ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3497/00

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 November 2000)

Subject: Permission from EU governments for the operation of Temelin type nuclear reactors

The German Minister for the Environment has declared that under the current German law the Soviet-designed plant Temelin in the Czech Republic would fail to pass the security tests for nuclear power stations.

In fact, four similar Soviet-designed nuclear power plants in East Germany were closed down after the unification of Germany.

Since there are not yet EU standards for nuclear safety, is the European Commission able to answer the following question: would a nuclear reactor of the Temelin type by allowed to start to function in Germany under German law, in France under French law, in the United Kingdom under British law, in Spain under Spanish law, in Sweden under Swedish law, in Finland under Finnish law, in Belgium under Belgian law and in the Netherlands under Dutch law?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The reactor that has recently started operation in the Temelín nuclear power plant, and the second that is being completed, are of the type VVER-1000, considered by the group of seven most industrialized nations (G7) in 1992 as upgradeable to Western nuclear safety levels at a reasonable cost, and listed as such in Agenda 2000. They are, therefore, quite different from the first four reactors in the Greifswald nuclear power plant, which are of the type VVER 440/230, defined by the G7 and in Agenda 2000 as non-upgradeable at a reasonable cost.

The regulatory system in each Member State has evolved during the last decades to guarantee a high level of nuclear safety taking into consideration different nuclear regulatory cultures, but also different technologies involved. The different regulatory regimes in the Member States all have in common the assurance of a high level of nuclear safety. This is also what is asked from the candidate countries in the accession process.

The responsibility for nuclear safety rests with the state having jurisdiction over a nuclear installation. Therefore, the Czech nuclear regulatory authority is the only one which has the power to award or refuse licences for the siting, construction, commissioning, operation and decommissioning of nuclear power plants in the Czech Republic. It is important, in this context, to note that the Czech regulatory regime has been recognised by international experts on nuclear safety, including an international regulatory review team of the International atomic energy agency (IAEA) in February 2000, as being at a similar level to those of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3631/00 by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Situation of managerial staff in the European Union.



Official Journal 136 E , 08/05/2001 P. 0236 - 0236



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3631/00 by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 November 2000) Subject: Situation of managerial staff in the European Union After the European Parliament's Committee on Social Affairs, Employment and the Working Environment had adopted report A3-0196/93, Parliament approved the resolution on the situation of managerial staff in the European Union contained therein on 25 June 1993(1). What action has the Commission taken in response to Parliament's demands? (1) OJ C 194, 19.7.1993, p. 347. Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (22 December 2000) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3153/00

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Blacklisting

Council Regulation 1469/95/EEC(1) and Commission Regulation 745/96/EEC(2) call for the blacklisting of undertakings and individuals on the grounds of suspicion alone.

Will the Commission explain the reasons for this and how it intends to guarantee confidentiality to the undertakings concerned?

How does the Commission intend to compensate companies and individuals unjustifiably placed on such blacklists?

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 102, 25.4.1996, p. 15.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2000)

The Commission would first point out that the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1469/95 of 22 June 1995 on measures to be taken with regard to certain beneficiaries of operations financed by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF(1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 745/96 of 24 April 1996 laying down detailed rules for its application(2) are now directly applicable.

In line with these regulations, the communications provided for are not made on the basis of presumption or suspicion, but in relation to operators presenting a risk of non-reliability, as defined in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1469/95 (preliminary administrative or judicial report, final decision of an administrative or judicial authority).

Communications between Member States and the Commission are confidential. The data protection provisions of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995, on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data(3), and of Council Regulation (EC) 515/97 of 13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters(4), apply.

The Commission would point out that the communications are sent exclusively to the relevant unit of the European Anti-Fraud Office which has undertaken to put in place the necessary organisational and technical measures to ensure confidentiality.

To date, the Commission has received no complaints regarding communications made on the basis of the regulations cited by the Honourable Member. Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 745/96 provides that Member States and the Commission would be responsible for any injury suffered as a result of them.

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.

(2) OJ L 102, 25.4.1996.

(3) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

(4) OJ L 82, 22.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2888/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Airport malaria

Will the Commission state whether it is satisfied that the rules on the spraying with insecticide of aircraft arriving from the tropics are being properly applied, given the increase in the number of cases of airport malaria reported, especially in France, Belgium and the United Kingdom, outlined in the August edition of the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Airport malaria is a rare and potentially serious disease. Since 1977, when the disease was first documented, 75 cases of airport malaria have been observed in western Europe. People may be infected by the bite of an anopheles mosquito during a flight or stopover, or while opening containers or luggage anywhere in the airport area. People who live near an airport or whose road transport brings them into the vicinity may also be affected. The highest risk of airport malaria comes from western and central Africa, as most of the air traffic from these countries includes stopovers in western Europe. Airport malaria occurs mainly in hot summers, a period more favourable to the survival of anopheles. In addition, the summer months in Europe correspond to the rainy season in African regions located between the Tropic of Cancer and the equator, a period when malaria transmission is high.

