ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0021/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 January 2002)

Subject: Veterinary health products

The proposed change to Article 67, EU Directive 2001/82/EC(1) on veterinary health products would make all animal medicines for farm livestock and horses available only under a veterinary prescription.

Has the Commission presented any evidence which shows that the present UK regulatory system regarding distribution of medicines is ineffective?

Similarly, can the Commission show any evidence of benefits that would be gained by amending the existing legislation?

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2002)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its reply to written questions E-2913/01 by Mr Bowe(1) and E-3323/01 by Mr Wyn(2).

The Commission would like to reiterate that its proposals to amend the veterinary pharmaceutical legislation address among others the provisions relating to prescription, but not to distribution. The question of whether a given national distribution system is effective or not, has not been considered in this context. However, the Commission is evaluating whether the current British system, which may provide for a significant number of veterinary medicines to be available without prescription, is in conformity with the existing Community legislation, and particularly Article 67 of Directive 2001/82/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products.

Replacing, in the above-mentioned article, the current prescription requirement for those products in respect of which special precautions must be taken by the veterinarian in order to avoid any unnecessary risk to the consumer of foodstuffs obtained from treated animals by a prescription requirement for veterinary medicinal products for food producing animals aims at a full harmonisation of the legal status of these veterinary medicinal products in the Member States. In addition, this would complete the Community legal framework and provide for a comprehensive traceability and record-keeping framework for prescription, distribution and final use of veterinary medicines for food producing animals. This is in line with the existing provisions of Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain subtances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC(3), and particularly its Article 10, and also in keeping with the different responsibilities in case of inappropriate use of drugs. The main objective of this amendment is to ensure consumer protection in association with maximum benefit for animal health and welfare.

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 209.

(2) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 253.

(3) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0617/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Regional programmes of innovative schemes

The Inforegio/News bulletin of January 2002 reports that the Commission has completed negotiations on 58 regional programmes of innovative schemes.

Can the Commission say how many programmes of innovative schemes were rejected in Spain and why they were rejected?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Of the 18 Spanish proposals for regional programmes of innovative actions presented to the Commission by 31 May 2001, 17 of them, involving total funding of over EUR 80 million and a Community contribution of more than EUR 45 million, have been or are in the process of being approved.

The one proposal rejected was judged to be of insufficient quality when set against the ten criteria published in the Commission Communication(1) because the priority given to communications infrastructure measures corresponded more to a traditional operational programme than to a programme of truly innovative actions.

(1) The regions and the new economy Guidelines for innovative actions under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in 2000-2006 COM(2001) 60 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0771/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2002)

Subject: Member States' use of the facilities offered by Regulation (EEC) 2078/92 on agriculture and the environment

Can the Commission provide comparative data for the last five years of the use made by each Member State of the facilities offered by Regulation (EEC) 2078/92(1) (number and percentage of beneficiaries, number and percentage of areas of land, and the amount of subsidies)?

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 85.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2002)

In 1998, the Commission elaborated a working document on the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, in the Community entitled State of application of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92: Evaluation of Agri-environment Programmes. It can be found on the General Directorate Agriculture homepage under http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/programs/index_en.htm. It entails a detailed description and analysis of the uptake of agri-environment measures from 1993 onwards.

For the current programming period 2000-2006 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 has been repealed and taken up in the general rural development Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(1)) a more detailed monitoring has been agreed with the Member States. The Commission will produce a first synthesis report on the implementation of the rural development plans (including agri-environment) in the second half of 2002.

