ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1876/99

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Support for the press

The Commission's reply of 22 December 1998 to Written Question E-2924/98(1) failed to provide full and satisfactory answers to my queries.

Would the Commission therefore answer the following supplementary questions:

1. What documents and information does the Commission draw on when deciding which media to support?

2. What was the extent of financial support for Austrian media in 1997 and 1998?

3. Which Austrian media received financial support, and how much, in connection with which European policy areas?

4. How does the Commission ascertain whether the press reports it helps to finance stimulate public awareness in European matters, or contribute to forming public opinion?

(1) OJ C 289, 11.10.1999, p. 14.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2000)

1. The representation of the Commission in Austria does not support the media by way of subsidy, but buys advertisements or gives financial contributions for an extra number of copies, additional costs for research or supplementary pages. Criteria for selection of media are the number of copies and the number of readers, the credibility of the medium as well as the social profile of its readership. Furthermore, the Commission aims to arrive at a well-balanced media-mix.

2. The Commission expenditure on Austrian media in 1997 was ATS 4,9 million, and in 1998 ATS 1,5 million.

3. The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

4. Checking the results of a specific advertisement is hardly possible. Therefore, the Commission concentrates, as explained above, on those media which are regarded by their readers as competent information sources for this specific matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1756/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(1 October 1999)

Subject: Murder of another Greek Cypriot in the occupied territories of Cyprus

The appalling murder of another Greek Cypriot his name was Stelios Charpas in the occupied territories of Cyprus by Turkish settlers has caused great alarm and a climate of panic among the Greek-Cypriot population in the enclave.

Given that in its resolution of 10 April 1997 (B4-0286/97)(1) the European Parliament stated that it 6condemns once again, and in the strongest terms, the serious and persistent violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms suffered by the persons in the enclave which have been committed by the illegal occupying regime, and the intransigence on the part of the latter and calls for much greater awareness on the part of the UN and the bodies of the European Union, in particular the Council and the Commission, with a view to preparing and carrying out any action which they may deem necessary, including humanitarian action, aimed at improving the living conditions of the persons in the enclave, will the Council say:

What action does it intend to take in the wake of this new murder to ensure that the Greeks Cypriots in the enclave can continue to live there?

Does it consider that a full-scale and permanent observation post can be set up in Rizokarpaso to ensure the security of the Greek Cypriots in the enclave?

(1) OJ C 132, 28.4.1997, p. 226.

Answer

(24 January 2000)

The Council has not received any official information about the incident to which the Honourable Member refers. As far as could be ascertained and as the question itself suggests Mr Stelios Charpas' violent death was not related to activities by agents of the regime in control of Northern Cyprus. On the contrary, it appears that they cooperated with the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus with a view to taking appropriate action in the wake of Mr Charpas' death.

As to the question of setting up an observation post in Rizokarpaso, the Council trusts that the United Nations will fully consider all the relevant aspects and take the right decision.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1705/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: 1998 budget expenditure for annual events

The draft budget of the European Communities for the financial year 2000 has earmarked EUR 6 500 000 (approximately ITL 13 billion) for annual events.

Can the Commission provide details of how the sum appropriated for 1998 ECU 10 000 000, equivalent to ITL 19 360 000 000 was spent?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1999)

The budget heading B3-309 Annual events was introduced in the 1999 budget. It amounts to 10 million and has served to finance mainly Expo Hanover 2000 and the European campaign to raise awareness on violence against women.

The planned spending on Expo Hanover 2000 amounts to 7,5 million. The costs concern the preparation of the Union Pavilion at EXPO 2000 in Hanover, which will take place from 1 June 2000 to 30 October 2000. Calls for tenders have been launched and contracts signed to cover the initial work as indicated in the financial statement of the Commission communication(1).

Planned spending on the European campaign to raise awareness on violence against women amounts to 2,5 million, including conferences ( 180 000), the definition of conception, publications and spot TV ( 320 000) and support to projects by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) ( 2 million). Concerning this latter, a call for tender was published in the Official journal(2) inviting NGOs to present projects and become involved in the campaign.

(1) COM(1999) 131.

