ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1539/00

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Arrests in Irian Jaya

Can the Commission confirm that nine Papuan leaders were arrested in Irian Jaya on 17 March 2000?

Is the Commission aware that the arrests were made on the grounds that those arrested had taken part in certain events, although those events had been authorised by the authorities?

Is the Commission prepared to seek clarification from the Indonesian authorities as to the purpose of, the grounds for and legal basis of the accusations?

Is it also prepared to seek clarification from the Indonesian authorities as to how these arrests fit in with President Wahid's undertaking to initiate a political dialogue about the future of Irian Jaya?

What can the Commission do to help prevent an increase in tension between the people of Papua and the Indonesian authorities?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf on the Commission

(8 June 2000)

The Commission is aware of the arrests of some Papua leaders in March 2000. According to reports, it is not clear whether these arrests were made in connection with the demonstration to which the Honourable Member refers.

At this stage, this matter has not been raised in the Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) framework. However, the Union is keen to establish a political dialogue with Indonesia, which will touch on the question of unrest in several Indonesian provinces and offer an occasion to discuss the situation in Irian Jaya.

In the Commission's view, the Indonesian government is making praiseworthy efforts to give more autonomy to the provinces and the districts. These efforts should help to overcome ethnic tensions in Indonesia.

The Commission is intervening through its humanitarian aid office (ECHO) to mitigate the effects of these tensions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2586/00

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Adoption of the European Parliament and Council Directive on energy efficiency requirements for ballasts in fluorescent lamps implications for SMUs in the European Union

Following Parliament's adoption without amendments on 5 July 2000 of the Council's common position, the directive on energy efficiency requirements for ballasts in fluorescent lamps will shortly enter into force.

When drawing up its common position, did the Council consider the implications of this directive for SMUs in the European Union?

Is the Council aware that all firms which at present manufacture magnetic ballasts will be required to halt their production in the foreseeable future (at the latest in five years' time), with the loss of many jobs in the Member States concerned?

The allegedly lower costs of the new electronic ballasts was put forward as the justification for the directive and the resulting restructuring of the market.

What is the price of:

- a magnetic ballast?

- an electronic ballast?

Reply

(9 November 2000)

The impact of this Directive on small and medium-sized undertakings in the European Union has been studied carefully.

This examination has revealed that:

- high-yield ballasts are profitable in the long term as using them can save a great deal of energy; since SMUs also light their premises with flourescent lighting they stand to make a net economic gain;

- the proposed yield improvements are relatively easy to implement and long transition periods have been provided for, which means that no manufacturer will be unduly disadvantaged by the requirements set; it should be noted that this long adjustment period has been set specifically to cater for the situation of small and medium-sized undertakings;

- the Community's industry will be bolstered by implementing this Directive. The yield requirements stipulated will create jobs, both for raw material production and for ballast production. Furthermore, demand will increase for new machinery as well as for the conversion of existing machines. It should also be noted that low-yield ballasts are in the main imported from third countries, so that the Directive will increase the market share of Community manufacturers for a higher quality product.

As for the prices of the various types of ballast to which the Honourable Member refers, the Council does not have the necessary information at its disposal to enable it to answer this question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2553/00

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Belgian legislation on clinical biology laboratories

In his answer of 10 May 2000 to Written Question E-0939/00(1), Commissioner Bolkestein confirmed that the Commission also believed that case law on the freedom of establishment had changed following the Court's judgment of 12 February 1987, which rejected a case brought by the Commission against Belgian legislation restricting the management of medical analysis laboratories.

The Commission has also confirmed that it is undertaking a detailed review of this legislation on the basis of new elements.

As part of this review, the Commission apparently submitted various questions to Belgium, which replied at the end of May. The matter is still being considered, since the replies provided by Belgium have apparently failed to clear up all the questions raised by the Commission concerning the compatibility of the legislation in question with the EC Treaty.

Is the Commission not concerned that, in the meantime, a national court may adopt a decision without being fully informed of the examination being conducted by the Commission and is there not a danger that contradictory decisions may be taken since the national courts are not required to refer the matter to the Court of Justice or to seek the Commission's opinion?

