ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2244/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Construction of the A73 South

Construction of the controversial eastern section of the A73 South highway is apparently being delayed by measures to protect species of animals0 and plants in the area.

Reports in the Dutch media suggest that an exemption is being considered to speed up the construction of this road in a simpler and cheaper way. This plan could pose a direct threat to the survival of species such as the bluethroat, kingfisher, honey buzzard, moor frog and floating water plantain.

Is it true that the Netherlands is also investigating to what extent an exemption under the Nature conservation law would permit the destruction of the habitats of red-listed species to be found on the eastern section?

To what extent is the construction of this road in breach of the European Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2001)

The Commission is currently investigating the facts raised by the Honourable Member as a result of a complaint, which questions the compatibility of the proposed A73 motorway on the East bank of the river Meuse between Roermond and Venlo and the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1).

This complaint concerns the question of the extent to which species listed in annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and annex I of the Birds Directive, Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(2) could be affected by the East bank route of the proposed A73.

On 9 July 2001, a delegation of officials from several Dutch institutions and administrations involved in the A73 project visited the General Directorate Environment to brief Commission officials on the actual state of the project with regard to its effects on the nature interests concerned and on the proposed mitigation and compensation measures. From this exchange, the Commission has learned that the decision on the actual location was taken on the basis of a debate in Parliament in 1995 and that, since then, a number of studies on the impacts of the A73 project on the area's nature interest have been carried out by well-known environmental consultancies.

The Commission will pursue this complaint case by asking the Dutch Government to give a formal reply to a series of questions regarding the likely effects of the A73 project on the state of conservation of the species and habitats listed in the two Community Nature Protection Directives referred to above and by requesting details of compensation measures envisaged.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2140/01

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

(20 July 2001)

Subject: Action to combat third-world diseases

Of the 1 223 pharmaceutical products placed on the market between 1975 and 1997, only 13 were designed to treat tropical diseases, even though of the 17 million people who die each year of infectious diseases, 90 % are from the world's poorest countries. In view of these alarming facts, does the Council support the projects submitted by Brazil with a view to ensuring that the WHO and its member countries carry out a campaign to combat the diseases which kill millions of people in Latin America, Asia and Africa and to counter the lack of concern demonstrated by multinational pharmaceutical companies, which are motivated solely by profit?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2138/01 and E-2140/01

(29 November 2001)

The Council has repeated on numerous occasions its grave concern about the situation created by the spread of communicable diseases in particular in developing countries, and most notably in sub-Saharan Africa.

The principal aim of Community development policy is to reduce poverty with a view to its eventual eradication. The Council considers that accelerated action by donors to combat communicable diseases, particularly AIDS/HIV, malaria and tuberculosis is essential in view of the devastating impact these diseases can have on efforts to reduce poverty.

The Council, therefore, warmly welcomes the Commission communication on a Programme for Action on accelerated measures to fight communicable diseases. This programme, it believes, provides an ambitious, timely and appropriate framework for priority action by the Community and the Member States over the next five years.

The lack of affordable pharmaceuticals is a serious problem in many developing countries and especially for the poorest people. The Council, therefore, agrees with the Commission that there should be a much broader application of effective global tiered pricing for the benefit of affected developing countries. At the same time, the Council is aware of the danger of diversion of low-priced pharmaceuticals destined for specific markets and price erosion in the markets of developed countries.

It is important to strengthen and increase financial support for research and development. In this context there is a need to reinforce capacity in developing countries and to provide incentives for the development of new treatments and vaccines.

Regarding the proposal for a Global Health Fund, the Council has fully welcomed the proposal made by the UN Secretary-General. The Fund was set up at the G8 economic summit in Genoa in cooperation with the UN Secretary-General.

