ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1913/01

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

(28 June 2001)

Subject: Joint fisheries undertakings in Tunisian fishing-grounds

Following the meeting in Madrid between the Tunisian ambassador to Spain and the mayor of Algeciras (Andalusia), it emerges that Tunisia is willing to consider all proposals for cooperation between undertakings which will enable Spanish vessels to fish in its waters.

The facilities offered by the Tunisian government to Spanish vessel-owners and fishermen for the creation of joint undertakings include: full tax exemption for

the first ten years of activity; state subsidies going up to 30 % of initial investment; advantages as regards fuel prices and harbour taxes; and the possibility of marketing 100 % of catch externally. 66 % of the joint undertakings' capital would be Spanish and the rest Tunisian.

To what extent would the Commission be willing to ratify an agreement of this nature and provide the conditions to allow it to take effect, with a view to finding an alternative to the present difficult confronting Spain's fishermen?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission is very conscious of the difficult situation of many Community fishermen.

Neither Tunisia nor any of the Member States have recently (in the last few years) approached the Commission to convey an interest in an eventual fisheries agreement between the Community and Tunisia. The Commission would also like to remind the Honourable Member that the Council adopted on 5 February 1979(1) a set of complementary directives for the Commission with a view to negotiating a fisheries agreement with Tunisia.

In case that such interest in a potential agreement was put forward to the Commission by any concerned party, the Commission might consider launching exploratory contacts with Tunisia as a preliminary step to formal negotiations. In parallel, the Commission might also propose to the Council an update of the 1979 negotiating directives to better reflect present circumstances.

(1) No: 4600/79, 2.2.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Olympic boxing arena

The plan to site the Olympic boxing arena on public sports facilities in Palaio Faliro has provoked a storm of protest in Greece. The Coordinating Committee of the campaign to save the coastline of the Saronic Gulf claims that the new arena will cover an area of 1,5-2 hectares. Locating the boxing arena on the site of the existing sports facilities will also deprive 3 000 children of the chance to pursue sporting activities, while all the indications are that the arena, which was originally presented as being temporary, will be permanent.

In the light of the above complaints, will the Commission say to what extent environmental feasibility studies have been drawn up for this project?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission has no information regarding the project to build the Olympic boxing arena in Palaio Faliro, as reported by the Honourable Member. However, in order that it might examine the dossier, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to provide it with more specific information on the project in question, including a description of the project as approved, or in the course of being approved, and of any adverse effect it might have on the environment.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1105/01

by Robert Goodwill (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: European Public Prosecutor

Recent Commission communications and European Parliament reports have called for the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor's Office for the protection of the Community's financial interests.

If such an office were to be established, can the Commission clearly state that it will never attempt to extend the Prosecutor's powers beyond the sole protection of the Community's financial interests?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its opinion of January 2000 and communication of September 2000, in which it has undertaken to protect the Community's financial interests(1).

The Commission is preparing a Green Paper which will cover the practical arrangements connected with setting up the office of European public prosecutor with power to protect the Community's financial interests. It should adopt the Green Paper before the end of 2001.

(1) Commission Opinion of 26 January 2000 Adapting the institutions to make a success of enlargement, COM(2000) 34 final and the Communication of 29 September 2000 Additional Commission contribution to the Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reforms. The criminal protection of the Community's financial interests: A European Prosecutor, COM(2000) 608 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0310/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Construction of small dams and other irrigation projects in Greece

Can the Commission provide information on the extent to which, under the new Structural Funds regulations, measures for the creation of small dams, water reservoirs and other irrigation projects are considered eligible? How many proposals has it received from the Greek Government for such projects? If it has, in fact, received any proposals of this kind, how does it intend to proceed?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

The projects mentioned by the Honourable Member such as small dams, hill catchments and other projects to collect surface water for use in irrigation, as drinking water or for mixed use are eligible under the Structural Funds.

The concept of eligibility must, however, include the conformity of any project with objective and transparent selection criteria laid down in advance by the managing authority for each operational programme. These criteria will, as far as possible, be coordinated at the level of the Community support framework and will have to be met for each project part-financed. Moreover, before the end of the period 2000-2008 (programming period plus two years to settle payments), each project part-financed must demonstrate that it has made a specific contribution to the development of the Member State for it to preserve its eligibility.

The operational programmes under the 2000-2006 Community support framework for Greece have not yet been approved and the projects are not therefore officially known yet. The Commission would point out in this connection that the choice of these projects is a matter for the Member States and that Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) does not provide for a separate application for each project.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1701/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Protection of the Skyros pony

The Greek island of Skyros in the northern Aegean is home to a particular species of pony which is under threat of extinction.

How can this rare breed of pony be protected and what methods of funding are available for its conservation (as in the case of the carreta carreta turtle, for example)?