(2) OJ C 180, 25.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2068/99

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Disadvantages for importers

Under the general preferential tariff arrangements, the importation of goods from the least developed developing countries is exempt from customs duty. The exporter is required to fill in a form A, and the

exporting country confirms the accuracy of the information provided. Should it emerge later that the information given by the exporter is inaccurate for whatever reason, even though it was certified as accurate by the exporting country, the duty is levied on the party owing the duty, often years later.

In my view, this means that Community importers are penalised by law through no fault of their own.

Will the Commission say:

1. Does it take the view that importers are disadvantaged by these arrangements and that their good faith is adequately protected?

2. Does it see any possibility of adding the following to Article 220.2(b) of the Community Customs Code: Ex post facto auditing shall be excluded even if the duty due by law has not been levied owing to faulty documentation of the exporting country or a Member State, unless the party owing the duty was aware of this error?

3. Does it agree that practical problems arising from a supplement of this kind to the Article in question can be prevented if duly justified doubts about the implementation of the preferences arrangements by a given country are published in the Official Journal, which would mean that the importer could no longer claim he was acting in good faith?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1999)

1. The Court of Justice has ruled that authorities in an exporting country who issue an origin certificate based on factually incorrect information supplied by an exporter have not committed an error within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code and hence the question of the importer's good faith does not arise.

The obligation to pay customs duties that are legally owed cannot be regarded as unfairly penalising importers.

2. On the basis of an amendment adopted by Parliament in March 1999 the Commission submitted a proposal for amendment of Article 220 in June; this is currently before the Council.

3. The proposal provides for notice to be given to importers via publication in the Official Journal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1677/99

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Hunting season for migratory bird species

Council Directive 79/409/EEC(1) on the conservation of wild birds sets out the European Union's commitment to conserving all species of wild birds occurring naturally in the European territory of the Member States.

With regard to the hunting of certain species, the directive requires Member States to ensure that the principles of wise use and ecologically balanced control of populations of the species concerned, in particular migratory species, are observed. They are required to ensure that migratory species in particular are not hunted during the various stages of reproduction or the rearing season.

In March 1994 the Commission proposed an amendment to the directive, leaving it to each Member State to determine the period of the hunting season. The Commission proposal, which did not lay down a uniform EU-wide date for the end of the hunting season, was debated by the European Parliament. In February 1996, Members voted in favour of the annual hunting season ending on 31 January throughout the EU.

What steps have since been taken to meet Parliament's demand?

Some Member States have fixed the period of the hunting season in a way which puts at risk the conservation of certain species. For example, the hunting season in France opens at a time when young birds are still dependent on being cared for by their parents. This contravenes Article 7(4) of Directive 79/409/EEC. For that reason, infringement proceedings have been instituted against France.

What stage has been reached in the proceedings?

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the provisions of Directive 79/409/EEC are implemented in all the Member States?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 1999)

On 1 March 1994 the Commission put forward a proposal(1) for the amendment of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.(2) Since the proposal was based on Article 175 (ex-130s) of the EC Treaty, the cooperation procedure with Parliament was mandatory. Parliament delivered its opinion on 15 February 1996. The Council has not so far adopted a common position on the subject.

The Commission believes that the dates of the opening and the close of the hunting season in France under the 1994 and 1998 laws (Law No 98-549 of 3 July 1998 amending Law No 94-591 of 15 July 1994 establishing the dates of the close of the hunting season for migratory birds) do not provide a guarantee of full protection for certain species of wild birds during their return to their rearing grounds or during their period of reproduction in accordance with Council Directive 79/409/EEC.

The Commission therefore instituted proceedings against France in 1997 pursuant to Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty for failure to fulfil its obligations and, on 15 February 1999, referred the matter to the Court of Justice (Case C-38/99). The Court still has to give a ruling on this case.

(1) OJ C 100, 9.4.1994.

(2) OJ C 65, 4.3.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2060/99

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Turkey's eligibility for EU membership

The Commission has recommended to the Council and Parliament that Turkey should be accepted as an applicant member of the Union and, in so doing, it did not consider that the country's controversial geographical position (mainly in Asia) or its failure to fulfill the Copenhagen criteria (human rights, democratic institutions, treatment of minorities etc.) should be a barrier to that.

