ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1508/99

by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Promoting the Königsbrücker Heide and Am Spitzberg nature conservation areas (in Saxony, Germany) in the context of the Community's Konver initiative

As part of the Konver initiative the Community has given financial aid to the Königsbrücker Heide and Am Spitzberg nature conservation areas in Saxony.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What is the amount of subsidies and loans, what are they for and what specific measures have they been used to support?

2. Have the measures resulted in the protected status of the areas being impaired (e.g. as a result of destruction of biotopes, afforestation of open areas or provision of firebreaks in woodland areas)?

3. Have the measures jeopardised the areas' suitability as natural habitats (Directive 92/0043/EEC(1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora)?

4. To what extent do the measures supported contradict environmental or nature conservation legislation in force or violate the provision in the Community initiative Konver that measures supported must be such as to improve the environment?

5. Is the Commission aware that for the purpose of applying for more money from Konver an application has been made to remove the protected status of the Am Spitzberg conservation area?

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

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 1999)

During the present programming period 1994-1999, Saxony is receiving grants from the structural funds under the Konver Community initiative.

In application of the principles of partnership and subsidiarity, national or regional authorities are responsible for the implementation of operational programmes and the selection of specific projects. In the case of Saxony, the ministry of economics is responsible in the first instance. They are of course bound by European legislation including that relating to nature protection legislation.

For the Konver Community initiative, priorities for funding are defined, and then specific projects are selected during the implementation of the programme. It is certainly possible therefore to submit project applications for the different priorities to the responsible authorities.

Should the Honourable Member be aware of a potential infringement in relation to the case of Am Spitzberg or any other, he is invited to submit further details so that the Commission can take up the matter with the German authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1605/99

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 September 1999)

Subject: Extension of the legal basis for Community aid

Under existing Community legislation the only provision made for Community aid for firms facing difficulties is where the crisis arises from veterinary or phytosanitary related infections in animals requiring the products derived from such livestock to be taken off the market to prevent the symptoms of the disease being transmitted from animals to humans. Community support measures to tackle the BSE crisis were taken on this legal basis.

In the case of the dioxin crisis, it was also decided at Community level to take the livestock off the market to protect public health. In this case, however, the danger to human health did not arise from a viral or bacterial infection but from human error. Nonetheless, the impact on firms is similar.

Does the Commission not consider that given the scale of the dioxin crisis in Belgium and the fact that human error of this kind may also occur in other Member States, it is desirable to broaden the legal basis for Community support so that in future when there is objective evidence of disease in animals and the infected livestock and derived products are unfit for human consumption and have to be withdrawn from the market this can be regarded as sufficient grounds for Community support for the firms concerned?

Will the Commission bring forward legislative proposals, if necessary, to create such a legal basis?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 1999)

It is quite correct that, as Community law stands, i.e. Council Decision 90/0424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field(1), the only provision for financial intervention by the Community covers the eradication and monitoring of the diseases listed in the annex to that Decision; the list includes bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in particular.

The dioxin crisis was not caused by one of the diseases on that list but was due to human error causing pollution within the food chain.

The Commission's feeling is that, in cases of human error, the rules and regulations on liability should in principle come into play. In no circumstances can the originator of the pollution be compensated.

As to the scope open to Member States for granting state aid to private individuals or businesses which have suffered adverse consequences as a result of such an error, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to consult the answer which it gave on this subject in connection with question P-1609/99(2).

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(2) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 147.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2295/99

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Imports of hucho and hucho fry into Finland

Fish may be imported into Finland only from EU-authorised fish hatcheries. This authorisation covers establishments which have closed systems, i.e. which do not come into contact with open waters so that the risk of disease is reduced.

The hucho is a freshwater fish, although under marine conditions it has a much higher growth potential; this is why efforts are being made to import it into Finland. If reared in freshwater, fish must be kept in open pond systems with water supplies from surface water, in order to obtain high quality products. If the hucho seed fish are kept at a constant moderate temperature in groundwater the spawn is of less value. In Germany and Austria these open systems for breeding hucho are regularly monitored by the health inspectorates and tested for disease.