Have the Greek authorities proposed that this rare breed of pony should be included in the list of protected species?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Honourable Member can be reassured that the Skyros breed of ponies is included in the list of rare breeds under the agri-environmental measures in Greece's rural-development programming document for 2000-2006. This means that assistance will be granted towards safeguarding the breed under this programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0834/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Council

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Organised environmental crime in European countries

- Criminal organisations which harm the environment (the eco-mafia) have become excessively powerful in many European countries, including Italy. This eco-Mafia makes billions by illegally disposing of highly toxic waste which then becomes an ecological time-bomb, destroying the health not only of the current population but of future generations, who will be irredeemably condemned by polluted water, soil and air.

- Examples of such activities were recently shown on Italian public television channels. Moreover, members of the city council and the decentralised local authority of Milan have recently submitted an alarming complaint concerning the risk of leakage of dioxins contained in drums illegally buried deep underground, close to the water-table, in the area earmarked for the construction of Milan's new purification plant. This new plant has been approved by the EU, which has already called for the work to begin.

- Given that construction of the purification plant has become urgent and

- that the eco-Mafia has enormous capacities to thwart checks of any kind,

Can the Council state:

1. whether it plans to take action in support of Milan, so that the decontamination can be carried out as carefully as possible, enabling an immediate start to be made on the construction of the purification plant;

2. whether or not it considers it necessary to set up a task-force, in which all the Member States participate, to identify and decontaminate illegal dumps of toxic waste and to take legal action, both in individual countries and at Community level, against the various criminal organisations which harm the environment, making use of Interpol and public health and environmental organisations?

Reply

(16 July 2001)

The Council fully shares the concerns voiced by the Honourable Member regarding the need to ensure that toxic waste is disposed of in compliance with the regulations in force, so as to avoid accidents like that which occurred at Seveso.

The Council would nevertheless point out that it is the Commission which is responsible for administering aid allocated in that context. The Honourable Member is therefore invited to contact the Commission with regard to the safety and efficiency of the work to be carried out.

For the rest, it will be for the competent national authorities to seek specialist legal and technical advice as they see fit.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0398/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: EU funding to widen the Panama Canal

After its first year of operation, it was realised that the Panama Canal, which is under the sovereignty of Panama, would reach saturation point by the year 2010 unless the necessary investments were made and that its importance for the sea freight sector would decline considerably.

At present the canal is being widened under a one billion dollar project which began in 1996 and will be completed in 2005. However, to meet future requirements, and in particular to enable post-Panama ships to pass through the canal, an investment of at least 5 billion dollars will be required, a massive sum for the country concerned.

In the interests of world trade and the influence exerted by the EU in the region, which is a strategically important enclave, does the Commission think it would be appropriate to propose ways of providing funding for Panama to complete the widening project needed for the canal, which will cost almost 5 billion US dollars?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's opinion that the development and security of the Panama Canal are of considerable importance to the Community.

For this reason the Commission previously financed a technical study on the canal's development prospects and contributed to the Universal Congress.

However, it is not up to the Commission to offer Panama funding to widen the canal, especially since Panama has not sought it.

The cost of the work referred to in the Honourable Member's question far exceeds the financing possibilities not only of the Community Cooperation Programme with Panama, but also other Community organisations such as the European Investment Bank (EIB).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0390/01

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: List of members of committees concerned with preventing tobacco-related health damage

For years, the tobacco giant, Philip Morris, has been infiltrating WHO, EU and various European countries' advisory committees concerned with preventing damage to health caused by tobacco smoking, including passive smoking. I have received documents in the form of notes and reports from Philip Morris which were used as the basis for a report in one of Denmark's leading dailies, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten.

In order to clarify the situation, will the Commission provide:

- an overview of advisory committees active in this area over the past 15 years,

- a list of members of those committees covering the same period,

- an account of the measures taken to ensure that such committees cannot now be infiltrated.

The documents in question are particularly alarming as far as the prevention of lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases is concerned.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

The Commission has been advised on cancer issues since 1986 by the High Level Cancer Experts Committee which was succeeded in 1996 by the Advisory Committee on Cancer Prevention, a committee of a consultative nature established by the Commission. This Committee has a longstanding record in advising the Commission on tobacco issues and other cancer related matters. The original list of members was published(1).

The Europe against Cancer programme is accompanied by a Committee composed of representatives of the Member States. Following the Committee's rules of procedures, any of its Members or Experts, if not a government official, must declare his independence or absence of conflict of interest at the opening of every meeting.

The Commission adopted a Communication on smoking prevention(2) which reflected the recommendations on tobacco control adopted by the above-mentioned Committee. This was followed by a proposal for a directive on tobacco products, which is currently the subject of a text agreed by the Conciliation Committee on 27 February 2001. This text takes a high level of public health protection as it's basis.

The current lists of all committees and their members are available on the Commission's Public Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General's web site as follows: http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph/programmes/cancer/a-index.htm.

