ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3525/00

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: US law banning the importing, selling and processing of cat and dog fur

Is the Commission aware that in the US and in Europe there is a growing trade in cat and dog fur which is processed into furskin?

Is the Commission aware that more and more cat and dog fur is being processed into fur jackets made from other animals and that the cat and dog fur is processed in such a way that it is barely distinguishable from other types of fur?

Is the Commission aware that these furs originate not only in Asia but that there is increasing evidence of illegal hunting of stray cats and dogs in the US and in Europe?

Is the Commission aware that the American Senate has recently adopted a bill (11.R 4868 and HR 4868) outlawing importing, exporting and selling of cat and dog fur in the US?

Does the Commission not agree that the EU should take similar action because otherwise this trade and these practices will shift to Europe? When can the European Parliament expect a proposal for a directive on this question?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The Community's responsibilities towards animal protection have increased under the recent amendment of the Treaty on European Union, which includes a Protocol requiring the Community and Member States to pay full regard to the welfare of animals when drawing up agriculture, transport, single market and research policies.

Therefore Community policies tend to further the objective of improving protection and respect for the welfare of animals as sentient beings, having regard to the above mentioned Protocol.

As far as the situation in the United States is concerned, the Commission is informed that the United States Government has banned importation of and other commerce in dog and cat fur products(1). The bill states that an estimated two million dogs and cats are slaughtered and sold annually as part of the international fur trade, frequently based on deceptive or fraudulent labelling of products to disguise the true nature of the fur. It amends the Tariff Act of 1930 by adding the prohibition of imports of dog and cat fur into United States customs territory. Import prohibitions pertain to those subject to United States jurisdiction and violators are made subject to civil penalties. The Commission services are currently analysing the United States legislation in detail.

Non governmental organisations have also provided information to the Commission that may indicate that a trade of cat and dog fur is taking place in Europe, in particular originating from Asia. However, data are not available to evaluate the importance of this trade neither its evolution within or outside the Union.

The Commission will follow this matter and will initiate appropriate action if and when deemed necessary.

(1) Chapter 3 of HR 4868, the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000 (signed into law on 9 November and now Public Law No 106-476).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3440/00

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Distillation of potable alcohol

The Rhineland-Palatinate Government has announced that it wishes to grant DEM 15 million in aid at Land level to boost potable alcohol distillation.

1. What form of procedure is used in principle to grant national aid in an area covered by an EU programme?

2. What options are available to the Ministers of Agriculture as regards approval or rejection of national aid when a specific case arises?

3. What is the basic legal status of national aid of the above type, i.e. granted in addition to an EU programme?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

In reply to the first two questions, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that Article 88(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community stipulates:

in its first subparagraph that if the Commission finds that aid granted by a State is not compatible with the common market in the sense that it distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, it shall decide that the State concerned shall abolish or alter such aid. Article 87(2) and 87(3) specify the types of aid which are compatible or may be considered to be compatible with the common market;

in its third subparagraph that the Council may, acting unanimously, decide that State aid shall be considered to be compatible with the common market if such a decision is justified by exceptional circumstances. If, however, the Council has not made its attitude known within three months of the said application being made, the Commission shall give its decision on the case.

Generally speaking, as regards products covered by a common organisation of the market, national aid cannot be considered to be compatible with the common market, except in so far as it complies with the provisions of Article 87 of the Treaty. Nevertheless, within the framework of certain agricultural regulations, some national aid may be granted under certain conditions if it is intended to meet precise objectives. One such Regulation is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000, which provides that Member States may grant national aid if it is intended to meet objectives similar to those pursued by Chapter II of Title II of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, as regards production potential with a view to grubbing-up and abandonment of wine-growing.

In the case of agricultural products not covered by a common organisation of the market, it is imperative for the Commission to be informed of national aid granted by the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4031/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Treatment of animals at markets in Belgium

A recent film shows great cruelty being inflicted on animals at the Belgian markets of Ciney and Anderlecht. The film was shot in July-September 2000. It shows cattle being repeatedly and viciously hit with sticks on their flanks and across the face and head and the presence of injured, diseased and severely lame animals at the market. In the worst scenes of the film, a rope is tied round the front leg of cattle who cannot walk. The other end of the rope is attached to a vehicle which then drives away, in one case dragging the animal along the ground and, in another, hauling an animal up a ramp on its back.

What steps is the Commission taking to require the Belgian authorities to end such cruelty at markets? Will it consider preparing a draft Council Directive on the protection of animals at markets?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

The general protection of animals against cruel treatment remains a matter within the national competence of the Member States.

The protocol on the protection and welfare of animals annexed to the EC Treaty by the Treaty of Amsterdam requires both the Community and the Member States to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in formulating and implementing the Community's agriculture, transport, internal market and research policies.

