ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2958/00

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Mr Stubbe's inquiry into hamsters in the frontier region of Heerlen and Aachen

The discussion about the establishment of a cross-border industrial site in the German-Dutch frontier region near Aachen and Heerlen has been dominated for some time by the possibility of damage to the natural habitat of the European hamster. Following a complaint by the German Naturschutzbund (nature conservation organisation) the Commission has arranged for an expert, Mr Stubbe, to conduct a survey.

What is the Commission's view of the independence and impartiality of the expert in question, given that he is a member of the Naturschutzbund which submitted the complaint?

How does the Commission envisage refuting possible complaints about this apparent partiality?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-0910/00 by Mrs Keßler(1).

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 129.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2083/00

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2000)

Subject: Tests for food safety currently applied to GM crops in the Member States

Is the Commission able to say which of the following tests for food safety (impact on human health) are currently applied to GM crops in all of the Member States:

1. biochemical composition,

2. biological impact (a) in general, and (b) on particular groups of people such as pregnant women and their children, immunocompromised individuals, and the elderly?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2083/00, E-2084/00 and E-2086/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2000)

Genetically modified (GM) plants or products derived therefrom, if intended for use as foods or food ingredients are subject to the novel food Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients(1)).

The Commission has provided guidelines for the presentation and assessment of applications under the novel food Regulation (Commission Recommendation 618/97/EC concerning the scientific aspects and presentation of information necessary to support applications for the placing on the market of novel foods and novel food ingredients and the preparation of initial assessment reports under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council)(2).

The assessment of novel foods and novel food ingredients has to be done on a case-by-case basis. The initial assessment is carried out by a Member State's food assessment body. The Commission and the other Member States have 60 days to comment on, or to raise objections to, this initial assessment report. In case of objections, the Commission consults the scientific committee for food (SCF). All opinions of the SCF are published on the internet. The Commission intends to ensure that, in the future, assessments to which no objections have been raised, and thus no SCF opinion has been sought, will also be made available on the internet.

The Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) is currently conducting a study,(3) which aims at collecting and analysing information about the consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or products derived from GMOs in the short and long term perspective. This report is due to be finished in early 2001 and its results may provide additional information of reference to the matter.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2) OJ L 253, 16.9.1997.

(3) Impact of GMOs on Human Health and the Environment: Mapping of risks coordinated by IPTS-Seville.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2364/00

by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Variations in EU postage rates

I was surprised to discover recently in a Paris post office that variable postage is charged on postcards to different destinations within the EU.

The postage on a postcard to Finland is FF 3,80, and on one to Germany FF 3,00.

How is it possible for variable rates to be charged for different EU Member States by the postal authority in of all places the country now embarking on the new EU Council Presidency?

Can the Council give an assurance that discrimination against particular Member States and unequal treatment by public services when calculating charges will both be removed?

Annex: List of postage rates: Brochure from Paris post office, 30 May 2000

Reply

(7 November 2000)

Article 12 of the European Parliament and Council Directive 97/67/EC on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service sets out the principle that prices must be geared to costs. This explains why the tariffs applicable may vary depending on the destination of an item of correspondence. Member States may nevertheless adopt a uniform tariff for application on their national territory, if they so choose.

On 30 May 2000 the Commission adopted a proposal to revise Directive 97/67/EC (COM(2000) 319 final). Discussions on the proposal are already underway in the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3339/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Tourism-oriented property development on the Teulada coast in Sardinia (Italy)

On 30 June 2000 Teulada Municipal Council (Cagliari, Italy) approved a series of site plans submitted by the SITAS company to construct tourist facilities in Malfatano covering a total volume of over 143 000 m3 (hotels, a block of flats, private homes, services, and a golf course)(1).

The coast to be developed, extending from Capo Spartivento to the port of Teulada (communes of Teulada and Domus de Maria), is one of the few unspoiled stretches of Mediterranean coast still intact. It is protected by land use restrictions for conservation reasons (Legislative Decree No 490/1999) and has been classed under Law 394/1991 as a marine conservation area.

The site plans will apparently also affect burnt woodlands on which building is prohibited because they are still subject to the land use stipulations in force before the fire (National Law 47/1975 and the additional National Law 428/1993).

Environmental organisations (Friends of the Earth and the Legal Action Group) have already drawn the case to the attention of the national and local authorities. However, none of the tourist facilities referred to above is being examined in a binding specific environmental impact assessment within the meaning of Directive 85/337/EEC(2), supplemented and amended by Directive 97/11/EC(3), Annex II, point 12(c).

