ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0582/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Illegal dumping of hazardous waste in Co. Wicklow, Ireland.

Could the Commission indicate what action it has taken, or intends to take, against Wicklow County Council and the Irish Government over the illegal dumping of more than 300 000 tonnes of waste, including hazardous waste, discovered in Whitestown, Co. Wicklow in November 2001 given that:

1. Wicklow County Council has stated that it intends to seal the site, as it claims that the cost of moving the waste to a legal landfill and restoring the site to its original condition is too high;

2. a failure on the part of Wicklow County Council to clear up the site will mean that it will be in breach of Directive 75/442/EEC(1), and, in particular, Articles 4, 8 and 9 thereof, and

3. Wicklow County Council became aware of the illegal site in 1998 and, notwithstanding, did not step in and clean it up, despite potential dangers to public health.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2002)

The Commission has received a complaint about this landfill and is investigating the case.

The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law, in the light of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty. As the guardian of the EC Treaty, it does not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0076/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Statements by the Commission President in Madrid

The Spanish newspapers have recently published such headlines as Prodi defends Aznar's right to deny the regions representation in Europe and Prodi supports the Government and says the regions will not be represented in the EU, in the wake of President Prodi's reported position on the current controversy within the Spanish state, where the central government, with the Prime Minister at the forefront, is refusing the regions the right to be represented at meetings of the Council of Ministers, even though this right is laid down in the Treaty of Amsterdam and is recognised in practice by other Member States.

Has Mr Prodi taken such a position in reality? If so, on what grounds is he entering a controversy in which the nationalities and regions of the Spanish state are simply defending their constitutional rights rights which are in any case validated by the EU Treaties?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Commission recalls that the President of the Commission committed himself to involve more the regional and local level, in EU policy shaping and implementation, as stated in the White Paper on Governance(1). Furthermore, the President underlined that the participation of Members of the Committee of Regions in the Convention will allow them to contribute to the debate on the future of Europe.

Finally, the Commission recalls that Article 203 of the EC Treaty states that the Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the Government of that Member State. Subject to this provision, it is for each Member State to decide on its representation at Council meetings, which differs from one Member State to another and on which the Community can not intervene.

(1) OJ C 287, 12.10.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0508/02

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 February 2002)

Subject: Waste disposal site in Trani

According to reports in the local and national press and the views expressed by a very large number of local inhabitants, who are extremely alarmed about the situation, the new waste disposal site in Trani presents a real threat to the environment.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Can it say whether all the relevant permits were granted in accordance with all the environmental protection directives adopted by the European Union?

Can it say whether the operation of this waste disposal site could in future give rise to the risk of fires, contamination of the groundwater table and the formation of biogases, thus endangering the health of local inhabitants?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2002)

The treatment of waste is regulated at Community level by Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975(1) as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 on waste(2), in particular its Article 4, which states that waste must be disposed of or recovered without endangering human health or the environment.

Since 16 July 2001 new landfills have to fulfil the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste(3).

In addition, for landfills receiving more than 10 tonnes per day or with a total capacity exceeding 25 000 tonnes, excluding landfills for inert waste, the provisions of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC)(4) must be applied.

Depending on the type of the landfill and the possible effects on the environment an impact assessment according to Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(5) amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985(6) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment could be required.

The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law, in the light of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty. As the guardian of the Treaty, it does not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

However, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, due to a lack of grounds of complaint on the application of EC law, no breach of it can be identified at present. Should the Honourable Member provide detailed information enabling the Commission to assess the issues in relation to the above mentioned directive, the Commission would also be able to investigate this matter.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(3) OJ L 282, 16.7.1999.

(4) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(5) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(6) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0247/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Answer to written question P-3373/01 on relations between the European Union and the Palestinian Authority

In its answer of 15 January 2002 to written question P-3373/01(1) the Commission, instead of answering the queries concerning the relations between the European Union and the Palestinian Authority, makes a detailed analysis of the role and work of the IMF, in which it guarantees that the European funding devoted to direct support for the Palestinian Authority is being used properly.

What the questioner wanted and still wants to know is: between January and December 2001 how much European funding (in euro) was spent or allocated to the Palestinian Authority, under what heading (budget item and project title), to what entity it was paid (if other than the Palestinian Authority), what funding was subjected to controls and checks by what entity and what the results were?

(1) See page 44.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0255/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Subject: Disposal of fridges EC Regulation 2037/2000

The United Kingdom is facing severe difficulties in implementing EC Regulation 2037/2000(1) which requires the recovery of CFCs and HCFCs from insulating foam in domestic refrigerators, because it does not yet have a treatment plant in operation.

Is the Commission aware of other Member States facing similar problems, and did it receive, or has it received, representations from other Member States about this issue?

