ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1351/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Seveso II Directive

On how many occasions in the last 50 years has an accident on a chemical site resulted in deaths outside the site?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

Since the entry into force of the previous and existing Community legislation on chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response (so-called Seveso I and II Directives, Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities(1) and Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances(2)), the number of deaths that occurred outside sites covered by the legislation and reported to the Commission by the Member States is five.

(1) OJ L 230, 5.8.1982.

(2) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0963/01

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 March 2001)

Subject: Vehicle registration plates

Will the European Commission please justify provisions which prohibit the display of the national flag of Member States on vehicle registration plates but which at the same time permit the display of the European Union flag?

Will it further review the appropriate legislation and allow Member States to determine for themselves what is permissible in this respect, since the prohibition of a Member State's national symbol under any circumstance hits at the very core of national sovereignty?

Anwer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2001)

There is no Community legislation either prohibitting the use of any national symbol in motor vehicles number plates or imposing the use of the European flag.

Therefore it is a matter for individual Member States to decide if they want to introduce or not national symbols in their number plates.

Concerning the use of the Community flag in number plates, Council Regulation (EC) No 2411/98 of 3 November 1998(1) just provides for the mutual recognition in intra-Community traffic of the distinguishing sign of the Member State in which motor vehicles and their trailers are registered.

The Commission has no intention to propose to modify the Council Regulation.

(1) OJ L 299, 10.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1236/01

by Reimer Böge (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Protection of animals during transport: follow-up measures to Commission report

In its report to the Council and the European Parliament of 6 December 2000(1) on the experience acquired by Member States since the implementation of Council Directive 95/29/EC(2) amending Directive 91/628/EEC(3) concerning the protection of animals during transport, the Commission notes serious problems of animal protection, particularly as regards the transport of animals for slaughter.

The Commission report clearly whose that there has been documents the inadequate implementation of the Directive in several Member States.

What stage has been reached in the consideration of these Treaty violations?

When does the Commission propose to initiate proceedings against the Member States which have failed to meet their Treaty obligations?

(1) COM(2000) 809.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

(3) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Although several Member States failed to achieve transposition of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 by the required dates, all Member States subsequently communicated details of their legislation transposing these texts into their national legal systems.

At the present time therefore the principal problems in relation to this Directive concern:

- inadequate enforcement by Member States within their territories;

- difficulties arising from ambiguities and imprecisions in the present text;

- obsolescence of certain provisions in the light of current developments.

The Commission is aware of the current areas of difficulty, notably as a result of the examination of mission reports of its Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), complaints from animal welfare organisations and information communicated by Member States.

Infringement procedures have already been opened in a number of cases where Member States have failed to comply with Commission requests to take action to rectify deficiencies in implementation and enforcement. The Commission is prepared to open further infringement procedures in cases where adequate proof of those infringements exists.

Following its presentation of the report referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission is also working on proposals for updating and improving the text of the Directive with the aim not only of laying down improved standards of animal welfare for transported animals but also clearer requirements in relation to enforcement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0930/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Disciplinary board procedure at the Commission

As we know, the former director of ECHO, Mr Gomez-Reino, was cleared by the Disciplinary Board of his peers which considered his case in 1999. The outgoing Commission endorsed the Disciplinary Board's opinion. Former Commissioner Gradin has stated that she was faced with a fait accompli in endorsing the disciplinary board's recommendation to clear Mr Gomez-Reino.

Will the Commission abolish the disciplinary board procedure and find another way of investigating and judging officials suspected of fraud?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

The deliberations and the working procedures of the Disciplinary Board are regulated in Title VI and annex IX of the Staff Regulations. According to long-standing case-law of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, a disciplinary measure may only be adopted where the facts alleged against the official are clearly proved. It is the Disciplinary Board which gives an opinion on that matter and on any penalty, if any, that is appropriate. The final decision is for the Appointing Authority which, in the case of A1 and A2 officials, is the College of Commissioners. Under the terms of the Staff Regulations, the Appointing Authority may decide to adopt a penalty that is more severe than that proposed by the Disciplinary Board, provided that it gives full and relevant reasons for its choice. The Appointing Authority cannot, however, convict an official whose guilt is not considered by the Disciplinary Board to have been proved. In the case referred to by the Honourable Member in his question, the Disciplinary Board concluded that they did not consider that guilt had been proved.

In the course of the Reform being undertaken in the Commission, on 28 November 2000 the College adopted a consultative document(1) on the reform of disciplinary proceedings. That document sets out the details and reasons for the Commission's proposals for making changes to the rules relating to the composition and working procedures of the Disciplinary Board and to other features of the disciplinary system. The Commission proposes to maintain the role of the Disciplinary Board, whilst modifying certain procedural rules concerning its composition and working procedures.

