ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4063/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Businesses and the EU-Mexico Agreement

The Agreement between the European Union and Mexico was signed in December 1999 and entered into force on 1 July 2000. Its content means that the agreement provides the future framework for cooperation between firms on both sides. The achievement of one of the key objectives of the agreement, to adjust the balance in view of Mexico's excessive economic, commercial and financial dependence on its North American neighbour, will depend on the success of such business cooperation.

If this cooperation is to bear fruit, instruments need to be available comprising adequate measures and sufficient funding to support firms which decide to take part in the cooperation agreement. The former ECIP, from which a number of European and Mexican firms benefited significantly, expired at the end of 1999 and there is as yet no instrument to replace it.

How will the Commission foster cooperation between firms in the EU and Mexico which decide to put the agreement into practice in the various areas and sectors covered, and what financial instruments are envisaged for that purpose?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member as to the importance of making adequate sums available to promote cooperation between European and Mexican businesses under the new partnership agreement between the EU and Mexico.

The Commission has several financial instruments at its disposal aimed chiefly at small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). On the one hand, there is the Al-Invest(1) programme, which enabled the Eurocentres to be created (there are currently three in Mexico); a call for applications with a view to selecting new Eurocentres was published in the Official Journal(2). The Eurocentres are integrated into local institutions and supported by the Commission so as to facilitate contacts between European and Mexican businesses leading to concrete schemes being undertaken, through the sector-by-sector meetings currently taking place at an average rate of one a week.

ARIEL, another component of Al-Invest, affords tailor-made support to partners interested in joint ventures.

Sectoral meetings and ARIEL have partly replaced ECIP (Facility 1): the 43 million commitment for Al-Iinvest will make it possible to carry out activities up to 2004.

In addition, the Commission is able through the ATLAS project to support schemes designed to strengthen the institutional and technical capacity of chambers of commerce in the Eurochambres framework. Already approved by the Commission in December 2000, this project will be operational in the first half of 2001.

Finally, the Commission plans to support the second summit of UNICE and Latin American employers' federations scheduled for the first half of 2002.

(1) www.al-invest.org.

(2) OJ C 380, 30.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3629/00

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Notification of bird species on the Natura 2000 information form

According to expert opinions, 14 species of birds which should have been included on the Natura 2000 information form for the Mustavuori-Östersundom area in Finland have been omitted from the form. Their exclusion is justified by stating contrary to the expert opinions that these species occur only rarely. If an interpretation of the regulations which contradicts environmental expert evidence is deemed to be admissible, this is likely to lead to a conclusion which conflicts with the objectives of the birds and habitats directives.

How does the Commission monitor the Member States to ensure that they do not, by their interpretations, neglect to include on the Natura 2000 information form bird species occurring in SPAs (Special Protection Areas), as prescribed in the habitats and birds directives? This matter is linked to the official decisions pending in Finland on the project for a major harbour at Vuosaari, particularly with regard to the definition of the borders of the Mustavuori-Östersundom Natura 2000 area and the effects of this harbour on this Natura 2000 area.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Referring to Article 4(3) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1), Member States have to send the Commission all relevant information to ensure that the most suitable territories in number and size have been classified as special protection areas.

If mistakes are observed in the standard data forms, for example in connection with complaints, the Commission will ask Member States to correct the information.

In the case referred to in the question, the Commission has made the same observation, which is based on experts' statements.

The Commission has requested a correction in the database.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4130/00

by Ingo Schmitt (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Non-recognition of German disability cards in Spain

Is the Commission aware that German cards attesting serious disability are not recognised in Spain and that German people with serious disabilities are consequently unable to benefit from the privileges granted to Spanish people with disabilities? Does this not constitute a clear breach of the non-discrimination clause of the EU Treaty?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the decision concerning the definition of disability and thus eligibility for disability cards is taken at national level. This means that the conditions for issuing a disability card are laid down by each Member State and that there is no mutual recognition of such cards entitling holders to the various concessions available in Member States other than the one that issued the card.