Is it possible to obtain a derogation for importing into Finland hucho or hucho fry which are not bred in closed systems? What certificates or documentary evidence would be required?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

The conditions for intra-Community trade in live fish for breeding purposes are laid down in Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products(1). The purpose of this Directive is to prevent the spreading of fish diseases during commercial transactions.

Under Directive 91/67/EEC, Finland has obtained the status of a disease free country with regard to infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS), two main diseases in salmonid species. Any Member State wanting to export salmonid species to Finland must give the guarantees laid down in Community legislation about the absence of these diseases. Since hucho is a member of the salmonid family, any export of this species to a disease free country is subject to that condition. No derogation to that principle is foreseen.

No specific Community import requirements for salmonids from third countries have been established. Directive 91/67/EEC lays down that, under such conditions, Member States shall ensure that imports are subject to conditions at least equivalent to those applying to the production and placing on the market of Community products.

(1) OJ L 46, 19.2.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2193/99

by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Trichloroethylene

Trichloroethylene is a highly volatile solvent which damages the nervous system and is considered to be carcinogenic. The Commission has traditionally taken a lenient attitude towards this solvent. In Sweden, however, trichloroethylene, like certain other chlorinated solvents, has been prohibited in consumer products since 1993 and in industry since 1996.

Has the Commission and its own experts in this field taken in the latest research findings pursuant to which trichloroethylene should be classified as carcinogenic?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Since 1976 trichloroethylene has a Community wide harmonised classification as a dangerous substance in Annex I of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances(1). Since 1988 trichloroethylene falls into category 3 of the carcinogenic substances (possible carcinogenic effects on man). Furthermore it is classified as dangerous to the environment since 1996.

Concerning the ban on trichloroethylene in Sweden, it is important to note that there are a number of exemptions for industry from this ban.

The regular expert meetings held on behalf of the Commission have been intensively discussing trichloroethylene since 1996 to review its classification and labelling. In doing so they consider latest research results. This includes dicussions at national level such as the meeting of experts on 2 December 1999 in Frankfurt am Main, where a number of epidemiological studies causing concern were critically evaluated.

The frequent discussions on trichloroethylene and the careful evaluation of existing data show that it is inappropriate to claim that the Commission has traditionally taken a lenient attitude towards this substance.

(1) OJ 196, 16.8.1967.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2606/99

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Early retirement pension scheme

Can the Commission confirm if there is going to be an increase in payment in the new early retirement pension scheme next year? If so, will those already receiving this pension through the old scheme, qualify for this increase?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2000)

The new Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund(1) allows an increase of the maximum amounts eligible for Community support under the measure of early retirement which may be integrated in the framework of the rural development plans proposed by the Member States for the period 2000-2006. The increased aid amounts for early retirement would also only apply to new applicants to the scheme. Nevertheless, given that commitments under the existing scheme Council Regulation (EEC) No 2079/92 of 30 June 1992 instituting a Community aid scheme for early retirement from farming(2), should be integrated into the new rural development programming, it is not entirely excluded

that the aid amounts for existing beneficiaries be raised to any increased amounts for new beneficiaries. However, such raise must be duly justified by the circumstances of the Member State concerned. The increase of maximum amounts eligible for Community support in the new Council Regulation does not as such justify an increase in payments under existing commitments.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2860/99

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Rheinfelden power station support for large hydroelectric plants

The Rheinfelden Rhine power station plans to expand its hydroelectric power output from 25,7 to 116 megawatts. This extension is to replace the old power station dating from 1898, which is in need of renovation. The changeover must begin by the middle of 2003, otherwise the concession granting the right to use the water will expire and with it the authorisation to produce power on this site.