1. Is the Commission fully aware of the case described above?

2. Can it check whether the above-mentioned development is in accordance with the legislation on environmental impact assessment?

3. Will it take appropriate steps in this matter?

4. Has the Union granted, or is it in the process of granting, other financial support, for instance under the Structural Funds, that might directly or indirectly benefit the site plans in question?

(1) Municipal council decisions Nos 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51 of 30 June 2000.

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

(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member appears to be covered by the class of projects listed in No 12(c) of Annex II of Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 which has modified Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

The Directive, provides that (Article 4, paragraph 2): Subject to Article 2(3), for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States shall determine through: (a) a case-by-case examination, or (b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in (a) and (b).

In the specific case, not being aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member, the Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about it and to ensure the observance of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2581/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Agreement on international humane trapping standards

An agreement on international humane trapping standards was signed by the European Community in December 1997. In order to implement these standards in Member States properly it has long been accepted that the Commission will have to draw up a legal instrument. Will the Commission explain why such a legal instrument has not yet been published and when can it be expected? Could it also give an assurance that, in view of the strong criticism of this Agreement by the European Parliament and animal welfare organisations, it will use the opportunity afforded by the legal instrument to introduce standards which are more exacting than those set out in the Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

The full implementation of the agreement on international humane trapping standards will require considerable work by all parties. In order to prepare the ground for introducing appropriate implementing measures, an independent study was carried out for the Commission on trapping in the Member States. This provides details about the current levels of trapping activity, trapping techniques and research, and trapping legislation. The final results of this study have recently become available to the Commission. On the basis of this work, the Commission is now considering the content and format of the implementing legislation.

In this context, the Commission does not envisage going further than is required under the agreement. The agreement is the result of lengthy and intense negotiations with the Community's international partners. To seek now to go beyond what was agreed during those negotiations would represent bad faith on the part of the Community and might prejudice the operation of the agreement as a whole. Moreover, there is a provision in the agreement for future up-dating of trapping standards in the light of current research work into humane trapping and animal welfare.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2786/00

by Alain Lipietz (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Irregular application of the EC-Israel Agreement

In a Notice to European Importers(1) dated November 1997, the Commission stated that it possessed evidence to confirm a lack of effective administrative cooperation as foreseen in the different preferential agreements signed between the Community and Israel mldr to the extent that the validity of all preferential certificates issued by Israel, for all products, are put in doubt. In 1998, Israeli officials told the Commission that, as a matter of official policy, the Israeli Customs Service was routinely certifying goods produced in Israeli settlements as originating in Israel. In January, the Commission informed us that its extensive efforts to find a solution to this issue have not yet yielded a satisfactory result mldr. Is the Notice to European Importers still in force? Before deciding to put the new Association Agreement with Israel into effect, did the Commission secure Israel's assurances that it will cooperate in ensuring the proper application of that Agreement's rules of origin and territorial clause?

(1) OJ C 338, 8.11.1997.

Joint answer to Written Questions P-2748/00 and P-2786/00 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

The notice to European importers is still in effect as no new notice has been published indicating the end of its validity. The Israeli authorities have taken the necessary measures to allow administrative co-operation but the issue of territorial coverage remains, which explains why the notice is still in effect.

The decision to put into effect the Union-Israel Association Agreement was not taken by the Commission but is the result of the completion of the ratification procedure by both the Parliament (on 29 February 1996) and the national parliaments of the Member States.

The Commission confirms that the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the Communities and their Member States on the one part, and Israel on the other part applies to the territory of the Member States and to the territory of the State of Israel.

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that on the occasion of the first Association Council on 13 June 2000, both the Union Presidency and the Commission, expressed the Union's attachment to the respect of the territorial coverage of the Association Agreement with Israel.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2552/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Construction of a bridge over the Straits of Messina

After decades of pointless and unproductive debate, the Italian Government has still not decided formally on the construction of a bridge over the Straits of Messina to provide a fixed link between Sicily and the European mainland.

Because of its nature and function, this project is not merely in the interests of the Italian State.

1. Does the Commission not consider that the building of a fixed link across the Straits of Messina should be included as one of the projects forming part of the network of transport infrastructures of Community interest?

2. Does the Commission not think that a bridge between Sicily and Calabria would be a logical extension of the trans-European road network which should cross the Union, stretching from the Baltic Sea to the tip of Sicily?