Why is it then the case, as President Prodi has stated, that if Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia or FYROM which are indisputably European countries submit applications for membership, the Commission will accept them as eligible only if they fulfill the Copenhagen criteria? Why is there such discrimination and on what principles and legal basis is this dual-approach, two-tier policy based? When and by whom was it decided to override the principles on which the European Union was founded and developed, when such a measure serves the economic and strategic interests of some of the Member States while undermining the corresponding interests of other countries in the Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1999)

The Commission has indeed taken the view that Turkey should be considered as a candidate country to Union membership. By applying for Union membership in 1987, Turkey has since a long time expressed its wish to become a member of the Union. Furthermore, the Ankara Agreement (notably its Article 28) and various Union statements clearly envisage the possibility of Turkey's accession.

The Commission applies the Copenhagen accession criteria in the same way to all candidate countries. These criteria must be met before a candidate country becomes a member of the Union. The same goes for Turkey. Moreover, there can be no question of opening negotiations with Turkey before this country fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria.

As to the other European countries, the Commission has recommended on 13 October 1999 that the Union should confirm that the countries of the former Yugoslavia and Albania have the ultimate vocation to become members of the Union. It has recommended also to further develop accession criteria, building on those defined at Copenhagen, which would make Union membership conditional not only upon the principles of Article 6 TEU, but upon mutual recognition of each other's borders, settlement of all outstanding issues relating to the treatment of national minorities, establishment of a regional organisation for free trade and economic cooperation as a basis for closer integration into the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1984/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Alleged illegal discharges of waste material

European law lays down precise rules for the recycling and discharge of solid urban waste and similar material, which is supposed to end up in rubbish tips. It transpires that in Lombardy, between Milan and Varese, some firms have engaged in recycling activities using new technologies. They rent entire hangars for their recycling activities, take plastic waste, process it and send it to cement works to be used as fuel. In practice, however, these hangars are soon abandoned and used simply as depositories for solid waste, plastics, tarpaulins and PVC, in other words as unauthorised waste-tips.

As the turnover of such firms seems to have reached spectacular levels, but more particularly in view of the serious threat to public health and the environment: Is the Commission aware of this practice? If so, will it take action to draw up a directive laying down precise conditions for the storage and disposal of refuse and plastic waste to ensure that the use of such hangars does not become a full-scale activity, usurping the role which is currently played by waste tips?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1999)

On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not in a position to draw the attention of the Italian authorities to the practice mentioned by the Honourable Member. Therefore, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to submit more details on the matter, in particular identifying precisely the places concerned by the practice mentioned, in order to allow the Commission to possibly start an investigation.

Existing Community legislation on waste provides that Member States have to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment. The abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste is in general prohibited (Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(1)). These rules are specified as regards landfilling of waste by virtue of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste(2). Therefore, uncontrolled dumping of plastic waste even within buildings, such as hangars, is certainly prohibited under existing Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1855/99

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

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Liquid waste in animal feedstuffs

I had the pleasure of putting a question about the use of liquid waste by the feedstuff industry both to Commissioner Fischler and to Council President Kalevi Hemilä on the occasion of their visit to Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 28 September 1999. Owing to the large number of topics covered in the discussion and to the lack of time it did not prove possible to give a sufficiently detailed answer to the question which I therefore wish to resubmit in writing.

What action is the Commission taking to rule out the possibility of waste products being added to animal feedstuffs in the EU? In my country, Finland, such an activity would be unheard of and would result in the immediate closure of the factory concerned because of the serious risks to health. If nevertheless some countries wish to make use of certain materials, how does the Commission intend to define the concept of liquid waste?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1999)

There has been recently a lot of media attention on the use of sewage sludge nutrition in several Member States.

The Commission reacted immediately requiring clarifications from the Member States concerned and organising urgent missions to verify the implementation of the relevant Community legislation.

