ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0828/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Tuna fishing in the North Atlantic

Given that Commissioner Fischler has apparently had no opportunity to reply to the questions I put to him during the plenary session debate of 28 February 2001 concerning the Gallagher report (A5-0044/2001), on the EC-Equatorial Guinea Fisheries Agreement, I would now repeat these questions in writing.

In this agreement, as in any other EU agreement on North Atlantic tuna, has the Commission taken into account the possible impact on tuna stocks and fishing opportunities in areas such as the Azores and Madeira?

Is the Commission taking account of the impact of the use of encircling nets on protected species, such as dolphins and terrapins, when, as in this Agreement, it provides financial incentives to use such nets?

Is the Commission taking due account of the fact that in the last two years, the tuna harvest has tended to be in the Azores, to the detriment of fishermen and shipowners?

What measures does it intend to take in order to tackle this situation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2001)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his question and would like to inform him that the conservation of tunas and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas is the responsibility of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) of which the Community is an active member. ICCAT obligations apply in the context of fisheries agreements. Community representatives are steady supporters, within ICCAT, of strict measures to preserve tuna stocks in the area, and Portugal is also represented, namely through the internal Community co-ordination procedures.

The Community has been instrumental in the decision made by ICCAT that the use of Fishing Aggregating Devices in the Gulf of Guinea be forbidden for a three month period every year. This measure, which was already unilaterally applied by the Community ship owners in the past few years, should contribute to the safeguard of the stocks in the entire area and especially for the protection of juveniles of certain species.

As regards fishing in the waters of the Azores and Madeira, the Commission recalls that these activities are carried out within the quotas managed by Portugal in the ICCAT shares attributed to the Community.

Community vessels are submitted to a general ban or fishing over dolphins(1). As regards turtles, their by catch is subject to constant surveillance by the Scientific Committee of ICCAT.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 850/1998 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (OJ L 125, 27.4.1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0293/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Subject: Interreg III Community initiative

One of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament to the Decourrière report on Interreg III refers to the inclusion of the outermost regions in Interreg strand IIIA.

Despite being one of a number of modifications to which the Commission agreed, this amendment has not been incorporated into the final revised version of the Commission communication. This situation is causing problems for some governments in outermost regions seeking to submit cross-border projects the project involving the Canary Islands and their neighbouring regions in Africa being a case in point.

Will the Commission give its reasons for not reflecting all of Parliament's amendments in its final communication and, where appropriate, state what action it intends to take on the proposals submitted by regional authorities in outermost regions for cross-border projects included in Interreg IIIA?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) and the conclusions of the Berlin European Council, the Commission paid close attention to the outermost regions in its communication laying down guidelines for the Interreg III Community Initiative(2).

These regions were recognised as a specific priority under strand B transnational cooperation and their participation in the process of selecting operations under strand C interregional cooperation is a priority.

The Commission was, however, unable to accept the request in Parliament's Decourrière report that these areas should also be considered eligible under strand A cross-border cooperation of Interreg III. This strand concerns cooperation between neighbouring areas on land borders and certain maritime regions. Extending eligibility for strand A to the outermost regions would have also increased the number of coastal continental areas, and therefore the population eligible under this strand, so diluting the content specifically related to cross-border cooperation and reducing the required concentration of Community financial resources.

During the 2000-2006 programming period, the Canary Islands are eligible under strand C of Interreg III as well as for three programmes under strand B, Canaries-Azores-Madeira, South-west Europe and Atlantic area. The budgets for these three programmes are about 145 million, 66 million and 119 million respectively.

In its communication, the Commission also stated that, under strand B, cooperation programmes involving the outermost regions will promote better economic integration and cooperation among these regions and between them and other Member States and improve linkages and cooperation with neighbouring countries, including North-west Africa. In this specific context, bilateral and cross-border cooperation similar to that under strand A of Interreg III remain possible.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ C 143, 23.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0518/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Directive 85/337/EEC and the principle of subsidiarity

The Commission has recently decided to initiate infringement proceedings against Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg for having allegedly failed to fully respect the European Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (Directive 85/337/EEC)(1).

