ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2399/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Delay in the replacement of the former Mayor of Terni by the Mayor of Asti on the Committee of the Regions

In February 2000 Mr Luigi Florio, who is currently a Member of the European Parliament and Mayor of Asti, was appointed by the ANCI national leadership to the European Union's Committee of the Regions to replace the former Mayor of Terni, Professor Gianfranco Ciaurro.

However, Mr Florio has not yet received any formal notice of his appointment as a member of the Committee of the Regions.

Can the Council explain the reasons for this serious and culpable delay?

Will it say what obstacles are preventing the appointment from being made official?

Will it say when Mr Florio is likely to be able to take up his duties at the Committee?

Reply

(16 November 2000)

Under Article 263 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the members of the Committee of the Regions are appointed by the Council, acting on a proposal from the Member State concerned. The General Secretariat received Italy's proposal to appoint Mr Florio in place of Mr Ciaurro by letter dated 2 June 2000. On 26 June 2000 the Council appointed Mr Florio a member of the Committee of the Regions(1). By letter dated 27 June 2000 the General Secretariat of the Council informed the Chairman of the Committee of the Regions of Mr Florio's appointment.

(1) Council Decision published in OJ L 164, 5.7.2000, p. 17.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2443/00

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

(19 July 2000)

Subject: Linking Galicia with the Peninsular and the rest of Europe by high speed train

The President of the Xunta de Galiza, Manuel Fraga Iribarne, recently publicly announced that he had signed an agreement with the Spanish Minister of Public Works, Francisco Álvarez Cascos, on the building of a high yield rail link, to be co-funded by the European Union, linking the cities of Galicia with Madrid via Valladolid in the year 2006.

Does this decision form part of the Community Support Framework which the Commission agreed with the Spanish Government for the 2000-2006 period? Is this to be a high-speed link, like those which already exist and those planned for the links with the south and the Mediterranean part of the Iberian Peninsula? What budget has been allocated, and what annual programming do the investments to be made come under?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Following negotiations with the Spanish authorities the Commission is now finalising the Community support framework for the Objective I Spanish regions, which include Galicia, for 2000-2006.

The CSF does not itemise projects to be financed during this programming period. It is too soon therefore to say anything precise about the projects that will be selected for inclusion in the CSF operational programmes.

It should however be said that the Commission and the Spanish authorities consider improvement of rail links between the main cities of Galicia and Valladolid to be one of the transport infrastructure priorities for the period.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3170/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Setting up of an immigration monitoring centre

Following the debate on the report submitted to the European Parliament on 30 March 2000 by Jorge Salvador Hernandez Mollar on the action plans drawn up by the High-Level Working Group on the main countries of origin and transit of asylum-seekers and migrants, will the Commission not propose the setting up of an immigration monitoring centre in Italy, and specifically in Puglia, which is a habitual region of transit for illegal immigration?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

On 24 March 2000 the Commission presented to the Council and Parliament a scoreboard to chart progress on the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union(1), stressing how important it was to improve the exchange of statistics and information on asylum and immigration, with a view to managing migration flows more efficiently.

In that context, it referred to the setting-up of a (virtual) European centre for monitoring migration flows, calling to mind the preparatory measures financed by the Odysseus programme on the basis of a prior feasibility study.

Following its communication of 23 February 1994 on immigration and asylum policy(2), the Commission had requested University College London to carry out a study analysing in detail all the information collected by the institutions relating to international migration in Europe, with a view to identifying shortcomings, suggesting the best means to remedy these shortcomings and outlining the options open to the Commission to attain that end, including the setting up of a new body.

The results of that study led to two pilot projects under the Odysseus programme. In 1998, as part of the first project, the Free University of Brussels developed a European university network to find and exchange information on asylum and immigration. In 1999, the second project led University College London to develop a network and website known as the European migration information network (EMIN).

Bearing in mind these attainments and the work of the Centre for information and exchange on asylum (CIREA) and the Centre for information and exchange on external border crossing (Cirefi) in the Council, together with the statistical action plan adopted by the Council in 1998 and implemented by Eurostat, the Commission is currently examining with the Member States how to develop these initiatives further in keeping with the objectives which have been reaffirmed on a number of occasions, and by Parliament in particular.

(1) COM(2000) 167 final.

(2) COM(94) 23 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2111/00

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Medlar growing: situation compared with other varieties covered by the fruit and vegetable COM

Medlar prices are continuing to fall from one marketing year to the next, since medlars come on to the market at the same time as other fruits covered by Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(1). The latter fruits benefit from the arrangements laid down in the COM, whereas medlars are less adaptable to a market as competitive as the market in early fruit, bearing in mind that as far as products such as apricots are concerned, the use of biotechnological methods enables the season to start earlier.

Is the Commission aware of the difficulties caused to medlar producers by the fact that medlars are omitted from Article 1 of the above-mentioned Regulation under the current COM? Will it remedy this practical defect and include specific measures to promote the medlar in its projected reform of the fruit and vegetable COM?

