ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1209/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Construction of a housing complex on the coast at Vaya on the island of Serifos

Local residents on the island of Serifos have complained that a housing complex is under construction on the coast at Vaya.

Since:

- the coastal area at Vaya has been incorporated in the Natura 2000 network,

- it is situated on an island which Greece has designated an area of exceptional natural beauty,

- it has been described as an area of exceptional ecological value because of its sand dunes and vegetation in a report drawn up by a group of planners,

- a draft Presidential Decree laying down restrictions and specific conditions governing construction for the protection of the landscape in areas not covered by building plans makes specific reference to this coastal area, banning any form of intervention within a distance of 200 metres from the coastline,

- under the terms of the Commission's communication(1) on the implementation in Europe of the integrated management of coastal zones, the Member States are called upon to draw up a national strategy to promote the integrated management of coastal zones,

can the Council examine to what extent such activities are permissible in the area concerned and provide assurances that it will intercede with the Greek authorities to find a solution based on sound and balanced management of this ecosystem which is so important to the island of Serifos?

(1) SEC/2001/0021 COD 2000/0227.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2002)

According to the information at the Commission's disposal, the southern part of the island of Serifos has been proposed by the Greek authorities, under code GR4220009, as a site of Community importance under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC(1). With a view to inclusion of the site in the European ecological network Natura 2000, the Greek authorities must ensure that the activities undertaken there do not lead to a deterioration of the site.

However, the information provided by the Honourable Member does not allow the Commission to pinpoint the precise location of the beach at Vaya and thus be able to verify whether Greece has complied with its obligations under Community environment legislation.

For this reason, the Commission calls on the Honourable Member to forward all the relevant information in his possession so that it can examine whether the project in question is incompatible in any way with the value of the site in terms of nature conservation.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1481/02

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(22 May 2002)

Subject: Neutralisation of the EU's structural policies and closure of the public company Cetarsa in Granada

In view of the fact that the closure of this company will inflict socio-economic harm on a seriously disadvantaged area, in the Objective 1 province with the lowest income levels in Spain, where the EU has been investing large amounts of aid so as to stabilise the social fabric; given that the factory in question is highly profitable, and its closure is a source of concern both to the 1 500 families who live from tobacco growing and the 32 local authorities affected; given the plans to privatise and relocate this company with 231 employees, equipped with the most

up to date machinery, following an investment of over 12 000 million pesetas; given the enormous town-planning value of the 66 000 square metres the factory occupies, which will give rise to financial transactions that will profit the most- advantaged sections of the population; and given that the Chairman of the SEPI, when he appeared before parliament to report on the closure of the Cetarsa factory in Granada, claimed that the reasons were due to the EU, arguing on the basis of non-existent laws and studies which the Commission denies possessing: Does the Commission not believe that this closure is counterproductive, in view of the irreparable socio-economic harm it will do, neutralising and prejudicing the EU's structural policies?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern over the possible closure of the Cetarsa plant in Granada and the consequent loss of jobs. However, it can intervene in the industrial policy of a Member State only where Community rules have been infringed; decisions on the closure of a firm, whether public or private, are a matter for its managers.

Alongside the short-term impact of the closure of a firm, the Commission would draw attention to the long-term impact of its structural policy. In the case of Andalusia, Community assistance under the integrated operational programme for 2000-2006 includes the creation or preservation of an average of some 96 000 jobs per year.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1556/02

by Pernille Frahm (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 May 2002)

Subject: Patentability of computer-implemented inventions

Will the Commission state which firms submitted the responses to the consultation on the Green Paper on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions which have led it to be guided in its proposal for a directive by the interests of big business, instead of those of the very many users and small businesses, which, for example, did not wish to see the patenting of open source? Can it also explain why business interests have been given priority over consumer interests?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2002)

The Commission has received a great number of submissions on the subject of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions since the publication of the 1997 Green Paper on the Patent System in Europe(1). These originated from individuals, companies of all sizes, practitioners and industry associations. These submissions were all taken into account by the Commission in coming to its decision to propose a directive.

The approach taken by the proposal is to harmonise the law in this area but not to enlarge the scope of what can currently be patented under the European Patent Convention and national laws. The proposal is not intended to favour any one particular grouping over any other. Everybody, whether they be patentees or users of potentially patented technology, should benefit from the greater legal certainty brought about by the harmonisation.

(1) COM(97) 314 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1885/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: State aid to the coal industry

Is it true that Germany is continuing to give state aid to its coal industry? If so, how much state aid per tonne does Germany pay its domestic coal industry, and for how long will this be allowed to continue?

How does the Commission intend to ensure a level playing field between Member States as regards the coal industry?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Germany is granting State aid to its coal industry. In accordance with Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry(1), the Commission authorised Germany to grant aid totalling 4 156 million for 2001. 2 755 million was intended to cover current production losses (operating aid and activity reduction aid) and 1 401 million for exceptional costs (inherited liabilities).