(1) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2002)

The Commission conducted a survey of Member States in February 2001 on the recovery of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from domestic refrigerators. This, together with other information, shows that a significant number of Member States Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Finland and Sweden already use commercial facilities for recovering CFCs from domestic refrigerators, including the insulating foam. Currently, Austria has its refrigerators treated in another Member State and Luxembourg relies on a mobile recovery facility that comes from Germany. Four other Member States Belgium, Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands have indicated that they have some facilities for recovering the CFCs from domestic refrigerators but they still have to provide the details. Overall it can be concluded that the majority of Member States are not facing difficulties recovering CFCs from domestic refrigerators.

The remaining Member States Greece, France, Ireland and Portugal still have to provide information on the systems that they have in place or their absence for recovering CFCs from domestic refrigerators. Initial indications are that Greece, France, Ireland and Portugal still have to put in place appropriate commercial systems for recovering all the CFCs from domestic refrigerators and freezers. However, they would still be in compliance with the Regulation mentioned by the Honourable Member if used domestic refrigerators were stored until recycling and recovery facilities are put in place.

The Commission has recently contacted the Member States in order to update its information on CFC recovery facilities for domestic refrigerators and freezers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0084/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Mahogany trade

What action is the Commission taking to curb the importation into the EU of mahogany cut by loggers without regard to the sustainability of the source?

What action is being taken to encourage the development of sustainable tropical hardwood resources?

What efforts are made to ensure that Member States subject to rigorous scrutiny importers' claims that mahogany and other hardwoods come from sustainable sources?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2002)

The Community aims at promoting sustainable forest management and at promoting trade in forest products originating from sustainably managed forests.

More specifically, the Commission has amended Annex C to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97(1) following the listing of Swietenia macrophylla (big-leaf mahogany) by certain range states on Annex III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This means that Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico and Peru have to issue export permits when exporting logs, sawn woods and veneer sheets and given that Costa Rica has requested the listing of all populations of big-leaf mahogany in the Americas, other range states have to issue certificates of origin. For introduction into the Community an import notification is also required.

The Commission is promoting the development of sustainable use of tropical forest wood resources in the frame of its environment and forest development co-operation programmes. A considerable number of actions funded under both the bilateral co-operation instruments (government to government) and the so called thematic budget lines (where civil society organisations play a greater role) support efforts recently undertaken in developing countries to introduce sustainable forest management systems and certification of timber products. Among the most significant actions that the Commission has been supporting it is worthwhile mentioning the Group of seven most industrialised countries Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest, a comprehensive programme which includes, in addition to a specific sustainable forest management component, support at policy level and capacity building in the area of monitoring of land use, with particular emphasis on illegal deforestation. Another significant programme is the Community-Indonesia Forest Programme, started in 1992, which contains projects on forest inventory, fire prevention and control, sustainable forest management, and two large integrated projects, for conservation and sustainable forest management respectively.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0050/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE), Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE)and Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(24 January 2002)

Subject: Objections to the opening of a civilian airport

The Düsseldorf Bezirksregierung (district authority) in Germany has granted permission to the company Flughafen Niederrhein GmbH to convert the former Laarbruch military airfield, situated two kilometres from the Netherlands-German border in Germany, for use as a civilian airport. A number of communities living in nearby border areas of the Netherlands and Germany have lodged objections to the decision.

1. Can the Commission confirm that the granting of the aforementioned authorisation does not contravene European legislation on environmental impact assessment applying in this area, the birds and habitat directives and designated quiet areas?

2. What steps does the Commission intend to take if the authorisation in fact contravenes European legislation in force?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2499/01 by Mr Meijer(1).

The Commission is currently investigating whether Community law has been complied with in this case. The German Government has been asked to provide information about the procedure applied in this case with a view to the potential transboundary effects of the project and to take a position on the charges. The answer of the German authorities will provide the information needed to come to conclusions with regard to the compliance with applicable Community law in this case.

The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 21.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0695/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 March 2002)

Subject: The cost of access to non-EU fishing grounds

Can the Commission indicate the cost of purchasing the right to fish in non-EU fishing grounds for each of the last seven years? Which Member States have most benefited from these arrangements?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

1. The Community budget for the external aspect of fisheries policy has been as indicated below and was 276,1 million in 2000 (commitments) against 173,1 million in 1990. In 2000 the fishing agreements accounted for approximately 28,5 % of the Community budget devoted to the common fisheries policy (CFP).

(Million euro)

>PIC FILE="QE-2002-06-17-E0695.EPS">

2. According to the number of licences issued, the Member States which benefit most from the fishing agreements linked with financial compensation are Spain, France, Portugal, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands, in that order.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0338/02

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

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Tobacco subsidies

Could the Commission please provide a breakdown of funding for tobacco subsidies, Member State by Member State, for the past 5 years.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

The following table sets out the tobacco premiums from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section, declared by the Member States in the period 1997-2001.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Package of measures to reduce live animal exports

EU livestock export refunds have been repeatedly criticised for encouraging the transport of live animals to non-Community countries under horrific conditions.