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

Most of the medlars marketed for table consumption are the fruit of the Japanese medlar tree (Eriobotrya japonica Thub) and they fall within heading 0810 90 85 of the combined nomenclature (Other fruit). They are therefore covered by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(1). As medlars thus qualify for the common market arrangements in the fruit and vegetables sector, the Commission does not intend to adopt specific measures for them.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2334/00

by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Transport of animals

The Union's aid policy often has clearly appalling consequences. A recently exposed scandal involves the transport of live animals long distances from their place of breeding owing to the transport subsidies received under regional and labour market policy approved by the Council. Is the Council prepared to review the system of aid for the transport of live animals?

Reply

(20/21 December 2000)

Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport, as amended by Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, introduces a set of rules designed to implement a welfare policy for animals during transport.

The terms of that Directive do not include any financial provisions and, more specifically, no system of aid for the transport of live animals is provided for.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2665/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Truck stopping distances

Does the Commission agree that, since persuasion has not proven to be an effective means of encouraging truck drivers to increase their following distances, some alternative means of bringing this about must now be identified and implemented?

Will the Commission agree to EU support for developmental research to validate the existing experimental distance-sensing systems, so that trucks can be fitted with these systems that will:

- warn drivers when they are travelling too close to the vehicle ahead (given their speed);

- effectively reduce the vehicle's speed by decelerating and/or applying the brakes if the driver does not take appropriate action such as increasing the following distance within a reasonable period of time?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2000)

The safe braking distance for motor vehicles depends on static parameters, such as pay load and the vehicle's braking system, and dynamic parameters such as speed and roll, and external factors such as road-surface grip, and weather and visibility conditions. In addition driver skill and physical condition likewise play a part.

Devices that automatically keep a distance from the vehicle ahead are one of the many possible applications of intelligent transport system technologies, the development and validation of which, and the search for optimum conditions for their deployment, are being covered by several projects receiving support under Community research programmes. Since the various applications will operate in accordance with algorithms using common parameters and their interaction, the Commission feels that an integrated overall approach is more likely to ease their dissemination in a consistent reliable and economically acceptable manner.

As part of its eEurope action plan adopted on 24 May 2000(1), the Commission announced its intention to suggest forms of action intended to deploy those intelligent transport systems on the roads by the end of 2001. That action should also relate to any headway systems that maintain a safe braking distance for heavy lorries, the practical terms and conditions for which remain to be determined.

(1) Com (2000) 330 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3721/00

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Family allowances as an obstacle to freedom of movement

Border workers are sometimes faced with discrepancies between the legislation in their country of residence and their country of work. One notable case is the legislation on family allowances. The German child allowance rules are based on the country-of-residence principle, while the Netherlands General Child Allowances Act (AKW) is based on the country-of-employment principle. The underlying rule of European coordination law is that the border worker should receive whichever of the amounts payable under the two schemes is the higher.

In practice, however, the following cases have arisen. A German border worker who works in the Netherlands has for some years now received the Dutch benefit under the AKW, topped up with a benefit under the German child allowance scheme, adding up to a total amount of family allowances equal to the amount he would have received in child allowances if he had worked in Germany. However, after a few years his wife also went to work in the Netherlands and the body paying the benefit has decided that there is no longer any entitlement to the German top-up family benefit.

1. Is the action of the German government compatible with the regulation or with other parts of the EU Treaties?

2. Does the Commission consider that this action may constitute an obstacle to the free movement of workers?

3. To what extent is it relevant that in this case both parents are border workers? Does the Commission consider that such a distinction is legally admissible?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2668/00 by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten(1).

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 73.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3205/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Regulation for statistical monitoring of tuna

The establishment of a regulation for the statistical monitoring of tuna is a fundamental requisite for compliance with the International Dolphin Conservation Programme Act (IDCPA).

The failure to comply with this fundamental criterion lies at the source of the new US embargo, imposed on 3 August 2000, on imports of yellowfin tuna and derived products from Spain.

The fact that no regulation exists and no draft regulation has been communicated to the US authorities could provide a legal justification for this embargo on EU tuna.

Has the Commission evaluated the potential consequences of the failure to adopt such a regulation? In the specific case of yellowfin tuna and derived products originating in Spain, has it evaluated the damage potentially caused by this failure to the enterprises concerned and considered possible means of compensation for such damage?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3205/00 and P-3325/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

The Commission, aware that the lack of legislation to implement the tuna tracking and verification system (TTVS) could result in an embargo, addressed this question with the United States, on the occasion of the Community/United States high-level consultations on fisheries (held in Washington in July 2000) with a view to avoid this type of situation. The American administration, on that occasion, showed the necessary flexibility to provide more time for the Community to implement this legal instrument. However, following a court settlement after the lawsuit presented by an American tuna importing company, the American government was forced to apply the embargo to all those countries not having yet obtained the so-called affirmative finding.