On the basis of a coal production estimated by Germany at 28,5 million tonnes of coal equivalent for 2001, the average aid for that year was about 117 per tonne of coal equivalent.

For the period from 1 January 2002 to 23 July 2002, the Commission has authorised aid totalling 2 073 million, including 1 398 million for aid to current production.

On 26 July 2001, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation on State aid to the coal industry(2) after the ECSC Treaty expires on 23 July 2002. Under the system proposed, aid will be granted to the coal industry for restructuring the sector in acceptable social and regional conditions, and for maintaining coal production so as to guarantee access to reserves for security of energy supply purposes. The aid scheme expires on 31 December 2010.

The Energy Council held in Luxembourg on 7 June 2002 reached a political agreement on the future system of aid to the coal industry.

The State aid rules which will be applied after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty provide for measures designed to guarantee fair competition between Member States in the coal industry. Accordingly, the amount of aid per tonne of coal equivalent must never be more than the difference between production cost and revenue. Also, the amount of aid must not be allowed to lead to delivered prices for EC coal lower than those applied for similar quality coal from third countries.

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.

(2) OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0445/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Regional and minority languages

How does the Commission intend to spend the money that has been allocated to budget line B3-1007 in the EU budget for 2002?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

In a letter of 29 November 2001 to Mr Terry Wynn, Chairman of the Committee for Budgets, the Member of the Commission responsible for the Budget, informed the Parliament that the Commission would not be in a position to implement the appropriations under budget line B3-1007 (Preparatory actions concerning promotion and safeguard of regional and minority languages, dialects and cultures) in view of the restrictions on preparatory actions set out in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure. The Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member that it can find no means of executing this line while respecting its obligations vis-à-vis the Parliament and the Council under the said Agreement.

Preparatory actions for safeguarding and promoting regional and minority languages and cultures were suspended after 2000 because there was no prospect of the legislative procedure for a legal base being concluded before the end of the third financial year of preparatory actions. This objection still stands.

The Commission has announced that it will conduct a thoroughgoing evaluation of the European Year of Languages 2001 from which it will draw conclusions with a view to presenting proposals for actions in favour of linguistic diversity and language learning in 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0638/02

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: National Hydrological Plan

The Spanish government recently forwarded to DG Environment the text of a strategic environmental assessment concerning the National Hydrological Plan adopted by the Spanish Senate on 20 June 2001.

What is the Commission's technical evaluation of the strategic environmental assessment submitted by the Spanish government?

What is the procedure envisaged for the evaluation of this study?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

The Commission received a copy of the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the National Hydrological Plan in January 2002. It is also available on the Spanish Environment Ministry web page (www.mma.es). In this document, the Spanish authorities present their analysis of the situation and the expectations for water resources in Spain, specifying environmental effects and shortage problems. It also identifies the main environmental consequences of water shortages and possible improvements if the proposed water transfer were to be put on place.

The document is over 150 pages long and extremely detailed. The Commission is still studying the information and should complete its assessment within the next weeks. The technical assessment of the document will be carried out internally within the Commission.

The Commission intends to continue its dialogue with the Spanish authorities in order to ensure that the relevant pieces of Community legislation are fully complied with.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1046/02

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: New Residence Act in Austria and the Schengen Agreement

The new draft Residence Act in Austria includes, inter alia, an integration aspect which provides that, after a certain period of time has elapsed, foreigners of either sex may have their residence permits withdrawn and may be deported unless they take advantage of an offer relating to their integration into society and, within a certain period, successfully complete a German-language course.

Since refusal of a residence permit and deportation having the force of law in Austria would also apply to nationals of the countries signatory to the Schengen Agreement, the new Residence Act might give rise to a situation in which a person from a country where French is spoken might come to Austria, fail to learn a sufficient amount of German and then, although speaking perfect French, not be permitted to return to France under the Schengen Agreement.

1. Can the Commission verify whether this depiction of the situation is accurate and whether this absurd example might be one of the consequences of the Austrian Residence Act?

2. Does the Commission take the view that the new Residence Act could be implemented in the European Union and that it is compatible with its principles?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2002)

It is not the Commission's practice to comment on draft legislation in fields in which the Member States are not required to notify their plans to the Commission.

But it would observe that, from 1 June 2002, citizens of the European Union, as well as nationals of the European Economic Area (EEA) and the Swiss Confederation and members of their families, have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the EU, the EEA and Switzerland, without being subject to any conditions regarding their language ability.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0437/02

by Ozan Ceyhun (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Problems encountered by citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany when passing through the Republic of Bulgaria specific information and witness statements

In connection with my question H-0793/01 and the Commission's reply of 13 November 2001, the Commission asked me to provide further information and details in order to assess the situation more accurately.

I am now sending the Commission detailed information and witness statements under separate cover. I would like to combine this with asking the Commission how, in the light of these new facts, it intends to proceed vis-à-vis the Republic of Bulgaria as regards compliance with the Copenhagen criteria.

