ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1738/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Funding of European Union island regions

What action does the Commission intend to take in order to create the necessary legal basis for the funding of European Union island regions from the EU budget set for 2001, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the guidelines for the 2001 budget that Parliament has already voted on (paragraph 33)?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The Commission has no plans at present for creation of a legal basis for funding the Community's island regions. Under existing Community policies they already receive special attention.

Firstly, Sardinia, Sicily, all the Greek islands and the outermost regions are eligible under Objective 1 in the Structural Fund 2000-2006 programming period. In addition, under the Commission's decisions for eleven of the twelve Member States concerned, many islands are proposed by the national authorities will be covered by Objective 2.

On 1 July 1999 the Commission approved guidelines for Structural Fund programmes in the period 2000-2006. These set out the Community priorities for the new programming period. Some of these bear very directly on the problems confronting island regions: need to improve regional accessibility; utilisation of renewable energy sources (with particular reference to the White Paper on a Community strategy and action plan for renewable energy sources(1); promotion of new services using new communication technologies; efficient water management; support for a sustainable high quality tourism within the carrying capacity of sites.

Secondly, the guidelines for the Interreg Initiative, approved by the Commission on 28 April 2000(2), explicitly state that integration of island regions is a priority field for transnational cooperation. This means giving these regions a suitable financial allocation. Further, particular attention is to be paid to participation by island regions in interregional cooperation.

Finally, to enable the smaller islands of the Aegean Sea to cope more effectively with their specific natural handicaps Council Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 of 19 July 1993(3) introduced specific measures covering a range of agricultural products.

Certain islands constitute a specific group, the outermost regions, which share a range of handicaps defined in Article 299(2) (ex Article 227) of the EC Treaty. On 14 March 2000 the Commission adopted a report(4) on implementation of this new Article.

(1) COM(1997) 599.

(2) OJ C 143, 23.5.2000.

(3) OJ L 184, 27.7.1993.

(4) COM(2000) 147 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2189/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Mobile phone masts

Will the Commission clarify whether there is any EU-wide procedure for controlling the positioning of mobile phone masts?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

The positioning of mobile phone masts is a matter between the mobile operators and local, regional and state authorities. The procedures in use and criteria applied vary largely across Member States and may include considerations on the possible health effects of electromagnetic radiation, the need to protect the environment, and the need to respect town planning rules.

Furthermore, Directive 97/33/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of open network provision (ONP)(1) stipulates that where facility sharing can be of benefit for town planning, environmental, economic or other reasons, Member States and national regulatory authorities may impose sharing arrangements and intervene to resolve disputes between commercial parties.

The Commission does not at present plan to go beyond provisions of the current telecommunications regulatory framework i.e. there is no intention to propose a Community-wide procedure for controlling the positioning of phone masts.

(1) OJ L 199, 26.7.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2705/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Flight delays

What is the average delay faced by charter flights, comparing scheduled time of departure with the actual departure time, during the months of July and August in each Member State in each year for the last five years?

What measures is the Commission taking to improve matters?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

Data on air traffic delays are collected by Eurocontrol's central office for delay analysis. The main source is Eurocontrol's central flow management unit. These data are published in an aggregate form. Figures are not published for charter flights only, but for all types of flights in week, month and yearly basis.

However, the Commission has obtained some data for individual charter airlines from which it appears that during the month of August there were 770 000 flights in the European civil aviation conference (ECAC) area, of which 150 000 were charter (August is peak season). The number of flights delayed was 220 000, of which 70 000 were charter flights.

While 20 % of total flights in all the ECAC area were charter flights, almost 50 % were delayed. In comparison with scheduled flights they were strongly affected by the delays. It should be kept in mind that charter flights are more sensitive to delays than scheduled flights. When a problem occurs charter airlines cannot cancel flights (unlike scheduled flights) so there is an impact on delay statistics.

Charter airlines fly to many smaller and less well equipped airfields where any problem has implications for timekeeping. The need for high utilisation to keep down charter fares, coupled with environmental restrictions (e.g. night closures) and with slot pressures at the major dispatching airports, often results in tight turnaround times which any problem can throw out of kilter.

