ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3287/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Gas prices

Because the Belgian distributor has indexed natural-gas prices to oil prices, households in Belgium are likely to be paying up to 20 % more for their gas by the end of this year than they were in 1999. However, the two energy sources are not interchangeable from the point of view of the domestic consumer, as domestic burners are not compatible with both.

Does it accord with Community competition law and with liberalisation of the gas industry to include in the pricing of gas an element of indexation to the long-term price of crude oil, in addition to charging such fixed costs as transport?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Gas prices have traditionally been indexed to oil prices because gas can be substituted for oil, and to allow natural gas to penetrate in oil dominated market segments. In the absence of gas-to-gas competition, gas prices in Europe therefore closely follow oil price developments on the world market, albeit with a couple of months delay. This fuel price inter-relationship affects the consumer through the tariffs applied for gas consumption.

The current high oil prices, combined with the traditional oil linkage of gas pricing in Europe, have made particularly apparent the potential benefits of gas-to-gas competition, a key element in the creation of the internal energy market, and have reinforced the need to speed up the completion of the internal energy market.

An effective opening of the European gas market and a real choice of supplier for all eligible customers form the necessary framework for creating supply side competition and hence for achieving real gas-to-gas competition.

The Community interest requires gas-to-gas competition to continue to develop, thereby decoupling the oil/gas price relationship. Directive 98/30/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas(1) already envisages the development of gas-to-gas competition through the right of eligible customers to get third party access to networks, including upstream pipelines right up to the wellhead. However, accelerating the opening up of the gas market to competition in order to achieve a fully operational internal market would further facilitate gas-to-gas competition. In this respect, the experience of other countries has shown that when increasing numbers of eligible customers can source competitively, gas producers will be forced increasingly to compete with one another in terms of price.

The Commission, therefore, considers it crucial to accelerate the completion of the internal energy market, as requested by the Lisbon European Council. The oil linkage of gas prices, coupled with the economic effects it produces, is, in itself, a legitimate reason for ensuring that the internal gas market develops rapidly and to the benefit of all Community citizens.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3992/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Forthcoming Swedish ban on firecrackers

At the end of October 2000, the Swedish Government proposed a total ban on firecrackers. Firecrackers are a product which only make a bang, whereas fireworks also give off light. In the latter's case, the Swedish Government plans to raise the age limit for purchasing the product from 15 to 18 years.

Is Sweden's total ban on firecrackers consistent with freedom of movement of goods on the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

The Commission was notified of the proposed Swedish legislation under Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(1). The Commission issued observations on this draft which were sent to the Swedish authorities on 10 October 2000. No reply has yet been received from the Swedish authorities.

In these observations the Commission requested to be informed about the reasons for the proposed ban on fireworks that only create an exploding sound in order to be able to make an assessment of this measure in relation to Articles 28-30 (ex Articles 30-36) of the EC Treaty.

Against this background, the Commission cannot at this time make an assessment of the proposed Swedish legislation. However, the Commission's position, as expressed in its reply to the question E-1798/00(2) on the same matter, dated 18 May 2000, remains unchanged.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 88.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2732/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(3 August 2000)

Subject: Council secrecy

Apart from the Council of Ministers, which other legislatives meet in secret?

Reply

(12 February 2001)

Article 6(1) of the Council's Rules of Procedure(1) states that the deliberations of the Council shall be covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, except in so far as the Council decides otherwise. Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure provides for the holding of public debates in certain cases, while Article 9 lays down rules enabling deliberations to be made public in many cases.

The Council is not in a position to speak for the other legislatives to which the Honourable Member refers in his question, and would in any case remind him that it has a dual, legislative and governmental, role which sets it apart from such other bodies.

Where the Council acts in its legislative capacity, the results of votes and explanations of votes by Council members, as well as statements in the Council minutes, are to be made public. The same largely applies to documents relating to decisions taken by the Council when acting in its legislative capacity. The public register of Council documents, accessible via the Internet, makes it easy to identify the documents in question and to submit an application for access under Council Decision 93/731/EC.

(1) OJ L 149, 23.6.2000, p. 21.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3768/00

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(1 December 2000)

Subject: Statement by Mr Denktash

On 20 November 2000, the fifth round of negotiations to solve the Cyprus question came to an end, once more without bearing fruit. To be precise, Mr Denktash described the UN's position on the issue as unacceptable. In view of this statement, and his statement in the German newspaper Der Spiegel, on 6 November 2000, that there will be a bloody war if Cyprus joins the European Union, how does the Council intend to respond to these provocative statements by Mr Denktash?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3621/00, E-3767/00 and E-3768/00

(14 May 2001)

The Union expresses unreserved support for the UN Secretary-General's efforts to find a solution, since the United Nations constitutes the reference framework for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the issue. The Council's position on the UN Secretary-General's efforts to find a solution to the conflict has been reaffirmed recently by the European Council and the Council.

