ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2540/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Cap de la Hague

Will the Commission say whether it regards the proposed expansion of a reprocessing plant at Cap de la Hague on the Normandy coast as necessary or desirable in view of recent problems with other reprocessing plants within the EU, and will it also provide an assurance that there will be no threat from either liquid waste or any other emissions from such a plant and its expansion to my constituents in the South East of England?

Will the Commission review safety procedures in the light of recent developments?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2000)

In case an expansion of the reprocessing plant at Cap de la Hague is planned, a submission of general data to the Commission has to be made in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty.

When such submissions are made, the Commission takes account of the effects of planned and unplanned release of effluents on the exposure of the population of other Member States and of current developments by obtaining the opinion of a group of experts at that time.

However, the Commission has not received any submission concerning a possible expansion at Cap de la Hague.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2612/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Freedom of movement for minors who are refused passports

Is it compatible with the Council of Europe's Convention on human rights for a Member State to deny a citizen (minor) the right to hold a passport, even a temporary one, if one parent or guardian withholds approval? Free movement of persons within the EU should surely also apply to EU citizens who are minors, but it thus does not appear to apply if one parent or guardian stands in the way. What is the Commission's view of this infringement of a basic principle of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2000)

It is up to the national authorities to protect the welfare of minors and to safeguard them against disappearance or abduction, for which one of the parents is often responsible. This is why the issue of passports for minors generally requires both parents' consent.

The Commission believes that this practice is in accordance with Community law. In cases where the parents disagree, it is up to the national courts to judge the situation and rule whether or not the passport should be issued, if one of the parents is liable to abuse his or her rights.
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?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform him of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3823/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: The Nordic Passport Union and Article 45 of the Schengen Convention

Will the Nordic Passport Union be undermined by Article 45 of the Schengen Convention which requires all participating countries to ensure that all hotels, campsites, hostels and other overnight accommodation register all foreign guests and require them to show valid papers?

In other words: will the Schengen Convention mean that Danish citizens, for example, will have to take their passports to Sweden if they wished to stay overnight, thus changing the rules curently applying under the Nordic Passport Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

According to Article 13 paragraph 3 of the Agreement concluded between the Council and Norway and Iceland, that agreement does not affect co-operation in the framework of the Nordic Passport Union to the extent that such co-operation is not contrary to and does not hinder this agreement.

Article 45 paragraph 1(a) of the Schengen Convention foresees that the Contracting Parties undertake to adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure that the managers of establishments providing accommodation or their agents see to it that aliens accommodated therein, including nationals of the other Contracting parties and those of other Member States of the European Union mldr personally complete and sign registration forms and confirm their identity by producing a valid identity document.

This article has been integrated into the framework of the Union as part of the provisions on police and judicial cooperation (third pillar of the Union), by attributing Articles 34 and 30 paragraph 1 of the Treaty on European Union as the legal basis (Council Decision 1999/436/Ceof 20 May 1999 determining, in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Treaty on European Union, the legal basis for each of the provisions or decisions which constitute the Schengen acquis(1)).

The provision cited only stipulates that the identity of persons shall be confirmed by producing a valid identity document. It does not explain which identity document is intended. But in any case, it is not explicitly stated that an identity card or passport is necessary.

Taking into account that Article 13 of the Agreement concluded between the Council and Norway and Iceland, which stipulates that the co-operation in the framework of the Nordic Passport Union is not affected to the extent that such co-operation is not contrary and does not hinder the agreement, the term valid identity document of Article 45 can thus be interpreted in the way that documents until now accepted by the Nordic countries to prove identity are sufficient for the purposes of Article 45 of the Schengen Convention.

(1) OJ L 176, 10.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3019/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Corus steel plants

Can the Commission confirm that none of the Corus steel plants are in receipt of unfair Member State support?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2000)

The Community rules on aid to the steel industry oblige the Member States to notify in advance to the Commission any plans to grant or to transfer state resources to steel undertakings. It is for the Commission to decide whether such measures constitute state aid and in the affirmative whether the aid is compatible with the common market.