It agrees with the Commission that the Fund should tackle the three major communicable diseases: HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis and considers there should be equitable burden sharing between OECD countries and between the public and private sectors. Finance should be used to support partner countries' own health strategies including prevention, access to care and treatment, as well as capacity-strengthening actions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2258/01

by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Reliable information on the predator numbers and cause of death of reindeer calves

We have received numerous reports from the reindeer herding region of Finnish Lapland that there are now too many predators there for viable reindeer herding. This situation has been affected by a fall in the number of deer on the Russian side of the border, which forces predators to prey on deer in Finland. Similar reports have come from the Kainuu region.

Finland is an exceptional country in the EU in terms of the distribution of predators there, and in that it has a common border with Russia. Consequently a detailed survey of predator numbers ought to be carried out, e.g. by applying real time research, using a helicopter and a radio transmitter to investigate the cause of death of reindeer calves. However, research of this nature is expensive.

A significant number of reindeer calves are dying for unknown reasons, and these deaths need to be investigated in the interest of the legal protection of the reindeer industry.

This matter has been made topical by the Commission's comments on Finland's protection of wolves, bears and lynxes. The Commission has called in writing for Finland to adopt legislation in accordance with the aims of the habitats directive.

In the light of the above what measures is the Commission taking to ensure that real-time information is available on the real numbers of predators, and that the actual damage to the reindeer industry can be ascertained?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 2001)

By way of background, the Commission would like to point out that the species (wolf, bear and lynx) mentioned by the Honourable Members are protected by Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1).

Therefore, Commission's task in accordance with Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty is to ensure that the protection of those species by Finland fulfils the requirements of the Directive(2), in particular that the conservation status of those species remains favourable. In accordance with Article 11 of the above-mentioned Directive, Finland has monitored the level of protection of the mentioned species.

The Commission has received such information from Finland and is presently examining its validity. In this context the Commission uses all available reliable and up-to-date information about the population numbers and characteristics of the above species in Finland.

Compensation for the damages caused by species is not covered by the provisions of the Directive and may be regulated by national law.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. See also Commission's reply to Written Question E-1295/01 by Mr Virrankoski, OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 113.

(2) In particular Articles 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1887/01

by Ilka Schröder (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Enfopol 29 plans for retention of communication data

A recent feature (http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/may/03Benfopol.htm) by the London-based Non-Governmental Organisation Statewatch as well as an article in the Guardian newspaper (18 May 2001) deal with extended requirements to be placed on service and network telecommunications providers to cover mobile phones, satellite phones and internet usage. Allegedly the plans, referred to as Enfopol 29 also require them to supply law enforcement agencies on production of an interception order with personal details of users such as e-mail account, passwords, addresses and credit card details. According to the Guardian, European Union governments are trying to relax stringent data protection rules to guarantee the police and law enforcement agencies access to private phone calls and e-mails.

In consideration of the fact that such a requirement would be in flagrant contradiction to Directives 95/46/EC(1) and 97/66/EC(2) as well as to Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to Article 8 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, I ask the Council:

1. To what extent is it true that the Police Cooperation Working Party is working on plans referring to the interception and retention of communication data which, if implemented, would be in contradiction to applicable EU legislation?

2. What is the Member States' position on relaxing this legislation in order to provide a legal framework for extended interception and retention of such data?

3. A document uncovered by Statewatch calls for every phone call, every mobile phone call, every fax, every e-mail, every website's contents, all internet usage, from anywhere, by everyone, to be recorded, archived and be accessible for law enforcement agencies. What is the Council's position on this request?

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

(2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 1.

Reply

(29 November 2001)

1. The Council has adopted, in January 1995, a Resolution on the lawful interception of telecommunications(1).

2. A draft Council Resolution on law enforcement operational needs with respect to public telecommunication networks and services has been discussed in the preparatory levels within the Council but it was not adopted by the Council.

(1) OJ C 329, 4.11.1996, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1807/01

by Christos Zacharakis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Turkey's destruction of Assyrian and Syrian cultural heritage and ban on entering Assyrian and Syrian villages

Under legislation proposed by the Turkish Interior Ministry, Turkey intends to prohibit Europeans of Assyrian and Syrian origin from visiting their places of origin and their families in southern Turkey, in defiance of fundamental human rights. At the same time, Turkey continues systematically to destroy the Assyrian and Syrian cultural heritage by wrecking monasteries and churches and converting them into mosques and stables.