The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that the Commission is taking several measures to reduce air traffic congestion and air traffic delays. Following the high level group report, which is expected to be finalised by October 2000, the Commission intends to present a number of legislative measures at Community level, to harmonise, manage, design, regulate and ensure efficient utilisation of European airspace without decreasing the current safety levels.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3253/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: European identity card

Many of the EU's citizens believe the Union is a good and practical idea, especially when one speaks of companies or consumer products. However, matters change when one speaks of people and the movement of citizens.

It may happen, for instance, that a Union citizen is informed, in a Member State other than his country of origin, that his passport is not considered valid documentation should he apply for provisional motor vehicle registration, or that there are obstacles to his acquiring a residence permit or work permit. For such reasons, the vast majority of EU citizens would like to see the introduction of a European identity card, which would make their lives easier and avoid them the kinds of inconvenience mentioned.

Can the Commission state whether any plans currently exist to introduce a European identity card and specify what guarantees it can offer the Union's citizens that this aspiration can one day become a reality?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the current provisions of the EC Treaty do not confer upon it a competence to create a European identity card.

The citizenship of the Union established by Article 17 (ex-Article 8) EC Treaty does not replace national citizenship. Member States issue identity cards to their nationals under national law (see declaration 2 annexed to the final act of the Treaty on European union). It should be noted that there are certain Member States which do not have any such provisions.

However, action to harmonise the lay-out of identity cards in order to facilitate the free movement of people in accordance with Article 18 (2) (ex-Article 8a) EC Treaty, and to eliminate sources of confusion is considered an appropriate step, which the Commission is seriously considering.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2392/00

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Bank charges

Despite the European Parliament and Council directive 97/5/EC(1) of 27 January 1997 on cross-border credit transfers, a study carried out by the IECI and presented on 5 February shows that within the 11 EURO Member States, for payments abroad:

- the costs of cross-border transfers are, firstly, far too high and out of all proportion to the costs actually incurred by the banks; secondly, they vary quite considerably depending on the direction in which they are made;

- despite the ban (if there is no agreement) on charging the recipient, this is nevertheless what happens in 35 % of cases in 10 of the 11 countries;

- the specified time limit of 5 days is not respected in most countries.

What action does the Commission intend to take, in the interests of consumers, to prohibit this abuse which is tolerated in individual Member States?

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 25.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

The European Interregional Institute for Consumer Affairs (EIICA) carried out for the Commission a study to ascertain whether charges were imposed for conversion transactions between the euro and national currencies. The findings were excellent in that no charges are made for such transactions. However, where cross-border transfers are concerned, it transpired that transaction costs are invariably high and that Directive 97/5/EC is not being applied correctly as regards the breakdown of costs and the time the transaction takes.

The Directive stipulates that, unless otherwise specified, all charges must be borne by the originator and yet in 25 % of cases the beneficiary is charged. It also states that the transfer must take place within six days. However, in just over 4 % of cases this deadline was not met. Consequently, on 22 June 2000 at a meeting of Member States' legal experts held to discuss application of the relevant Community directives, the Commission pointed out that the Member States were responsible for applying Community directives correctly once they had been transposed into national law. The Member States undertook to prepare detailed reports on how the rules on double charging and the deadline for completing transactions were being implemented.

The Commission has no intention of setting the level of charges. As it explained in its communication of 31 January 2000 on retail payments in the internal market(1), the banks must improve the charging structures for small-value cross-border transfers. Numerous studies are under way into such matters as the international bank account number (IBAN) and the international payment instruction (IPI). The Commission hopes to see a substantial improvement in the situation by 1 January 2002.

(1) COM(2000) 36 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2734/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(3 August 2000)

Subject: Opening of negotiations between the EU and Bulgaria

In line with the work programme of the French Presidency as regards the opening of negotiations with the applicant countries, talks between the European Union and Bulgaria are initially expected to address only five areas of EU legislation, which will lead to a further delay in the country's accession process.

