ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/386

(2004/C 84 E/0448)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0387/04

by Yves Butel (EDD) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Wind turbines

In France, the planned proliferation of wind turbines in rural and natural areas raises the question of whether they are compatible with the environment, public safety and the upkeep of traditional customs, including hunting.

It would appear that ‘buffer zones’ of 500 m to 1 km are being advocated, in which hunting, in particular, would be prohibited (in Germany, for example).

Are there examples in Europe of hunting practices that have been prohibited because of the presence of wind turbines? What reasons were given?

Has the Commission produced a study of the socio-cultural consequences and the consequences for the countryside of the European policy of promoting this form of energy?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission is not aware of examples in Europe where hunting practices have been prohibited because of the presence of wind turbines.

The Commission's position in relation to the development of wind farms in environmentally sensitive areas, including Natura 2000 areas, is outlined in its response to Written Question P-0339/04 by Mr Bernié (1).

Restrictions in hunting within a buffer zone around wind turbines exclusively in response to these developments would not appear to be a measure justified on nature conservation grounds but may be due to other human health and safety considerations.

The Community has not produced a global study of socio-cultural consequences and the consequences for the countryside but the Community programmes require that the projects funded in the field of renewable energy in general, and of the wind energy sector in particular, provide an impact assessment under social, economic and environmental aspects.

(1) See page 365.
2. and 4.

The Commission holds no information on the precise location of the sites where the 230 000 tonnes of hazardous waste are temporarily stored. This is why an infringement procedure has been initiated. Following the Court judgment of 13 June 2002 (7), the Commission has received incomplete information about the measures taken by Greece to comply with the judgment. Consequently, the Commission took the view that Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the EC Treaty and addressed a letter of formal notice, in accordance with Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty. The reply of the Greek authorities to the letter of formal notice is under assessment. If it is established that Greece has not complied with the above-mentioned Court judgment, the Commission will not hesitate to issue a reasoned opinion under Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty. Regarding action taken by the Commission to ensure that Greece complies with Community legislation on waste, it must be recalled that the Court (8) recently declared that Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (9). In addition, Greece has been referred to the Court of Justice (case C-163/03) over its failure to put in place an adequate plan for the management of hazardous waste in the region of Thriassio Pedio (Prefecture of Attiki). The referral also relates to its failure to avoid the pollution of groundwater by hazardous waste. The Commission will continue investigating any information, which gives sufficient reason to assume that Greece does not properly apply Community legislation on waste.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/861

(2004/C 84 E/0952)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0732/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Dam-building on the international stretch of the river Minho

The Portuguese Water Institute has been asked to consider a proposal for three hydroelectric dams to be built on the international stretch of the river Minho by Unión Fenosa (a Spanish conglomerate operating in the electricity sector).

These proposals have arisen in the wake of an earlier case, in 1998, in which the idea of building the Sela dam on the same river was abandoned because it would not have been feasible, on account of the highly damaging environmental impact.

The present proposals could likewise have serious adverse environmental effects, as environmentalists, local councillors, fishermen, and wine-growers fear.

The Commission:

1. Does it know about Unión Fenosa's plan to build three hydroelectric dams on the river Minho, which forms a natural border between Portugal and Spain?

2. How does it view the environmental impact of the proposals and what measures will it take to deal with the concern of the Portuguese public, organisations, and institutions in the region?

3. Will any Community funding be granted for the project?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the proposals to build dams on the river Minho by the Unión Fenosa.

Under Community law, proposals to construct dams require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) if they are likely to have significant effects on the environment. If the storage capacity of a dam will exceed 10 million cubic metres, an EIA is mandatory (under Annex I of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2)); in other cases (which come under Annex II of the same Directive), the competent authority in the Member State must screen the proposal in order to determine whether significant effects are likely. The EIA involves the provision of information on the proposed project and its likely effects, as weil as consultation with environmental authorities and the public and, if there are likely to be transboundary effects, with any Member State whose territory is likely to be affected. The information and the results of the consultations must be taken into account by the competent authority in the decision-making procedure.