For first information on the recent development of agri-environment expenditure, a table that compares the annual expenditure of EAGGF-Guarantee and Member States of the period 1994-1999 (executed) with that planned for the period 2000-2006, broken down by Member States is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0779/02

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(19 March 2002)

Subject: Italian Government statements falling outside the democratic framework of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

At the recent congress of the Lega Nord, a party which holds three important ministries in the Italian Government headed by Mr Berlusconi, the party secretary, Umberto Bossi, Minister for Institutional Reforms, expressed a number of political views of an extremely serious nature, opposing the democratic principles established by the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

This is not just a case of a legitimate anti-European point of view which we do not endorse. The statements made by ministers of the Berlusconi Government at the Lega Nord congress, which Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi approves since he did not dispute them at the congress, are in blatant violation of the principles on which the European Union is founded, as set out in Article 6 of the TEU.

Does the Council not agree, for instance, that Bossi's remark that the alliance of masons, fascists, Nazis and Communists was responsible for the European Charter of Rights constitutes a rejection of the very principles established by the Charter and not merely a rather blunt and violent criticism of the Charter itself?

Would it agree that Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's failure to criticise the above statements, while being present at the Lega congress, means that the entire Italian Government may be considered to endorse these coarse and undignified anti-democratic views?

Would the Council not therefore consider it essential to initiate the procedure under Article 7 of the TEU against Italy?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-0748/02, P-0756/02, P-0757/02 and P-0779/02

(26 June 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it is not in the habit of commenting on statements made by political figures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1026/02

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 April 2002)

Subject: Discrimination arising from the introduction of local environmental legislation in four Swedish cities

On 1 January 2002, four Swedish cities Stockholm, Malmö, Gothenburg and Lund have introduced new environmental legislation. The legislation applies to 3,5 tonnes diesel-engined vehicles, including foreign-registered vehicles. Vehicles with engines built to European standards do not fulfil the requirements of the new environmental legislation. As a result, their use in the four cities referred to is subject to restrictions. The owners of the vehicles are obliged to have fitted a filter which is available only in Sweden and which would nevertheless oblige them to run their vehicles on a special diesel fuel. The result in practice is that only local coaches and undertakings can drive and/or operate in these cities.

Does the European Commission take the view that the situation outlined above constitutes a breach of EC Treaty rules, especially the provisions relating to fundamental freedoms?

What will the Commission do if it accepts that the situation outlined above constitutes a breach of EC Treaty rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the measures described by the honourable Member. It will contact the Swedish authorities for further information about any difficulties created by these measures.

In the meantime, the Commission asks the honourable Member to provide more detailed information about the measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0757/02

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(19 March 2002)

Subject: Statements by Mr Bossi

The Italian minister responsible for institutional reform, Mr Umberto Bossi, has recently described the European Union as Stalinist and as a kind of Forcolandia (a colourful, pejorative term which suggests that the EU promotes acts which undermine the fundamental freedoms of the individual). Other government representatives share or at least endorse his deplorable views.

Mr Silvio Berlusconi, who is not only President of the Italian Council but also Italy's temporary Foreign Minister, attended the Lega Nord congress, where Mr Bossi repeated his accusations and invective aimed at the entire European Community. Not only did Mr Berlusconi not react to those accusations; he implicitly endorsed them through his silence and his smiling acquiescence.

Such behaviour on the part of leading representatives of the Italian Government may cast doubt on Italy's genuine desire to cooperate fairly in European integration.

In particular, such statements indicate that Italy might not facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks and might encourage actively or passively measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the EC Treaty's objectives (Article 10 of that Treaty).

What action is the Council intending to take in order to clarify this state of affairs?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-0748/02, P-0756/02, P-0757/02 and P-0779/02

(26 June 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it is not in the habit of commenting on statements made by political figures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0341/02

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Entry into force of a single banana-market tariff

Recently, the chairman of ASAGA (the Tenerife farmers' and livestock breeders' association), Mr Fernando Jiménez, forwarded to the Spanish Government's minister for agriculture, livestock breeding and fisheries Mr Miguel Arias Cañete a call from the Canary Islands' banana growers to the effect that advantage should be taken of the Spanish Presidency in order to do what is necessary in order to prevent the entry into force of the single tariff which is due to be introduced in respect of the banana market in 2006, since such a step would have an adverse effect on Canary Islands production.