What has led the French Presidency to take this decision, thereby excluding a large number of topics from the negotiations with Bulgaria, and what specific areas will be dealt with in the talks between the two sides?

Reply

(16 November 2000)

The chapters proposed for the opening of negotiations with Bulgaria during the second half of 2000 fully reflect the principles of differentiation and the possibility of catching up which were laid down by the European Council in Helsinki and Feira.

Five chapters of the acquis are involved, namely the free movement of capital, company law, statistics, telecommunications and information technology, consumers and health protection.

The decision on which chapters to open is within the competence of the Presidency in the context of establishing its work programme. Nevertheless, the list of chapters was drawn up in close consultation between the Presidency and the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2676/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Functioning of sewage treatment plants in Central Greece

According to reports in the Greek press, the secretary-general for the region of Central Greece has expressed fears concerning the functioning of sewage treatment plants in the area, saying that most of the mechanical equipment that has not yet been brought into service has already depreciated badly. The main problems concern Orchomenos, Arachova, Malesina, Atalanti, Kamena Vourla and Stylida, where plants which were built seven or eight years ago have never been used, with the missing equipment being blamed on thefts from storage.

1. Can the Commission say whether these remarks are accurate?

2. What funds have been allocated for these plants, which operate partially or not at all?

3. Will the Commission examine whether criminal liability can be established for these incidents?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

The Commission is unable to confirm the reports referred to in the question, some of which relate to projects which have not been part-financed by the Structural Funds or which are regarded as being in the construction phase. It has nevertheless written to the national authorities, requesting detailed information.

The Commission evaluates part-financed programmes, but does not systematically monitor how each type of project part-financed by the Structural Funds operates under those programmes. Within the partnership framework, it nevertheless intends to ask the Greek authorities to publish a report covering inter alia municipal waste water treatment plants.

In the course of monitoring compliance with Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment(1), the Commission is also currently checking that Member States met the Directive's first deadline (31 December 1998) for collection and tertiary treatment (biological treatment followed by nitrogen and/or phosphorus treatment) of liquid waste from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000 discharging into sensitive areas and their catchment areas.

According to the information which the Greek authorities submitted on 15 June 2000, that deadline applied only to the town of Orchomenos referred to by the Honourable Member. The Commission is currently processing the information received and at the beginning of 2001 will publish a status report covering all the agglomerations concerned.

The Commission will in due course carry out checks in respect of the agglomerations which are subject to the Directive's two other deadlines (31 December 2000 and 31 December 2005).

Lastly, it is for the Member State to take appropriate measures if criminal acts such as theft or vandalism are committed against these works, or if public property is neglected or disregarded.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3073/00

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Aid to agriculture

The OECD has published a report on agricultural aid granted in 1999, which shows that in the states of the OECD such aid is on the increase. In addition, the United States has decided to increase aid to agriculture by USD 15 billion, with direct subsidies and crop insurance.

Overall, this equates to an increase of approximately 700 % in direct support to US agriculture since 1996.

On the basis of the aid granted to the agricultural sector in 1998, 1999 and 2000, US farmers receive three times more aid than European farmers.

Furthermore, the US refers frequently to the need to reduce aid to the agricultural sector in the Member States of the EU.

What measures has the EU taken to ensure that this serious situation is remedied in the future?

What action does the EU intend to take to monitor the policy and system of aid to the agricultural sector in the United States?

What is the current situation of the United States with regard to the commitments entered into in the Uruguay Round?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2000)

The general agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) on agriculture sets out different categories of domestic support. The so-called amber box includes domestic policies with trade-distorting effects. These policies are expressed by a composite indicator called aggregate measurement of support (AMS) whose base value must be reduced by 20 % over the 6 years of the implementation period (1995-2001). During the period 1995-1997, the United States used less than 30 % of their total AMS (in 1997, the American commitment level on AMS was USD 21,49 bn).