The project to which the Honourable Member refers has not received any co-financing under the Structural Funds where Portugal is concerned.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/724

(2004/C 88 E/0745)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1190/04

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject: Forum of Cultures 2004

In its answer of 21 October 2003 to my question on the Forum of Cultures (H-0539/03 (1)), which will formally open in Barcelona on 9 May 2004, the Commission stated that it was keeping track of the preparations for the Forum and implementing a series of initiatives aimed at fostering intercultural dialogue.

Since the opening of the Forum is approaching, I would like to know what initiatives the Commission intends to implement. I should also like to know whether the intercultural dialogue referred to will take into account the specific cultural characteristics of Catalonia, and more particularly the Catalan language, which is an official Forum language.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission recently presented the outline of the future new-generation programme on culture, in its Communication on citizenship in action. It proposes to focus on promoting the dialogue between cultures in this future programme, as the contribution to this dialogue is one of the main benefits offered by cultural action at Community level.

With regard to the Forum to be held in Barcelona from May to September 2004, the Commission can only reiterate that it will follow the event closely, as it is not the organiser. As regards any official languages for the event, therefore, the Commission would suggest contacting the organisers, namely Unesco, the Spanish State, the Generalitat de Catalunya and the Ajuntament de Barcelona. In any event, the event's website (http://www.barcelona2004.org) exists in three languages: English, Catalan and Spanish.

(1) Written answer of 21.10.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/500

(2004/C 88 E/0511)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0406/04

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Discrimination against a Netherlands onion farmer in Poland

1. Is the Commission aware of the article published on 3 February 2004m the Netherlands newspaper De Telegraaf (page 5), which describes the situation of the Netherlands onion farmer Hans Goense, who has established himself in Poland?

2. Does the Commission share the view that the success of EU enlargement depends not least on entrepreneurs like Hans Goense who want to establish themselves in new Member States? Does it also share the view that there is a risk that such entrepreneurs may be discouraged by examples of this kind?

3. Does the Commission share the view that the situation set out in the article raises questions about the conduct of the Polish authorities?

4. Finally, is the Commission prepared to raise the case of Hans Goense with the Polish authorities?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

The Commission's response to the first three points raised by the Honourable Members in their question is affirmative.

The case in question gives rise to concerns as to the proper functioning of the law enforcement bodies in Poland and, in a broader context, the living together and integration of foreigners in Poland. Moreover, the case clearly illustrates the importance of reliable economic and legal framework conditions and, in particular, an impartial and efficient judiciary and police organisation for the success of any foreign investment in Poland. Examples like this can have negative repercussions on the general investment climate in Poland.

The Commission takes the issue seriously. However, as the Honourable Members are well aware, the Commission cannot interfere in lawsuits.

In parallel to the legal steps currently taken, the Dutch citizen could present his case to the Polish Ombudsman.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/943

(2004/C 78 E/0998)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0224/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: ‘Militaria e Dintorni in Europa’ (Militaria Fair)

For a number of years a Militaria Fair has been held in Rome which, because of its specialist nature, has gained such importance that it is now the only fair of its kind in central/southern Italy. The fair was designed to attract collectors of military memorabilia from Italy and abroad (items come from France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Greece, Poland, the United States and Russia) and others interested in the subject.

Thanks to the professional approach of the Organising Committee and the special nature of the objects exhibited, the Militaria Fair has outgrown its original format and has become an event of historical and cultural significance. Over the years there have been exhibitions of uniforms, documents, arms and antiques of major historical importance, such as Enrico Toti's bicycle, the personal effects of Giuseppe Mazzini, Guglielmo Marconi's instruments, Garibaldi's sword, Chiaffredo Bergia's decorations and vast collections of toy soldiers, originals or reproductions made by expert craftsmen, which are miniature masterpieces.

The importance acquired by the Militaria Fair over the years is reflected in the sponsorship it has secured for each edition from the Lazio Region, the Province of Rome, the city of Rome and the XVIIth district in which the fair actually takes place. Institutions are also involved, for instance the Historical museum of the Carabinieri, the Customs Service, the Rome traffic police, the Military section of the Italian Red Cross, along with historical associations such as the Garibaldini and the Mentana Museum and, of course, private individuals.