What measures is the Commission prepared to adopt to reduce, and in the longer term abolish, the export of live animals to non-Community countries?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0418/02 and E-0420/02given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

The total amount of export refunds paid in 2001 for livestock exports was 44,4 million(1). In recent years subsidies paid for cattle traded for slaughtering were reduced significantly from 60,50/100 kilogram (kg) (in 1999) to 41,00/100 kg (32 %). The export refund for breeding cattle was reduced from 63,00/100kg to 53,00/100 kg (16 %).

Concerning the measures to reduce live animal exports, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question P-0480/02 by Mr de Rossa(2). (It should be noted that the report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on the welfare of animals during transport was adopted on 11 March 2002.)

(1) Based upon licences requested for Gatt year 2000/2001.

(2) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 220.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0919/02

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2002)

Subject: Pollution of Lough Sheelin, County Cavan, Ireland

Is the Commission aware of the seriously polluted state of Lough Sheelin, County Cavan, Ireland. That scientific evidence shows this to be the result of phosphate enrichment, mainly from agricultural run-off, which is inhibiting the growth of carophytes, protected under EU law as essential for the growth and development of wild brown trout as well as other forms of wildlife.

What action has the Commission taken to ensure that the Irish Government is taking the requisite steps to restore Lough Sheelin to an unpolluted state?

Will the Commission formally notify the Irish Government of its concerns about Lough Sheelin and the Government's negligence in the matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2002)

The Commission is aware of the seriously polluted state of Lough Sheelin. It is one of a number of Irish lakes suffering from eutrophication (i.e. nutrient enrichment, principally due to the substance phosphorus). On 28 July 2000, the Commission notified a Reasoned Opinion to Ireland(1) with regard to the Community's Dangerous Substances Directive(2), which provides for pollution reduction programmes for phosphorus. It cited Lough Sheelin as an example of a water body where there had been a failure to achieve phosphorus reduction. Since then, the Irish authorities have adopted further measures, including agricultural bye-laws. It may also be mentioned that, in 2001, the Commission submitted a case against Ireland before the European Court of Justice(3) for inadequate implementation of the Community's Nitrates Directive(4), which requires measures to manage animal manures to the extent that they contribute to problems of nitrate pollution. Since then, there are indications that Ireland is contemplating a country-wide application of this Directive. By requiring tighter controls on the use of manures, such an application should have benefits for lakes such as Lough Sheelin.

(1) Procedure A 1990/5220.

(2) Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.

(3) Case C-396/01.

(4) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0329/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Failings in management of 3rd CSF

According to reports in the Greek press, a letter was sent on 4 October 2001 from the Director-General of the Commission's Directorate-General for Regional Policy to the Greek authorities, via the Greek Permanent Representation in Brussels, informing the Greek Government of the outcome of an inquiry carried out in Greece from 11 to 15 June 2001 concerning the 3rd Community Support Framework.

The Commission ascertained that the management authority responsible for the 3rd CSF appointed by the Greek Government whose task is to allocate funding and monitor the progress of the contracts and works, does not in fact function. The Commission also noted a lack of minimum requirements to ensure a structured, transparent and objective system of evaluating proposals. Only general criteria were applied, creating a risk of adopting proposals which are not the best and vague in terms of cost, quality and the timetable for completion of the works.

The Commission discovered that there are no documented instructions or lists for checking the works. Nor is there any detailed and comprehensive contractual agreement between the authority granting the financial aid and the applicant with the result that, even in the case of projects which are under way, legal disagreements may arise which have unfortunate implications for the future of the project and its further funding. There were also failings because the computer system designed to monitor the performance of the contracts was inoperative. The Commission's document notes in conclusion that there is no system of specifications and checks which could guarantee the smooth progress and quality of the projects.

What action will the Commission now take to remedy the shortcomings revealed by its inspectors, and when?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2002)

The document that appeared in the Greek press, dated 4 October 2001, was the transmission to the permanent representation of Greece to the European Union of the main findings, conclusions and recommendations of an audit mission of the Commission that had been carried out between 11 and 15 June 2001 in Greece, in the framework of a series of preventive audits in the Member States for the programming period 2000-2006.

The aim of the preventive audit missions is to contribute in a constructive way to the improvement of management and control systems. The audit mission that was carried out between 11 and 15 June 2001 in Greece, as well as other missions that followed, are part of an ongoing process to raise standards.

In their reply of 14 November 2001 to the Commission's observations, the Greek authorities confirmed that the major part of the auditors' recommendations had been implemented.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0735/02

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

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Cameroon

With reference to Cameroon, can the Commission provide a list of the projects approved for funding from the European Union's budget for 2001 and give the total amount for investment in that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0732/02, E-0733/02, E-0734/02, E-0735/02, E-0736/02,E-0737/02, E-0738/02, E-0739/02, E-0740/02 and E-0741/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2002)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.