ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2532/00

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

(25 July 2000)

Subject: EU funding for water project (Rio Sao Francisco, Brazil)

The Brazilian Government has announced a plan to divert part of the Rio Sao Francisco and channel water into the states of Pernambuco, Paraiba, Ceará and Rio Grande do Norte in order to overcome the water shortage in those regions. This project is highly controversial in terms of both its technical feasibility and its contribution to sustainable development for the good of the people in the region. According to government figures, the cost of engineering and construction work alone will amount to 3,5 billion real.

Can the Commission say whether EU funding has been requested and/or has already been granted for this project? If so, can the Commission justify its assessment of the project's sustainability? If a financial contribution was refused, can the Commission say on what grounds?

Can the Commission provide more detailed answers to the following questions, should the diversion of the water be feasible:

- how high a price would the end-user pay?

- how would the costs be divided between government, farmers and private households?

- how would the environmental aspects of the project be resolved in view of the ecologically precarious state of the river?

- is there a detailed plan for the sustainable development of the Sao Francisco valley and the surrounding areas which takes due account of the needs of the people in the region?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The Brazilian government and the Commission have never discussed such a plan. The Commission has not received any project of this kind to date.

As a result it is not in a position to answer the Honourable Member's specific questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2033/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: The treatment of pain

It would appear that hundreds of thousands of people suffer daily from high levels of physical pain. Only a small number of these people receive analgesic treatment with opioids, in line with the directives issued by the World Health Organisation, which considers that the treatment of pain is one of the main indicators of the quality of a health service.

1. Can the Commission say what position Italy, France, Germany, Great Britain and Spain, occupy among the industrialised countries with regard to the treatment of pain;

2. Can it say whether any of the research programmes funded by the Union in the area of public health specifically relate to therapies designed to alleviate pain;

3. If so, can it indicate whether, in addition to traditional opioids, there are any new drugs which can be used to combat pain;

4. Does a Community agency exist which is able to coordinate such research and disseminate the findings in all the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

1. The Commission has no data on the treatment of pain.

2. Two research projects in the Biomed 2 programme (fourth framework programme) and in the Quality of life and management of living recourses programme (fifth framework programme) deal directly with the treatment of pain: Opioid treatment of chronic pain and inflammation in the locomotor system and Mechanisms of trigeminal pain. Besides these two projects, the Commission is currently funding eight other pain research projects of a generic nature. Another project is now in the contract negotiation phase.

Under the third action plan to combat cancer (Decision 646/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 March 1996(1)), a number of initiatives geared particularly towards palliative care include pain management among their areas of action.

3. Opioids remain the treatment of choice for patients with chronic pain.

4. The Commission is not aware of the existence of such an agency. However, the dissemination and possible exploitation of results is an important and mandatory element within each project funded under the fourth and fifth framework programmes. The framework programme provides for several instruments (concerted actions, thematic networks, virtual institutes) for coordinating research activities in a specific field in Europe, in line with the philosophy of the European research area.

(1) OJ L 95, 16.4.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1201/00

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Construction of residential tower blocks on the Ijmeer

Luxury tower blocks are under construction in Almere in the area beyond the dyke along the Ijmeer. The Ijmeer is covered by the wild birds directive and the habitats directive and it is also part of the national ecological network.

Is it the Commission's view that if there is no overriding interest (or at least if it has not been demonstrated) building plans of this nature cannot go ahead?

Is the Commission of the opinion that an overriding interest has not been demonstrated in this instance and that there are no plans for compensation?

Does the Commission think that the plan in question should at least be frozen by the Dutch authorities until an overriding interest has been demonstrated and sufficient compensation is offered for loss of natural areas?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2000)

The Commission has not been informed about the project concerned including the construction of tower blocks in the municipality of Almere in the area beyond the dyke along the IJmeer.

The IJmeer has been designated by the Dutch authorities as a special protection area (SPA) as defined in the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1).

As an SPA the IJmeer is protected by Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2), in particular by Article 6(2), 6(3) and 6(4). According to Article 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC these provisions also apply to SPAs as defined in Directive 79/409/EEC. The construction of tower blocks near or within an SPA could be a project within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC that is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA. In that case the project has to be subjected to an appropriate assessment of its implications on the IJmeer, especially on the habitats and the species that are protected by Directive 79/409/EEC. If the conclusion of the assessment is that there will be negative implications, Article 6(4) applies. The responsibility for applying Article 6(4) lies primarily with the Member State.

On the basis of the present information, the Commission cannot judge if there is an infringement of Directive 79/409/EEC or Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore it has sent a letter to the Netherlands asking for information about the project and its implications under Directive 79/409/EEC and Directive 92/43/EEC. The Commission will not take other steps at the moment, since interested parties can initiate legal proceedings against the municipality of Almere and additionally, the national authorities have legal instruments in the relevant national legislation to prevent the construction of the tower blocks if necessary.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1266/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Microcredit as a means of poverty reduction

What funds has the Commission committed in the last three years to the expansion of microcredit as a means of poverty reduction (which was endorsed in principle in the Commission's April 1998 Microfinance and Poverty Reduction report), and in what other ways is the Commission supporting poverty elimination under its development and cooperation policy?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Over the last three years, the Commission has committed approximately 200 million to microcredit schemes, through different instruments (non-governmental organisation (NGO) co-financing, rural development projects, food security, Stabex, support to micro-enterprises).