(1) SEC(2000) 2079.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1396/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2001)

Subject: Directive for a general framework for informing and consulting employees

Has the Commission conducted an impact assessment of the proposed directive for a general framework for informing and consulting employees? If it has, what were the results? If not, does the Commission consider it to be responsible legislative practice to proceed with the adoption of a new directive without being fully aware of its consequences?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

Before adopting its proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community(1), the Commission conducted, as is current practice, an evaluation of its impact on businesses and in particular on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs).

The Honourable Member will find the results of this evaluation in an annex to the Commission's proposal.

(1) OJ C 2, 5.1.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1881/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Portugal)

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

Can the Commission indicate:

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

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

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

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01, E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01, E-1882/01, E-1883/01 and E-1884/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0248/01

by Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 February 2001)

Subject: Regulation of alcohol consumption on various forms of transport, particularly aircraft

Drunkenness among passengers on various forms of transport is a relatively frequent occurrence. Such is the case on aircraft, where alcohol is served to passengers free of charge, with no restrictions on quantity.

Bearing in mind the inconvenience these kinds of situations cause for both passengers and crew, and the inadvisability, from the point of view of health, of consuming alcoholic beverages while travelling, especially on long plane journeys, will the Council state whether it has given consideration to this issue with a view to regulating the consumption of alcoholic beverages on various forms of transport, and on aircraft in particular? If so, what conclusions has it reached?

Reply

(10 July 2001)

The Council is aware that alcohol abuse on board aircraft can have a greater effect on bodily functions than in other situations.

As far as the flight safety aspects are concerned, the consumption of alcohol by pilots and cabin crew is governed by very strict rules.

The Council has never had occasion to discuss the matter raised by the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0909/01

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Changes in Spanish legislation on the electricity industry

The Spanish Royal Decree Law 2/2001 of 2 February 2001 amends the wording of the Sixth Ttransitional Provision of the Electricity Industry Act. The object of the exercise is to enable the Spanish Government to delay the opening of the case relating to State aids to electricity companies in the form of costs of transition to competition (CTCs). The new wording removes the most serious flaw in the earlier rules, which established the entitlement to receive a sum of money irrespective of the trend in costs and the energy price. Spanish consumers had been paying the sum in question by means of a 4,5 % surcharge on the standard electricity rate, and the electricity companies have thus received some ESP 500 billion.

By altering the rule concerned, the Government has in effect accepted the Commission view, fully shared by Spanish consumers and the questioner, that CTCs have been regulated in such a way as to constitute, in principle, unnotified State aids.

The change may be purely cosmetic and designed to avert the proceedings because the many remaining dubious points in the rules are continuing to strengthen the position of the existing electricity companies, thus making it difficult for new firms to enter the market. For example, the present wording still grants the right to compensation, the amount of which will be determined annually

by the Government without regard to cost and market trends. Furthermore, the assets on which the entitlement to payment is based have been valued under a suspect system in which the results exceed the investment outlay. In the light of these and other matters (increase in the total amount by approximately ESP 100 billion, failure to spell out the payment method, etc.), the Commission ought to examine the new payment system to ascertain whether it might serve in any way to impede competition.

Does the Commission consider that the changes to the Spanish electricity legislation make it impossible to open the case concerning State aids in the form of costs of transition to competition? Why have the proceedings not yet been instituted?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

The Commission has not yet decided whether initiating proceedings under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 93) is justified in this case. It is currently studying the impact of the changes made by Royal Decree-Law No 2/2001 of 2 February 2001. It is also considering the consequences of the Court of Justice's judgment of 13 March 2001 in Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra AG v. Schlesswag AG(1).

As the Honourable Member is aware, the problem of stranded costs in the electricity sector affects several Member States and poses complex and unusual problems as regards state aid. It is for this reason that the Commission feels it would be wise to wait for the above judgment before initiating proceedings in this case.

(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0945/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(29 March 2001)

Subject: Visits of Taiwanese government officials to the EU

Can the Council confirm whether it is EU policy not to allow Taiwanese government officials to visit any EU Member State? If this is the case, can the Council reveal who took the decision?

Moreover, can the Council explain why such a decision was taken and is still in force today, since Taiwan is a strong democratic state with amicable ties with the EU, while the PRC has repeatedly been criticised over its human rights violations?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council recalls to the Honourable Member its position on this question as it appears in particular in the Presidency declaration on behalf of the Union dated 20 July 1999, which states that the European Union supports the principle of One China. While the EU does not restrict economic, cultural and scientific contacts with the people of Taiwan, it does not encourage official visits.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0329/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: State support for the transfer of Olympic Airways to Spata airport

According to Commission Decision 1999/332/EC(1), Article 57, second indent, Olympic Airways (OA) will have to ensure that the compensation to be granted by Greece for the loss of investment at Hellenikon airport will actually be available in time for the projected investments to be carried out at Spata airport. Otherwise, the company could be exposed to larger cash requirements.