Large hydroelectric power stations are not at present covered by either German or European schemes to support renewable forms of energy. The extension to the Rheinfelden hydroelectric plant which is needed would be impossible in the current situation. If for economic reasons large hydroelectric power stations such as Rheinfelden can no longer be built, the EU will have even greater problems fulfilling its Kyoto commitments to reduce CO2.

1. Is the Commission aware of the Rheinfelden case? Are there similar cases in other countries?

2. What is the Commission's view of this case?

3. Does the Commission see any possibility that this case may be covered by the planned directive on support for electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2000)

The authorisation criteria for the construction or conversion of power stations fall within the competence of the Member States. The Commission is not aware of the specific issues concerning the Rheinfelden power station.

The Commission is in favour of developing hydroelectric power stations, but investment decisions are taken by the market participants with the agreement of the relevant authorities.

The Commission is currently examining the question of including large hydroelectric power stations within the scope of a proposal for a directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal market in electricity.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2817/99

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Customs processing of T5 forms

After being stamped at the customs office of departure, T5 forms have to be forwarded to the authorities (Customs Service, Postal Service and/or intervention agency), although the exporters continue to bear full responsibility.

Will the Commission take steps so that responsibility for returning T5 forms is also transferred to the authorities and so that the loss of a T5 form in the authorities' keeping is automatically deemed to be force majeure?

Will it require all intervention agencies to notify exporters of any missing T5 forms no later than three months after the export declarations have been accepted?

Will it take steps to require national intervention agencies to establish on-line computer systems so that T5 forms can be tracked down at any given time?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2000)

Where a control copy T5 is used to check the use or destination of agricultural products for export from the Community, the office of destination checks the use or destination provided for (in this case, exit from the customs territory) and must record, if necessary by keeping a copy, the data on the control copy T5 and the results of the checks carried out. The original is then sent without delay to the address stated on the document (the customs authority or intervention agency), after the necessary

formalities have been fulfilled and after this has been duly noted by the office of destination (Articles 482(4) and 483 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 the customs code implementing provisions)(1).

Under these circumstances, responsibility for returning the original already falls to the authorities, and in the event that the original is lost after its return by the office of destination, the latter continues to be able to confirm that the goods have been assigned to their intended use or destination, by virtue of its record of the data and the results of the checks carried out. Even then, a duplicate can be issued if necessary, in accordance with Article 486(4) of the Regulation, annotated by the office of destination. In the Commission's opinion, therefore, there is no need to provide for force majeure in such circumstances.

The Commission considers that the Member States are best placed to assess and decide whether it is appropriate for national intervention agencies to inform exporters of any failure to return the control copy T5 within three months from the receipt of the export declaration and whether it is necessary to set up a computer system for this purpose. It does not think it appropriate to propose the adoption of new legal obligations for the national intervention agencies.

(1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2868/99

by Marco Pannella (TDI) to the Council

(10 January 2000)

Subject: The cases of Mrs Flora Brovina, Mr Albin Kurti and Mr Ukshin Hoti

Mrs Flora Brovina, a paediatrician and intellectual from Pristina, was arrested by the Belgrade authorities for providing Kosovars with medical and food aid during the war. She was also accused of preparing terrorist acts. She was initially detained in Lipljan prison in Kosovo, where she was repeatedly tortured, and was then transferred to Serbia. During visits, she was not allowed to speak Albanian. She has a heart condition and has difficulty in obtaining the necessary medicines. On 9 December 1999 Mrs Brovina was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment for activities against the State.

Mr Albin Kurti, a former representative of the Pristina Students Union, was brutally arrested on 28 April 1999 and is held in Pozarevac prison in Serbia. He is also accused of activities against the State and links with a terrorist organisation. Since he was deported to Serbia, the Serbian authorities have refused to provide any information about him.

Mr Ukshin Hoti, a university lecturer and leading Kosovar figure who was nominated for the EP's Sakharov Prize in 1998, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment in 1994. Although his prison sentence came to an end last May, he is still missing. According to two concurrent testimonies, he was released from Lipljan prison on 16 May 1999. However, his family have not received any official notification from the Belgrade authorities. He may subsequently have been abducted and taken to Serbia.