This is yet another example of Turkey's flouting of its international commitments, following similar measures against the Kurds, the Greek Cypriots and others, a stance which has provoked international reaction, from the Swedish Parliament among others. Will the Council therefore say:

1. What measures it will take to safeguard the inalienable right of European Assyrians and Syrians to visit their place of birth and their families, and

2. What, in its view, the implications of this further violation of human rights by Turkey are in relation to that country's progress towards membership of the European Union?

Reply

(27 November 2001)

In the Accession Partnership for Turkey, the Council has identified priorities relating in particular to religious freedom and cultural diversity as follows:

Guarantee full enjoyment by all individuals without any discrimination and irrespective of their language, race, colour, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief or religion of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Further develop conditions for the enjoyment of freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Ensure cultural diversity and guarantee cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of their origin. Any legal provisions preventing the enjoyment of these rights should be abolished, including in the field of education.

The Council notes that several EU Member States have raised with the Turkish authorities the difficulties for people living in Europe of Assyrian and Syrian origin with visiting their birthplace and families in Turkey. The Turkish Foreign Ministry has said that the competent local authorities in Turkey have been instructed to lift the restrictions on such visits. The Turkish Prime Minister, Mr Ecevit, has made a press statement to the same effect. The Council looks forward to the early implementation of the measures announced above and will continue to monitor the situation closely.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2139/01

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

(20 July 2001)

Subject: Massacres of civilians in Chechnya

Two years after Russian troops invaded Chechnya (against the will of an entire people and its legitimately elected government), 80 000 Russian soldiers are continuing to massacre Chechen civilians and 200 000 refugees have fled to the neighbouring Republic of Ingushskaya, where they are suffering all manner of abuses.

Since it is clear that Russia is behaving in a cruel, colonialist fashion, is the Council (following the Danish Parliament's example) planning to lodge a complaint against that country with the Council of Europe's Court of Human Rights?

Reply

(29 November 2001)

The Council has followed the situation in Chechnya very closely since the start of the conflict. It has condemned without hesitation, openly and most firmly, the human rights violations perpetrated in the region. The Council has repeatedly asked that these cases be fully investigated. Recently, the EU made representations to the Russian authorities following the serious abuses committed against the civilian populations by Russian troops at the beginning of July.

Moreover, the Council has insisted that the situation in Chechnya be discussed at all appropriate meetings between the EU and Russia and at all levels. The EU-Russia summit on 3 October in Brussels will be the next opportunity for reaffirming at the highest level the EU's concern regarding Chechnya and urging Russia to take the necessary measures to ensure that human rights violations are investigated swiftly and effectively.

Furthermore, the EU has unhesitatingly supported the efforts of international organisations with regard to the conflict in Chechnya. It adopted a Resolution at the 57th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and successfully supported the return of the OSCE Assistance Group and the sending of three experts from the Council of Europe in Mr Kalamanov's team to Chechnya. For legal reasons, the Council cannot denounce Russia before the Council of Europe's Court of Human Rights, as only the Member States are entitled to act in this regard.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1873/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Finland)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Finland have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Finland have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01,E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01,E-1882/01, E-1883/01 annd E-1884/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) was used as a source to determine the number of holdings with an area of less than 50 hectares and of 50 hectares or more under cereals, oilseeds and protein plants (COP). Though that database is weighted by the results of the Farm Structure Survey (Eurostat), it is generally acknowledged that large holdings are over-represented. The figures given below should accordingly be regarded as upper limits. The year used is 1997, the last year for which data for all Member States are available in the FADN database.

Columns A and C of the table below give the percentages per Member State of holdings with an area under COP of, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more.

