ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2848/99

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Requirement to produce proof of identity in the Netherlands

Since 1 June 1994 there has been a requirement to produce proof of identity in the Netherlands. The Ministry of Justice has published a brochure, Alles over identificatieplicht, containing information about what this entails. The publication is not only aimed at the general public but is also used, for example, by the Chamber of Commerce, social insurance authorities, employers, notaries etc.

Page 12 of the brochure indicates what identity documents are permitted. The only non-Dutch document which is permitted is a non-Dutch passport. No distinction is made between EU citizens and non-EU citizens.

1. Does the Commission consider the brochure's interpretation of Dutch legislation to be contrary to the relevant EU legislation, particularly that concerning free movement of persons and non-discrimination?

2. Dutch driving licences are recognised as identity documents, but not the driving licences of other Member States. Does this constitute discrimination?

3. Identity cards of EU Member States are not recognised but only passports, although the same identity cards are recognised as travel documents and the Netherlands recognises its own identity card. Does this constitute discrimination?

4. In a number of cases, a foreign passport alone is not sufficient: the passport must contain an indication that a residence permit has been issued. Does not this constitute discrimination?

5. What will the Commission do to change this situation?

6. If Dutch legislation accords with the Treaty on European Union but the brochure does not, can the Commission take steps to ensure that the brochure is altered, since in practice it is regarded as containing binding instructions?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

The Commission will contact the Dutch authorities to obtain full details of the circumstances to which the Honourable Member refers. If necessary, the Commission will certainly institute proceedings under Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2835/99

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

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Areas of the Fifth Framework Programme open for Calls for Proposals on Research

Does the Commission restrict the areas of the Fifth Framework Programme open for Calls for Proposals on Research from year to year, and if so, on what basis for example, is this done for administrative convenience, or because the resources are too limited, or because it believes that EU-supported research projects are sufficient to provide the comprehensive understanding needed for all relevant areas of climate change?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

The areas of the Fifth framework programme open for calls for proposals are discussed with the expert advisory group and the programme management committee considering the available budget and policy relevance of the themes. For instance, the sub-theme Mitigation and adaptation to global change has been reopened in the current call for proposals, in order not to lose time in the post-Kyoto process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2628/99

by Francesco Speroni (TDI), Umberto Bossi (TDI) and Gian Gobbo (TDI) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Participation of the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, in the Italian election campaign

On Friday, 26 November 1999, the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, participated in the final meeting of the election campaign of the Olive Tree (centre-left) candidate for the Chamber of Deputies by-election.

Other well-known members of the Italian coalition government, such as the Secretary of the Democratic Left, Walter Veltroni, also took part in what was a political event forming part of an election campaign during which Mr Prodi made statements supporting the Olive Tree candidate, Mr Parisi.

1. Does the Commission not believe that the participation of its members (and particularly its President, Mr Prodi) in events which are clearly part of an election campaign, as in the above case, is inappropriate?

2. Does it not consider this conduct to be in breach of the letter and the spirit of Article 213(2) of the Amsterdam Treaty, which stipulates that the Members of the Commission shall, in the general interest of the Community, be completely independent in the performance of their duties?

3. Does Mr Prodi plan to participate in future election meetings of this kind in Italy, maybe of the other two coalitions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2459/99, E-2600/99 and E-2628/99 given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

As the Commission has had frequent occasion to recall in reply to written and oral questions by Members of Parliament(1), the Members of the Commission are politicians carrying out a political function, who, while honouring the obligations imposed by this function, remain free to express their personal opinions quite independently and on their own responsibility.

(1) The Honourable Members are referred in particular to the answer by Mr Rey to Oral Question No 10/68 by Mr Habib-Deloncle, and Commission answers to Written Questions No 44/83 by Mr Gendebien OJ C 197, 25.7.1983, No 1682/85 by Mr Vandemeulebroucke OJ C 55, 10.3.1986, E-1404/97 by Mr Pasty OJ C 391, 23.12.1997 and E-2617/98 by Mr Wibe OJ C 96, 8.4.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2587/99

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Hunting of migratory birds in Italy

With Council Directive 79/409/EEC(1) on the conservation of wild birds the European Union declared its support to the conservation of all species of wild birds naturally occurring in the European territory of the Member States.