Under these circumstances, how does the Commission intend to fulfil its duty to cooperate fairly with the Member States in accordance with the provisions of Article 10 of the EC Treaty, with reference to the interpretation of Community case law? (In particular, see the Judgment of 28 February 1991, Case C-234/89, Delimitis v. Henninger Bräu, ECR 1991, p. I-935, paragraph 53.)

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 189.

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

As the honourable Member has pointed out, the compatibility of Belgian legislation on clinical biology laboratories with certain provisions of Community law is currently under review.

According to the information available to the Commission, the Belgian authorities empowered to take a decision before the Commission takes a stance on the matter are aware of the review in process. They therefore have the opportunity, as allowed by the rules of the relevant national procedures, to ask the Commission for information on the progress of any procedure that is under way, in accordance with the case law quoted by the honourable Member. The Commission has not so far received any such request for information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2563/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Arrest of three Turkish Cypriot journalists

The authorities in occupied Northern Cyprus have arrested the editor-in-chief of the Turkish Cypriot newspaper Avrupa (Europe), Sener Levent, along with two other senior journalists

working for the same newspaper on charges of treason linked to the fact that the three journalists had long been criticising the Turkish occupying forces. Their arrest has been unanimously condemned by political circles in the Republic of Cyprus and by the Writers' Union in Cyprus.

What are the Commission's views on the above events, and does it consider that the fundamental freedom of expression has been violated?

Will it seek explanations from Turkey and the Denktash regime with regard to the arrest of the three Turkish Cypriot journalists?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions P-1802/00 from Mrs Giannakou-Koutsikou(1) and P-2670/00 from Mr Alavanos(2).

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 121.

(2) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 208.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2830/00

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(6 September 2000)

Subject: Play equipment provided by local authorities

Could the Commission supply me with information regarding regulations governing play equipment installed by local authorities on community sites?

If regulations do exist, how do small parish councils, in particular, obtain a copy of such important guidelines?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 2000)

I would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the answers given by the Commission to written questions E-3376/98(1) from Mrs Hultén and E-1260/98 from Mr Fernández-Albor(2).

The work of the European standardisation body (CEN) concerning equipment for playgrounds has now been completed. The standards in question are therefore available from the national standards bodies (the British Standards Institution in the case of the United Kingdom).

They comprise a general standard concerning safety regulations and testing methods, the standards concerning additional safety regulations and testing methods for certain specific types of equipment (swings, slides, etc.), the standards concerning the installation, maintenance and use of playgrounds, and the standards concerning surfacing materials.

Lastly, the Commission would confirm that, in its new proposal for a Directive on general product safety(3) (currently being examined by the Parliament and the Council), it proposed the adoption of stricter Community rules on market surveillance by the national authorities. Greater market surveillance would do much to improve the safety of consumers, notably concerning playground equipment.

(1) OJ C 320, 6.11.1999.

(2) OJ C 13, 20.1.1999.

(3) COM(2000) 139 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3351/00

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Disposal of PVC

As part of its Green Paper on Environmental Issues involving PVC (COM)2000/469), will the Commission seek to dissuade farmers from the unnecessary disposal of PVC sheeting used in raising early crops? At present, such sheeting is not recycled but jettisoned after use on only one crop.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

On 26 July 2000 the Commission adopted a Green paper on Environmental Issues of PVC. One of the main aspects analysed in the Green Paper was the management of PVC waste.

Estimates taken from a study of the mechanical recycling of PVC carried out for the Commission(1) suggest that PVC waste generated in farming amounted to around 30 000 tonnes in 1999, i.e. about 1 % of all PVC waste produced. At present, very little of this waste is being recycled. The Commission has no specific information on the amount of PVC waste being re-used.

In the light of the Green Paper's analysis, and given the present low rate of recycling, the Commission considers that more PVC needs to be recycled. This being so, the recycling of PVC sheeting used in agriculture could be increased with due regard for the technical, socio-economic and environmental aspects.

The Green Paper sets out a number of options for attaining the set objective of increased recycling of PVC. Early in 2001, after the closure of the consultation period at the end of November 2000, the Commission will present a communication setting out a Community strategy on the environmental problems of PVC, which will tackle the question of recycling PVC waste.