Columns B and D of the table below give the percentages per Member State of the area under COP of holdings with, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more under COP.

Column F gives the percentages per Member State of the area under COP that would be excluded if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied.

Lastly, Column I gives the savings in millions of euro per Member State if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied. The yields used are the reference yields supplied by the Member States. The total reduction in cost to the Community would amount to EUR 4 billion.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2046/01

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Conduct of EU Technical Assistance Programmes (PHARE and TACIS) in the Ukraine

Can the Commission state what action it has taken to implement the recommendations made in the report entitled Ukraine Evaluation of EC Country Programme, published in July 1998, and to learn from any mistakes made during TACIS and PHARE intervention in the Ukraine?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The 1998 evaluation of the Ukraine Programme concluded that TACIS technical assistance projects had not always resulted in a real improvement in Ukrainian policies, mainly because of a lack of agreement on the direction reforms should take. The impact has been greatest in training and institution building with substantial benefits for individual project partners, while private sector development has shown mixed results, particularly in enterprise restructuring. The evaluations recommended focusing assistance on a more limited number of priority areas and to base the programme on a policy dialogue with the Ukrainian authorities.

Since the evaluation, the Commission has worked to improve the focus of TACIS support for the Ukraine, by working increasingly in dialogue with the Ukrainian authorities in the context of our Partnership and Co-operation Agreement. Achieving a better focus of TACIS

is also a central aim of the new Council Regulation adopted in 2000 and the Indicative Programme for 2000-2003, which identified three priority areas: institutional, legal and administrative reform; private sector development; and the social consequences of transition. This new multi-annual Country Strategy approach enables the Commission to concentrate Community assistance efforts on key areas of mutual interest, where there is a clear will to reform, such as, for the period 2002-2003, upgrading border management against the background of EU enlargement, the legal and regulatory business framework and judicial reform. In parallel, co-ordination with other Community funded programmes and co-operation with other donors has been strengthened at both the level of programming and implementation. This concerns in particular our cooperation with the international financial institutions and programmes to promote investment in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and municipal utilities.

The Ukraine is not eligible for aid under the PHARE programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2196/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 July 2001)

Subject: BSE

On 5 July this year BSE was discovered in a 14 year-old cow of the brown and white breed castana svizzera from Switzerland. This was not the first time that cases of this disease have been found in cattle from Switzerland.

Can the Commission therefore say what agreements exist between the European Union and Switzerland to ensure that all supervisory and preventive measures for cattle in Switzerland meet the safety standards laid down in the European Union and what guarantees to this effect have been provided by the Swiss authorities?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2001)

The sectoral agreements of 21 June 1999 between Switzerland and the Community include an agreement relating to trade in agricultural products. Annex 11 of this agreement relates to animal-health and zootechnical measures applicable to trade in live animals and animal products. The appendices

to Annex 11 do not currently include specific rules on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). The Article 19 Joint Veterinary Committee has decided to incorporate these rules. This will be done as soon as the agreements come into force.

The Swiss authorities have, however, set up an extensive arsenal of anti-BSE measures since 1990. This process was supplemented in spring 1999 with the introduction of an active BSE-monitoring system based on the use of rapid tests for the detection of BSE. This measure has also been taken up at Community level to improve the monitoring systems already in existence within the Community. The Commission's Food and Veterinary Office undertakes regular inspection missions to Switzerland in order to audit the system set up by the Swiss authorities and assess its effectiveness.

As with all third countries, imports from Switzerland are governed by Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies(1). In particular, this Regulation provides that imported products of animal origin should be accompanied by a health certificate testifying that they contain neither specified risk material nor mechanically separated ruminant meat. It also provides that the import of live bovine animals requires a health certificate testifying that the feeding of ruminants with protein derived from mammals has been banned and that this ban has been effectively enforced, and furthermore that the bovines in question are identified by means of a permanent identification system and are not the descendants of BSE-suspected females.

(1) OJ L 147 31.5.2001.