Poverty reduction constitutes the overarching goal of European development co-operation. In this context, Community policy reflects the international consensus but takes the approach further, recognising inequality as a constraint on growth and poverty reduction, suggesting a return to a policy of growth with distribution, and emphasising the political aspects of development strategy.

At the macro-economic level, structural adjustment programmes of the new generation include social indicators (health and education) for the allocation of part of the funds, in order to stimulate the countries concerned to achieve better results in these sectors.

In the framework of the Lomé Convention the 8th European development fund (EDF), the National indicative programmes (NIPs) put emphasis on poverty reduction as an important objective of development co-operation.

In many African countries this is reflected in the choice of focal sectors, such as food security, rural development, or social sectors. In small island countries, for example specific poverty reduction programmes are often envisaged. Overall amounts allocated to basic social services (health and education) have dramatically increased.

The newly concluded partnership agreement between the Community and the African, Caribbean and Pacific states provides an integrated approach to poverty reduction, with support to growth factors on the one hand, and support to redistribution and social policies on the other. Support to social policies includes, as a priority, access to all basic social services and to social protection, with greater protection to the most vulnerable.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2328/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: ECT

Will the Commission consider taking steps, as part of its recently unveiled Communication on the Development of Public Health Policy (16.5.2000), to conduct a study on the use of electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) in the EU?

Will the Commission take into consideration the doubts surrounding the success of ECT and the diversity of its administration throughout the Member States, including human rights concerns (lack of patient consent, etc)?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2000)

The proposal for a programme of action in the field of public health that has recently been put forward by the Commission together with the communication on the health strategy of the Community(1), aims at encouraging co-operation between Member States and the spread of knowledge and good practice. It might be possible for actions in relation to particular health interventions, such as on the quality and effectiveness of electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) as well as conditions for its administration, to be undertaken under that programme after its adoption. However, such actions would have to be taken in a way which fully respects the responsibilities of Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.

In the field of research, the Commission has no ongoing or completed projects concerning electro-convulsive therapy. It is possible, however, that an application could be funded under the quality of life programme of the current fifth framework programme.

With regard to ethical considerations, Decision No 182/1999/EC of the Council and Parliament of 22 December 1998, adopting the fifth framework programme(2), stipulates in its article 7 that all research projects carried out within this Programme will be in compliance with fundamental ethical principles. Therefore should such a proposal be selected for funding, it would be subjected to an ethical review before contract negotiations could commence, thus ensuring that all ethical and national legislation of the Member States involved is respected.

(1) COM(2000) 285 final.

(2) OJ L 26, 1.2.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1147/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

Specific requirements exist at EU level for only a few contaminants, although many rules exist at national level, (section 73). This leads to disparities in consumer health protection within the EU and also to practical problems for the control authorities and industry. There is a need for standards for contaminants in the entire chain from animal feed to end product. The scientific basis for setting these limits needs to be addressed as a matter of priority.

1. What are the Commission's plans with regard to standards for contaminants?

2. For which contaminants does the EU want to set limits?

3. How does the Commission define its priorities?

4. Is the Commission considering giving the Authority the future power to set limits for contaminants? If not, who will be given the power to set such limits?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1122/00, E-1127/00, E-1128/00, E-1140/00, E-1141/00, E-1142/00, E-1143/00, E-1144/00, E-1145/00, E-1146/00, E-1147/00, E-1148/00, E-1150/00, E-1151/00, E-1152/00, E-1153/00, E-1155/00, E-1156/00, E-1157/00, E-1158/00, E-1160/00, E-1161/00 and E-1162/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member are being studied with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislation according to the time scale set out in the white paper on food safety.

It would be inappropriate at this stage to anticipate the details of each proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1880/00

by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Elections in Peru

Given the withdrawal of Presidential candidate Alejandro Toledo from the second round of the Peruvian Presidential elections and the decision of the Electoral Observation Mission of the Organization of American States to suspend its election observation of the National Office of Electoral Processes due to the conduct of the electoral process in that country, will the Commission outline what course of action it intends to take if this situation is not resolved satisfactorily and having due regard to the holding of an open, democratic and verifiable second round in the Presidential election?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Commission has been following the electoral process in Peru closely throughout.

The Union's decision to withdraw its observation mission is a sign of its dissatisfaction with the conditions in which the poll was held.

The Commission believes that it is necessary to send a strong message to Peru that it will do all it can to ensure that the principles of democracy and respect for the rule of law are firmly upheld, especially at a time when democratic systems throughout the region are showing signs of weakness.

In a recent statement, the Union publicly declared its belief that the process of democratic participation in Peru needed to be strengthened, and that it was ready to support any initiative which might further this end.