(1) Prognos, Mechanical recycling of PVC waste, January 2000, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/pvc/index.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2336/00

by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 July 2000)

Subject: Possible expropriation in Spain and EU aid

A German citizen of the European Union has purchased two plots of land in Spain for his retirement (address: Urbanisacion de la Torre de Benagalbon No 2, E 29738 Rincon de la Victoria, Provincia Malaga, Andalusia, Spain). On one of these two plots there is an old tower, while on the other one there is a house which has been renovated by the new owner. In an unexpected move, the plot with the tower is now apparently going to be expropriated to make way for a park, and the same thing is due to happen to the other plot. The park is to be funded from EU funds.

Will the Commission say:

1. Under which conditions is the expropriation of legally acquired real estate in Spain possible and what compensation is payable in such cases?

2. Is it true that EU funds have been applied for and perhaps granted to set up a park on the plots of land in question? If so, when did the Commission receive the application in question, when was the funding decision taken, which programme do the funds come from and under which conditions was aid granted?

3. In case an application was submitted for aid, was the Commission informed that both plots of land are private property?

4. Does the Commission intend to examine, before authorising funding or, if it has already done so, in the light of these new circumstances whether, under the general principles of the rule of law, the expropriation of the plots of land in question is possible?

5. Bearing in mind the ban on discrimination (Art. 12 TEU), how does the Commission view the fact that the expropriation procedure and the plans to set up a park complex only went ahead after a German citizen of the Union had purchased the plots of land in question and undertaken extensive renovation work?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Apart from large-scale investments, the Commission is not involved in the selection of individual projects for structural fund assistance. It therefore does not have the detailed information requested. The conditions governing such matters as the expropriation of land, whether or not with structural fund involvement, are determined by the Member States.

On the basis of the information provided, the Commission will request the Spanish authorities concerned to furnish information on the project in order to ensure that no breach of Community rules has taken place.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2986/00

by Vittorio Sgarbi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Communications in Sicily

In the Region of Sicily, regional, national and international transport facilities motorways, railways, airports and ports are obviously underdeveloped. Meanwhile, definitive framework programme agreements for the construction of the necessary infrastructures are being drawn up in collaboration with the European Union.

Does the Commission consider that there has been excessive delay in setting the agreements in question in train and that the Italian Government has been unjustifiably slow in making the requisite financial resources available?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2000)

The Commission is aware of the lag in Sicily's transport sector and the Structural Funds have already contributed to transport projects in the 1994-1999 programming period.

In the 2000-2006 period measures to improve the region's transport infrastructure will be part-financed by the Structural Funds under Objective 1, either through the Operational Programme for Sicily or through the national Operational Programme for transport, covering all the regions of the Mezzogiorno.

On 8 August 2000 the OP for Sicily was one of the first Objective 1 programmes to be approved by the Commission. The regional authorities are currently drawing up the programming complement governing implementation of the programme.

The transport OP is currently being examined by the Commission. Before it can be finalised the Italian authorities must prepare an operating instrument (strumento operativo) identifying the strategic choices for this sector in the Mezzogiorno, based on the strategy laid down in the general plan for transport published in July 2000.

Projects included in the framework programme agreements between the region of Sicily and the Italian government can be proposed for part-funding from the Structural Funds under these two programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2934/00

by Peter Mombaur (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Gas and steam power stations

Combined gas and steam power stations, including the gas turbines they use, are valuable elements in energy and climate policy.

1. Is it true that European turbine manufacturers have been put at a disadvantage by the USA since 1992 by the fact that the US industry is supported by an ATS programme?

2. Is it true that US turbine manufacturers are to be supported in future by a Vision-21 programme'?

3. What is the Commission's view of these US State aid programmes?

4. Does the Commission see any scope for support for European gas turbine manufacturers from the European Union or the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2000)

1. The Commission is up to date as regards the advanced turbine systems and Vision 21 programmes in the United States for the development of gas turbines by American industry.

Since 1992 the United States have decided to make gas turbines one of their major priorities. The Community's programmes have placed their emphasis on renewable energy technologies.

2. Yes, it is quite true that the Vision 21 programme is included in the cooperation priorities between the United States and the Community that are currently being discussed as part of implementing the cooperation agreement on science and technology signed by both parties. That would also enable European industries to become involved.