Subsequently, the Commission and the government of Spain have agreed that, in order to resolve this situation, the Commission will prepare a proposal that could be adopted in six months time for a regulation to implement the TTVS. In the meantime, and in order that Spain can obtain the affirmative finding necessary to lift the embargo, the Spanish administration will provisionally apply the TTVS through Spanish legislation.

These initiatives have been already communicated to the American authorities. The Commission believes that these initiatives will allow the resolution of this problem.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2523/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: European Topic Centre for Nature Conservation and the Habitats Directive

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the comprehensive scientific expertise required at European level through the ETC/NC is delivered to achieve the objectives of the Habitats Directive and the Natura 2000 sites selection process?

Further, in relation to the implementation of the Habitats Directive in accession countries, how will the Commission ensure that an increased scientific expertise at European level is available to meet the needs of enlargement, for example via the Phare topic link in Bratislava?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that comprehensive expertise is indispensable for selection of the Natura 2000 sites and that this also applies to the accession countries.

At the time of renewal of the contract of the European Topic Centre for Nature Conservation, the Commission urged the European Environment Agency to give priority and allocate sufficient human resources to Natura 2000 activities in the task description for the Topic Centre.

The Commission hopes that the other members of the Agency's Management Board, including the members designated by the European Parliament, will support this priority.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3308/00

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Illegal immigration and the Andalusian coast

Is the Council aware of the full reverberations of the severe social problem of illegal immigration as it affects the coast of Andalusia?

Is it aware of the large numbers of deaths and disappearances among those trying to cross the Straits of Gibraltar illegally?

Is it aware that the burden of national aid to such persons is falling on NGOs and the solidarity of the people of Andalusia, while the Spanish government stands by?

Does the Council intend to take any kind of measures on this problem and, in particular, on the inhuman conditions of overcrowding suffered by these people in the process of repatriation by the authorities, who are locking them up in the holds of vessels?

Will Andalusia have to continue acting as the Union's policeman in these circumstances, despite lacking suitable means and although the matter does not fall exclusively within its competence?

Reply

(20/21 December 2000)

1. The Council would refer the Honourable Member to its replies to Written Questions P-1391/00, by Mr Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, E-2878/00, by Mr Camilo Nogueira Román and E-1013/00, by Mr André Brie.

2. It is not for the Council to comment on the division of powers within one of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3201/00

by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Rules governing family fruit growers and producers of potable spirits

There are no harmonised rules to date governing the occupation of family fruit grower, producer of potable spirits and home distiller as such. Great disparities at national level continue to operate in respect of this occupation. Does the Commission plan to draw up a set of Community rules which could be applied to the pursuit of this occupation?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Regulations governing the pursuit of professions do not as such come under Community law, which means that the Member States are in theory free to set the conditions for the pursuit of professions in their territory. In so doing, the Member States must nevertheless comply with Community rules on the free movement of professionals.

With regard to the requirements and formalities imposed by the Member States in connection with the pursuit of professional activities in their territory, such as the need for a permit, the Member States are bound by the principles stated in Articles 43 and 49 (ex Articles 52 and 59) of the EC Treaty

on the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services. In the case of the right of establishment, which is likely to concern producers of potable spirits more than the provision of services, while the Member States that govern the pursuit of the profession cannot refuse access to professionals who satisfy the conditions of professional experience indicated in Directive 1999/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism for the recognition of qualifications in respect of the professional activities covered by the Directives on liberalisation and transitional measures and supplementing the general systems for the recognition of qualifications(1), such professionals are nonetheless required to comply with the other requirements and formalities laid down by law in the host Member State, such as entry in a professional register or the acquisition of a professional permit, provided that these requirements are also imposed on nationals of the host Member State and that they comply with the principle of proportionality laid down in the EC Treaty.

Since authority in this instance lies with the Member States, there are no plans to draw up a set of Community rules to govern the pursuit of this profession.

(1) OJ L 201, 31.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3338/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Golf course in the commune of Settimo San Pietro, Cagliari (Italy)

On 9 September 2000 a golf course was opened in the commune of Settimo San Pietro (province of Cagliari). The course is illuminated and has a roofed area, bunkers, and putting-greens. The project, which also includes a plan to develop the site into an 18-hole course within two years, has received funding under the Greater Cagliari Spatial Planning Agreement covering 68 % of the cost (the total cost of the amenity is ITL 14,5 billion).

On 21 July 2000 Sardinia Region was officially declared a natural disaster area on account of the persistent drought.

Although the estimated water consumption of the golf practice course is approximately 2 000 m3 a day, equivalent to the daily consumption of a locality of 8 000 people, no environmental impact assessment(1) has been carried out.

1. Is the Commission fully aware of the case described above?

2. Can it check whether the Community legislation on environmental impact assessment has been infringed?

3. Will it suspend Community funding it Community law is found to have been broken?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström of the behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Golf courses as such are not covered by Community legislation on environmental impact assessment (Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(1) which has modified Directive 85/337/EEC).

Therefore, in the light of the information given by the Honourable Member, no breach of Community environmental law is apparent in this case.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.