Does the Council have more detailed information on the above cases?

What action has the Council taken, in particular at the United Nations and OSCE levels, with a view to the speedy release of some 2000 Kosovar prisoners still held in Serbian prisons, and to obtaining all the necessary information on the persons who have disappeared?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

The Council fully shares the Honourable Parliamentarian's concern over of the fate of the Kosovar prisoners still held in Serbia and notably in the cases of Mrs Flora Brovina, Mr Albin Kurti and Mr Ukshin Hoti. On the occasion of the 19 July 1999 General Affairs Council, Ministers called on the FRY to guarantee the ICRC full access to these prisoners. The Council also called for the immediate release of prisoners held without charges and to treat prisoners in accordance with applicable international standards.

After the 19 July GAC, the ICRC has been allowed access to Serbian jails by the Belgrade authorities. It has so far identified 2000 Kosovo Albanian prisoners and might be in possession of updated information on the whereabouts and the conditions of the prisoners mentioned by the Honourable Parliamentarian.

The Honourable Parliamentarian can be assured that the Council will continue to consider progress in democratic freedoms and respect for the rights of minorities including the fate of the Kosovar prisoners as the key element for an eventual lifting of sanctions targeting the Belgrade regime.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2607/99

by Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Telecom Italia S.p.A's Audiotel services

Telecom S.p.A has the monopoly in Italy on Audiotel services which provide subscribers with useful services such as advice by telephone, information on various subjects and counselling.

Does the Commission intend to allow Telecom to abuse its monopoly by paying the bills of the companies providing these services if and when it pleases, even postponing indefinitely the payment of large sums of money on the ground of general irregularities?

One wanders who will benefit in cases like this where the service companies adversely affected do not even have the opportunity to vindicate themselves and are likely to go bankrupt, thus leading to the loss of jobs.

Does the Commission intend to look into the fact that, by letter of 21 October 1999 (Reference No 0028084-01), Telecom Italia S.p.A. of Via Dalmazzo 15, Turin stopped the payment of the sum owed since 1 August 1999 to the undertaking Publiline S.r.l. of Via Antiche Fornaci 66, Cremona, Italy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Audiotel services (audiotex) were deregulated in Italy by General Decree on Authorisations No 420/95. However, the provision of restricted access services must be subject to special conditions. The Commission has stepped in on several occasions to urge the Italian authorities to make such conditions public promptly, in order to enable audiotel companies to provide their services, and it is continuing to monitor the situation.

However, a number of companies are currently providing audiotel services via the Telecom Italia network (numbers starting with 166 and 144). Telecom Italia bills the customers and pays part of the amount charged to the service provider. Publiline is one such service provider.

According to the Commission's information, Telecom Italia did indeed suspend payment to Publiline of sums charged to its subscribers in accordance with one of the conditions laid down in the contract between the two companies. It seems that the telecommunications company brought this case before the Italian courts.

In principle, the Commission does not intervene in cases pending before national courts. However, national courts can consult the Commission on points of law relating to the application of competition rules in cases brought before them, as stated in paragraph 38 of the Commission notice of 13 February 1993 on cooperation between national courts and the Commission in applying competition rules(1).

(1) OJ C 39, 13.2.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1574/99

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

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Regional Development Programme (RDP)

What is the deadline for the submission to the European Union of Regional Development Programmes for the period 2000-2006 by Member States with Objective 1 regions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1574/99 and E-1575/99 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 1999)

The second subparagraph of Article 15(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) states that the regional development plans must be submitted, unless otherwise agreed with the Member State concerned, not later than four months after the list of eligible Objective 1 regions has been drawn up. As the Commission adopted that list on 1 July 1999, the deadline for submitting the Objective 1 plans is 1 November 1999. At the Member State's request and if the Commission agrees, this deadline can be extended to facilitate preparation of the plan.

(1) OJ L 162, 26.6.1999.