What view does the Council take of such a call?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

Article 16(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2587/2001 of 19 December 2001, provides that the current arrangements for importing bananas shall apply until the entry into force, no later than 1 January 2006, of the rate of the common customs tariff for those products established under the procedure provided for in Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

It follows that the Council cannot decide on any amendment to this provision except on the basis of a Commission proposal to that effect, on which inter alia it would have to obtain the EP's opinion. No such amendment is under consideration.

It is worth recalling the international circumstances in which the current arrangements were adopted and the need to put an end to the dispute with third countries, in particular the United States and Ecuador, while at the same time seeking to protect both Community producers and imports from the ACP States with which the Community is also linked by agreements under conditions that are compatible with the Community's WTO commitments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0363/02

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Human rights issues in Vietnam

People of faith in Vietnam are suffering oppression by State authorities. Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang, who chairs the Administrative Committee of the Vietnamese Evangelical Mennonite denomination and runs many projects to help the poor and destitute, has been subjected to frequent intimidation and persecution. This is an attempt by the State authorities to dissuade the Pastor and his groups from conducting both religious and social activities.

In October 2001 Pastor Quang was given an ultimatum to cease his church activities out of his home/centre in Binh Khanh ward of Ho Chi Minh City.

Will the Council agree that in light of this, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights And The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, giving citizens the right to enjoy the basic rights of human freedom of religion, expression and association are not being respected?

Will the Council therefore agree that steps should be taken to ensure that every Vietnamese citizen can expect to enjoy these basic human rights?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to question E-0145/02 put by Christine De Veyrac, in which it reiterated its position of principle as regards respect for the rights concerned, in particular in the case of Vietnam.

Furthermore, the Council informs the Honourable Member that the EU Human Rights Working Group based in Hanoi raised Pastor Quang's case with the Vietnamese government on 5 March at its official dialogue on human rights meeting.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1146/02

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 April 2002)

Subject: Water framework directive

Does the Commission consider that possible discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus from farming are covered by the directive establishing a framework of Community action in the field of water policy, which stipulates that discharges of priority substances must be reduced and that discharges of priority hazardous substances must cease?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Although the Water Framework Directive(1) applies, neither phosphorus nor nitrogen are priority substances as adopted under Decision No 2455/2001/EC(2). Thus, the requirements of reduction and cessation do not apply for these pollutants.

However, both phosphorus and nitrogen are mentioned under point 11 of Annex VIII Indicative list of the main pollutants of the Water Framework Directive as substances which contribute to eutrophication. In this respect, both pollutants must be considered by Member States in the definition and implementation of river basin management plans. In brief, this means that significant pressures and impacts must be taken into account in the characterisation of the river basins (Article 5), and if there is a risk of failing the environmental objectives of the directive due to discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural installations and activities, appropriate measures need to be included in the programme of measures (Article 11) and communicated in the river basin management plan (Article 13). In general, the final aim is to achieve good ecological status by 2015 which is further defined in Annex V and made operational for the impact from eutrophication.

In addition to the Water Framework Directive, the 1991 Directive on Nitrates Pollution from Agriculture(3) addresses nitrates impacts from agricultural source. Member States have the obligation to identify areas of elevated nitrates contents in groundwater or subject to eutrophication in surface waters. In such vulnerable zones mandatory measures must be taken, including both legally binding minimum storage capacities for livestock manure, and restrictions in terms of time of the year and location for the application of mineral nitrogen fertilisers and manure to land.

(1) Parliament and Council Directive 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000).

(2) Parliament and Council Decision No 2455/2001/EC of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ L 331, 15.12.2001).

(3) 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-0984/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Community directives on waste oils

Article 3, paragraph 1 of Directive 75/439/EEC(1), amended by Directive 87/101/EEC(2) stipulates where technical, economic and organisational constraints so allow, Member States shall take the measures necessary to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration. Unfortunately, this directive has not yet been implemented by the Member States, who apparently do not ensure that waste oils are regenerated rather than disposed of.