Italy has not to my knowledge transposed the directive on the conservation of wild birds. In some regions of Italy hunting is permitted of species (e.g. chaffinch, tree sparrow, starling, blackbird) that are not classed as species which may be hunted under Annex II. Furthermore, hunting with nets takes place, for example, although Article 8 of the directive prohibits the use of non-selective hunting methods.

Is the Commission aware of this fact?

If so, what measures has the Commission taken or will it take to ensure transposition of Directive 79/409/EEC in Italy?

Is the Commission considering instituting proceedings for infringement of the Treaty against Italy?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds has been transposed in Italy by law no 157 of 11 February 1992 on the protection of warm-blooded wild animals and on hunting. This is a framework law laying down the principles on the basis of which the regions adopt detailed rules. Under Article 13 of that law, hunters may use only shotguns, bows and arrows or falcons. Any hunting methods or weapons not expressly authorised in that Article are banned. Article 21 reinforces the ban by specifying which activities and methods are prohibited, including hunting with nets. As for the wild bird species, only those listed in Annex II of the Directive can be hunted under the above mentioned Italian legislation. Therefore, the capture of protected wild bird species and the use of nets are generally prohibited in Italy.

However, the system of wild bird protection set out in the Directive allows for some derogations. Article 9 of the Directive lists the requirements and conditions under which derogations to the provisions of the Directive are allowed. The Commission is aware that these conditions are not fully respected by the Italian legislation. The way of implementing the above mentioned derogation regime of the Directive in Italy does not comply with the provisions of Article 9 of the Directive. In the light of that, the Commission decided in 1998 to bring the matter before the Court of justice. The Commission had considered that Italy had failed to ensure respect for all conditions of the regime in certain situations where derogations are invoked and to correctly regulate the capture of three wild bird species for use as decoys. The case is now pending before the Court.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2345/99

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco

Morocco has infringed Article 3 of the Protocol on the arrangements applying to imports into the Community of agricultural products originating in Morocco, which stipulated the monthly breakdown of the quota and the 20 % overshoot which is allowed. In so doing, Morocco caused the markets to collapse in November and January of the last marketing year and did serious damage to the sector.

What action does the Commission intend to take in order to ensure that the protocol is complied with in future? How does it intend to compensate Community producers for the financial losses incurred as a result of Morocco's infringement of the protocol?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2344/99, E-2345/99, E-2346/99, E-2347/99, E-2348/99 and P-2483/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission is closely monitoring developments in fresh tomato imports from Morocco.

Having noted that the quantities agreed on for the 1998/1999 marketing year were being exceeded, the Commission drew the Moroccan authorities' attention to the importance of respecting those quantities if the Community market was to remain in equilibrium.

During the current marketing year, developments in imports in October 1999 prompted the Commission to request urgent talks with the Moroccan authorities. Those talks were held in Rabat on 22 December 1999 but did not lead to a solution guaranteeing that the granted quota would not be exceeded. Accordingly, and without prejudice to future talks, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 2767/1999, introduced an import licence system, in accordance with the exchange of letters between the Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on 22 December 1994.

The Commission would remind the Member States that they are responsible for the correct application of the rules in force concerning imports, including the setting of customs duties due.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2754/99

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

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Support for action to combat drug dependence amongst young people

Rural east Northamptonshire is a relatively prosperous area of the East Midlands but it has a substantial problem with youth drug abuse. The British Government has chosen not to include the county in its

proposals for the allocation of structural funds and the money available through the EU Action Plan on Drug Dependence is apparently allocated to large-scale professional projects with an EU dimension.

