ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2720/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Production levy in France

According to the Journal Officiel de la République Française of 24 December 1995, Interbev (the national meat office), in addition to the fixed production levy on animals for slaughter, is also imposing a levy of 0 084 FFR on imported beef (French beef being covered by the production levy at the slaughterhouse).

Does the Commission consider it to be compatible with Community law for beef produced in other EU countries to be subject to an extra production levy not levied on nationally produced meat, when a levy has already been charged in the country of origin?

Does the Commission consider it to be compatible with the GATT agreement for beef from non-Community countries to be subject to a production levy over and above the internationally determined import duties, etc.?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

The Commission is aware of the French legislation cited by the Honourable Member. It has contacted the French authorities in this connection to obtain details of the planned levy. Since a parafiscal charge apparently intended to finance the inter-branch organisation Interbev is involved, the matter is currently being considered in the light of the agricultural rules on State aid. The Commission's standing practice is to regard a charge that is also levied on products imported from other Member States as having an effect equivalent to a customs duty or as being discriminatory in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice.

Since the matter is currently under examination, the Commission cannot express an opinion at this stage as to the exact nature of the charge or any effects it might have on competition or indeed on intra- and extra-Community trade. The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of its conclusions in due course.

As regards the levying of a charge on products from non-member countries, the Commission does not have sufficient grounds to believe that the measures are in conflict with the Community's commitments under the GATT/WTO rules, and in particular under Articles II and III of GATT 1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2441/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Garching FRM-II research reactor

Under the RERTR programme the Belgian BR-2 nuclear research reactor at Mol is scheduled to be converted in 2006 from using weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low-enriched uranium as fuel. The operators of the BR-2 have currently ordered 32 kilograms of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium as fuel in the US on the grounds that fuel supplies would last only to 2004.

The highly-respected US Nuclear Control Institute (NCI) has however calculated that the fuel supplies in the BR-2 will last out until and even well beyond the time the reactor is converted in 2006.

The additional batch of HEU would create a surplus of weapons-grade uranium in Europe.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Has the Commission been informed of the intended purpose of the surplus of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium?

3. Can the possibility be ruled out that the surplus will be passed on to other European research reactors and in particular to the new German FRM II research reactor which under the Schumer Amendment the US is refusing to supply with weapons-grade HEU?

4. Is the Commission aware that this supply of HEU for reactors not supplied by the USA would circumvent the international RERTR programme and, avoiding US controls, make weapons-grade material available as fuel for other research reactors in Europe?

5. What does the Commission intend to do to prevent such potential illegal HEU procurement for Europe?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2001)

The Commission through the Supply Agency has knowledge of the facts referred to, as well as of the position held by NCI, which is a United States (US) based non-governmental organisation. The Belgian user has submitted to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission a detailed justification for the quantities it intends to order. There is no possibility that the material is diverted to other uses than those permitted by the conditions of supply as determined by the US authorities. No material supplied by the United States to a European user can escape the controls applicable; all material would be subject to the nuclear co-operation agreement between the United States and Euratom. Measures to prevent illegal supplies are in place since long, i.e. the Commission and the Supply Agency in implementing the provisions of the Euratom Treaty assure that no illegal supply to research reactors or diversion to illegal use of highly enriched uranium takes place.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2633/01

by Gian Gobbo (TDI) to the Council

(20 September 2001)

Subject: Displays of hostility to the West in Turkey

As a result of the recent tragic terrorist attacks against the United States, the European Union is having to reconsider its foreign policy and, in particular, its relations with the Islamic world which is increasingly influenced by a markedly anti-Western public opinion.

One significant illustration of this is the whistling which prevented the minute's silence in memory of the victims of the New York attack from taking place at the Galatasaray-Lazio football match on Tuesday 11 September in Istanbul. This regrettable incident is symptomatic of the fact that European values and sentiments are alien to a large proportion of Turkish society and highlights the absurdity of Turkey's proposed accession to the European Union.

Does the Council not consider that it should ask the Turkish authorities to issue an explicit condemnation of such displays of hostility to the West?