In view of this, can the Commission:

1. supply information concerning to what extent the above-mentioned directive is currently being implemented;

2. say whether it considers, in view of the consequences of such decisions for the environment and public health, that more effective and targeted measures should be drawn up to promote regeneration of waste oils rather than their disposal;

3. say whether it knows of any studies carried out into the regeneration of oils and its feasibility in terms of cost-benefit, and if so, can it pass on the findings?

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23.

(2) OJ L 42, 12.2.1987, p. 43.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2002)

1. The Commission, pursuant to its obligations under Article 5 of Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991, standardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment(1) (among them Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils), is working on the Report from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council on the implementation of different Directives on waste. The report will be based on information submitted by Member States through several questionnaires for the period 1998-2000. More specifically, it will summarise the information pertaining to the current management of waste oils. Furthermore, the Commission has just finished a study on the disposal of waste oils that gathers information on current practices in Member States. The study, Critical review of existing studies and life cycle analysis on the regeneration and incineration of waste oils, can be downloaded from the Commission's website, at the following URL address: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/waste_oil.htm.

2. The Commission is actively working on this dossier and has the intention to review the Directive on the disposal of waste oils in order to adapt it to technical and scientific progress. However, due to other more pressing priorities on its resources the Commission will not bring forward such a proposal in 2002.

3. Although it is not a full cost-benefit analysis, the above-mentioned study includes information on costs of regeneration and its economic feasibility. The Commission is not aware of any full cost-benefit analysis being available.

(1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0067/02

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

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Position of the President of the Council on the reform of the CFP to be carried out in 2002

In the public presentation of the priorities of the Spanish presidency of the Council there was regrettably no mention of the reform of the common fisheries policy, due to be carried out in 2002.

What is the Council's position on this reform, in particular the adaptation of the policy in line with the principles underlying the EU and, therefore, the Communitarisation of fishing rights and the reform of the so-called principle of relative stability, which maintains unacceptable privileges and discrimination in Community waters, whilst on the consumer markets equality of rights, consistent with the EU, prevails?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

As the Honourable Member may recall, Minister Miguel Arias Cañete stated the priorities of the Spanish Presidency in the fisheries sector when appearing before the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament on 23 January 2002.

Concerning the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, the Commission has not yet tabled its proposals and the Council is therefore unable to comment on the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0183/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Funding for cultural organisations in Greece

The EU provides funding for the promotion of cultural activities in Greece from the Community Support Frameworks (CSF).

Precisely how much funding has Greece received for operational programmes relating to cultural activities since 1994 to date under the CSF, including the third CSF? Will the Commission provide details of the cultural organisations and cultural programmes which received funding? What was the level of the Community's contribution in each case and how many of the programmes actually materialised? In which cases did the Commission ask for repayment of Community appropriations?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

During the 1994-1999 programming period, culture in Greece received part-financing from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the Community support framework (CSF) under the Culture sub-programme of the Tourism and Culture operational

programme (OP), which was allocated a total of 208,4 million, including a Community contribution of 135,9 million. According to the Greek authorities, all these funds have been committed at national level.

For the 2000-2006 programming period, the Culture OP of the CSF has a total budget of 604,9 million, including 414,3 million from the ERDF. The programme's priorities are the protection and development of the cultural heritage and the promotion of modern culture.

The European Union does not part-finance projects but regional and multiregional development programmes. Evaluation and the selection of projects and the final beneficiaries of Community assistance are not the responsibility of the Commission but of the regional and national managing authorities, to which the projects are submitted. These authorities are required to keep the data available for the Commission for inspection purposes. The Commission would therefore request the Honourable Member to ask the Greek Ministry of Culture for an exact list of projects.

The Commission has not recovered any Community funds under these programmes.