Council Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 on the protection of animals during transport(1) imposes detailed obligations on the transporter, such as the provision in Article 5A.1(a) prohibiting the causing of unnecessary suffering to transported animals. The breach of these provisions may, depending on the circumstances, involve cruel treatment of the animals.

To the extent that the animals shown in the video filmed at certain Belgian markets show animals which could still be regarded as under the authority of the transporter, for example during loading or unloading, it appears that some of the scenes shown would indicate breaches of the Directive as well as applicable national law concerning animal protection.

The Commission has therefore intervened with the Belgian authorities requesting full explanations and detailed information of the action taken to prevent re-occurrence of the type of incident shown.

Infringement proceedings were already pending against Belgium in respect of certain other breaches of the Directive and, depending on the further information obtained by the Commission, consideration will be given to possible enlargement of the scope of those proceedings to include the incidents mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Following its presentation of a report on the application of the relevant Directive to the Parliament and the Council, the Commission will examine the extent to which it is necessary to update and improve the provisions of this text.

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3845/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(7 December 2000)

Subject: European Rapid Reaction Force

Is it correct that an undertaking was given by certain EU Member States that the new European Rapid Reaction Force would be linked to NATO in the form of written commitments, but that this undertaking has now been degraded to a mechanism for examining the question?

Reply

(30 May 2001)

1. With reference to EU/NATO arrangements, the French Presidency was invited at the Feira European Council on 19 and 20 June 2000 to report to the European Council in Nice, in particular on the implementation of the Feira decisions on the development of the arrangements ensuring consultation and cooperation with NATO in military crisis management on the basis of the work undertaken in the EU-NATO ad hoc working groups.

2. According to the French Presidency's report on the Common European Security and Defence Policy, endorsed at the European Council in Nice, on the basis of the decisions taken by the Feira European Council and in close consultation with NATO, the European Union has, during the French Presidency, continued preparations for establishing a permanent and effective relationship between the two organisations. The documents annexed to the Presidency's report on the permanent arrangements for EU/NATO consultation and cooperation and the implementation of paragraph 10 of the Washington communiqué constitute the EU's contribution to work on future arrangements between the two organisations.

3. The final communiqué of the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council, held at NATO headquarters on 14 and 15 December 2000, stated that the members of NATO had noted and welcomed the proposals made by the European Council at Nice for permanent arrangements to ensure full transparency, consultation and cooperation between NATO and the EU.

4. On 22 January 2001 the Council welcomed the positive reaction of the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council of 14 and 15 December 2000 to the EU proposals on the permanent arrangements for EU-NATO consultation and cooperation which were contained in the Presidency report on the European Security and Defence Policy endorsed by the European Council in Nice. Further to the communiqué of the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council regarding the frequency of meetings, the Council confirmed that meetings between the North Atlantic Council and the Political and Security Committee would be held not less than three times, and EU/NATO ministerials not less than once, per EU Presidency. Either organisation could request additional meetings as necessary. The Council noted with satisfaction the identity of views between the EU and NATO.

5. The Presidency informed the Secretary-General of NATO of the Council's conlusions of 22 January 2001 on EU-NATO relations. On that basis it concluded that the EU and NATO were in agreement on the permanent arrangements for consultation and cooperation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3961/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Construction of gas turbines

The Minister for Development recently announced that gas turbine units would be built in the area of Hellinoperamata (Herakleion) for the Greek Electricity Board (DEI). This decision is contrary to decisions of the relevant prefectural and local government bodies. It should be pointed out that the area concerned is already polluted by fumes from a DEI plant built inside the coastal area without any operating licence which, along with other companies in the vicinity, is causing heavy pollution in the area to the west of the City of Herakleion. A study drawn up for the municipality concerning the environmental consequences of the DEI plant for the region in 1998 and 1999 respectively found that nitrogen and sulphur oxide levels had risen by 300-400 %.

Is the Commission aware of these very serious allegations, and what action does it intend to take to ensure compliance with Community environmental legislation and to put an end to pollution in the Hellinoperamata region?

Supplementary answergiven by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

The Commission is aware of the problems of air pollution caused by the operations of the Hellinoperamata power station. In this context, a letter of formal notice concerning incorrect application of Articles 3 and 13 of Directive 84/360/EEC(1) was sent to the Greek authorities on 13 April 2000. In response to this letter, the Greek authorities informed the Commission of the licences granted to this power station and the joint ministerial decision approving the environmental impact assessment for all the plant installations. It appears from an examination of the documents provided that the infringement of Article 13 of Directive 84/360/EEC is continuing, as the plant has been allowed to operate without Greece taking appropriate measures to adapt it gradually to the best available technology in respect of sulphur dioxide emissions (SO2).

(1) Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants, OJ L 188, 16.7.1984.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3737/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Television licences

1. Will the Commission state whether a licence, fee or tax is levied for the use of television in each Member State, and also state what the current rate of such a levy is in each Member State, in both national currency and in euro?