Reply

(10 December 2001)

The disruption of the minute's silence in memory of the victims of the New York attack at the Galatasaray-Lazio football match on 11 September was indeed a regrettable incident. It is clear, however that this attitude is not shared by the Turkish Government, which unreservedly joined in the indignation and solidarity expressed by the international community in the wake of the events of 11 September. The Council rejects the conclusions that the Honourable Member seems to be drawing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2821/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: Definition of the terms adult and minor

There are different interpretations and definitions in the Member States of the age at which a person is considered to be an adult or a minor. For example, in some countries in the Union, such as Greece, police identity cards can be issued to a person under the age of 18, whereas that same person can vote only after attaining the age of 18 but may, nevertheless, be considered fit for work at the age of 15. The same definition of age is evidently also recognised by the Commission. Its publication entitled The unity of Europe, solidarity of the peoples, diversity of the regions Second Report on economic and social cohesion (with a preface by Commissioner Barnier) states (page 16) that the Union's labour force comprises individuals aged 15-64, and provides details of the rate of unemployment.

Will the Commission say when an individual is considered to be an adult or a minor in all the other Member States?

Can the definition be harmonised throughout the EU in order to eliminate the confusion which is caused?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2001)

The issue raised does not fall within the Community's remit: it is a matter for the relevant national authorities only.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2397/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 August 2001)

Subject: Transport of animals in Spain

The Commission has recently published a report on a mission carried out in Spain in May and June 2000 concerning animal transportation. The report reveals a wide range of problems, including overcrowding, the transport of unfit animals, and the use of vehicles for long journeys which do not meet the vehicle standards required by Council Regulation 411/98(1) for journeys exceeding 8 hours. Cattle originating from other Member States are transported through Spain and are then shipped to North Africa on roll-on, roll-off vessels. Most of the route plans seen by the Commission at the Spanish exit port were for journeys of more than 100 hours. The Spanish authorities fail to require the cattle to be unloaded and rested for 24 hours at the exit port.

What steps is the Commission taking to persuade Spain to ensure that Community law on the protection of animals during transport is properly enforced?

(1) OJ L 52, 21.2.1998, p. 8.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2001)

The Commission report in question, in particular its recommendations, is a priority instrument in encouraging improved implementation of Community legislation relating to animal welfare. In addition, infringement proceedings in this domain have already been opened by the Commission against Spain in connection with deficiencies noted in an earlier mission report.

The Commission intends to intervene further with the Spanish authorities in order to ensure correction of the deficient implementation of the requirements of Community legislation on the protection of transported animals noted in the more recent report mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Questions raised by the Spanish authorities, concerning the correct interpretation of the provisions to which the Honourable Member refers, are currently being examined by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2336/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: EIB loan to Turkey

In accordance with a Council decision, and following consultation of Parliament, the European Investment Bank has granted Turkey EUR 600 m with an EU guarantee for reconstruction in the wake of the country's earthquake disasters. It appears that EUR 225 m of this will not be utilised in 2002, because there has been no proposal for a transfer to the guarantee fund for this purpose. What are the Commission's reasons for not promoting this priority project in 2002? Is it seeking in this way to prioritise other loans requiring a guarantee?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2001)

The Commission is monitoring, in close collaboration with the European Investment Bank (EIB), the implementation of the TERRA loan to Turkey for which the Council approved a specific mandate with a Union guarantee ( 600 million in total to be contracted within a period of three years from early 2000 to the beginning of 2003).

At the end of 2000, the entire availability of 600 million was committed for a number of projects, of which 375 million were already signed, thus leaving available for further signatures the amount of 225 million to be contracted by the beginning of 2003.

The mandate was approved by the Council (dossier inter-institutionnel 1999/0212(CNS), decision 12929/1/99) and the related lending is covered by a Commission Guarantee as foreseen in the decision to be extended to all the contracts signed under the mandate; therefore the funds allocated for this purpose can not be transferred to other actions, but remain available for contracts to be signed within the framework of the TERRA mandate. The 225 million still available for contracts to be signed by the beginning of 2003 are covered by the Union guarantee as specified in the mandate.

