ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0265/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: City guides

In answering Written Question E-3650/00(1), did the Commission assume that this was purely a Spanish matter? Will the Commission reconsider its answer in view of the fact that this guide is promoted across Europe, with misleading distance-selling?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 198.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of the cross-border character of the case as described by the Honourable Member in his Written Question E-3650/00 and did not assume that it was a purely internal Spanish matter. Thus the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-3650/00 and repeats that it is not within the Commission's competencies to take action.

With regard to legal issues and in order to be more specific the Commission considers that the way the City Guide in question is promoted according to the description of the Honourable Member may constitute misleading advertising. Such a case could fall within the scope of Council Directive of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising(1). The purpose of this Directive is to protect consumers, persons carrying on a trade or business or practising a craft or profession and the interests of the public in general against misleading advertising and the unfair consequences thereof (Article 1 of this Directive). According to the information contained in the Honourable Member's question, the small traders who are invited to be included in the City Guide belong to the group of persons protected by this Directive. However, it is for the national authorities, and not the Commission, to take action under applicable national law, into which the above mentioned Directive has been transposed.

Directive 97/7/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts(2) and of the Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts(3) aim at protecting consumers, but do not appear to apply to the situation as described in the Honourable Member's question.

(1) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.

(2) OJ L 144, 4.6.1997.

(3) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0318/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Termination of the europartenariat scheme

Will the Commission explain why a decision was taken to terminate the europartenariat programme before the results of the evaluation of the scheme were known?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

The Commission has been reviewing its priorities and the means it has to carry out its work. In this context, and following the work of the Peer Group as set out in the Communication from the Commission Matching the Commission's activities with its human resources of 26 July 2000(1), it has decided that it will no longer be directly involved in the management of Europartenariat events.

The Europartenariat evaluation study that is being carried out has as its objective to examine the impact that the programme Europartenariat has had over the 10-12 year period of its existence, and to suggest improvements to the formula. The decision of the Commission not to continue investing its own resources in managing this programme does not preclude that the formula developed over the years may be used by other interested parties, particularly those who have recognised the benefits of past programmes. In this context the evaluation will be a useful tool for such interests. The Commission is ready to make available the management tools it has developed such as the organisers guide and the software package to new organisers.

(1) SEC(2000) 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1343/01

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Subject: World conference against racism, discrimination and xenophobia

The World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance is to be held in Durban (South Africa) from 31 August to 7 September 2001.

What plans does the Commission have in relation to this event?

Will the Commission make any specific contribution?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

The Commission will contribute to the debate taking place at the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance with a Communication(1). This Communication summarises the measures which have already been taken at the level of the Union to combat racism, and demonstrates what can be achieved by a group of states acting together at regional level. The Member States and the institutions of the Union have shown their commitment to the fight against racism by co-ordinating their policies and activities in a number of areas at European level. The Council has also adopted binding legislation at European level to prohibit racial discrimination, which the Member States are required to implement into their national laws. The examples of work in the Union set out in the Communication are intended not only to contribute to debate at the World Conference, but also to inspire efforts to combat racism at a regional level throughout the world, in the years that follow the Conference. The World Conference will also provide an opportunity for the Union to learn from the experiences of the rest of the world. This should help devise future strategies and measures to combat racism.

In the preparations for the World Conference, the Commission is involved in the drafting and negotiation process of the Political Declaration and Programme of Action to be adopted by the Conference. The Commission will lead the Community Delegation to the Conference which will include Members of the Parliament, representatives of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and relevant non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The Community has also been actively involved in the preparatory process of the World Conference both in the preparation of the European Regional Conference (Strasbourg 11-13 October 2000) and by participating in the other regional conferences (Americas, Africa and Asia) and has contributed 3,6 million to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to support the participation of NGOs in the preparatory process (Santiago, 5-7 December 2000; Dakar, 21-24 January 2001; Teheran, 19-21 February 2001) and the World Conference itself.

(1) COM(2001) 291 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1434/01

by Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Sale of the Puglian water supply company

The Italian Government intends to hive off the Puglian water supply company without going through proper tendering procedures and to sell it off at cut price to ENEL, in which the state has a majority holding.

Is the Commission aware of the Italian Government's intention not to issue a public invitation to tender?

Would it not agree that such an approach is contrary to the principles of free competition laid down in the EU Treaty?

If it does agree, what action does it intend to take on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The directives on public contracts refer solely to contracts according to which government authorities purchase goods or services. However, that does not mean that transactions involving the sale of goods or services

are exempted from being conducted, like purchases, in compliance with the EC Treaty, especially the provisions on the free movement of goods and services and the freedom of establishment, and with the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment.

Moreover the sale of an asset owned by the State, where performed in the absence of a public tender or of the evaluation of an independent expert ascertaining a sale at market value, might involve State aid, depending on the characteristics of the sector and on the specificity of the case.