The Commission can confirm that, at present, none of the Member States where the Corus steel plants are located have notified it of any project to grant state aid to those plants.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3626/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Ethiopia/Eritrea

Would the Commission give details of the precise role of the EU envoy deployed at this time in Eritrea and Ethiopia?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

Senator Serri was appointed Special Representative of the Union Presidency in January 2000, to assist the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in its efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement of the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. All parties involved have expressed their satisfaction with this appointment. He has an intimate knowledge of the Horn of Africa and its problems. Senator Serri has, since his appointment, been in close and constant contact with the Algerian Presidency of the OAU in order to contribute to the success of the mediation initiative. The OAU has expressed its strong appreciation for the Union support to the peace process, bringing together information, perceptions and evaluations of the underlying reasons for the conflict as well as developing scenarios for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. In his capacity as the Union Presidency Special Representative, Senator Serri carried out his first mission to Asmara and Addis in February 2000. He met the President of Eritrea and the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Ethiopia.

In October 2000, Mr. Serri was involved in the Algiers proximity talks where he continued his support to the peace process. In October 2000 also, on the occasion of the eighth summit of heads of state and governments of the Intergovernmental authority on development (IGAD) in Kartoum, he again had talks with President of Eritrea and the Prime Minister of Ethiopia as well as with the foreign ministers of both countries. In the meantime the permanent contact between Mr Serri and the OAU Presidency has continued unabated. All parties expressed their appreciation for the European contribution through the Special Representative.

Mr Serri embodies not only the Union support to the peace process led by the OAU, but also provides both the Member States and the Commission with very valuable up to date information on the peace process and its constraints. This helps the Union to appreciate the underlying issues of the conflict and permits the Union to assist in resolving the conflict.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3582/00

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

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Failure to release ESF payments

The ABB Management Consulting Group in Maastricht, together with four associated companies, recently filed for bankruptcy. The immediate cause was the failure by the European Social Fund to release payment of promised subsidies.

The bankruptcy means the loss of valuable innovative and job-creating projects. The ABB Group has a claim outstanding against the ESF totalling some 1.8m guilders.

Exhaustive investigations by accountants into the firms concerned have revealed no evidence whatsoever of any fraudulent practice involving ESF funds.

1. Is the Commission aware of the above facts?

2. How does the Commission explain the failure to release ESF payments previously promised?

3. Does the Commission intend eventually to pay the firms concerned the amounts manifestly due to them?

(a) If so, when, and what procedure will first have to be complied with?

(b) If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2001)

1. The Commission was not aware of this particular case.

2. The actual payment of European social fund (ESF) subsidies falls under the responsibility of the designated authority. In the case of the Netherlands, the Dutch authorities have assigned this task to ESF-Netherlands

which is a subsidiary of Arbeidsvoorziening. In April 2000, the Commission transferred the last ESF instalment for the period 1994-1999 to the Dutch authorities. Apart form a modest reservation for irregularities in 1994-1996, all ESF funds for the period 1994-1999 have been paid to the Dutch authorities.

During the last one and a half years, irregularities have been discovered in many Dutch ESF projects. The Dutch Minister for Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid warned the Dutch Parliament in a letter of 19 October 2000 that the controls carried out by Arbeidsvoorziening so far indicate very high irregularity rates. For instance the irregularity rate for 1998 projects is estimated to be as high as 47 %. This implies that substantial amounts of money may have to be paid back to the Commission.

3. (a) It is not the Commission but the Dutch authorities who decide if projects are eligible for the whole amount of ESF subsidies set out in their original project application approved by Arbeidsvoorziening. The 1994-1999 programming period must be closed before 31 December 2002. It is in principle possible that the Dutch authorities decide to postpone their final payment claim to the Commission until this very date. This would give the Dutch authorities ample time to deal with the final payments of ESF subsidies to individual promoters.

