community expenditure across the Member States is the result, to a dominant extent, of rules governing the implementation of the policy objectives of the Community. These rules are jointly determined by the Council, the Parliament and the Commission. For instance, Member States where the needs for regional convergence towards the Community average are greatest tend to benefit more than others from the allocation of structural funds. Similarly, Member States where agricultural activity is prominent tend to benefit more from the allocation of expenditure under the common agricultural policy. The data in the report Allocation of EU Expenditure by Member State are consistent with and confirm these principles.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3106/00

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Transitional law in the electricity and production sector in the Netherlands

1. Is the Commission aware of the Dutch government's transitional law in the electricity and production sector, and in particular the stipulations of Article 12(1), the effect of which is that insufficient import capacity will remain on the grid in the Netherlands for other industrial partners wishing to take advantage of the possibility of importing electricity, with the result that there will be no proper competition? If so, what is the Commission's attitude towards Article 12 of the law?

2. Did the Dutch government first submit this law to the Commission for examination in the light of the electricity directive and the competition clauses of the Treaty of Amsterdam?

3. Can other Member States adopt this approach to coping with the problem of stranded costs?

4. If the Commission gives its assent to this action by the Dutch government, or by any other Member States, what is its legal basis (competition clauses etc.) for doing so?

(1) Article 12 states that existing import contracts are to be given priority.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2000)

The Commission has been informed by the Dutch authorities of a proposal for a transitional law concerning the electricity production sector (Voorstel Overgangswet elektriciteitsproduktiesector) in August 2000. The information was provided in the context of the assessment by the Commission of certain measures proposed by the Dutch authorities to compensate for stranded costs of the electricity sector in the Netherlands.

Article 12 of this law stipulates that the grid operator of the high voltage grid on request can allocate transport capacity on the international interconnectors to the benefit of those carrying out certain long-term import contracts. The Commission is now investigating this point under its competition law and is examining its compliance with the non-discrimination obligation contained in Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity(1). The Commission has not yet determined its position on this issue.

The Commission is not aware of similar measures to reserve interconnection capacity for existing take or pay contracts in other Member States. At this stage of the assessment, it is premature to mention the legal grounds on which the Commission will base a decision, if any, as the assessment has not yet been finalised.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2979/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Access to information

Following the agreement concluded between the Commission and Parliament in July, will the Reasoned Opinions sent by the Commission to Member States now be available either to Members of Parliament or to the general public?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2000)

The Framework Agreement concluded by the Commission and Parliament in July governs relations between the two institutions. Annex III to the Agreement is specifically concerned with the transmission of confidential information from the Commission and its handling in the context of Parliament's powers of scrutiny.

At the same time, the Annex expressly excludes the provision of information on infringement procedures, in so far as they are not covered by a final Commission decision on the date when the request from a parliamentary body is received.

As a result, the Commission can transmit Reasoned Opinions to Parliament only after taking a final decision and pursuant to the general rules of Annex III which call, in particular, for respect for fundamental human rights, including the right to a fair trial and the right to protection of privacy; provisions governing judicial and disciplinary procedures; the protection of business secrecy and commercial relations; and protection of the interests of the Union, particularly those relating to public safety, international relations, monetary stability and financial interests.

The notification of Reasoned Opinions to the general public is not covered by the Framework Agreement, which is exclusively concerned with relations between Parliament and the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2515/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Household waste

Is the collection of household waste the subject of any EU directives, regulations or other laws? If so, which ones?

Is the collection of the household waste the subject of any Commission communications, reports or discussion documents?

Does the Commission have any view on the health implications of household waste collection?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

There are a number of Community directives which apply to household waste but there is no specific directive on household waste management. According to the Community waste strategy(1) and Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(2), priority is given first to the prevention of waste generation, then to the recovery of waste in its triple dimension (reuse, recycling and energy recovery) and lastly to safe disposal (incineration without energy recovery and landfill).

Prevention of waste generation requires consumer information and change of consumption behaviour. Where prevention meets the limits of today's life style, separate collection at source is inevitable to optimise material recycling, which has, where environmentally sound, general preference over energy recovery. For this purpose separate collection is specifically requested for packaging waste(3), waste oils(4), and spent batteries(5) and it is proposed for electronic waste(6). Moreover, as organic waste in landfills has to be reduced according to Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste(7), separate collection of biodegradable waste prior to composting or anaerobic digestion is a valid option. An initiative on organic waste composting is under discussion.

The best way to deal with household waste apart from the provisions above, which include potential health implications, depends very much on the local conditions and thus falls under the principle of subsidiarity. The decision on the frequency of waste collection depends on the climate, waste containers in place, the infrastructure, and waste treatment options which can not be regulated or recommended at a European level.

(1) COM(96) 399 final.

(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(3) Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994).

(4) Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (OJ L 194, 25.7.1975).

(5) Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances (OJ L 78, 26.3.1991).

(6) COM(2000) 347.

(7) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1808/00

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Human rights in Turkey

Turkey's record on human rights has long been a cause for concern and the subject of investigation by parliamentarians, the press and human rights' organisations. For example, the freedom of expression of writers and journalists is restricted, and even a reference to the Kurdish people is sufficient to lead to imprisonment. Likewise, there is widespread use of torture, and the decision to prosecute an officer lies with the police and not the judicial authorities. Finally, whilst there has been a moratorium on executions for the last fifteen years, the courts still impose the death penalty, and the ultimate fate of Abdullah Ocalan is still unknown.

Now that Turkey, following the decision of the Helsinki Summit in December 1999, has been declared a formal applicant country for EU accession with which accession negotiations will commence before long, what timetable for specific and sustainable reforms will the Commission be seeking from the Turkish authorities so as to ensure that the political criteria laid down at the 1993 Copenhagen Summit can be met?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

A centrepiece of the new pre-accession strategy for Turkey, launched at the European Council in Helsinki in December 1999, is the accession partnership (AP) to be prepared by the Commission before adoption by the Council. The Commission intends to adopt the first AP for Turkey in November 2000. The aim is mainly to set out priorities to be implemented by Turkey, in all the fields of the Copenhagen criteria (including the political field) in order to prepare Turkey for Union membership. Priorities will be divided into short-term priorities (covering the year 2001) and medium-term priorities (covering the period from 2001 onwards).

For her part, Turkey is expected to present before the end of this year a national programme for adoption of the acquis (NPAA). This will explain how Turkey intends to implement the priorities of the AP, including in terms of human and financial resources.

The political reforms, to which the Honourable Member refers, will have to be tackled in these two documents, the AP and the NPAA.

The implementation of the AP and NPAA will be regularly monitored, through appropriate mechanisms such as the association committee as well as in the annual regular reports.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3558/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 November 2000)

Subject: Financial and economic statistics

Will the Commission please state the figures for the euro area, EU, United States and Japan for the following variables giving the latest available year:

(a) share of world GDP in market prices;

(b) share of world GDP in purchasing power parities;

(c) share of world exports (excluding export within the euro area or the EU in each case);

(d) use of the currencies of each area in denominating world trade;

(e) use of currencies of each area in denominating debt securities;

(f) use of currencies of each area in denominating the debt securities issued by developing countries;

(g) share of global official foreign exchange reserves denominated in the currencies of each area;

(h) share of global official foreign exchange reserves held by each area;

(i) share of foreign exchange transactions in the currency of each area?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.