However, the costs (including rent for the exhibition area, fixtures and fittings, organisation and insurance costs and publicity) far exceed the potential proceeds from ticket sales and fees for stands.

Can the Commission say whether grants are available for initiatives of this kind?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission supports the initiatives for transnational cooperation in the cultural sector, but only within the framework and on the basis of the selection criteria for the Culture 2000 programme which is the sole financing and planning instrument for cultural cooperation in the Union.

This programme is intended to support projects coproduced and cofinanced by at least three operators from at least three countries participating in the programme.

The Honourable Member can find further information on the following websites (in English and French respectively): (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/index_en.htm).

The Commission is not aware of any projects of this type put forward by other Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/280

(2004/C 88 E/0286)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1105/04

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Raw materials

The prices of many raw materials such as aluminium, copper, coke and scrap metal, which are crucial for a whole range of industrial production processes essential to the European economy, have risen sharply causing production problems.

This situation affecting the European steel market is largely due to measures taken by China which, despite joining the WTO, has maintained quantitative trade restrictions.

Does the European Commission not consider that it is necessary to:

1. intervene as a matter of urgency to restrict exports of scrap metal from Europe, possibly introducing a licensing requirement, so as to prevent a further surge in the cost of steel?

2. call on China to abolish all quantitative trade restrictions now that it is a member of the WTO and has undertaken to abide by its rules?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/900

(2004/C 84 E/0994)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0880/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003, Article 5

There is an ambiguity in the text of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (1):

— does this article come into effect immediately or does the Commission first have to adopt the implementing rules;

— if the Member States can restrict ‘fishing to vessels registered in the ports of those islands’, how are the Member States going to confirm that they wish to do so;

— what is the definition, and who does the defining, of traditional fishing carried out by non-Azores vessels allowed within the 1 000 mile limit;

— how, and in what direction, are these existing restrictions to be reviewed in the next three years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Commission's position on the questions raised by the Honourable Member is as follows:

— In accordance with Article 16 thereof, Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (2) entered into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, i.e. on 14 November 2003.

It follows that Article 5 entered into force on that date, since there is no stipulation to the contrary regarding that provision in the body of the Regulation.

— As follows from the previous point, that Article's entry into force was determined by the provision referred to (Article 16), independently of any adoption of implementing rules.

— The restriction of fishing activity in the area defined in that provision is to be effected in accordance with the legislation of each Member State concerned. Within the framework of cooperation between the Commission and the Member States, the latter are to provide the Commission with all the information permitting identification of the conditions for that Article's proper implementation.

— The identification of Community vessels that traditionally fish in those waters will be made, if necessary, by means of the implementing rules for that provision, following consultation of the interested parties.

— It is not possible at this stage to foresee the requirements for reviewing the current system of restriction. In any case, an evaluation of the framework created by that Article and of its impact will be carried out as part of the report provided for in paragraph 2 of that provision.

(1) OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/546

(2004/C 88 E/0556)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0874/04

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

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Boycott of polio vaccinations by Nigerian fundamentalists

According to the President of Unicef, cases of polio have been recorded in as many as seven countries in the past year through the fault of the Islamic authorities in northern Nigeria.

The Islamic authorities have suspended vaccination campaigns because they claim the preparations have been found to contain oestrogen, a hormone that forms the basis of the contraceptive pill.

Can the Commission indicate whether, in line with the coercive measures at its disposal, it could try to persuade the Islamic authorities in question to end their boycott, thereby ensuring that no more children become paralysed owing to their vaccinations being deferred on the basis of unfounded rumours?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

With Nigeria continuing to have among the highest number of polio cases in the world, it is a priority country in terms of global polio eradication. The Community contributes to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative through various instruments as well as specifically allocating supplementary funds for polio immunisation activities in Nigeria. The Commission is in the process of further allocating funds to fight polio in that region.