Under Community law the right to social assistance in another Member State depends on the personal situation of the person involved. Therefore, in order to verify whether in the present case the refusal of concessions available to holders of a Spanish disability card to a holder of a German disability card constitutes an infringement of Community law, it would be necessary for the Commission to have more details on this particular case. In principle, if a disabled person resides and works in Spain s/he should receive equal treatment to nationals with the same level of disability even if this requires that the relevant Spanish authorities determine his/her level of disability in accordance with national law. If s/he is resident in Spain as an economically inactive person his/her right of residence is subject to the condition of having sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State and to being covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks and, therefore, s/he would not be entitled to social assistance.

On a general basis, Article 12 (ex Article 6) of the EC Treaty prohibits all discrimination on the grounds of nationality within the scope of application of the EC Treaty. Thus, basic advantages for disabled people, such a preferential parking spots or wheelchair facilities in airports, should be available to all disabled Community nationals regardless of nationality. The consequent refusal of the above-mentioned basic advantages to Community nationals travelling to another Member State as recipients of services could be considered as discrimination on the grounds of nationality within the meaning of Article 12 of the EC Treaty read in conjunction with Article 49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3578/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Political refugees in Europe

It is extremely important for host countries to ensure that political refugees are given the best possible treatment when they arrive. In Italy, however, political refugees from Somalia do not receive the same treatment as in other European countries.

Would the Commission not agree that it should ask all the European governments to harmonise their legislation on the rights of political refugees, so as to ensure that the same rules apply in all the EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, taking as a basis the conclusions of the Tampere summit and the scoreboard for monitoring progress achieved in establishing the area of freedom, security and justice, it will be putting forward proposals for legislation on the conditions governing the reception of asylum-seekers by March 2001 and on the approximation of the rules governing the recognition and the content of refugee status and additional forms of protection providing an appropriate status for all persons in need of such protection by the end of 2001. Once these proposals have been adopted, they will be applicable in all the Member States covered by Title IV of the EC Treaty. They will complement the proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, presented by the Commission on 20 September 2000(1).

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its communication of 22 November 2000(2) Towards a common asylum procedure and a uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for persons granted asylum.

(1) COM(2000) 578 final.

(2) COM(2000) 755.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3830/00

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Noise and emission levels of bus and coach engines

In an attempt to cut noise levels bus and coach engine compartments have been designed with less free space. As noise levels have fallen, temperatures within engine compartments have risen. Changes in fuel injection technology to meet emission standards have resulted in substantially higher pressures within fuel lines, which has increased the risk of fatigue cracks in those pipes. The risk of fire has also increased as the ground clearance of buses and coaches has been reduced. The lower floors have produced cramped and hotter engine compartments. Alongside higher-pressure fuel pipes and high temperatures in engine compartments, electricity systems also present fire risks. Modern coaches and buses are extensively equipped with electronics which make great demands on the electrical system. All this emerges from an article in Hufvudstadsbladet of 23 August 2000.

What is the Commission's reaction to these claims and what can be done to correct the problems they describe?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member concerning the fire risks emanating from the engine compartment of buses. It is one of the reasons why a proposal of a directive(1) relating to special provisions for the construction of public service vehicles was adopted and submitted to the Parliament and the Council on June 1997.

The draft Directive (known as Buses and Coaches), now at its second reading stage, stipulates in its Annex 1, a series of requirements relating to protection against fire risks, particularly in the engine compartment. These requirements apply to the layout of the engine compartment, heat resisting materials, fuel and oil ducts, drainage orifices, possible sources of heat like energy dissipating retarder and heating fluids.

It is expected that the adoption process of this directive will be completed in the coming months in order to allow early transposition into the laws of the Member States. This Directive will increase the level of safety of this type of public service vehicles while ensuring the benefits of the functioning of the internal market.