Prevention of airport malaria is based on aircraft disinsection for aircraft coming from malaria endemic areas. This disinsection, which is part of the international health regulations, must be done following the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations. Several methods are available.

Member State authorities, the medical professions, as well as the general public have been informed through the information channels of the Community network of this emerging but still relatively rare health threat. It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that appropriate preventive measures are implemented at the airports. The spread of malaria by this route is not yet fully understood and even when correctly applied, the WHO disinsection recommendations may not prevent all cases of airport malaria.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3257/00

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Revision of the postal directive uniform tariff

The proposal for a postal directive (CO(2000) 319 final) suggests that the uniform tariff is not an essential feature of the universal service obligations. However, this approach is at odds with the policy prevailing in the vast majority, if not all of the Member States. Tariff equalisation is a vital element of territorial, economic and social cohesion.

1. What is the Commission's stance on a uniform tariff?

2. Does the Commission consider that the uniform tariff could be maintained with the liberalisation options envisaged?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

1. The position of the Commission regarding a uniform tariff is the same as that adopted in Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service(1). Member States may establish a uniform tariff if they wish.

2. Yes.

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1466/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: The use of Stevia rebaudiana bertoni

The herb Stevia rebaudiana bertoni has been used for centuries as a natural sweetener and is reputed also to have positive medicinal benefits.

Further to a request to market the plant as a novel food, the Scientific Committee on Food in its investigation decided that there was no satisfactory data to support the safe use of these products as ingredients of food or as a sucrose substitute for diabetics and obese individuals.

Given that there is insufficient data to support the safe use of Stevia rebaudiana surely there is also insufficient data to limit its use and further investigation must be undertaken to prove that the plant is unsafe for human consumption?

Can the Commission confirm the current position with regard to the marketing and use of this plant?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Plants and dried leaves of Stevia rebaudiana were the subject of an application under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients(1). This implies that this product had not been used hitherto for human consumption to a significant degree in the Community.

In its opinion the scientific committee for food (SCF) stressed that there was not satisfactory information, in particular with respect to the specifications of the product, and that there was not sufficient data concerning the toxicology of the product to arrive at the conclusion that the product would be safe for human consumption.

In such case the application can only be rejected. The standing committee approved this decision of the Commission with unanimity.

This decision will not prevent other applicants from submitting an application.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2295/00

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Trade

In May this year a proposal to establish definitive anti-dumping rights over specific TV camera parts from Japan was put forward in the Council of Europe. After more than 2 years of research by the Commission with the assistance of European manufacturers of these products, the former proposed introducing these anti-dumping measures.

After the Council's Working Party on Trade Questions met on 8 May this year the proposal was rejected.

Can the Council state the reasons for this decision?

Reply

(9 November 2000)

At its meeting on 11 April 2000, the Working Party on Trade Questions noted that:

- six delegations could support the Commission proposal to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain parts of television camera systems originating in Japan,

- eight delegations opposed this proposal because they were of the opinion that in this case there was no evidence that:

- Japan was dumping these camera parts on the Community market,

- there was injury to the Community industry,

- there was a causal link between the allegedly dumped imports and the alleged injury,

- and finally, the Community interest called for intervention,

- one delegation did not take a position.

At its meeting on 8 May 2000, the Council confirmed the absence of a simple majority in favour of the Commission proposal, which therefore could not be adopted.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3033/00

by Giorgos Katiforis (PSE) to the Council

(20 September 2000)

Subject: EU-Turkey Partnership Agreement

At the Helsinki Summit it was decided that Turkey was a candidate for accession to the EU subject to certain specific and expressly defined conditions.

The Commission is obviously concerned to ensure that summit decisions are implemented precisely, and that the fundamental principles underpinning the outlook of European peoples and their governments are fully observed. However, the violent reaction of a section of the Turkish press to the talks held by the Commission delegation last July in Ankara creates the impression that certain parties may be attempting to exclude from the draft of the Turkey-EU partnership agreement explicit references to the conditions relating to Turkey's candidate status.

What steps will the Council take to ensure that the conditions which the Helsinki Summit attached to Turkey's status as a candidate for accession, namely a settlement of the Cyprus problem, an improvement in the human rights situation, resolution of the Kurdish problem, Turkish claims in the Aegean and their settlement by the International Court in The Hague, the democratisation of the political system, together with the other Helsinki political criteria are incorporated in the main body of the text and not the preamble of the prospective partnership agreement?