2. Are there any exemptions in Member States for blind people?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2001)

1. In the year 2000, the following amounts were due yearly in the Member States by individuals owning colour television sets in their households:

>TABLE>

2. In the year 2000 the following exceptions were applied for blind people:

- Austria: total exoneration upon request;

- Belgium: total exoneration upon request;

- Denmark: reduction to DKK 280;

- United Kingdom: reduction to GBP 52 for registered persons.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0165/01

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) and Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Notification under the Habitats Directive

The Habitats Directive affords Member States the opportunity of implementing projects of social importance if they clash with ecological provisions. Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC(1) says: If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.

Can the Commission provide a full and detailed breakdown of such information it has received since the entry into force of the Habitats Directive?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2001)

Since the entry into force of the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, on 5 June 1994, the Commission has issued, upon request of the Member States, two opinions related to the application of article 6.4(2).

These opinions concerned the following cases in Germany:

- Crossing of the SPA/pSCI's Naturschutzgebiet Mecklenburgische Schweiz, Recknitz- und Trebeltal and Peenetal vom Kummerower See bis Schadefaehre by the contruction of the A20 motorway in the Land of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. This case was the subject of complaint procedures 94/4764 and 97/4967. The Commission published opinion 96/15/EC of 18 December 1995 on the case(1).

- Extension of the DASA aircraft factory into the SPA/pSCI Muehlenberger Loch, Hamburg. The project foresaw that the Muehlenberger Loch, a shallow lagoon under tidal influence, would be partly destroyed by a landfill necessary for the industrial extension. The case was the subject of complaint procedure 96/4181, to which seven other complaint files were attached. The Commission delivered its opinion on the case on 19 April 2000, of which a copy is sent to the Honourable Member and the Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission has received several notifications from Member States about activities at locations that were not (yet) designated as Natura 2000 sites. The Comission has not issued any formal reaction to these notifications, given the fact that designation of the sites should be the first step in the application of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive.

(1) OJ L 6, 9.1.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0728/01

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Limits on exemptions from taxation on personal motor vehicles when moving to Finland

In 1998, when it issued an official notification concerning the taxation of second-hand motor vehicles imported into Finland from other Member States, the Commission also asked for any other related breaches of Community law to be reported to it.

The Commission has already adopted a position on the shortcomings in the taxation of imported second-hand motor vehicles.

The rules restricting imports of personal motor vehicles into Finland also require action by the Commission. Finland's motor vehicle taxation law restricts tax-free importation of such vehicles in a manner which contravenes Directive 83/183/EEC(1):

- FIM 80 000 is the limit for exemption from taxation of personal motor vehicles,

- there is a limit of 72 days on length of stay in Finland,

- the number of personal motor vehicles is limited to one,

- the importer must be at least 18 years old,

- a personal motor vehicle may only be imported at the time of change of residence,

- the motor vehicle taxation law does not contain any provisions concerning freedom from taxation on grounds of marriage or inheritance,

- after a personal motor vehicle has been imported, it must be kept for an unreasonably long time before it can change hands.

These restrictions are an obstacle to the free movement of persons within the EU. What will the Commission do to ensure that personal motor vehicles can be imported into Finland tax-free?

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 64.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2001)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that failure to apply in full Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals

is an obstacle to the free movement of persons. The question of whether Finland applies the Directive in full was examined in detail by Commission officials who visited the Finnish administration.

The Commission intends to continue its examination of whether Finnish regulations and practice are compatible with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0583/01

by Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Compensation for forced workers

Following negotiations between German industry representatives and the association of victims of forced labour in Germany during the Second World War, on 17 July 2000 the Bundestag passed a law establishing a compensation fund of DEM 10 000 billion for former deportees and internees forced to work in German factories during the war. The United States has also put pressure on Germany to set up a fund through class civil actions which have led to a United States-Federal Republic of Germany agreement on compensation for workers forced to work in German war industries.

The agreement provides for compensation for citizens from the Ukraine, Hungary, Belorussia and the former Czechoslovakia, but not for Italian citizens. It should be pointed out that, under the agreement of 1944 between the Italian Social Republic and Nazi Germany, tens of thousands of military personnel and civilians, prisoners and internees during the war, became forced workers in war industries.

The financial compensation which is available under the fund for the citizens of the countries which took part in the negotiations could thus be denied to Italian citizens. The Italian government therefore has a moral duty to take steps in order to ensure that Italian forced workers are accorded the dignity of fair compensation as soon as possible.

Can the Commission say whether it intends to approach the Italian government in order to ascertain what steps it may have taken in order to ensure that that the victims of forced labour during the Second World War obtain full and proper compensation from Germany?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2001)

The matter in question does not come within its jurisdiction of the Commission.