On 7-9 December 2000, the Nice European Council welcomed and expressed its strong support for the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to achieve an overall agreement on the Cyprus problem consistent with the UN Security Council Resolutions and to arrive at a positive conclusion of the process initiated in December 1999. The European Council appealed to all parties concerned to contribute to the efforts made to this effect.

On 4 December 2000, the Council reached political agreement on including the following reference to the Cyprus issue in the short-term (2001) priorities of the Accession Partnership for Turkey under the title Enhanced Political Dialogue and Political Criteria: in accordance with the Helsinki European Council conclusions, in the context of the political dialogue, strongly support the UN Secretary-General's efforts to bring to a successful conclusion the process of finding a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem as referred to in point 9 (a) of the Helsinki European Council conclusions.

The proximity talks scheduled to begin at the end of January 2001 did not get off the ground given the Turkish-Cypriot side's failure to participate. The Council still hopes that this round of discussions can take place as envisaged and be completed successfully.

The question of a violation of Cypriot airspace has not been raised in the Council. The Council recalls that, in resolution 367 of 12 March 1975, the UN Security Council, called for respect for the territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3862/00

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Opening up of third-country markets

The European Union has adopted a series of measures aimed at liberalising imports of 65 categories of textile products and clothing from other member countries of the World Trade Organisation, with a view to completing Stage 3 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.

In conjunction with these measures it has started negotiations with third countries to ensure that their markets are opened up further and hence bring about a better balance in trade between the EU and third countries.

Can the Commission specify what measures have been proposed to achieve this aim?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

In proposing to Council the list of products to be integrated in the Third Stage of Integration under the World trade organization (WTO) Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), the Commission took the line that due to the absence of improved market access for Community textiles and clothing exports in third countries, third stage liberalisation should not go beyond the legal requirements of the ATC. Therefore, a number of quotas on the most sensitive products, have been retained whilst envisaging the possibility for further liberalisation in exchange for better access to third countries textiles clothing markets.

In order to address the issue of lack of market access, the Council simultaneously adopted negotiating directives for the Commission to hold bilateral market access negotiations with third countries, on a mutually beneficial basis. Such talks could lead to improved market access to the Community market for third countries, going beyond the content of the third stage liberalisation, on a bilateral basis.

The Commission has publicly invited all textiles exporting WTO members to show their willingness to engage in such market access talks and a number of them have already expressed interest.

So far the Commission has been able to negotiate and initial an agreement with Sri Lanka. Under the deal initialled on 5 December 2000, Sri Lanka will reduce and bind tariffs on Community textile exports, while the Community will suspend the four textiles quotas currently applicable on Sri Lanka's exports to the Community.

Other third countries have expressed interest and the Commission is presently engaged in exploratory talks with these third countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4048/00

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

(20 December 2000)

Subject: European money for nuclear power stations in the Ukraine

On 7 December the EBRD decided by a bare majority to give the Ukrainian government a loan (of ca. 240 million) for dismantling two nuclear power stations in Kmelnitzky and Rivne. The loan is conditional on Euratom acting as cofinancier (with a loan of 656 million).

There is a Memorandum of Understanding for this project dating from 1995, an explicit condition of which is that the Ukraine should organise its energy supplies on the principle of least cost planning. Using nuclear power stations does not, in fact, respect this principle.

Since the government in Kiev has done almost nothing since 1995 in the way of structural changes to energy supplies, it may be concluded that the Ukraine is merely waiting for the EBRD/Euratom loan to dismantle the K2R4 reactors, while using the situation of the Chernobyl reactors as a means of blackmail.

There is considerable opposition on the part of regional and local authorities to the K2R4 project, but much enthusiasm for small-scale energy projects (hydropower), combined heat and power and energy savings.

Does the Commission agree that the proposed Euratom loan should not be granted because of the great financial uncertainty, the technical risks and the non-compliance with the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding?

Does the Commission agree that help should be given to the Ukraine to develop and reconstruct energy supplies on the basis of safe, sustainable energy sources and energy efficiency?

What action does the Commission intend to take to prevent European money from being spent on nuclear projects outside the EU which are a source of controversy within the EU?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2001)

On 13 December 2000, the Commission has approved granting a Euratom loan to contribute to the financing of Khmelnitsky unit 2 and Rovno unit 4 nuclear units in Ukraine. The decision has been taken after thorough consideration of the nuclear safety, environmental, economic and financial aspects of the project.

The Commission considers that this loan will be instrumental to ensure that these reactors are completed to a safety level acceptable under Western-type licensing practices, will pave the way for improving the safety level of other nuclear units in the country and will have a positive impact on the progress of reforms in the power sector.