3. What studies does the Commission have available concerning the Community interest of this infrastructure?

4. Are there obstacles or objections of any kind remaining on the part of the Commission that might stand in the way of this important project?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2000)

The Commission is aware of a project to build a bridge across the Straits of Messina between Sicily and Calabria. However, this project is not one of the links shown on the maps in Annex I to Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network(1).

As part of its examination of economic and technological changes which might justify reviewing the guidelines, the Commission has asked the Member States which projects they think should appear on the maps of the trans-European network. If the Italian Government asks the Commission to examine the project for a bridge across the Straits of Messina, the Commission will give it all due attention, though it has yet to receive any studies relating to the project.

Should the results of this general examination prompt the Commission to propose a review of the guidelines, it will of course bear in mind that the trans-European transport network must help spread the benefits of the internal market while also contributing to the economic and social cohesion of the Community.

New projects could therefore be put forward which contribute to greater economic and social cohesion, such as those aiming at greater territorial continuity, provided they meet the other criteria pertaining to projects of Community interest.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3657/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Derailment of a Greek Railways train in Kallipefki

There has been an alarming increase in Greek Railways train derailments recently, indeed there have been some 140 such incidents since 1992. One of the principal reasons has been shown to be the age of the railway network in Greece. However, on 9 November 2000 a train was derailed at the station of Kallipefki on the Athens-Thessanloniki line on a part of the track that had been renovated a month earlier with funds under the Second CSF. It is worth pointing out that before the renovation work the speed limit on the track section in question had been 70 km/h, while after renovation it was lowered to 50 km/h.

1. Does the Commission have any information about the reasons for the incident in question?

2. Was the accident caused by shoddy workmanship on the section of track in question?

3. What information does it have about shoddy workmanship during the construction of new railway lines in Greece with funds from the Second CSF?

4. How much modernisation work was carried out on the Greek Railways network under the Second CSF compared to that carried out in 1994?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2269/00

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

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Insurance in Russia

According to information obtained from the Finnish authorities, the Russian authorities are requiring Finnish nationals travelling in their country to take out special insurance with Russian insurance firms and do not recognise travel insurance taken out with firms operating in the European Union. This principle is directly contrary international insurance conventions and causes unjustifiable harm to Finnish nationals travelling in Russia.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to place pressure on the Russian government to halt its arbitrary action with regard to the validity of insurance?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2000)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about the new Russian requirement on travel insurance under Regulation No 1488 of the Russian Federation.

The Commission raised this issue at the Union-Russia subcommittee on trade and industry, when it last met in Moscow on 9-10 March 2000. The Russian response was that it had been introduced on the basis of reciprocity in view of analogous requirements in force in the Schengen countries vis-à-vis Russian travellers.

The Commission is continuing to examine this matter, including the implications for international insurance conventions, and is also checking Member States' practice with regard to travel insurance. The Commission may raise the question again at forthcoming meetings with Russia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2692/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Latvia

1. What is the Commission's estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support policies were extended to Latvia on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2692/00, E-2693/00, E-2694/00, E-2696/00, E-2697/00 and E-2698/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

To estimate the extra annual cost of agricultural support resulting from the access to the Community of Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania it would be necessary to know with a reasonable degree of certainty the date, the terms and conditions of the accession. These aspects will have to be defined in the accession negotiations with these countries, the agricultural chapter of which has not yet been opened for negotiation. Consequently, any cost estimate made on the basis of assumptions indicated by the Honourable Member would necessarily be of a highly hypothetical, speculative and uncertain nature. At the present stage of the negotiating process the Commission is therefore, not in a position to answer the questions asked by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1922/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Dolphins

Can the Commission specify whether independent surveillance mechanisms are in place to ensure that the danger of dolphins being caught in EU fishing fleet nets is strictly minimised?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The Commission itself does not operate such surveillance mechanisms. It does, however, monitor Member States' enforcement of Community rules on fishing through its fisheries inspectorate.

Cetaceans are included within Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) and therefore Member States should enforce the requirements of Articles 11 and 12.4 dealing with surveillance and monitoring of the fishing activities associated with cetacean by-catch. It is the legal responsibility of the fisheries control authorities of Member States to police the rules and to ensure compliance with them.

The Community has also adopted Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources(2). This bans the use from 1 January 2002 of drift-nets, which have been associated with by-catches of non-target species, including dolphins.

The Honourable Member will be aware that, at the Fisheries Council of 16 June 2000, the Member of the Commission in charge of fisheries referred to the requirement to integrate fisheries and environmental issues, including those associated with dolphins, and expressed his intention to facilitate and expedite this process.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.