Therefore, what practical support, financial or otherwise, can the Commission offer to a group of local residents who are committed to tackling this serious and growing problem?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The Commission acknowledges the fact that local communities form an important resource in any effort to tackle the drugs problem. Perhaps the best possibility for local residents of rural East Northamptonshire to receive practical support for their activities would be to contact a national organisation like e.g. ADFAM (National Helpline for Families and Friends of Drug Users). They can share their experience with the local people and provide them with contact information on similar kinds of projects elsewhere in Europe.

ADFAM is a member of a network of European Drug Helplines financed by the European Community Programme for drug prevention. This programme has been the main source of Community funding for drug prevention in 1996-2000. The programme has funded the setting up and practical work of many of these European networks as well as prevention projects with a European dimension. Many networks offer useful advice and support for local level activities. They also share information on experience on best practices in drug prevention. At the moment, the Commission is investigating possibilities to prolong the Drug Community Programme for drug prevention by two years.

Information on evaluated European drug demand reduction projects is also available in the Internet through the web site of the European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction (http://www.emcdda.org/). This offers a valuable tool for learning from experience of similar kinds of projects elsewhere in the Community.

Innovative projects with a high degree of local community involvement are also being funded through the Community initiative employment (e.g. Integra and Youthstart). The Employment initiative aims at helping people with special difficulties in finding or keeping a suitable job. Although the Employment initiative is not drug specific, the projects funded do often have a strong preventive influence. The majority of Employment projects are coming to an end in the course of the year 2000. The preventive and innovative approach will however be pursued in the new Community initiative EQUAL for the period 20002006. Project information can be found on the Employment web site www.europs.be.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2250/99

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Flight delays

It is becoming alarmingly and even scandalously common for flight departures from airports all over the European Union to be delayed.

Given that all these delays are causing considerable economic prejudice and personal inconvenience to travellers and their families, their business associates, etc., will the Commission state what the real causes are, and, if appropriate, what measures it intends to adopt to ensure that flight schedules are adhered to?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

The Commission agrees that the situation of air traffic delays and airspace congestion has reached levels which are no longer acceptable and requires urgent and drastic action.

This is why the Commission adopted, on 1st December 1999, a communication(1) on the creation of the European single sky which analyses the causes for that situation and recommends a number of actions to be undertaken both at Member States and at Community level. The questions of the Honourable Member are answered in this document.

In addition, the Commission envisages to examine more in depth the impact of delays on the travelling public on the occasion of a wide consultation to be undertaken soon on the protection of air passengers.

(1) COM(1999) 614 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1890/99

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Facilities to be built close to Castel del Monte

The town Council of Andria in the province of Bari has approved a project which will involve the creation of an area including facilities such as a ticket office, a book shop, a restaurant, various other services and a car park in close proximity to the octagonal castle built for Frederic II of Swabia between 1240 and 1250 known as Castel del Monte.

Its very definition as an artistic monument indicates that the castle and the hill on which it stands constitute a single cultural asset, which Unesco has included on its list of world heritage sites.

It is quite clear that if the project is executed in its present form it will alter and cause unacceptable damage to the integrity of this historic site and the surrounding landscape.

The project has benefited from EU funding, as it is one of the projects financed to develop and exploit tourism in Objective 1 regions (multi-regional operational plan for the Italian Mezzogiorno).

Can the Commission say whether the project has been the subject of the required opinions from the competent authorities, in particular the Bari Environmental, Architectural and Artistic Heritage Office and the Ministry for Cultural Assets and Activities.

Whether it intends to take steps to block the funding earmarked by the European Union, in order to ensure that the execution of the project is suspended in accordance with the relevant Italian conservation law and the European legislation designed to cover such cases?

