ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1401/01

by Hervé Novelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Compulsory set-aside of 10 % of land

Since 1992, arable land has been eligible for Community per-hectare aid under a scheme including set-aside measures.

This specific scheme was retained at the time of the most recent agreement in Berlin in 1999 on the new CAP reform.

The new regulation has thus continued the downward trend in the intervention price, for which farmers receive compensation at 50 % in the form of area aid. This aid is still subject to a requirement to set aside a proportion of arable land 10 %, or more for producers who wish to do so, within limits set by the Member States (30 % in France).

This new reform was intended to guarantee the equilibrium of the market, but the successive BSE and foot-and-mouth crises have shown the limits of the reform and have created a lasting imbalance in the marketing chain for cattle and sheep producers.

At the last European agriculture summit, in February 2000, at which no agreement was reached on reforming the beef and veal market, the Commission nevertheless accepted that the Member States could grant national aid to producers so as to compensate them for their losses due to the BSE crisis.

Do you not think it is time for the European Union to accept its responsibilities by proposing more flexible set-aside measures to enable producers either to harvest cereals produced on this land or to permit cattle or sheep to graze there?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

By definition, land set aside under the support scheme for arable crops cannot be used for cultivating any agricultural products except for non-food purposes or, in the case of holdings managed under the rules on organic farming, for growing legumes.

The crises affecting the sheepmeat and beef industries will not be overcome by allowing grazing on land left fallow. A better approach would be to apply suitable measures put forward under the common organisation of the markets in the sectors concerned.

The measures taken by the Commission since late 2000 have already made a significant contribution towards restoring stability on the meat market.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1763/01

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Ill-treatment of conscientious objector

A conscientious objector, Dimitri Meljnitsenko, was recently seriously ill-treated by the Turkmenistan secret service for having refused to swear an obligatory personal oath of allegiance to the President due to his Christian convictions. Following the ill-treatment, Dimitri Meljnitsenko was returned to his unit and there is great uncertainty as to what is to happen with him now.

Is the European Commission aware of this serious violation of human rights? What does the Commission think it could do to bring pressure to bear on the Turkmenistan authorities to prevent a repetition of such events in future?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2001)

The Commission is trying to obtain information about the human rights violation against Dimitri Meljnitsenko, the conscientious objector, through the Member States' embassies represented in Ashgabat and the Organisation for Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) mission in Turkmenistan.

Dimitri Meljnitsenko's case is not the only one of its kind. Young Turkmen must complete two years compulsory military service, during which time they must swear an oath of allegiance to the President. Since Turkmen legislation does not recognise conscientious objection, a number of young people, particularly Christians have been arrested for refusing to complete the period of military service and swear the oath.

The Commission raises these issues at each meeting with the Turkmen authorities in order to ensure Turkmenistan keeps its promise to respect human rights and its international commitments. It has also supported the many steps taken by the OSCE regarding the rights of minorities and religious freedom within the framework of the European Union Presidency.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1047/01

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

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Generic Aids drugs

What is the Commission's standpoint on the confrontation between major world pharmaceutical companies and various third world countries which are particularly affected by the Aids epidemic and which are seeking to manufacture and use generic medicines to fight the disease? Is the Commission prepared, like the UN World Health Organisation, to take up a position which gives priority above all to the humanitarian requirements needed to combat this scourge rather than favouring the egoistic and hegemonic interests of pharmaceutical firms?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2001)

The Commission has taken a clear position on this issue which is set out in the Programme for Action: Accelerated action on acquired immune deficiency syndrome/human immunodeficiency virus (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis (TB) in the context of poverty reduction(1). Ensuring that poor country markets are supplied with adequate and affordable medicines is one of the priorities of the Programme, as is increasing investment in health care and in research.

Many developing countries are faced with emergencies due to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Due to increased international awareness of the issue, a growing number of pharmaceutical companies are today offering their products to developing countries at prices comparable with the lowest prices on the world market.

The Commission supports this development and is promoting the setting up of a global tiered pricing system. It believes that this will make tiered pricing the rule when supplying medicines, whether patented or not, to developing countries and ensure that such medicines are delivered in sufficient quantities and at affordable prices.

(1) COM(2001) 96 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1036/01

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) and Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Payments arising from the Enschede firework disaster

Serious problems have arisen in obtaining payments due on account of the Enschede firework disaster, particularly those due to the entrepreneurs affected by it. These are people whose businesses have been destroyed and who will not be able to start new businesses for some time, for example tradespeople, because their whole district no longer exists.

A scheme has been introduced to enable businesses to survive (no one should be bankrupted by the disaster) by paying compensation for four types of damage:

- material damage

- loss of earnings

- erosion of assets following the cessation of business activity

- guidance costs.

The maximum total compensation payable per business is 100 000 for a maximum period of three years.

Is it true that the payment of any larger sum by way of support to enterprises would require the approval of the Commission pursuant to Article 87(2)(b) of the EC Treaty?