The Commission, through its delegation in Nigeria, works in dialogue with the Nigerian authorities and will continue to support and improve polio eradication programmes in the region. The Commission is aware that the recent outbreak of polio in northern Nigeria that has spread to other African nations is causing a major setback for the international polio-eradication campaign co-ordinated by the global partnership to eradicate polio. It is to be noted that President Obasanjo is committed to eradicating the polio virus in Nigeria before the global target date of 2005. Despite this there is evidence of suspended vaccination campaigns in Northern Nigeria enabling the virus to spread. To the Commission's knowledge, this position occurs in Nigeria only and it would expect that successful implementation of vaccination programmes in the region as a whole will convince the authorities of the importance of resuming the programmes. In fact the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), at its last summit in October 2003 in Malaysia, adopted a resolution to eradicate polio from all its Member States. Currently, 52 of the OIC's 57 members are polio free.

The World Health Organisation and the global partnership to eradicate polio, as the implementing bodies, work with specific technical questions such as the possibility of presence of oestrogen in vaccines.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/673

(2004/C 84 E/0759)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0796/04

by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Lift safety

The European Committee for Standardisation has produced a safety norm for existing lifts, the SNEL. This standard helps countries identify the risks of existing lifts and legislate to improve their safety. Recommendation 95/216/EC (1) accompanying Directive 95/16/EC (2) obviously does not mention this new norm. In view of the number of fatal accidents that have occurred in recent years and as some countries have enacted legislation in this sphere or are in the process of doing so, it would appear to be essential to update the recommendation. This would help policy-makers determine the most appropriate measures to take to minimise the risks linked to existing lifts in compliance with Norm EN 81-80, which was ratified on 3 November 2003.

Can the Commission give an undertaking that the recommendation will be updated?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

Commission Recommendation 95/216/EC of 8 June 1995 (3) concerns existing lifts, i.e. lifts installed before the entry into force of the lifts Directive 95/16/EC (4). This recommendation calls on Member States to take all necessary action on their territory to ensure a satisfactory level of maintenance for existing lifts and to improve the safety of those lifts.

The European Committee for Standardisation has recently adopted a new standard, EN 81-80, which concerns improving the safety of existing lifts. Even though this standard does not have the same status as the harmonised standards adopted under Directive 95/16/EC, it provides advice and information which will certainly be of great value for all parties concerned in the implementation of Recommendation 95/216/EC. The Commission will closely examine the possibility of updating its recommendation to include a reference to the new standard. The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of the decision taken following this examination.

(1) OJ L 134, 20.6.1995, p. 37.

(2) OJ L 213, 7.9.1995, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 134, 20.6.1995.

(4) European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/CEC of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts, OJ L 213, 7.9.1995.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/312

(2004/C 84 E/0359)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0133/04

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Fishery control agency in Vigo

On 13 December 2003 the European Council decided to set up a fishery control agency with its headquarters in Vigo.

Is the Commission already working on a proposal for a regulation which will provide the requisite legal basis for this Agency? What powers and resources will the Agency have?

Has the Commission already begun to draw up the economic study for the way the Agency will operate?

When, approximately does the Commission believe the Agency will begin operations in Vigo?

How many Community officials and temporary agents, and of what categories, will be working for it? How many local agents, in addition to the statutory staff, does the Commission calculate it will employ?

Has the Commission begun to look for a building in Vigo to accommodate the Agency? Have the Spanish authorities made the Commission any offer in this connection? If so, what are the details?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

The Commission welcomes the conclusion reached by the Member States at the Heads of State and Government meeting on 13 December 2003 in Brussels regarding the establishment of a European fisheries control agency, whose headquarters will be in Spain.

According to the information at the Commission's disposal, it would seem that the Spanish Government wishes the agency to be located in the city of Vigo in Galicia.

In March 2004 the Commission will present a proposal to the Council and to Parliament for a Regulation setting up the Community fisheries control agency. The proposal will include the agency's budget, with detailed information on its staff numbers and their grades.

A study which the Commission asked to be undertaken in 2003 will evaluate the agency's operating procedures.

Once established, the agency will progressively assume its functions. The agency's location will in any case be the subject of an agreement between it and the Spanish authorities, to be concluded after the agency's management board has been set up and its director appointed.