The Commission is part of the Task Force that brings together Ukrainian and international institutions in an effort to provide for the modernisation of the power sector. In addition, the Commission is providing technical assistance in support of projects of conventional energy and of energy efficiency.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3769/00

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Accidents in the EU

In reaction to the tragic accident in Kaprun in Austria, where over 150 people lost their lives in tragic circumstances, and given that accidents of this kind are occurring more and more frequently, what specific steps does the Commission intend to take to protect, within the shortest possible space of time, those travelling through European road and rail tunnels?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Since the cable train fire at Kaprun on 11 November 2000, the Commission has been reassessing the measures the Community could take to improve the safety of road and rail tunnels. It is already apparent that safety levels in tunnels can vary considerably depending on the length and design of the tunnel, its equipment, the way it is operated and the volume and nature of the traffic using it. It falls primarily to the authorities directly in charge of tunnels to reassess their safety on a regular basis and to take steps to maintain that safety at a high level.

The Community can provide value added in three areas. On the technical side, without duplicating the work of such international bodies as the World Road Association, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Community can devise a methodology for overall tunnel safety assessment, taking account of all factors affecting safety levels, so as to encourage greater safety in certain tunnels without producing detailed requirements for alterations. The Commission is also assessing the expediency of introducing a European regulatory framework for new tunnels. On the operating side, it is important that tunnels be rapidly equipped with automatic hazard and accident detection systems, and with automatic vehicle alert and fire extinguishing systems. Further research work is required, and the Community programme will be called upon to help move things forward. On the financial side, major tunnels which provide more direct traffic routes are of Community interest, and the Community may thus be expected to draw upon available sources of funding to make a financial contribution towards work to make them safe. To this end, part of the trans-European transport networks budget could be earmarked for improvements to the oldest tunnels.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4065/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(15 January 2001)

Subject: Restriction of freedom to express opinions by obstacles to cross-border passenger traffic during the Nice summit

1. Can the Council confirm that citizens of EU Member States wishing to travel to the French city of Nice before and during the summit held there on 7 to 10 December 2000 were subject to a number of seriously obstacles including being held up in large numbers at the French-Italian border and by restrictions on access to the city of Nice?

2. Does the Council consider that the state of affairs referred to above is in accordance with the expectations it wished to raise by the proclamation in Nice of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

3. Does the Council agree that democratic decision-making cannot take place without the interest and involvement of citizens, who must have the opportunity to express their opinions openly in this connection?

4. What is the Council's opinion of the relegation of residents of other Member States than the one in which the meeting takes place to the status of second-class citizens in terms of their right to express their views in situ by reason of the fact that they must first cross one of the EU's internal borders?

5. Are the internal borders of the European Union open for goods and services but not for demonstrators?

6. Can the Council guarantee that this is the last time such restrictions will be imposed on the participation of interested residents of EU Member States in the democratic process of public preparation for decision-making?

Reply

(7 May 2001)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to Article 2(2) of the Schengen Convention, which gives Member States the option of restoring national border checks on persons at internal borders for a limited period if public policy or national security require immediate action.

The Council would also point out that the free movement of persons provided for by the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) and the exercise of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) may be subject to limitations in certain cases (see Article 64(1) of the TEC and Articles 10(2) and 11(2) of the ECHR).

Pursuant to Decision SCH/Comex (95) 20 rev 2 of 20 December 1995 of the Executive Committee set up by the Schengen Convention, which has been incorporated into the European Union Framework, the French Government notified the Council of its decision to restore checks at the border between France and Italy from 2 to 10 December 2000.

In any case, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that responsibility for maintaining law and order and safeguarding the internal security of the Member States of the Union rests with each individual Member State's authorities. It is not for the Council to state a position on an issue which does not fall within its sphere of competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3417/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Recruitment of staff for the Commission IT Directorate

According to Svenska Dagbladet of 18 November 1999 there is a clear link between the nationality of the head and key senior staff in the Commission's IT directorate.

Under its French Director-General Verrue, in November 1999 more than one in five senior posts in DG XIII were occupied by French nationals. It also turns out that staff of other nationalities have not moved up the hierarchy as fast as the French have.

There are fears that with French occupants in senior posts in the IT Directorate, French undertakings such as Alcatel, Bell and France Telecom will have a greater voice in IT, telecommunications and communications matters.

Does the Commission share these fears, and what is it doing to ensure the more even distribution among the Member States of senior posts in DG XII?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

The Commission acts solely in the interest of the service and without regard to nationality when appointing officials. This principle is guaranteed under the staff regulations. Furthermore, the Commission thinks that the highest premium should be given to merit and that balanced representation of all nationalities of the Union at all levels of the institution's staff hierarchy is essential in order to reflect the cultural richness and the cohesion of the multinational public service of the Union.

Officials of the Commission are undertaking their professional duties in full respect of staff regulation which states an official shall carry out his duties and conduct himself solely with the interests of the Communities in mind; he shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government, authority, organization or person outside his institution.

The Commission would furthermore like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member, to the newly published Code of good administrative behaviour for staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public which states that:

Staff shall always act objectively and impartially, in the Community interest and for the public good. They shall act independently within the framework of the policy fixed by the Commission and their conduct shall never be guided by personal or national interest or political pressure.