In the case at issue, the Commission asked the Italian authorities for information on the criteria governing the sale. In the reply, the authorities referred to the Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri of 9 March 2000, concerning the transfer of the ownership of Acquedotto Pugliese (EEAP) by way of direct sale to the national Italian electricity agency (Enel SpA) at a price to be established by a committee of independent valuators.

The Commission is currently waiting for new details so that it can check whether the provisions and principles of the EC Treaty have been complied with, in the case of the sale of Acquedotto Pugliese to which the honourable Member refers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0487/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) and Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Minority languages and freedom of expression in Greece

Mr Sotiris Bletsas, a member of the Society for Aromanian (Vlach) Culture, was sentenced on 2 February 2000 to fifteen months in prison and a GRD 500 000 fine for dissemination of false information (under Article 191 of the Penal Code). The charges were based on the fact that, in July 1995, he had distributed at the Aromanian Festival a publication of the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages which referred to languages in Greece.

Does the Commission consider this attitude compatible with the European values of freedom of expression and opinion and cultural and linguistic diversity? Has it asked the Greek authorities for any formal or informal information on this issue?

Could the Commission's Legal Services review Article 191 of the Greek penal code for compatibility with the spirit of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law recognised by the Treaties?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 2001)

The Commission takes a keen interest in this case and has been following it closely. However, on the basis of the information currently available to it, the Commission cannot give a full answer to this question. It has therefore asked the Greek government to communicate a copy of the judgement as soon as it becomes available, together with any other relevant information on the case.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1690/01

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: Cohesion policy

On 31 January 2001 Mr Barnier, the Commissioner responsible for regional policy, submitted the second report on social and economic cohesion to the European Parliament. The report provides an assessment of the cohesion policy conducted since 1989 and prepares the ground for a debate on the future of that policy in the context of an enlarged Union.

Although it would appear that, at macro-economic level, progress towards cohesion has been made over the last 20 years, it has to be acknowledged that, within most of the Member States, inequalities are growing.

The outmost regions in general and the island of Réunion in particular do not seem to be experiencing the kind of progress which is apparent in many European regions. Réunion still has a 37 % unemployment rate and there are many young people amongst the jobless.

Even though enlargement is intended to anchor democracy even more firmly within Europe, it will undoubtedly have an impact on the EU's most fragile regions: simple arithmetic dictates that average per capita GDP is going to fall, for which reason the regions which are currently eligible for Objective 1 (as is the case with Réunion) may eventually lose that status on purely technical grounds.

Does the Commission therefore consider per capita GDP still to be an appropriate criterion?

Should per capita GDP not be supplemented by other, more objective criteria, such as the unemployment rate?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2001)

The situation in the outermost regions is dealt with in the 2nd Report on Economic and Social Cohesion(1). Its statistical annexes show that between 1988 and 1998 Réunion's GDP per head rose from 43 % to 50 % of the Community average.

Among the priorities of the future cohesion policy are regions with a geographical handicap, including the outermost ones. The Report concludes that the criterion of GDP per head measured in terms of purchasing power standards at NUTS (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) 2 level remains fully appropriate, as demonstrated in the comparative analysis in Part I.

The Commission has launched a wide-ranging debate on future cohesion policy, including the eligibility criteria, and will in due time present proposals to the other Institutions.

It is clear that given its continuing low GDP per head Réunion will after enlargement still fall among the least developed Community regions and thus qualify for structural support.

(1) COM(2001) 24 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1269/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Biological treatment of biodegradable waste

1. Has the Commission yet had the opportunity to assess the findings of L.M.Chu and A.D. Bradshaw regarding the value of pulverised refuse fines as a substitute in land reclamation (Journal of Applied Ecology 1996, 33, pp. 851-865)?

2. What conclusions has the Commission drawn from this work with regard to the value of such material in the restoration of old and dismissed quarries and mines and similar derelict sites not intended for food or fodder crop production, and which can be expected to require applications well in excess of 200 tonnes per hectare?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

The general legislative framework for waste management at Community level is in Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(1) as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991(2).

Article 4 of that Directive states that:

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and in particular:

- without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals,

- without causing a nuisance through noise or odours,

- without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.

The scientific publication mentioned by the Honourable Member does not address at all the problem of long term effects of pulverised refuse fines (PRF) on the environment, in particular groundwater pollution. There are no data in the publication about heavy metal or organic compound concentrations in PRF and what their fate would be in the long term once PRF is spread on derelict land.

The authors themselves recognise that The only problem [of PRF] is the degree to which it may in some cases not meet national or state requirements for toxic elements.

The Commission is of the opinion that the use of PRF on land (whatever the land use or characteristics may be) should be subject to close scrutiny in order to avoid long-term environmental pollution. A restriction on the quantity of PRF (or other wastes with similar characteristics, for that matter) to be spread on land per year and per hectare may be a proportionate measure to achieve this objective.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1005/01

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Land-use planning around Community airports

Will the Commission say to what extent it sees the establishment of guidelines for land-use planning around airports, (as referred to in its Communication on Air Transport and the Environment of 1 December 1999), as a responsible and decisive step forward in addressing the issue of aircraft noise around Community airports?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1005/01 and E-1006/01 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission considers appropriate rules for the use of land around Community airports as an important element for a policy aimed at protecting people living in the vicinity of airports from the impact of aircraft noise without unduly affecting the economics of air transport operations.