As far as the release of the Commission guarantee is concerned, the applicable procedure envisages that every year the EIB communicates to the Commission services the forecasts of loan disbursements. The transfer of the corresponding guarantee funds is then made on the basis of these forecasts.

The transfer of the guarantee fund for the 225 million to be contracted up to the end of 2002 will be made by the Commission at the beginning of 2001, after having received the EIB forecasts for the loan utilisation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1611/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Financial aid to the European Movement in Malta

How much has the European Union paid in financial aid to date to the European Movement in Malta and what support is planned for the European Movement in the future in terms of financial and other resources?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1610/01, E-1611/01, E-1612/01 and E-1613/01given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

It is for the Maltese authorities to adopt a position on Maltese becoming an official language; this matter will be dealt with at the end of the negotiations under the institutions chapter. Any candidate country wanting its national language to become an official language of the European Union is under the obligation to translate the acquis communautaire into that language, using its own resources. In that case the Commission can give technical assistance to help these countries set up the framework needed to carry out the work. Without prejudging its final position on the matter, Malta has informed the Commission that it has started translating the acquis communautaire into Maltese.

To date the EU has not given any grants to the European Movement in Malta, nor has it any plans to finance or otherwise back this Movement.

The aim of the Commission is not to try to convince the Maltese people of the advantages of EU membership. The Commission considers that it is for the Maltese people to decide on the issue. To help them do so the Commission adopted in May 2000 a communication strategy on enlargement which includes Malta along with the other applicant countries.

The strategy has three aims:

- to improve the understanding of the EU;

- to explain the implications of membership;

- to explain the link between preparing for accession and making progress in the negotiations.

With this strategy, the Commission aims to give ongoing objective information to the Maltese people and to the citizens of other applicant countries. The Commission is thereby responding to a demand from Maltese civil society and Maltese citizens who want to be correctly informed in order to make the right decision on the question of EU membership. EUR 1 million will be available until 2004, of which EUR 200 000 will be spent this year and EUR 300 000 in 2002.

To date one Local Technical Assistance Staff (ALAT) member has been recruited at the EU delegation in Malta and another is due to be taken on. This extra staff will be mainly concerned with managing the pre-accession aid package (EUR 38 million for 2000-2004) and monitoring Malta's progress in implementing the acquis communautaire.

Negotiations on the environment have just started with Malta and at this stage the Commission is not in a position to prejudge their outcome.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2477/01

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Council

(14 September 2001)

Subject: Trial of citizens accused of homosexuality in Egypt

The expected trial in Egypt of dozens of citizens accused of homosexuality began in August 2001.

The natural indignation with which European public opinion has responded to this trial, which contravenes such fundamental values as free sexual choice, calls for decisive political action on the part of the Union vis-à-vis the Egyptian authorities.

It might be recalled that the EU and Egypt have concluded an Association Agreement in which full respect for human rights is enshrined as a basic principle. The holding of this trial and the existence of the arbitrary laws on which it is founded constitute a clear violation of those rights.

What action has the Council taken in order to protest to the Egyptian Government at the above situation with the aim of ensuring that the trial is cancelled and the accused set free?

Has it informed the Egyptian Government of its view that the legislation should be amended immediately so as to guarantee full freedom of choice in matters of sexuality for the citizens of that country?

Reply

(10 December 2001)

The Council is keeping close track of developments in the Queen Boat case following the arrest of 54 men in Egypt. It raised the human rights situation in Egypt, and in particular the cases of Mr Ibrahim and Ms El Sadawi as well as the Queen Boat case, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Ahmed Maher, at the dinner which followed the signing of the EU-Egypt Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement on 25 June 2001 in Luxembourg.