Reply

(22 December 2000)

Turkey is a candidate State destined to join the Union on the basis of the same criteria that are applied to the other candidate States. Under the current European strategy, Turkey, like other candidate States, benefits from a pre-accession strategy to stimulate and support its reforms. This includes enhanced political dialogue, with the emphasis on progress towards fulfilment of the political criteria for accession with particular reference to the issue of human rights and the issues referred to in paragraphs 4 and 9(a) of the conclusions of the Helsinki European Council; those conclusions also provided for the establishment of an accession partnership on the basis of previous European Council conclusions that will define the priorities on which accession preparations must concentrate in the light of the political and economic criteria and the obligations which Member States must fulfil, together with a national programme for the adoption of the acquis.

The Commission proposal on the principles, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with the Republic of Turkey was sent to the Council on 13 November 2000. The Council has begun examining it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2634/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Compulsory curfew imposed by Russia in Chechnya

The compulsory curfew which has once again been imposed by the Russian authorities in Chechnya is proof of the fact that the terrible war in that country is not yet over. In response to this state of affairs, what action is the European Union intending to take with a view to re-establishing the Chechen people's national democratic rights which have been withdrawn by Russia?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2557/00 and E-2634/00

(16 November 2000)

Following the Feira European Council meeting in June 2000, the European Union undertook a review of the overall situation in Russia. Subsequently, decisions were taken in order for the Union to assist in the promotion of democracy, the rule of law and a market-oriented economy. Such is the basis on which a strong and fruitful long-term relationship with Russia must stand. The Union reiterated that the development of such a relationship with all of Russia, including Chechnya, presupposes the sharing of common values, in particular respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

From the outset of the crisis in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation, the Council has been quite clear that only a political solution can bring about a lasting settlement there. To this end, the Union has been a steadfast advocate of respect for the human rights of all people in Chechnya. At the same time, the Council attaches great importance to the principle of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. In pursuit of its long-term policy of constructive engagement, the Union has consistently pressed Russia to meet its commitments.

The Union calls on Russia to comply with the demands of the international community concerning Chechnya. These include avoiding excessive use of force and any spillover of the conflict, pursuit of a political process including elected Chechen representatives, effective independent investigation into human rights abuses, cooperation with the Council of Europe, support for the OSCE Assistance Group in implementing its full mandate and assuring the safe delivery by NGOs of humanitarian aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2327/00

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: UK Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

The British Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 lays down a series of requirements for group travel to the United Kingdom which prompt doubts about their compatibility with EU legislation on freedom of movement. They provide in the case of travel by bus, for example, that a passenger list including the full name, age and sex of all travellers is required. If this requirement is not met, or the passports and identity papers of travellers are no longer valid, the responsible business or organiser is liable to a fine for each offending passenger. Should there be a visa requirement, this visa must be appended to the passenger list by the responsible business or organiser. If this has not been done, or the visa is not valid, the responsible business or organiser must pay a fine of GBP 2 000 for each offending passenger.

1. Is it compatible with the rules on freedom of movement within the European Union that a travel organiser, e.g. a bus operator, should have to meet such obligations?

2. How does the Commission view the new provisions of the British legislature against the background of freedom of movement under European law?

3. What action might the Commission take against the British authorities?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Article 1 of the Protocol on the application of certain aspects of Article 7a of the Treaty establishing the European Community to the United Kingdom and Ireland, which is annexed to the EU Treaty and the EC Treaty, allows the United Kingdom to exercise at its frontiers with other Member States such controls as it may consider necessary for the purpose of verifying that persons exercising rights conferred by Community law are entitled to enter its territory and determining whether or not to grant other persons permission to enter the United Kingdom.

As a result of these provisions, checks on the travel documents and visas of persons travelling to the United Kingdom from other Member States are not contrary to European law, provided they are compatible with the principle of proportionality and they do not create new obstacles to free movement under Community law as it stands at present.

Since the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act referred to by the Honourable Member do not contravene Community law, there are no grounds for Commission action against the UK authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2768/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Martin Callanan (PPE-DE), Robert Goodwill (PPE-DE), Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) and Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Immigration control within the Union

Is the Council in a position to verify whether or not the 58 Chinese citizens found dead on arrival at Dover had indeed been discovered and interviewed by Belgian police several weeks before and then released, whether it is satisfied that Member States are abiding by their obligations under the Dublin Convention, and whether Belgium, in particular, is meeting its obligations on immigration control?

Reply

(16 November 2000)

1. It is not within the competence of the Council to verify the type of situation mentioned by the Honorable Member.

2. Control of the Member States' obligations under the Dublin Convention is the responsibility of the Committee set up by Article 18 of that Convention. In accordance with paragraph 2 of that article, that Committee can examine, at the request of one or more Member States, any question of a general nature concerning the application of the Convention.

3. With the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, immigration, visa and asylum issues fall within Community competence under Title IV TEC. It therefore belongs to the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to verify whether Member States comply with their obligations in respect of such issues.