Another category of domestic support, the so-called green box, has no, or minimal, distortive effect on trade. Measures included in this box are exempt from reduction commitments. As regards the United States, over the period 1995 to 1997, total American green box expenditure represented 87 % of United States total domestic support (in 1997, total United States domestic support was USD 58,88 billion). The two main American green box categories are domestic food aid and decoupled income support, with respectively around 75 % and 10 % of American total green box expenditure.

The United States make no use of the so-called blue box measures, i.e. direct payments under production limiting programmes.

Recent decisions on relief programmes and the increasing amounts involved in the loan deficiency payment system are likely to change the American domestic support completely. The United States must still notify the World Trade Organisation committee on agriculture the extent as well as the composition of their domestic support measures for the years 1998 and 1999. Once these notifications are lodged, the Community will check carefully whether the United States fully comply with the commitments undertaken in the Uruguay Round.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2458/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Seizure of passports of suspected football hooligans by the German authorities

Does the Council believe that the seizing of the passports of approximately five hundred suspected football hooligans by the German authorities immediately prior to the Euro 2000 football tournament was compatible with the European Treaties?

Reply

(7 November 2000)

The measures mentioned by the Honourable Member of the European Parliament fall within the competence of the German authorities(1).

(1) See Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 2(2) of the Schengen Convention of 19.6.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3182/00

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Health and safety regulations

At present the national legal systems operating in the Member States are powerless to act against firms from other Member States who fail to pay fines for breaches of health and safety laws in the Member State concerned. Does the Commission intend to propose any initiatives to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

The Commission is aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member. The possibility of bringing actions against companies based in other Member States has been considered in the area of health and safety at work by the senior labour inspectors committee. Within this committee a working group started in 1999 to consider under which circumstances the enforcement of one Member State's law in relation to companies based in other Member States could be possible and where collaboration between Member States would be required.

In this regard the working group is focusing on finding ways to ensure that actions concerning health and safety offences will produce the same result when the responsible employer is based in a Member State other than the State where the offence has occurred, as when the employer is based in the same Member State.

Cross-border enforcement is closely linked to the question of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal and administrative matters. Therefore, any analysis has to take into account the work that is being carried out in this respect within the area of justice and home affairs.

The work that has been carried out so far in the field of mutual recognition, notably the Commission's communication to the Council and the Parliament on mutual recognition of final decisions in criminal matters(1), and the programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition that the Council and the Commission are set to finalise by the end of the year 2000(2), can be expected to provide a useful basis for steps to be taken towards improved enforcement of sanctions for cross-border infringements within the Union.

(1) COM(2000) 495 final.

(2) See Presidency conclusion No 37 of the European Council of Tampere.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3030/00

by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE), Umberto Scapagnini (PPE-DE), Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) and Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Flood in Calabria

In view of the following facts:

- on 10 September 2000 in Soverato, a commune of the region of Calabria in Italy, events caused by bad weather conditions led to the deaths of at least five disabled people and a number of volunteers and tourists, about 15 people in total, and more than twenty other people were left injured;

- this disaster also affected the environment as a whole, causing heavy pollution as the result of the scattering of waste from garbage dumps;

- a deluge of water and detritus inundated a camp site which, although authorised, would seem to be located in an area defined as at high environmental risk, i.e. on the shore of a watercourse;

- Italian territory has for some time been subject to a series of natural disasters resulting in loss of life, disasters which were moreover foreseeable and often indirectly caused by a lack of preventive action by the relevant public bodies;

can the Commission answer the following questions?

- Has the Italian Government published a map of areas at environmental risk?

- Are those areas receiving the attention of, and being monitored by, the Commission?

- Are the Italian national authorities properly carrying out their duty to ensure the safety of European citizens and protect the national territory?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

The Commission deplores the loss of human life, injuries and environmental damage caused by the recent floods at Solverato in Calabria.

The Commission is not empowered to act in this area and regrets that it does not have in its possession the information requested.

However, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Members that, under the Community support programme for the Mezzogiorno during the 1994-1999 programming period, the Calabria region received a contribution from the European Regional Development Fund amounting to 57 million for environmental-safeguard activities, one of which concerned the prevention of this type of hazard.