(1) OJ C 50, 26.2.1987, p.1.

(2) COM(89) 609 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1578/01

by Linda McAvan (PSE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Fifth framework projects in the Yorkshire and Humberside region

Can the Commission please provide a breakdown of the regional distribution and the level of funding of Fifth framework projects in the Yorkshire and Humberside region of the United Kingdom? Does the Commission prioritise assisted areas (Objective 1 and 2) when allocating funding for research programmes?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Data on funding of the Fifth framework Research and Technological Development (RTD) programme projects in the Yorkshire and Humberside regions will be sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

The Fifth framework (RTD) Programme is implemented through competitive calls for proposals addressed to the academic and industrial research community, published widely and open to participation from all regions of Europe, including in the Member States associated to the programme. Potential research actors are encouraged to come together in transnational cooperation consortia, in submitting proposals. These proposals are evaluated, on the basis of clearly established selection criteria, by independent experts. The focus is on the inherent qualities of the proposal without any consideration to the geographical region in which one or other of the participants is placed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0807/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(28 March 2001)

Subject: The operation of the Rapid Reaction Force

Last weekend, at Camp David, Tony Blair and President Bush held a joint press conference having previously discussed, amongst other things, the implications of the European Rapid Reaction Force. President Bush said, with the Prime Minister standing next to him, that the latter had assured me that there would be a joint command, that the planning (of the Rapid Reaction Force) would take place within NATO, and that should all NATO not wish to go on a mission, that would then (my italics) serve as a catalyst for the defence forces moving on their own.

On the previous Thursday, Tony Blair told the Canadian Parliament that the initiative on European defence is not a standing army there will be no separate EU planning structures.

Does the Council believe that these interpretations of the workings of the Rapid Reaction Force are consistent with the Presidency Report on the European Security and Defence Policy as agreed by the Member States at Nice?

President Bush also said: I was very hopeful when we discussed the Prime Minister's vision that such a vision would encourage our NATO allies and friends to bolster their defence budgets, perhaps.

Does the Council believe that there is any evidence for this?

Reply

(16 July 2001)

The Honourable Member is kindly invited to refer to the reply to the Written Question No E-0796/01 on the workings of the Rapid Reaction Force.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0916/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Recombinant vaccine

The Portuguese Hunting Federation has told the European Agency for Medicinal Products that the recombinant vaccine for the control of viral haemorrhagic disease and mixomatosis in wild rabbits needs to be made available as soon as possible.

According to the Federation this vaccine must be licensed as soon as possible so that it can be marketed, since the rabbit population has already been decimated by the above-mentioned diseases.

Can the Commission therefore say what measures are to be taken to solve the problem of these diseases in rabbits?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0916/01 and P-1200/01 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

The two rabbit diseases mentioned by the Honourable Member are not compulsory notifiable by the Member States to the Commission and the wild rabbit is not an endangered species.

The scientific evaluation of any individual application for marketing authorisation of a veterinary medicinal product submitted to the European Medicines Evaluation Agency in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorization and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products(1) is the responsibility of the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products. The Commission thereafter receives an opinion of the Committee on the quality, safety and efficacy of the product within a specific time frame and proceeds on the basis of this opinion, to draw up a draft decision to be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 73 in the aforementioned Regulation. However, the Commission may in no way interfere in the scientific evaluation process.

(1) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0657/01

by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Operational programmes for the Land of Thuringia

When was the operational programme (OP) for 2000-2006 for Thuringia submitted to the Commission for confirmation?

Did the Commission make any additional requests (if so, how many) to complement the information contained in the OP?

When did the Land government last provide complementary information on the OP?

When, in the Commission's opinion, was the programme ready for confirmation?

Is it true that the Commission has made countless requests for further information in respect of the OPs for the new Länder that have been submitted, and that there have been delays in confirmation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

On 8 November 1999, the Commission received the draft operational programme (OP) for Thuringia from the German federal authorities.

The Community support framework (CSF) for Germany, co-ordinating all Community structural assistance including assistance for the development of human resources in the regions concerned, was adopted by the Commission in June 2000(1).

After examination of the draft OP, the Commission sent its remarks to Thuringia in August 2000. After bilateral talks in Brussels on 24 October 2000, the final version of the OP was submitted to the Commission on 28 November 2000 and adopted on 15 December 2000.

Following the Commission's letter of 29 November 2000 addressed to both German federal and regional authorities, the date of 22 November 1999 has been laid down for the eligibility of expenditure.

The introduction of the new programming period 2000-2006, involving adaptation and uniform application of the new Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(2), has presented a real challenge to the Member States and the Commission. In comparison with the other regions eligible under Objective 1, the new German Länder have not been especially affected by additional questions, requests for further information or delays.

(1) OJ L 318, 16.12.2000.

(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.