The Greek Government has also announced its intention of making use of the remaining aid authorised for loan guarantees to cover loans in respect of the transfer to Spata Airport with an indicative budget of GRD 70,2 billion, together with a specific analysis every three months and work which must be carried out.

Will the Commission say: To what factors does it attribute the delay in the transfer of OA?

In what respects have the conditions set by Decision 1999/332/EC and subsequently not been respected?

Who is responsible?

When is the transfer of the Technical Directorate in particular due to be completed?

(1) OJ L 128, 21.5.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2001)

Athens' new airport opened on 27 March 2001. Since then, the carriers which previously operated at Hellenikon airport have transferred their activities to the new airport. The Commission has no information at present to suggest that any carriers, including Olympic Airways, are experiencing operating difficulties at Spata. Moreover, the Commission's information shows that the transfer of Olympic Airways' Technical Directorate to the new airport should be completed this year.

The Commission authorised the payment of aid to Olympic Airways by Decision of 14 August 1998 on the basis of a restructuring plan covering the period 1998-2002. The Commission is in contact with the Greek authorities and is following closely both the current restructuring process and the process by which the company is being privatised, which began in December 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0297/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Subject: Inclusion of seaports in the Canary Islands in trans-European transport networks

Will the Commission say whether all seaports located in the Canary Islands, an outermost region of the European Union, have indeed been included in the trans-European transport networks and, if so, whether they been added to the list of transport infrastructure projects selected by the Essen European Council?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2001)

Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 establishes Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network(1), which identify projects of common interest. An amending Decision as regards seaports and inland ports as well as project No 8 in Annex III is being examined by the Parliament and the Council. The Conciliation Committee adopted a common draft at its meeting on 13 March 2001.

The amended text defines the categories of ports included in the network, as well as the general conditions and specifications for projects of common interest concerning seaports in the network. Hence, any port-related project of common interest complying with these conditions and specifications is suitable for financing under the trans-European transport network funds.

Under the amended text, all ports located in the Canary islands, would become part of the trans-European transport network, if they interconnect islands, peripheral or outermost regions by sea and/or connect them with the central regions of the Community. Fishing ports and marinas are excluded from this consideration.

With regard to the priority Essen projects concerning Spain, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the priority project No 8 Multimodal link Portugal/Spain-Europe includes in fact port areas, but the territory of the Canary islands is not covered by this project.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1518/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Licensing of free miners in the Forest of Dean

While one perfectly understands the needs for free miners to be licensed by the relevant authorities, what seems unclear is why there must be a substantial charge to such licences.

The free miners are told that this is because of European legislation. Could the Commission confirm that this is the case and, if it is, what measures they will take to amend the necessary regulations to avoid individuals being forced to pay such high fees in future?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

The Member States are the owners of their mining and energy resources and, as such, entitled to grant mining licences.

There is no Community legislation on the granting of licences for coalmining. The United Kingdom has notified the Commission that the Coal Authority is the body responsible for this.

It must, however, be noted that, pursuant to Article 67 of the ECSC Treaty, If the action taken by [a Member State] reduces differences in production costs by allowing special benefits to or imposing special charges on the coal or steel undertakings within its jurisdiction in comparison wit the other industries in the same country, the Commission is empowered to make the necessary recommendations to that State after consulting the Consultative Committee and the Council.

The Commission has received no such notification from the United Kingdom.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0776/01

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Use of animal meal as feed in fish farming

In view of the growing risk of the spread of BSE and the implications for human health:

1. Will the Commission say whether there are any EU regulations on the use of animal by-products as feed in fish farming?

2. Is it aware of health problems involving fish farms where animal meal has been used as feed?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

In addressing the questions posed by the Honourable Member it is necessary to highlight that most of the fish species farmed for food production are in their natural environment carnivorous species. When farmed, they need to be fed mainly with feedingstuffs composed of large amounts of products of animal origin and mainly of fish meal and fish oil.

1. The legal basis for the use of products of animal origin in animal nutrition, including farmed fish, is Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying down the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste, for its placing on the market and for the prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin and amending Directive 90/425/EEC(1). Council Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein(2), as last amended by Commission Decision 2001/165/EC of 27 February 2001(3), further restricts the use in animal nutrition of products of animal origin.

2. Certain fish diseases may be transmitted to farmed fish fed with raw fish or unprocessed fish waste. For this reason it is current practice to avoid such feeding.

The Commission is monitoring closely any new scientific development in relation to possible transmissibility of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) agents to other farmed animals including fish. In this context, the Commission has not been informed of particular health problems affecting farmed fish fed with meals of animal origin. However, the Commission is currently supporting a project in the framework of the TSE Action Plan for research which looks into the potential transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and scrapie to fish. Preliminary results are expected soon and they will be evaluated accordingly.

(1) OJ L 363, 27.12.1990.

(2) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.

(3) OJ L 58, 28.2.2001.