Is it true that a decision to grant such approval could take between a year and 18 months to reach, which in the case of a disaster like this one would undoubtedly be too late to prevent the entrepreneurs concerned from going bankrupt?

What will the Commission do to speed up decision-making in the aftermath of such disasters and particularly in the case of the Enschede disaster?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

Article 87(2)(b) (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty provides that aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences shall be compatible with the common market. A State aid scheme providing (partial) compensation to companies for the damage caused by the fireworks disaster qualifies under this exemption.

Such aid measures are subject to the normal notification requirements in accordance with Article 88(3) (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty. In practice, this implies that notification is required if the aid exceeds the criteria laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid(1), and notably the ceiling of 100 000 per company over a period of three years.

In the vast majority of cases, the Commission takes a positive decision within two months following the receipt of a complete notification of an aid scheme (a decision not to raise objections). The deadline of maximum two months is established in article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty(2).

In the case of a scheme to compensate the damage caused by the fireworks disaster, the Commission will examine only whether there is no irregular use of the exemption. An examination of this nature is concluded within two months following the receipt of a complete notification if the scheme excludes any possibility of abuse.

(1) OJ L 10, 13.1.2000.

(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1130/01

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council

(3 April 2001)

Subject: World-wide genocide of Christians

The United Nations and several human rights organisations have recently sounded the alarm over the increase in persecutions of Christians world-wide: in 2000, 165 000 were killed and 200 million persecuted.

Europe, which still bears unhealed scars from the shame of the Holocaust, has a duty to take action to guarantee the right to freedom of religion.

What initiatives does the Council intend to take to safeguard and guarantee freedom of religion - to which everyone has a right - in Europe and the rest of the world?

How does the Council plan to act to stem these cases of intolerance and religious discrimination and to protect laymen and missionaries at work, as they daily put their lives at risk?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

1. During recent years the Council has devoted a lot of attention to combat discrimination. Already in 1996 the Council adopted a Joint Action concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia(1).

Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union establishes as the Union's objective to provide citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice(2).

In 2000 the Council adopted a Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin(3) and a Decision establishing a Community action programme to combat discrimination, 2001-2006(4). At the European Council in Nice, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission adopted in a solemn proclamation the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union(5) which recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter. In particular, Article 10 of the Charter provides that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, whilst its Article 22 states that the Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

2. Whenever in the United Nations Organisation or in the Council of Europe the relevant texts concerning freedom of religion have to be strengthened, the Council Presidency will endeavour to reach agreement for a common position of the EU Member States.

(1) OJ L 185, 24.7.1996, p. 5.

(2) OJ C 340, 10.11.1997, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.

(4) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 23.

(5) OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1501/01

by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Rare disorders

The programme on rare disorders was adopted in 1999 and demonstrated that there was a real political priority to develop a policy on rare diseases at European level. Now, two years later, it seems the Programme for rare diseases will disappear. All actions undertaken during these two years are now put at risk and the existence of networks and associations is threatened.

Will there be a third call for proposals on rare diseases? What is the future for rare diseases in the framework of the new Public Health Programme and how can the Commission ensure that as part of implementation, some action is taken on rare diseases?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission considers rare diseases and orphan pharmaceutical products as an area where a high European added value can be achieved and where Community action is needed.

The Community strategy in this domain has been developed in three main policy areas:

- research on rare diseases conducted with the Community framework programmes for Research and Technological Development; the proposal for the next framework programme (2002-2006), as was the case for the Fifth, contains an explicit reference to rare diseases.

- pharmaceutical policy: the Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products(1) is now an acquis communautaire that is producing concrete benefits for rare diseases patients.

- public health policy: the programme of Community action 1999-2003 on rare diseases represents an important step in the consolidation of the Community policy for this area of public health. Last year, the Commission proposed a new Community public health programme(2) to achieve a better focused approach and synergies between the various actions. The Commission proposal is currently being examined by the Parliament and the Council. This programme will replace all the eight existing public health programmes.The new programme has three main strands of actions:

- Improving health information;

- Responding rapidly to health threats;

- Addressing health determinants.

No specific diseases are mentioned in the future programme to ensure flexibility over the next six years. Projects on rare diseases will certainly continue. The setting up of a European information network on rare diseases, as defined in the rare diseases programme, could be taken up as part of the health information system. The surveillance of certain rare diseases, including work on clusters, may be continued under the rapid reaction. The proposed programme puts an emphasis on informing and consulting stakeholders in the health field, including representative organisations of patients.

During the forthcoming months a specific call for proposals will be published to ensure the execution of the public health budgetary appropriations in 2002.

(1) OJ L 18, 22.1.2000.

(2) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1587/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Ban on drift nets

On 8 June 1998 the Council decided to ban the use of drift nets, establishing a moratorium of four years, during which time there should be a gradual reduction in the number of boats using these nets, so that they are phased out completely by December 2001. However, the tuna fleet, which uses nets compatible with preserving fish resources and long since abandoned the use of drift nets, is concerned at certain moves to prevent the forthcoming total abolition of these nets.