At the same time, however, the Commission fully recognises the prerogatives of Member States and competent local authorities for rule making and concrete decisions in this field. It does not intend to interfere with the existing allocation of responsibilities.

However, given the importance decisions on the use of land around airports may have for meeting the objective of improving the noise situation in terms of reducing the number of people seriously impacted by aircraft noise, the Commission intends to create a group of experts involving members with direct responsibilities in this field in order to identify best practices in this field. The Commission hopes that the work of this group will be useful for establishing recommendations on land-use rules which will be oriented towards improving the balance between environmental, economic and social concerns whilst respecting the existing allocation of responsibilities.

The Commission is not in the position to indicate at this moment of time a precise time-table for publishing a report.

The Commission will ensure broad consultation and approach all stakeholders with a legitimate interest in this matter.

Information resulting from the implementation of other Community instruments, such as the proposed Directive relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise(1), may provide useful input to this group.

(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1494/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: The threat of tuberculosis

Through its programme of aid to combat poverty diseases in developing countries, what resources are being or are to be devoted to combating tuberculosis through the DOTS strategy (Directly Observed Treatment Short-course), which it is claimed can have a success rate of 99 per cent?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

It is very difficult to indicate a specific sum of Community allocations to DOTS. Most Community health funds support actions to improve the organisation, management and performance of national health systems including tuberculosis (TB) control programmes. Increasingly such funds are provided as sectoral or budget support rather than as project support for disease specific programmes. Much of this support will also benefit national TB control initiatives.

The accelerated Programme for Action against TB, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) and malaria(1), in the context of poverty reduction sets out a comprehensive approach through interventions impacting on each of the three major communicable diseases. These aim to increase the impact of existing effective interventions and, as far as TB is concerned, including DOTS.

Nevertheless, and despite the progress that has been registered since 1995, additional efforts are necessary in order to promote the wide-spread use of DOTS; the potential of this cheap and effective strategy to reduce TB morbidity and mortality has not yet been realised in all settings and this is also due to technical problems and to the complexity of treatment approaches.

The Commission will prioritise within the total development co-operation budget, Health, AIDS and Population (HAP) interventions over the next five years. In terms of commitments, HAP interventions in 2000 represented 8 % of the development budget (approximately 800 million) and will be steadily increased as delivery capacity improves. Part of the increased support will target the actions identified in the accelerated Programme for Action, which include actions targeting Tuberculosis and DOTS.

The Commission is now developing detailed workplans and will further examine, with World Health Organisation (WHO) in particular and other donors concerned, opportunities to accelerate and scale up resource flows to needy countries to confront tuberculosis and the other major communicable diseases.

(1) COM(2001) 96 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0468/01

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

(20 February 2001)

Subject: Reform of the Commission

Has the actual time taken to check and pay an invoice increased or decreased since the implementation of the Register of Invoices?

What is the current average time delay between receipt and payment of invoices?

What time delay is the Commission aiming for?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2001)

It is planned that the information system for registering invoices common to all services of the Commission will be available for use as from 1 July 2001. This date is stated in Action 11 in Part II of the White Paper Reforming the Commission adopted on 1 March 2000(1). In the meantime the services continue to use their own individual systems.

The average time delay between receipt and payment of invoices in the year 2000 was 50,2 days.

By 2002 the Commission is aiming to make 95 % of its payments within 60 days of receipt of a valid request for payment. This aim is stated in Action 10.

(1) COM(2000) 200 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0648/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Mad-cow crisis and the countries applying for EU membership

The mad-cow crisis within the European Union has created such alarm amongst the general public that the Commission has drawn up a plan to deal with the problems arising in the beefcattle and animalfeed sector by means of reforms to certain Council regulations.

In view of the fact that some of the applicant countries are due to join the European Union in the near future, has the Commission devised any strategic plan to ensure that mad-cow disease does not spread to them?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The candidate countries are obliged to transpose and implement the Community legislation relating to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) before accession. The Commission wishes to see this legislation implemented as quickly as possible. To this end, it plans to hold bilateral technical meetings with applicant countries to identify any difficulties concerning the implementation of the acquis as regards BSE.

The Community has encouraged the applicant countries to take over the new agricultural acquis, which includes the protective measures to be implemented by the applicant countries to prevent the spreading of BSE. These include the ban of meat and bone meal for all food producing animals, appropriate treatment of high-risk animal waste, removal of specified risk material and epidemiological surveillance.

The recent opinions of the Scientific Steering Committee on the geographical BSE risk in Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, and Slovakia have shown that for these countries there is a risk that BSE is present in their domestic cattle herds. This reinforces the need for early transposition and implementation of the BSE acquis.