Commission Decision 91/516/EEC of 9 September 1991, establishing a list of ingredients whose use is prohibited in compound feedingstuffs(1), specifically prohibits the use of sludge from sewage plants treating wastewater. Nevertheless, it could be the case that certain Member States have given a different interpretation of the decision. Therefore, in order to avoid any ambiguity, the Commission is currently considering to amend the decision in question to clarify the scope of the prohibition.

If it appears that a Member State is refusing to respect its obligations under Community law, the Commission will not hesitate to open proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) EC Treaty, should this prove necessary.

(1) OJ L 281, 9.10.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1738/99

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(1 October 1999)

Subject: Lack of controls by Italy at border crossings with the Republic of Slovenia

The lack of controls by Italy at its borders with the Republic of Slovenia is alarming.

Apart from a number of international border crossings which are manned at all times and where identity documents are required, other border crossings are left unmanned from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., while rural crossing points are only manned in the mornings.

In the province of Gorizia, checks are operated at only five out of 22 crossings.

1. Is the Commission aware of this failure by Italy to carry out controls at the external frontiers of the Union?

2. Does it consider that as a result Italy is in breach of the Schengen agreements?

3. Could this lack of controls not make it easier for non-Community nationals to enter the Union's territory?

4. Does the Commission feel it should intervene to compel Italy to carry out controls at its external frontiers?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1999)

The ten Member States party to the Schengen agreement are required to apply in particular the provisions on surveillance and monitoring of external borders set out in Articles 3 et seq. of the Convention applying the Schengen agreement, and the decisions adopted by the Executive Committee which have been incorporated into the Union framework.

The arrangements involve the following in particular: external borders may in principle be crossed only at border crossing points during the fixed opening hours; the border crossing points and opening hours are fixed in principle by the Member State concerned; specific arrangements may be laid down for minor border traffic; checks of external border posts are made in accordance with uniform principles; the Member States have undertaken to exercise surveillance on external borders between crossing points and of border crossing points outside normal opening hours; they have undertaken to deploy enough officers

to conduct checks and maintain surveillance along external borders; finally, the Member States concerned have undertaken to assist each other and maintain constant, close cooperation with a view to the effective exercise of checks and surveillance.

From the data supplied by the Honourable Member the Commission cannot conclude that Italy is failing to meet these commitments entered into under the Schengen agreement and now incorporated into the Union framework.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2416/99

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: EU-Morocco summit

The accession of Mohammed VI to the Moroccan throne unleashed a wave of national euphoria and raised high hopes as far reaching reforms were implemented.

The Eu should seize this historic opportunity to radically revise its approach to Morocco with a view to encouraging further progressive developments with a view to reducing inequalities and strengthening the Union's southern borders.

Does the Commission not believe that it should use its powers of initiative to propose a summit meeting of the appropriate EU and Moroccan authorities to examine the opportunities which the current situation offers?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's analysis of recent political changes in Morocco and of future relations between Morocco and the Community.

It was in this context that, on 21 October 1999, Mr Abderrahmane Youssoufi, the Moroccan Prime Minister, visited Brussels for a symposium on the common destiny of Morocco and Europe organised by the Euro-Moroccan Friendship Society and supported by the Presidency of the European Parliament.

Mr Youssoufi also met the President of the Commission and the Member responsible for external relations who took the opportunity to discuss developing relations between Europe and Morocco in the light of the entry into force of the Association Agreement.

The Commission will widen and deepen relations with Morocco under the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2432/99

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Reintroduction of wolves, bears and lynx

Will the Commission say whether there are any specific measures in progress (co-financed or not) to reintroduce wolves, bears and lynx? Have any measures been co-financed in the past for this purpose and are there any plans to do so in the near future?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Many projects have been financed under the financial instrument LIFE-Nature and its predecessors since 1988 aiming either directly or indirectly at the conservation of wolf, brown bear and lynx.

In particular the wolf has been one of the species targeted in 21 projects, the lynx in 14 and the brown bear in 17.

These projects certainly represent the major Community investment for the protection of these species.

Further to that, Member States may have taken similar or complementary initiatives in the framework of other Community funds.

Other projects for the conservation of these species may be financed in the future under LIFE III, provided good quality projects are presented for this purpose.