(b) The Commission itself does not decide if an individual promoter is paid or not. This is the sole responsibility of the Dutch authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4076/00

by Dominique Souchet (UEN) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Developing the production of fodder protein in response to the recent ban on the use of meat meal

The ban on the use of animal meal for farm animal fodder will increase the Community's vegetable protein needs and a response is needed that will not increase dependence on imports or exposure to GMO.

Will the Commission introduce an emergency programme to develop Community production of vegetable protein based on the following main points:

1. An increase in per hectare payments for protein crops such as peas, horse beans and lupins, which are not subject to international restrictions, would be of vital importance;

2. Under the Blair House agreements, the restriction on Community production of oilseeds for food use to an area of 4 934 000 ha will expire in 2002, when specific aid will disappear to be replaced by compensatory aid for all arable crops under Agenda 2000. The critical year will therefore be 2001, when a derogation on grounds of force majeure will have to be negotiated with our partners so as to increase the surface areas with the existing level of aid.

3. With regard to dried fodder, lucerne is a perfectly healthy source of protein and the MGQ and aid per tonne for artificially dried fodder can be substantially increased.

4. The Union must find ways of making oilseed crops for bio-fuels more attractive; in addition to its benefits as regards the greenhouse effect, every tonne of bio-fuel produced also produces two tonnes of oil meals (sunflower or rape seed).

5. With regard to environmental measures, encouragement should be given for diversifying crop rotation under a system more accessible than the current agri-environmental measure, so as to curb the trend towards single-crop cereal farming in some regions.

6. Finally, the Community must introduce a safety net for European oilseed and protein crop producers, in the form of a price guarantee similar to that enjoyed by American soya bean producers.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3886/00 and P-4076/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

In line with the commitment it made on the occasion of the Agriculture Council of 4 December 2000 on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and at the express request of the Nice European Council, the Commission is investigating in depth the supply and demand situation for oil and protein plants. It will examine the suggestions of all interested parties.

The Commission will notify its conclusions to Parliament and the Council as soon as they are ready. As requested by the Council and the European Council all figures put forward will be in line with the Berlin agreements and the Community's international commitments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3680/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: European milk production

Now that we are six months into the 2000/2001 milk year, could the Commission give details of the figures which the different Member States have been supplying and the corresponding year-end projections?

Could the Commission indicate the likely extent of overrun for each Member State, bearing in mind the portions of the new allocations for some Member States to be accounted for by the current year?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2001)

Firstly, as the Honourable Member knows, Member States must notify official data on quotas to the Commission by 1 September each year following the end of the reference period (April-March) using the questionnaire annexed to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products(1), as stipulated in the fourth indent of Article 8 of that Regulation. The data for the 2000/2001 reference period will therefore not be known until after that date. The questionnaire constitutes the basis for payment of the additional levy.

However, it is standard practice for each Member State to provide the Commission with an estimate of the trend in deliveries to the industry. The Commission currently has Member States' estimates in respect of April-October 2000 (except that those for Greece, Italy and Portugal run only to August 2000 and those for Belgium, Spain, France, Ireland, Finland and Sweden run only to September 2000). The estimates show some Member States (Denmark, Austria, Portugal, Finland and Sweden) to be in excess of their estimated profile for the period.

It should be borne in mind that the transfers provided for in Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector(2), which include transfers between delivery quotas and direct sales as well as temporary transfers between producers, may cause the excess to increase or decrease depending on the circumstances.

In view of the above, the available data provide only a partial overview of excess quantities: there are no estimates for a major part of the reference period (October 2000-March 2001) and each Member State may depart significantly from the trend which it has followed up to now.

(1) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993.

(2) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3380/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Aid for forest fires

During the summer of 2000 there was a large forest fire on La Palma (Canary Islands, Spain), which affected over 3 000 hectares of canary pine forest, as well as farms and farming buildings and infrastructure, and caused damage totalling 10 million. This represents a significant proportion of the final agricultural product of the island, which is in one of the Union's outermost regions.