3. The Commission feels that these programmes are a significant help in developing gas turbine technologies.

4. The technological development of gas turbines is included in the specific Energy programme under the 5th Research and Technological Development Programme. As it recognises the basic importance of gas turbines, more particularly in connection with environmental protection and the competitiveness of European industry, the Commission, issued a call for proposals in October 2000 targeting the Generation of electricity by gas turbines. Moreover, briefings for industrial and other applicants are planned for November 2000. Likewise, the range of topics relating to gas turbines, which will soon be identified by the Commission, will be put to use in ensuring better information and consultation with the industry in Europe.

It is obvious that all of the programmes in this area, whether American or European, must abide by the international rules on assistance and subsidies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0813/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 March 2000)

Subject: Possible withdrawal of Switzerland's application for EU membership

The way the 14 Member States have been treating Austria has prompted critical reactions both in and outside the EU. In Switzerland the parliamentary group of the Swiss People's Party has tabled an urgent question calling on the Federal Council to withdraw the application for EU membership so as not to endanger the vote on the bilateral negotiations. It argues that the eventual rejection of the strategic objective of EU membership is inevitable and that the outrageous way in which Austria is being treated reveals the true face of Brussels to even the most fanatical supporter of the EU.

While occupied with its enlargement, which is meant to provide an opportunity for overcoming a centuries-old division once and for all, the EU, with its strategy of isolating Austria, is falling out of favour with many European citizens and countries wanting to join.

The boycott imposed on the Republic of Austria shows that such common phrases as European partnership, European cooperation and Europe growing together are empty words.

With the Dialogue on Europe initiative that was launched last February, the Commission wants to join with the European Parliament in helping to trigger a public debate on Europe. The aim is to bring Europe closer to its citizens. At the same time, however, the Council Presidency appears to be doing everything in its power with its political isolation of Vienna to put the Union in a bad light and ensure that it is no longer understood by its citizens. This is unfortunately giving forces critical of the EU a further boost. It is equally unfortunate that the decision taken by the 14 and behaviour such as that of the Belgian Foreign Minister and the French Finance Minister have set back the EU integration policy in Switzerland several years.

The Council is therefore asked how and when it intends to stand up for democracy, tolerance and partnership in the form of a dialogue rather than exclusion and to do so in a way that all EU countries and citizens find trustworthy.

Reply

(10 November 2000)

The measures to which the Honorable Member refers were mentioned in a declaration made by the Portuguese Prime Minister on behalf of the Governments of 14 Member States. The Council is not bound by that declaration.

The Council has not stated an opinion on this matter and is therefore unable to reply to the questions raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2915/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Common Pension Policy

With its increasingly ageing population, Europe must lend more practical measures and greater awareness to dealing with the issue of a Common Pension Policy.

The various aspects of all the social security systems and the pension systems in particular in the individual EU countries are extremely varied due to differences in institutional structural conditions, budgetary and economic situations, social attitude and demographic development. Reforms are being discussed in all Member States. It may be that at European level it does not suffice to hold these discussions on the basis of a few general fundamental principles; rather efforts must be strengthened towards gradually creating a Common Pension Policy.

Therefore, does the Commission already have any practical suggestions to make regarding this matter or does it have any idea of the practicability and nature of such a Common Pension Policy?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2000)

The Commission agrees that pensions are a major policy issue in the light of ageing populations. In its communication of 14 July 1999, A concerted strategy for modernising social protection(1), it identified making pensions safe and pension systems sustainable as one of four key objectives. This has since been endorsed by the Council, and the Lisbon European Council mandated the newly created High Level Working Party on Social Protection, taking into consideration the work being done by the Economic Policy Committee, (mldr) as its first priority, to prepare, on the basis of a Commission communication, a study on the future evolution of social protection from a long-term point of view, giving particular attention to the sustainability of pensions systems in different time frameworks up to 2020 and beyond, where necessary.

The communication requested by the European Council will be adopted shortly and will present a framework for future cooperation with a view to making pensions safe and pension systems sustainable. However, the Commission will not be proposing a common pensions policy. The responsibility for reforming pension systems will remain with the Member States, although they could clearly benefit from an exchange of information at Community level.

Nevertheless, the Commission firmly believes that a European debate on the future of pensions should not only take place among governments and invites all interested parties to make their contribution.

(1) COM(1999) 347 final.