(1) COM(97) 276.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3332/00

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Award of UTMS frequencies

The allocation of mobile telephone frequencies to firms in the sector has taken place on different criteria in different countries. In some countries they are auctioned off, in others they are allocated virtually free of charge. Does the Commission consider that the free allocation of frequencies could be interpreted as a covert state aid, which would be prohibited under Article 87 of the EC Treaty, and if so, what measures does the Commission propose to take in this matter?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

First of all, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the choice of the procedure for the allocation of third-generation mobile telephony licences is a matter for the Member States, provided that the procedure selected complies with the principles enshrined in Community law, including the rules on state aid.

In principle, the two procedures for the sale of licences beauty contests and auctions comply with the rules on state aid provided that they are transparent, objective and non-discriminatory. In addition, the conditions governing the procedure and the way in which it is organised must be such as to rule out the possibility of aid being granted in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the operators or the activity in question.

Article 87 (formerly Article 92) of the EC Treaty prohibits the granting by the Member States of state aid which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.

The Commission has received a number of complaints about the granting of state aid by way of certain procedures for the allocation of third-generation mobile telephony licences. These are currently being looked into. What needs to be established is under what conditions the issue of a licence may be regarded as State aid: this requires detailed case-by-case analysis.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3917/00

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 December 2000)

Subject: Initiatives to mark the 400th anniversary of the death of Giordano Bruno

The year 2000 marks the fourth centenary of the death of Giordano Bruno, who was a writer, philosopher, scholar and professor. He was of significance not only for Italy (he taught at various European universities, including those of Paris, London, Oxford, Prague, Wittenberg, Helmsted, Frankfurt, Toulouse and Geneva), was a symbol of freedom of thought, was open to dialogue and respected pluralism.

He was persecuted because he was considered a heretic in his own country, was opposed by the Calvinists and the Lutherans and, after spending some time in the prisons of the Inquisition, he was burnt at the stake.

Europe, which is founded on the indivisible and universal values of human dignity, liberty, equality and solidarity, cannot but celebrate this man, who was a victim of intolerance above all.

In the context of its various activities, does the Commission intend to devise an appropriate way of celebrating this important figure, who so tragically embodied the European cultural ideal in his receptiveness to all cultures?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2001)

The Commission, while recognising the importance of Giordano Bruno, does not plan any specific initiatives under the Culture 2000 programme to celebrate the fourth centenary of his death.

For the year 2000, none of the projects selected under the Culture 2000 programme involved an initiative to celebrate the anniversary of the death of Giordano Bruno.

However, the Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that the call for proposals for the Culture 2000 programme for projects to be run in 2001 will be published in the Official Journal at the beginning of this year and that cultural operators will therefore be free to submit projects to be considered for funding under this programme and in accordance with its specifications.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3545/00

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Wine flasks

In the German media, especially in the German wine producing area of Franconia, a Commission proposal is causing a considerable stir. From what I hear the Commission is about to remove the existing protection for the traditional bulbous wine flasks used in Germany/Franconia, Portugal and northern Italy, in the course of a review of existing legislation. Apparently the Management Committee for Wine is dealing with the matter.

1. Is there any truth in these press reports (including Bild of 9 October 2000 and VWD (Economic News Agency) of 12 October 2000)?

2. Why does the Commission think it necessary to change the existing legislation and allegedly remove the protection for specially protected bottle shapes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

Following the adoption by the Council and Parliament of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), the Commission is required to adopt new implementing rules on several subjects including the designation, presentation and protection of wine sector products. These will have to take account of the new rules adopted at the time of the reform of the market organisation, one of whose objectives is the simplification of Community legislation.

With regard to the press reports mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission wishes to point out that, while it is true that the working paper distributed to the Management Committee for Wine does not state that bottles of the Bocksbeutel type are reserved for certain wines from certain regions of the Community, it is not true to say that the Community wants to abolish the exclusive right to use this type of bottle. The question is rather whether it is necessary for this right to appear explicitly in the new legislation.