Can it also say whether it intends to make European funding subject to an appropriate modification of the project, whereby the envisaged facilities and car park would be moved downhill in order to preserve the local landscape and the beauty of this artistic and historic monument?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2000)

According to information from the Italian authorities, this project was submitted by the Soprintendenza per i beni Ambientali, Architettonici, Artistici e Storici della Puglia (Department for the environmental, architectural, artistic and historic assets of Apulia), not by the municipality of Andria (Bari). The project, entitled Castles route, includes an exhibition area, a restaurant, a ticket office and a bookshop, and the placing of direction signs. The programme does not, however, include the provision of a car park.

The project has been part-financed by the Structural Funds under the Objective 1 programme, specifically measure 5a of sub-programme I Cultural tourism, which forms part of the tourism multiregional operational programme. Community part-financing from the European Regional Development Fund amounted to ITL 899 million, 50 % of the total cost.

From the information supplied, there is nothing which leads the Commission to call into question the financing of the project by the Structural Funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2650/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Noise pollution in via Peccioli/via Chiusi

There is heavy train traffic in Rome near via Peccioli and via Chiusi (Rome Chiusi section between 9 and 10 km and the local train to Fiumicino), which causes high noise levels and, as a result, noise pollution in a densely populated area.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does it not consider that this contravenes Directive 85/337/EEC(1) on the assessment of effects on the environment?

2. Does it not think it advisable to ask the Italian authorities to install the sound barriers needed?

3. What are its general views on the subject?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Directives on noise concern limit values for noise from equipment and cannot be considered relevant to the situation mentioned by the Honourable Member. Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to act.

The situation is neither covered by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment nor by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(1), amending Directive 85/337/EEC. These directives cover only projects. Article 1 of both directives state clearly that the regime on environmental impact assessment applies to the assessment of the environmental effects of those projects which are likely to have significant effect on the environment. In particular, Article 1 of Directive 97/11/EC provides: Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and

an assessment with regard to their effects. The railway to which the Honourable Member refers is not a project any longer, therefore, the above mentioned directives cannot be considered to apply.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1926/99

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

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Shortcomings in the Casa de Campo improvement project in Madrid

On 31 March, 20 November 1997 and, more recently, 1 October 1999, the civic association Save the Casa de Campo wrote to DG XVI of the Commission setting out the numerous shortcomings that, in their opinion, were affecting the implementation of project 95.11.61.021-E relating to the development of degraded areas and general improvements to the environment of the Casa de Campo park, financed by the Cohesion Funds and carried out by Madrid city council's environmental department.

In particular, the two much trumpeted dams in the Meaques river built in the first phase of the project; these simply turned into foul-smelling stagnant ponds producing hordes of mosquitoes, quite contrary to their initial purpose, as provided for in the project, namely keeping the watercourse biologically clean. These two dams were later destroyed.

Furthermore, on 28 February 1998, the Madrid city council approved the Second Integrated Improvement of Madrid Scheme, also financed by the Cohesion Fund, which included various plans relating to the conditioning of the Meaques river, at a cost of 388 million pesetas, and the construction of four more dams.

Could the Commission check whether the construction and destruction of these dams has not been paid for twice over? Has the project been delayed, and if so, for what reason? What are the reasons for modifying the project to include the creation of new car parks, instead of implementing measures to control the risk of soil erosion? Why have historical and environmental features not been restored as in the case of the historical adobe wall built in the 18th Century? Why has the daily traffic flow of more than 50 000 cars across the Casa de Campo park not been restricted, in view of its detrimental effect on the environment?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

In the first phase of the project, the Commission part-financed two small dams. On the basis of new hydrological studies the responsible authorities considered these dams inadequate and proposed, in the second phase, the construction of five lagoon areas as a natural purification system. The Commission will examine the results of this proposal.

All payments by the Commission are based on the specific items listed in the decision, which means that assistance cannot be provided twice for the same expenditure. The first phase of the project was finished according to the timetable drawn up when the part-financing decision was adopted.

Car parks were provided for in the initial decision to prevent vehicles parking in the protected areas. The rebuilding of the boundary wall of the park is included in the second phase of the project and is largely complete. The two phases of the project made no provision for a ban on traffic on the road system in the Casa de Campo park.