Are not the numerous difficulties experienced by the Commission with regard to the implementation of the directive by the Member States due to the fact that the demands of this directive are in flagrant contradiction of Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union? Should not the principle of subsidiarity induce the Commission to give the authorities concerned greater credit, particularly when the latter decide that a given project is of regional or national interest?

The Commission has, for instance, challenged the granting of planning permission for the railway link between Valencia and Tarragona although it acknowledges that a proper impact assessment was carried out albeit under conditions which did not rigorously meet the demands of the directive. The same is true of the objections raised against Luxembourg with regard to the building of a road link to the Saarland which was decided on by an act of Parliament in Luxembourg.

Would not the Commission be well advised to leave the assessment of the impact of public and private projects on the environment to the national, regional and local authorities, instead of engaging in legalistic pettifoggery and making a bureaucratic nuisance of itself? Do not the Commission's actions only lead to unnecessary delays in the implementation of projects decided on according to the principle of subsidiarity?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2001)

The Commission is anxious to stress that Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(1), was adopted in line with the aim of Article 2 of the EC Treaty requiring the Community to promote a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.

In applying the subsidiarity principle that Directive only laid down the minimum requirements which the impact assessment procedures must meet and left it to the Member States to draw the intended conclusions from the information received within that forum.

Under Article 211 (former Article 155) of the EC Treaty, it is for the Commission to ensure that the provisions adopted by the institutions in pursuance of the EC Treaty are implemented, where appropriate using the procedure provided for by Article 226 (former Article 169) of said Treaty.

The Commission may thus be prompted to check that the Member States have implemented the impact assessment procedure and, where this is the case, also to check that this has been done so in a correct manner.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0979/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Test firing of depleted uranium shells

Does the Commission consider that the test firing of depleted uranium shells into coastal waters within the European Union is covered by the OSPAR Convention?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0884/01, E-0979/01, E-0980/01 and E-0981/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

Test ranges of depleted uranium munitions may be either terrestrial or in a marine environment.

In the case of marine test ranges, the Commission stated on several occasions - most recently in its reply to Oral Question H-0055/01 by Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou during question time at Parliament's February 2001 part-session(1) - that no contamination of the marine environment which could be distinguished from naturally occurring uranium concentrations would result from this activity. It is the Commission's understanding that this issue has so far not been addressed under the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Convention.

As far as terrestrial test ranges are concerned, under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty the Commission has a right of access to the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the air, water and soil, hence in the environment, for verification purposes. The Commission has thus no access to nuclear or military sites as such, and the Commission would request access only in so far as on-site monitoring facilities are necessary for the assessment of the impact on the environment beyond the site perimeter.

The Commission maintains a watching brief on the situation with regard to levels of radioactivity in the environment on the basis of the information received under Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty, site specific data provided by Member States authorities, and other sources of information brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission was not aware of the British study with regard to the Solway Firth, nor of a similar study conducted by France.

On the basis of the existing Community legislation, mechanisms ensuring monitoring of radioactivity in the environment already exist. The implementation of such provisions does not highlight a particular need for these to be augmented by the Commission conducting environmental sampling for depleted uranium.

(1) Oral reply of 13.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1947/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Turkey's restrictions on Assyrians/members of the Syriac Orthodox Church

The detention and prosecution of the Syriac Orthodox priest Yusuf Akbulut evoked much comment internationally, and it was thanks to this attention that he was ultimately acquitted. The Turkish State presumably felt compelled to backtrack and instruct the Diyarbakir State Security Court to acquit Akbulut.

The Turkish State seems to have responded with resentment to having been compelled to backtrack in the case of Yusuf Akbulut and to the otherwise growing pressure on Turkey to introduce changes. Now the Turkish State has taken its revenge.