This question, like many others, is currently being examined and discussed in the Commission and in the Management Committee for Wine and no decision has been taken for the moment regarding the final content of the implementing rules.

In addition the Commission wishes to point out that bottles of the Bocksbeutel type or similar are currently reserved, in the case of Community wines, for the wines of certain regions of Germany, Greece, Italy and Portugal listed in the Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4002/00

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Damage to marine life from military activity

The US has recently cancelled military training exercises in some marine areas to avoid inflicting damage on sensitive marine habitats. This comes as the result of a public consultation period before permission to undertake military exercises is granted.

In the light of this, can the Commission:

(a) outline what knowledge it has of damage done to marine life by military activity undertaken by the Member States?

(b) State whether it plans to introduce such a public consultation mechanism to protect mammals and other wildlife in European waters?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

Certain marine habitats and species are given specific protection by the Habitats Directive(1), the principal piece of European legislation protecting natural habitats and wild fauna and flora.

Article 17 of the Directive requires Member States to report on measures taken pursuant to the Directive. As the Commission is due to receive the first such reports only in the next few months, it cannot yet provide the information requested by the Honourable Member.

Article 6 of the Habitats Directive provides for mechanisms to ensure that sites belonging to the Natura 2000 network, including marine sites, are protected against any activity which could seriously compromise their state of conversation. Provision is made here for the general public to be consulted where appropriate.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3425/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Funding of European Union island regions

Further to the Commission's reply to my question on funding of European Union island regions (E-1738/00)(1) and on the basis of the provisions of the Amsterdam agreements and the guidelines for the 2001 budget that Parliament has already voted on:

1. How does the Commission explain its refusal to create a legal basis for the funding of EU island regions?

2. What initiatives does it intend to take to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on this subject are applied?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 38.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Honourable Member is requested to refer to the Commission's contribution to the debate on the status of islands(1) during Parliament's part-session of 24 October 2000.

(1) Parliamentary debate on 24 October 2000 on Constitutionalisation of the Treaties Closer cooperation Status of islands.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3697/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Drift net fishing in the Baltic

The answer of 16 October 2000 to my question E-2584/00(1) states that The Commission welcomes all efforts to protect cetaceans and diminish porpoise by-catches. The Honourable Member is no doubt aware that Community legislation already limits the size of drift nets and prohibits their use from the start of 2002, with consequential benefits to cetacean populations.

Will the Commission then state whether drift net fishing will continue to be legal in the Baltic after 2002, and whether drift net fishing in general is recognised as a substantial cause of death to marine mammals for example?

Does the Commission then consider that the isolated population in the Baltic of some 1 000 to 2 000 animals deserves special protection status?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 125.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2001)

Unintentional interaction between fishing activities and marine mammals is complex, area-based, and specific to fishing gear and practice. The intensity of the phenomenon is spatially and temporally highly variable, depending among others factors from the seasonal abundance of marine mammals populations as well as of the intensity of certain fisheries. Therefore the same fishing gear might interact with marine mammals in a very different way in different localities.

The Commission makes use of the best scientific advice available to inform its action. The International council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) is the scientific forum which gives advice on the Baltic Sea and, for the time being, there is evidence that incidental catches of harbour porpoise is minimal because the drift net fishery targeting salmon and the area of occurrence of porpoise only overlap to a small extent.

The measures adopted by the Council on the phasing out of drift nets(1), and of their prohibition from 2002, are not applicable in the Baltic given the special characteristics of the salmon fisheries of this sea and, in addition, also because they are not used to target the species in Annex VIII of Regulation (EC) No 1239/98.

Provided that there are no changes in the scientific advice, there is no reason to foreseen any modification of the current Regulation regarding drift nets in the Baltic.

The harbour porpoise, along with the other cetacean species, is included in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive(2). The Community therefore recognises that they are species of Community interest in need of strict protection.

The Honourable Member is no doubt aware that it is the legal responsibility of the Member States to implement these environmental and fishing rules and to ensure compliance with them.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources, OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.

(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.