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

Following translation and evaluation of the detailed information and the witness statements presented by the Honourable Member, the Commission has taken note of the observations contained in these documents in the context of its assessment of the development of effective and non-discriminatory law enforcement in Bulgaria. The Commission will invite Bulgaria to comment specifically on the problems described by the witnesses. The Honourable Member will be informed of the reply received.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1288/02

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Environmental impact of a military installation in the Parque de los Alcornocales (Cadiz, Spain)

The mist forest of Llanos del Juncal, located in the Parque Natural de los Alcornocales (Natural Park of Cork Oak Groves) in Cadiz province (Spain), which is included in the Natura 2000 network, is a humid mountain ecosystem considered unique in Mediterranean Europe. This woodland is home to an abundance of leafy vegetation including, in particular, gall-oaks, oak-trees proper, and southern rhododendrons. This protected area has, in recent years, been subjected to development pressures, following the construction of infrastructures which have brought in their wake grave consequences and threats for its natural habitats.

The Spanish Ministry of Defence intends to construct, in the mist forest of Llanos del Juncal, a sensor station for the capture of electromagnetic waves and signals. This project has been repudiated across the board by community associations, NGOs and political parties in Cadiz province. The specific characteristics of the vegetation of this habitat are of such an unusual and complex nature that it is included every year in the field programmes of the biology faculties of two European universities, Seville and Cambridge.

The destruction of a large part of this forest represents the first stage of an assault on the whole area.

Given that the project under attack may be in breach of the EU's environmental legislation, can the Commission state what action it intends to take with a view to ensuring compliance with the following Directives:

- 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1);

- 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds(2); and

- 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(3)?

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

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1001/02 and E-1288/02given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2002)

The Commission is aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member, having requested information on the planned centre while investigating a complaint (No 2000/4315) about plans to construct various types of infrastructure within the special protection area known as Los Alcornocales bird sanctuary.

The Spanish authorities replied that planning decisions were dictated by national defence considerations and the various alternative sites considered had been dismissed as offering worse conditions for electromagnetic wave detection and analysis quality.

They also pointed out that plans to construct an access road, likely to have an impact on the area, had been shelved.

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take the necessary action to ensure compliance with Community legislation in the case in point.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1627/02

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Directive on the disposal of waste oils

Article 3(1) of the Directive on the disposal of waste oils (75/439/EEC(1), amended by Directives 87/101/EEC(2) and 91/692/EEC(3)) stipulates that Where technical, economic and organisational constraints so allow, Member States shall take the measures necessary to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration.

According to my information, the Member States Austria, Ireland, France, Denmark, Belgium, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland have not yet complied with that provision.

Is that true?

If so, what is the Commission doing to ensure proper application of the Directive in all Member States?

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23.

(2) OJ L 42, 12.2.1987, p. 43.

(3) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 48.

Joint answerto Written Questions P-1627/02 and P-1642/02given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Members on the implementation of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975, on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Council Directives 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986, and 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 standardizing and rationalizing reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment, as on the disposal of waste oils and in particular the practical implementation of Article 3 thereof.

Indeed, Article 3(1) of the Directive requires that where technical, economic and organisational constraints so allow, Member States shall take the measures necessary to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration.

On the basis of the information in its possession, the Commission has launched in 2000 and 2001, infringement actions against 13 Member States (all except Italy and Luxembourg) for failure to implement the priority that must be given to the regeneration of waste oils where technical, organisational and economical constraints so allow.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1655/02

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(11 June 2002)

Subject: Support for small airports in the European Union

Documents such as the recent proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation(1) on establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security make a distinction between small and major airports. Since small airports are absolutely vital for the economic survival and development of the Union's island regions, which cannot rely on passenger and freight traffic through those airports, will the Commission say whether it has taken any measures to support the operation of the airports on small islands and, if not, whether it intends to do so?

Has the Commission taken precautions to ensure that the new security measures to be implemented at European airports are not so onerous for small island airports that they are in danger of having to suspend their operations?

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2002, p. 221.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to Community legislation on aviation security. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that Union citizens are guaranteed a solid and enforceable base standard of aviation security through the Union, regardless of the size of the airport where they board their aeroplane.

Of course the Commission does not wish to apply disproportionately strict rules to very small airports that would jeopardise their functioning. For this reason Article 4 of the Commission Proposal does permit Member States to apply security standards based on local risk assessments that are different to those laid down in the Regulation as a whole.

However, this exemption will only apply to airports that have either:

- a yearly average of no more than two commercial flights per day; or

- with only general aviation flights, or

- with commercial activity limited to aircraft with less than 10 tonnes of maximum take-off weight or less than 20 seats.

In the view of the Commission, this exemption should cover all small airports that would have genuine difficulties in applying the proposed Community requirements in full.