ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3957/00

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Rule of law in Romania

Is the Commission aware that the Romanian Justice Minister, Valeria Stoica, recently had the organisation Pro-Transylvania declared unlawful, despite the universal right of association?

If not, when will the Commission institute an inquiry into the matter?

If so, does the Commission feel that such conduct may be reconciled with the principles of the rule of law?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2001)

The 2000 Regular Report from the Commission on Romania's Progress Towards Accession(1) observed that the freedom to associate is respected in Romania and that the treatment of national minorities is satisfactory. Furthermore, the Romanian constitution provides for freedom of association - with the exception of organisations whose goals and activities are against the principles of the state (including the sovereignty and integrity of Romania).

It is the Commission's understanding that the articles of establishment of Pro-Transilvania call for regional autonomy for Transilvania. This has led to a detailed legal debate within Romania over whether or not regional autonomy, as used in this context, can be interpreted as being contrary to the integrity of the Romanian state and is therefore unconstitutional. After several hearings in lower courts, the Court of Appeal decided that Pro-Transilvania's articles of establishment, in their current formulation, were unconstitutional. A direct consequence of this ruling is that the organisation cannot be given a legal status.

The legal arguments related to this case are complex and involve an assessment of whether the provisions of the Romanian constitution, as have been interpreted in this case, constitute an unjustified prohibition on the freedom of association. It is not within the competence of the Commission to assess the interpretation by Romanian courts of the Romanian constitution. Since Romania is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, and considering that domestic appeal procedures have been exhausted, the appropriate body to assess such a case is the European Court of Human Rights.

The criteria for accession to the Union, as set out at the 1993 Copenhagen European Council, make explicit reference to the need for stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. The Commission is fully committed to ensuring that this condition for accession is respected and will take up any relevant cases in its regular reports on candidate countries' progress towards accession and in its bilateral relations with them.

(1) COM(2000) 710 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0231/01

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(30 January 2001)

Subject: Bank charges to non-residents

Can the Commission state whether the charging of fees for the transferral of money internally within Spain and the deposit of money from the UK into a Spanish account specific to non-residential account holders is legal under European law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2001)

The free movement of capital as provided for in Article 56 (ex Article 73B) of the EC Treaty is one of the cornerstones of the Single Market. However, Article 58 (ex Article 73D) of the EC Treaty explicitly sets out the Member States' right to maintain or introduce certain measures for reasons of taxation (different treatment of residents and non-residents) as well as for statistical and administrative reasons. However, such measures may not be discriminatory.

Spain imposes certain reporting requirements on their banks and financial institutions in order to obtain statistical information for establishing their balance of payments. Certain transactions from and/or to a non-resident account as well as cross-border transactions in general have to be notified to the authorities.

There is also a tax issue to be considered in this context: residents in Spain are subject to Spanish income tax on the interest from their bank accounts. Non-residents, on the contrary, are normally not subject to Spanish income tax on such income, but in their Member State of residence.

Hence, operating a non-resident account calls for additional administrative procedures for the credit institutions under present Spanish legislation. If a bank therefore decides to levy additional charges in order to cover the cost of the necessary manual handling, this decision is a commercial decision and not an illegal discrimination. The Commission deplores these circumstances and the levying of fees but cannot intervene in the banks' price policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0215/01

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Council

(5 February 2001)

Subject: CFP and integration

The Fisheries Council is requested to produce a strategy on integrating environment and sustainable development into the Common Fisheries Policy. A comprehensive strategy is due to be submitted before the Gothenburg summit in June 2001, as part of the so-called Cardiff integration process. How is the Council intending to fulfil this request given the apparently limited progress to date?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0182/01 and E-0215/01

(14 May 2001)

1. The Council submitted to the European Council at Santa Maria da Feira (June 2000) a report on Integrating environmental issues and sustainable development into the Common Fisheries Policy, responding to the Cologne European Council's invitation. This report was mainly descriptive: it presented the legal framework of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) with respect to the integration issue, the existing instruments and the results obtained.

2. Though not yet setting out an integration strategy, the Feira report constituted the first step in the definition of the sectoral strategy as requested by the Helsinki European Council. Noting that the CFP objectives of protecting the marine environment while at the same time managing the use of living marine resources responsibly in order to ensure that they remain sustainable have been only partially achieved, it concluded that endeavours to integrate environmental requirements into fisheries policy must therefore be continued and stepped up.

3. The Feira report also referred to the CFP review in 2002, which will provide an opportunity for an in-depth debate on all questions related to the integration of fisheries and environmental policies and enable appropriate adjustments to be made to the CFP, as required for such integration in accordance with the integration strategy requested by the Helsinki European Council for June 2001.

4. The Council bodies are at present in the process of drawing up draft Council conclusions on environmental integration and sustainable development in the Common Fisheries Policy, which are intended to respond to the request for an integration strategy by the June deadline.

5. It should be noted, however, that the Commission is expected to submit shortly to the Council and the European Parliament a number of important documents which will be relevant for a sectoral strategy.