What possibilities exist within the Community budget to help the local authorities deal with this disaster, in the form of grants, compensation or special loans?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

The Commission is gravely concerned by the forest fires which broke out last summer in the Canary Islands and elsewhere in the Community. The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that on 17 July 2000 (under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 of 23 July 1992 on protection of the Community's forests against fire(1)) it approved an 3,35 million programme for forest-fire prevention in Spain during 2000, the Community's financial contribution being 50 %. The programme includes specific provision for awareness campaigns and for identifying the causes of fires, but the Regulation does not cover repairing farms, farm buildings and infrastructure, or restoring the natural environment.

However, the rural development programme does provide for assistance from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in order to restore forestry production potential damaged by fire and to introduce appropriate prevention instruments in accordance with the sixth indent of Article 30(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the EAGGF and amending and repealing certain Regulations(2).

The Commission is currently examining the proposal for an integrated ERDF, EAGGF Guidance Section, ESF operational programme for the Canary Islands in 2000-2006, priority 3 of which relates to the environment and provides for measures on protecting and regenerating the natural environment, regenerating soils and land areas, forestry, and environmental initiatives based on maintaining the countryside and the agricultural economy. Once the programme has been adopted and the measures have been expanded in the programming supplement, initiatives to repair the fire damage could be framed in that context.

(1) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4085/00

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Information campaign for enlargement

When the Commission presented its annual report on the applicant countries, Mr Prodi and Mr Verheugen announced the launch of a major information campaign within both the EU and the applicant countries. How will the appropriations be allocated? Will NGOs be able to submit projects for funding under this information campaign? If so, how?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The enlargement communication strategy is now in the process of being implemented. In 2001, some 9,5 million will be decentralised to Delegations in candidate countries and 5,8 million to Commission Representations in Member States. This represents about 80 % of the funding and this proportion will be maintained throughout the period 2001-2006. Allocations are made by the Commission

on the basis of approved Work Programmes presented by Delegations and Representations. These Work Programmes should cover all the target groups identified as significant in the strategy, among which non-governmental organisations (NGOs) representing civil society certainly feature.

Work programmes for Delegations have been approved and include participating NGOs, but NGOs in the Community still have time to present projects to Representations in Member States in getting in touch with the relevant information officer. Nevertheless, projects will only be funded if they contribute towards the overall understanding of enlargement, its challenges and opportunities, thus avoiding political misuse based on fears and myths about its social and economic consequences.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3494/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Arrest and intimidation of Syriac Orthodox clerics in Turkey

Yusuf Akbulut, a Syriac Orthodox priest in Diyarbakir, is quoted in the 3 October 2000 edition of the Hürriyet newspaper as saying that he considered a US House of Representatives committee to have been right to recognise the Armenian genocide of 1915 and later years. Under the heading The traitor within our midst, the following day's Hürriyet reported that Akbulut had promptly been arrested by the police and released after questioning. It was also reported that the State Security Court had decided to detain Akbulut, who was held and questioned for two days. According to Hürriyet, he is now awaiting prosecution for subversive activities and treason.

A plea for help has also been made by the two Syriac Orthodox bishops, Yusuf Cetin and Samuel Aktas, who say that the Turkish State is trying to force them to sign a document containing a denial of the fact that Assyrians and Syriacs were also murdered in 1915 and later years.

Intimidation and harassment of these clerics constitutes disregard for minority rights. Turkey is a candidate for EU membership.

Is the Council monitoring the minority rights situation in Turkey, and have the Member States reacted to the above-mentioned events in Turkey?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

The Council is monitoring the minority rights situation in Turkey. Minority rights are part of the priorities and objectives of the 2000 Accession Partnership which has been proposed by the Commission and which is being discussed in the Council. The Council recalls that respect for and protection of minorities is one of the Copenhagen political criteria for EU membership.

The Council has not reacted to the event referred to by the Honourable Member. Neither have Member States informed the Council about any reactions on their part.