Can the Commission confirm that the Council decision will be implemented?

Can it guarantee that the obligation to phase out the nets is being complied with? If not, why are they not being phased out during the moratorium? What reasons can the Commission see for France, Great Britain, Italy and Ireland not to comply with this obligation? What steps has it taken to force these countries to comply?

Can the Commission give the European Parliament the list of boats which still use these nets? Since the sector concerned claims that the list sent to the Commission by the Member States at the beginning of the moratorium was falsified, does it believe that the list it now has is correct?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

The Commission is firmly committed to enforcing 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(1).

It has already provided the Parliament, in 2000 and after its specific request, with a report on enforcement in 1998 and 1999 of Community legislation on the use of driftnets targeting highly migratory species. The report contain the elements showing that Member States are complying with Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98.

Within that report, the Honourable Member will find the figures of fishing boats using driftnets.

The report referring to year 2000 will shortly be completed.

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1629/01

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: EU funding for research involving primates

It is reported that the Biomedical Primate Research Centre in Rijswijk (Netherlands) is receiving grants from the EU budget.

1. Can the Commission state how much money is involved and what experiments are being carried out?

2. How does the Commission justify expenditure on this type of research to those who are fundamentally opposed to the use of primates in medical research?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

In the Fifth framework programme for Research and Technological Development (RTD), the Commission has so far funded the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) to a total amount of approximately 4,3 million. The funding encompasses several three-year research projects started in 1999 and 2000. They cover research areas, such as vaccine and drug development for human immunodeficiency syndrom (HIV), tuberculosis, malaria and hepatitis C.

The Commission has been most vigilant as regards animal experiments and animal welfare in implementing the Fifth framework programme for RTD.

In the Annex of the Decision of the Council(1), concerning the Quality of Life Programme, it is specified that funding of research involving animals is restricted under this programme with regard to animal experiments and tests on animals, which should, whenever possible, be replaced with in vitro or other alternative methods. An obligation is placed on all applicants for proposals to describe the procedures adopted to respect the principles of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) and to protect the welfare of animals.

In addition, research on the development of alternatives to animal experiments and animal welfare is supported under this programme.

An independent ethical review has been implemented systematically under the Quality of Life Programme for proposals dealing with sensitive issues such as the use of non-human primates. The ethical review panel includes, among others, representatives of animal welfare groups. The ethical review ensures that all research involving animals is conducted in accordance with Directive 86/609/CEE. It takes account of the overall benefit of the research proposed in relation to the possible costs in terms of animal suffering. Furthermore, participants in research projects must fulfil all national legal and ethical requirements. Funding of the project will not be granted before all ethical questions have been answered satisfactorily.

The BPRC, which is situated in the Community but independent of the Community, has engaged itself contractually to fulfil all national legal and ethical requirements.

(1) 1999/167/EC: Council Decision of 25 January 1999 adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on quality of life and management of living resources (1998 to 2002), (OJ L 64, 12.3.1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1010/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: EU support for Spain's finest woodlands

The Los Alcornocales park, which is situated between the provinces of Cádiz and Málaga, has been voted Spain's finest woodlands because it contains an abundance of flora which is more typical of a tropical climate than of a Mediterranean one, according to a poll of scientists and environmental specialists.

The park in question, a 170 000-hectare protected area with Natural Park status awarded in 1989 - is home to the largest and finest collection of cork trees anywhere in Europe.

In view of the responsibility which the European Union may have in this area, could the Commission explain how it is involved both in the conservation of the park and in the implementation of environmental-improvement programmes within its boundaries? What action does the Commission intend to take in future in order to include the park within the scope of the Community initiatives designed to benefit Europe's major natural parks?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Spain has proposed the site called Alcornocales as Site of Community Importance (SCI) to the Natura 2000 Network according to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) (hereafter Habitats Directive). It has also been proposed as Special Protected Areas for birds (SPA) according to article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/CEE of 2 April 1979, on the conservation of wild birds(2) (hereafter Birds Directive).

This vast extension (17 000 km2) of very well conserved land in the South of Spain hosts at least 21 Annex I bird species of the Birds Directive, some of them very threatened species. In this site there are 26 habitat types present of which five are priority habitats type identified by the Habitats Directive for special attention. It is remarkable that 36 % of its total territory is covered by Quercus suber (cork tree) forest. This forest, with all its associated species, is one of the most important Mediterranean forests in Europe.

The philosophy of Natura 2000 Network is to ensure that human activities are sustainable and not damaging to the conservation objectives for which the sites have been designated.

Habitats Directive obliges to the Member States to take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive (article 6.2).

Sustainable management of forests, which concern this area and to which Spain is engaged under the decisions of the third ministerial Conference on the protection of forests in Europe (held in 1999) means that there is an obligation to protect biological diversity and landscapes and ensure renewable forestry resources.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.