It has not been possible therefore at this stage to take into consideration these documents which are:

- the Green Paper on the reform of the CFP;

- the Communication on elements of a strategy for the integration of environmental protection requirements into the CFP;

- the Action Plan for biodiversity (chapter on fisheries).

6. The contribution which will be provided in this context will still need a thorough examination in the Council and should play an important role in the implementation of a comprehensive integration strategy following the European Council meeting in Göteborg on 15 and 16 June 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0107/01

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Failure of Ireland to appoint an ombudsman for farming

Why has Ireland not appointed an ombudsman for farming?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

The European Parliament shall appoint an Ombudsman after each election of the European Parliament for the duration of its term of office. The Ombudsman presently in office is M. Jacob Söderman. He receives complaints and conducts inquiries concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role.

The particular question concerning Ireland and the appointment of an ombudsman for farming raised by the Honourable Member is a matter of national competence and does not fall within the competence of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0725/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: UK university students attending EU universities

British students are able to attend universities on the continent providing they have the necessary education qualifications. However, there is no financial assistance for these students, and this frequently acts as a deterrent to those wishing to study abroad.

Given that a key way of encouraging European integration is to encourage our young people to live and study abroad, what measures is the Commission considering to help students to study in another EU Member States, particularly vis-à-vis financial assistance/grants etc.?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2001)

In order to enable and encourage students in one Member State to study in another Member State, which as the Honourable Member stated is a way to further European integration, the Commission established the Erasmus mobility scheme in 1987, first included under the Erasmus programme and from 1996 as part of the Erasmus action under the Socrates programme.

The Erasmus mobility scheme enables a student from one of the Member States participating in the Socrates programme to study between 3 to 12 months in another participating Member State. The student receives an Erasmus grant of 50-500 a month. The average grant among all participating countries in the academic year 1999/2000 was 166 per student per month.

The Erasmus student also benefits from the framework for mobility that has been built up under the Erasmus mobility scheme. Before the Erasmus student leaves for his/her study period, the home university and the host university agree, together with the student, on a clearly defined programme of studies. At the end of the study period abroad, the host institution supplies the student and the home institution with a certificate confirming that the agreed programme has been followed and concluded. The home university shall ensure to all Erasmus mobility students academic recognition of their studies at the host institution as a fully recognised part of their home country diploma/degree.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0091/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: BSE: large-scale dumping of carcasses and fodder in Mesía (Galicia, Spain)

The recently-discovered, open and visible dumping of cattle carcasses in Galicia has brought about a general collapse of consumer confidence in the measures adopted at EU level to combat BSE, and also relates to the even more disturbing phenomenon of the further impoverishment of the already disadvantaged stockbreeding sector: in Galicia, almost all farming is family-based, and the sector is not prepared for the grave crisis produced by the appearance of BSE-infected livestock.

The only treatment given to the carcasses dumped has been the administration of quicklime. This act of dumping was, furthermore, preceded by the dumping of over 50 tonnes of fodder of animal origin.

The statements made by those responsible for these acts of dumping give reason to believe that they have acted in accordance with the Community rules.

In view of the above, can the Commission state whether any rules exist at European level on the treatment to be administered to feedingstuffs containing animal residues with a view to their elimination? Can the Commission state whether the same rules indicate how such feedingstuffs are to be eliminated, and, if so, provide details?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2001)

According to 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) animal carcasses must be processed in an approved plant under official veterinary surveillance. In exceptional circumstances, they may be disposed of by burning or burial.

From 1 April 1997, Council Decision 1999/534/EC, of 19 July 1999 on measures applying to the processing of certain animal waste to protect against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Commission Decision 97/735/EC(2) requires that all mammalian animal waste must be processed in accordance with certain minimum parameters which are regarded as being the most effective standards for the inactivation of the agents of scrapie and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

Member States may authorise the processing of this animal waste by a method which does not meet these standards if the resulting processed material is destroyed by burial, incineration, burning as fuel or a similar method which ensures safe disposal.

The additional requirements established by Community legislation on disposal of animal material presenting a BSE risk have been provided to the Honourable Member in replying to her Written Question P-0052/01(3).

(1) OJ L 363, 27.12.1990, p. 51. Directive as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.

(2) OJ L 204, 4.8.1999.

(3) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 247.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0586/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Birth defects in Sicily

The paediatrics department of the Muscatello hospital in Augusta has published data for the year 2000 concerning birth defects in Sicily. The situation in the industrial triangle of Augusta-Melilli-Priolo is deeply disturbing, since the rate of birth defects is around 6 %, whereas the World Health Organisation (WHO) considers that rates of 2 % and above should be seen as a danger signal.

Are there any provisions for Community rules and/or measures to protect the health of those living in highly industrialised areas? Are there any Community measures for the prevention and treatment of birth defects?

Will the Commission take steps to remedy the serious situation described above?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0750/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Subject: Intervention buying of beef and the BSE crisis

What view does the Commission take of the fact that the taxpayer has had to foot the entire bill for the BSE crisis, even though it is well documented that producers of meat meal and animal feedingstuffs are guilty of serious negligence?