The Union is supporting the Organisation of American States (OAS) mission which is due to arrive in Peru shortly, and hopes that this may lead to some form of tangible progress.

The OAS mission should therefore be encouraged and supported, as was emphasised in the 9 June declaration. But the Union must also keep a close watch on developments in Peru, and should be prepared, if necessary, to reconsider its relations with that country in this perspective.

At the same time, the Commission will give a high priority to the implementation of activities and projects which are likely to strengthen democratic institutions and advance political pluralism in Peru.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1708/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(7 June 2000)

Subject: Continuing violation of Rule 44 of the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure by the Council

I wish to draw attention to Written Questions E-0811/00, E-0812/00 and E-0813/00, tabled by me on 2 March 2000 and registered on 20 March 2000, which have still not been answered by the Council, although the deadline in accordance with Parliament's Rules of Procedure expired on 3 May 2000. Is the Council aware that in failing to answer these questions in good time it continues to infringe Parliament's Rules of Procedure, and that I have, moreover, still received no answer to the reminder question tabled by me on 27 April 2000 for failure to answer questions P-0644/00, E-0645/00 and E-0646/00? How can the Council justify this recurrent negligence?

Reply

(26 September 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the replies to Questions E-1299/00 and E-1300/00 put to the Council by Charles Tannock.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1884/00

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of systems for the notification of public acts

A Belgian citizen, Mr Claes, owns land in Playa de San Juan in Alicante (Spain). His land was included in the project to reallocate plots of land under the first stage of the La Condomina Plan. As a result, the area of the plots allocated to Mr Claes (2 400 square metres) is less than one fifth the size of his original piece of land (14 000 square metres). During the procedure for reallocating land the system of notification has restricted the ability of non-Spanish citizens to represent their own interests at local government offices and register their opposition to or appeal against town planning projects. Under this system, notification is not sent to the home of each party involved, e.g. to Mr Claes's address in Belgium, it being considered sufficient to post up a public notice, to which those resident abroad naturally do not have access. In particular, Mr Claes was deprived of his full right to hold on to his land and make a cash payment to the town planning authorities, as the law entitles him to do. He was never informed about this right and the deadline for exercising it.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

1. whether it does not consider that this kind of situation leads to discrimination against Community citizens;

2. whether it intends to introduce measures to harmonise the notification of public acts in order to prevent any discrimination against Community citizens in procedures affecting their right of ownership;

3. what forms of redress are open to Mr Claes to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The information provided only by the Honourable Member does not enable the Commission to determine whether the rules relating to publication and posting to which she refers constitute discrimination on the basis of nationality. At first sight, the answer would appear to be no in so far neither the nationality of the owners of the land in question nor their place of residence constitutes a criterion for the application of any given provision. The procedure seems to apply to all owners and accordingly apply in the same way to an owner of Spanish nationality residing in another Member State.

The Commission does not envisage proposing Community rules on the notification of public acts in Member States. However, it would point out that the Member States can neither introduce nor maintain national provisions which could constitute discrimination under the EC Treaty. It would also point out to the Honourable Member that on 29 May 2000, the Council adopted a Regulation on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters(1). However, this Regulation applies only to the transmission of documents from one Member State to another.

The means of redress open to the citizen referred to by the Honourable Member are those provided for by the national legislation in force.

(1) OJ L 160, 30.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1015/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Export of cattle to third countries

How may live cattle were exported from the EU to third countries in 1999, and how much was paid out in export refunds for live cattle exports to third countries in the period from 16 October 1998 to 15 October 1999?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

In 1999, 323 000 live cattle were exported to third countries.

Export refunds for live cattle paid in the financial year 1999 totalled 92,3 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1397/00

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 92/61/EEC in Germany specified types of tyre

The Commission's original proposal that tyre types be specified as part of the type-approval of motorcycles was not included in Directive 92/61/EEC(1), as the European Parliament considered that the specification of tyre types by vehicle manufacturers in the context of the European type-approval procedure for motorcycles would place tyre manufacturers who had perhaps not been taken into account at a competitive disadvantage.

In Germany, however, it seems that vehicle manufacturers are still managing to specify particular types of tyre in vehicle documentation, even after the Directive's entry into force, by using vehicle type-testing procedures.

Is the Commission aware of such practices? Does it consider German implementation of the Directive to be at odds with European legislation?

(1) OJ L 225, 10.8.1992, p. 72.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

The legislative provisions governing technical requirements for tyres and their fitting are contained in Directive 97/24/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles(1).

The Commission was informed of tyre brand restrictions attaching to certain passenger cars manufactured in Germany. Following exchanges of correspondence with the Commission, the German authorities addressed a communication dated 29 February 2000 to the Commission in which type-approval authorities have been instructed not to include in the future any such brand restrictions in vehicle documents. The communication also states that any existing brand restrictions contained in vehicle documentation are devoid of legal effect.

The Commission is of the view that tyre brand specifications for motorcycles are similarly unacceptable. The Commission will contact the German authorities in order to clarify the situation.

(1) OJ L 226, 18.8.1997.