The Turkish Interior Ministry has issued a decree imposing far-reaching restrictions on all Assyrians/adherents of the Syriac Orthodox faith from Europe who wish to visit their ancestors' villages in south-eastern Turkey. Many young people who are now in search of their identity and have not been able to visit their ancestral villages because of the war in south-eastern Turkey are now prohibited by this decree from exploring their families' roots and their cultural heritage. Turkey is continuing its systematic destruction of the Assyrian/Syriac Orthodox cultural heritage. Churches and monasteries, many of them more than a thousand years old, have been converted into mosques or barns for livestock. Turkey is trying to conceal its barbaric action by means of the decree.

How will the Commission induce Turkey to cease its constant harassment of Assyrians/adherents of the Syriac Orthodox faith?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The protection of minorities including the freedom of religion is part of the Copenhagen political criteria to be fulfilled by candidate countries. Ensuring cultural diversity and guaranteeing cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of their origin is a medium-term priority listed in the Accession Partnership for Turkey(1). The Commission follows closely the situation of religious minorities in Turkey. It is with some concern that the Commission has been informed of the recent cases of mistreatment and discriminations against Syriac Orthodox willing to return to their home villages.

In this context, it is to be hoped that the adoption on 12 June 2001 by the Prime Minister of a circular instructing all relevant authorities to ban any discriminatory practice against Syriac Orthodox will contribute to improve the situation.

The Commission will give its evaluation of the situation in its Regular Report to be published in November 2001.

(1) Adopted by the Council on 8 March 2001 (OJ L 85, 24.3.2001).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0181/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Recovery plans for fish stocks in the North-East Atlantic

Considering that two-thirds of fish stocks in the North-East Atlantic are below safe biological limits, is the Commission planning to develop recovery plans for all of these stocks?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0181/01 and E-0204/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

The Commission is aware that many fish stocks in the North-East Atlantic are outside safe biological limits.

However, the Commission uses the terminology recovery plan for stocks which are in immediate danger of collapse. The stocks in question at present are cod in the North Sea, Irish Sea and to the west of Scotland and the northern hake stock. Recovery plans are either in place (Irish Sea) or are in the process of being put in place for the others.

For stocks outside safe biological limits but not immediately in danger of collapse, and indeed all other relevant stocks, the Commission has initiated a process whereby a precautionary approach to management will be applied. This is already the case for cod, haddock, plaice, saithe and herring in the North Sea where agreement has been reached with Norway, the joint managers of these stocks with the Community, to adopt such an approach. Also with Norway, agreement has been reached on application of a precautionary approach to the North-East Atlantic mackerel stock. In the Baltic and via the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission agreement has been reached to apply a precautionary approach to management of cod, sprat and salmon.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0891/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Subsidies for the Sensus police project

In reply to Question P-0009/01(1), Commissioner Erkki Liikanen said that the Commission was aware that the AfA (Amt für Auslandsfragen), which was involved in both Aventinus and Sensus via its test centre for language technology, was a government body reporting to the office of the German Federal Chancellor. Mr Liikanen thereby implicitly acknowledges that the Commission was aware of the involvement of the German federal security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst.

To avoid any misunderstanding about the involvement of the German federal security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, with Aventinus and Sensus, I should like to know: does the Commission acknowledge, explicitly and unambiguously, that it was aware of the involvement of the German federal security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 154.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission services were aware at the time of the signature of the Sensus contract, that the Amt für Auslandsfragen (AfA) was a test centre for language technology, a public body reporting to the German federal chancellery. They were not informed of any relationship between AfA and the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) until towards the end of the project. In any case, there was no legal impediment to the participation of AfA, or indeed the BND, in the Sensus project.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1142/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Choice of location for the European Food Safety Authority

During the debate preceding the final choice of location for the European Food Safety Authority, the Commission proposed Luxembourg, in order to make use of Community structures already in existence which could accommodate the Authority's structure following the reorganisation of the European executive's departments, as a result of the current administrative reform.