Has it examined whether the industry may be held liable and be open to claims for compensation? If not, why not?

Does the it intend, at least in cases in which there have been clear breaches of the law, for example in Bavaria, where the temperature was not high enough in the production process, to recommend to the Member States to make claims for liability?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

These issues have been previously addressed in a number of contexts including the report of the Committee of Enquiry about BSE and its follow-up. The Commission is once more reviewing this information and will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0317/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Treatment of naval war graves

What enquiries has the European Commission made about arrangements in the Member States for ensuring respect for naval war graves? Will it bring forward proposals for EU-wide standards and for promoting broader international standards?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0367/01

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2001)

Subject: EU funds linked to anti-Semitic literature

Is the Commission aware of any EU funds used in Palestine to produce literature of an anti-Semitic nature? If so, what is the Commission doing to investigate this?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2001)

The Commission rejects any attempt to promote intolerance and ethnic hatred or to hinder the efforts by the different parties committed to peace in the Middle East. In this context, anti-Semitic content in books, whatever its nature, is particularly regrettable.

None of the projects in support of the Palestinian Authority financed by the Commission have supported the production or distribution of books, including schoolbooks. As regards projects financed bilaterally by Member States, the Commission has no right to monitor or interfere, and therefore the relevant Member States would have to be addressed individually.

The Commission has always focused its assistance in promotion of a culture of peace, tolerance and human rights in the Middle East. In this regard, Article 2 of the Union-Palestinian Interim Association Agreement clearly states that mutual co-operation between the Parties has to be based on the respect of democratic principles and fundamental human rights as set out in the universal declaration on human rights, which guides their internal and international policy . On the basis of these principles, the Commission chooses whether or not to fund a proposed project. So far, no request has ever been made for the printing or distribution of books, including schoolbooks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0211/01

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Consultation on CFP review

What plans does the Commission have to consult stakeholders as widely as possible following publication of the Green Paper on the CFP review?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0171/01 and E-0211/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2001)

The intention of the Commission is to launch a wide ranging debate on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Green Paper will be made available to all interested parties. The main objective of the Commission is to involve as many stakeholders as possible and, as such, it encourages them to send proposals and comments on the Green Paper to the Commission.

Furthermore, the Commission will organise a public hearing in early June 2001 where all the interested parties will have the possibility to present their views, ideas and comments regarding the future of the Common Fisheries Policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0550/01

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 February 2001)

Subject: Impounding of Belgian ham in Portugal in the wake of the dioxin crisis

In 1999, the Portuguese authorities impounded a number of deliveries of ham from a Flemish company which bore a date which gave grounds for suspecting that they might be contaminated with dioxin. Similar products held in stock from the same period were tested and analysed for dioxin contamination. Unlike the authorities in other countries, the Portuguese authorities have never adopted the method of testing samples. In the interim, the goods have been declared unfit for human consumption and actually had to be destroyed. The company involved is not eligible for the aid made available in Belgium for the destruction of products from the suspect period because the final date for applications for such aid has passed.

Is the Commission aware of the attitude of the Portuguese authorities to the Belgian method of testing and analysing samples? Is it acceptable that, because of the attitude of the Portuguese authorities, the products have now been declared unfit for human consumption and the company involved can no longer destroy them and claim the aid made available in Belgium for the destruction of products from the suspect period? How many complaints has the Commission received to date about measures taken by Member States against Belgian products in the wake of the dioxin crisis?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 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-0008/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: European Defence and Security Policy and NATO

Do the decisions taken at Nice with regard to the European Defence and Security Policy look seemlessly and coherently into the wider framework for defence and security policy already in place as part of NATO?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2001)

The Commission welcomes the Nice decisions on the European Security and defence policy (ESDP) and believes they are fully coherent with the wider defence and security policy already in place as part of the North atlantic treaty organization (NATO).

The Nice decisions concern the Union's ability to act where the Alliance as a whole is not engaged in cases falling within the so-called Petersberg tasks. These relate to crisis management and peacekeeping and do not cover the issue of the territorial defence of Member States.

NATO's Washington Summit underlined the enhanced role attributed to crisis management policy outside purely defence considerations. The new structures and capabilities developed under ESDP should be seen as complementary to those of the alliance.

It is the Commission's understanding that both NATO members and Union Member States are ready to play a full role in operations of this kind, within the framework of NATO or of the Union and within the emerging dialogue and cooperation between these two organisations.

There is naturally a need to continue work on the procedural aspects of this cooperation. These are taking place within the four Union/NATO working groups which have been meeting regularly for the past months.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0275/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Noise Regulations in the European Union

Will the Commission say whether there are any European regulations covering noise emanating from domestic premises which would protect domestic residents from excessive noise coming from their neighbours' residences?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2001)

At this time there are no regulations at Community level against neighbourhood noise, as raised by the Honourable Member.

The Member States do not currently apply harmonised indicators of noise that relate to so-called environmental or man-made noise. This aspect will be covered by the proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and the Council relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise(1) adopted by the Commission on 26 July 2000.

The legislative proposal is currently under discussion in the Parliament and Council.

(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.