The Council is also emphasising to its Mediterranean partners that the Barcelona Declaration to which they have subscribed commits them to act in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter. Article 2 of the Universal Declaration states that everyone is entitled to all the rights set forth in the Declaration without distinction of any kind. Article 2 of the EU-Egypt Euro-Mediterranean Agreement also refers to respect of democratic principles and fundamental human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guides the internal and international policy of the Parties and constitutes an essential element of the Agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2712/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Destruction of a biotope in Elafoniso in Crete included in the Natura network

Since the beginning of the Summer the Municipality of Pelakano has been constructing an outdoor car park at Elafoniso in Crete (in the prefecture of Chania) in an area protected by the Natura network and included in the Life programme. This project is destroying an important biotope, and local inhabitants are protesting against it.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to maintain this biotope which is protected under the Natura network?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

The island of Elafonissos and the coast opposite have been formally proposed by the Greek authorities as Sites of Community Importance (codes GR 4340002 and 4340015 respectively) for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of wild fauna and flora)(1). Management measures have also been prepared for Elafonissos as part of a LIFE-Nature project.

The Greek authorities are responsible for preserving this area and must take all necessary measures to ensure that activities pursued there do not cause it to deteriorate. The management plan should, in particular, be taken into consideration.

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to provide further information on the problem, so that it may do the necessary research and reply to his question.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2812/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: Sun guns

Would the Commission outline the process by which European CE standard marks are awarded and clarify which Directorate-General has ultimate responsibility for this process?

Would the Commission provide details of the number of stun weapon manufacturers which are currently using the CE standard mark on their products?

What plans does the Commission have to prevent stun weapon manufacturers using CE standard marks in order to promote the sale of stun weapons?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2812/01 and E-2841/01given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to written question P-2783/01 by Mr Ford(1).

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 209.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2331/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Discriminatory linguistic requirements

I have received information pointing to possible discrimination on linguistic grounds by the Commission or services connected with it, including the Tacis and Phare information offices and the technical assistance office of the Socrates, Leonardo and Youth programmes.

Various advertisements published by these offices specify a requirement for English mother tongue, thereby excluding the other Community languages.

Does the Commission agree that advertisements such as those described above, which specify a requirement for English mother tongue, are discriminatory in an environment in which respect for the free movement of workers is key?

Does the Commission intend to take steps to avoid discrimination of this kind?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2001)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to written questions E-4100/00(1), E-0779/01(2), E-1681/01 and E-1682/01(3) from Mr Staes and E-1356/01 from Mr Gemelli(4).

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 233.

(2) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 245.

(3) See page 18.

(4) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 132.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2562/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: Continuation of a national cadastral survey in Greece

In the final paragraph of its reply to my question (P-0585/01(1) 18 May 2001), concerning launching of the procedure provided for under Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No. 2052/88(2) regarding the national cadastral survey, the Commission qualifies its previous reply thereby substantially changing the meaning thereof in so far as it recognises the inclusion in the second Community support framework of three cadastral survey projects covering a total area of 850 thousand hectares with a budget allocation of ECU 124.6 millions.

Furthermore, in a document forwarded to the Greek authorities concerning the national cadastral survey in Greece, (31.7.2001) the Directorate-General for Regional Policy announced its decision of initiating the procedure under Article 24 of Regulation (EC) 4253/88(3), on the grounds that the information it had received had been incomplete and only semi-accurate and proposed corrective financial measures involving new calculating methods.

Given that this project is generally considered to be the largest and most significant structural environmental initiative being carried in Greece and has already absorbed enormous amounts of funding from both the Community national authorities and that to halt it now would not only render null and void everything achieved to date but would also mean totally writing off the funding already provided, does the Commission consider its present retreat from (or qualification of) the position contained in its previous reply to be a responsible attitude, given that the procedure under Article 24 is conditioned by a significant change affecting the nature or conditions of the operation or measure for which the Commission's approval has not be sought? Independently of the final outcome of the procedure under Article 24, does it intend to continue to support the cadastral survey project under the third CSF subject to the existence of clearly defined new objectives and timetables agreed in advance with the national authorities?

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 76.

(2) OJ L 185, 15.7.1988, p. 9.

(3) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier opn behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2001)

As the Honourable Member indicates, the Commission is at present enquiring into the implementation of the land register project under article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments. At the conclusion of this inquiry, it will transmit a copy of its decision, as soon as it has been adopted, to the Honourable Member.

Moreover, at the conclusion of the article 24 procedure, it will take a decision on conditions under which further financing of the land register may take place within the framework of the third CSF 2000-2006 for Greece.