Could the Commission therefore state whether, in putting forward this proposal, it has taken as selection criteria geographical centrality, a solid tradition of agribusiness - safeguarding the particular features of the various Member States, particularly in the Mediterranean regions -, a strong industrial presence in the food processing sector, and potential for scientific and academic research?

In proposing the above-mentioned location as its seat - a choice which is undoubtedly reasonable if intended to save costs and encourage synergies, through the use of pre-existing structures - has the Commission taken into account the independence and autonomy which the Authority must symbolise, and has it assessed the risk that establishing its seat in Luxembourg could make the authority seem like a mere Commission department?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission takes the view that the main objective of this Authority will be to restore and preserve public confidence in food safety. This new organisation will therefore have to be able to provide scientific advice, support and communication services on risks in a very effective way. For this reason, the Commission is paying particular attention to the operational requirements for ensuring that the Authority functions as well as possible. Its location must be such that it can be easily reached by European scientists attending meetings of its scientific committees and panels (some 3 000 visits per year) and can communicate easily with the risk management bodies (the Commission, Parliament and Council). In the event of a serious food crisis, the Authority will have to be able to provide the Commission with rapid, ongoing scientific support in the context of the crisis centre mechanisms provided for in the new regulation.

The Authority's independence will be safeguarded by various provisions in the proposal for a regulation establishing it. Locating it in a city which already hosts a Community institution cannot be seen as a potential threat to its autonomy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0609/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Greek-Turkish agreement to construct new natural gas pipelines under the Inogate Umbrella Agreement

An agreement was reached recently between the Greek company DEPA and the Turkish company BOTAS to build a bi-directional natural gas pipeline linking the broader Caspian Sea region with consumer countries in Europe under the Inogate Umbrella Agreement. In accordance with the analytical memorandum accompanying this agreement, the two countries are committed to creating a joint body to monitor the project, draw up a feasibility study and seek funding for the construction of the pipeline. Will the Commission say:

1. Can it provide details concerning the agreement in question and the contribution it will make towards making the European Union self-sufficient in energy?

2. Do any estimates exist regarding the route this pipeline is likely to take?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2001)

The Commission can confirm that under the Inogate programme (Interstate Oil and Gas Transport to Europe) a cooperation agreement has been concluded between DEPA (Greece) and BOTAS (Turkey) to study interconnections between the Greek and Turkish gas networks at an initial stage and subsequently the extension of the project to neighbouring Balkan countries. This project to interconnect gas networks makes provision for an extension to Italy and the principle of East-West and West-East supplies.

Greece and Turkey are signatories to the Inogate Umbrella Agreement (the institutional framework for the establishment of these oil and gas transportation systems), as are the following countries: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrghyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Romania, Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria et Croatia.

The Commission regards this agreement as important for meeting the growing demand for gas in Europe, especially the internal market of an enlarged Community, and for the security and diversity of supplies. This interconnection will offer the European gas market supplies from the Caspian Sea area, Central Asia and Iran via Turkey and from the Maghreb and Mashreq via Italy and Turkey (southern link of network) in addition to traditional gas suppliers (Russia, Algeria and Norway).

The engineering studies to trace the path of the pipeline have not yet started. The Commission is engaged in talks with the Greek and Turkish authorities and companies concerning the financing of feasibility studies under Community financial and technical assistance instruments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0266/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Comitology

Since the entry into force of the amended Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (Decision 1999/468/EC)(1):

1. How many instances have there been, under the codecision and other legislative procedures, of new legislation incorporating each of the types of committee procedure provided for in the Decision?

2. Under these new procedures, how many implementing measures have been adopted by the Commission and how many referred to Council under each procedure?

(1) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the data requested are being collected with a view to drafting the first annual report provided for in Article 7(4) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.