ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0682/01

by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Inclusion of military areas in the sites notified by the Member States under the EU habitats and bird protection Directive

1. Which Member States have included areas in military use in the sites notified under the EU habitats and bird protection Directive for the purposes of a European Natura 2000 network?

2. What proportion do these military areas represent in relation to the total area which the relevant Member State has notified to the Commission in accordance with the habitats and bird protection Directive?

3. In the event of any Member State not having included military areas in its notification of sites, please indicate:

(a) Why this has not been done?

(b) What is the Commission's position on this?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2001)

The possible military use of sites notified to the Commission under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna(1) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(2) for the Natura 2000 network is amongst the voluntary data included by the Member States at the time of notification. The type of activity, military exercise, which may be linked to the Honourable Member's Question, may therefore be given voluntarily. Out of the 14 Member States that have sent computerised data to the Commission under the habitats Directive (all except for Germany), ten, (Belgium, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden) have indicated this type of activity. As regards the sites notified under the bird protection Directive, eight Member States, (Belgium, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden) have indicated this type of activity.

The Commission is not in a position to provide the information requested, given the voluntary nature of the indication of military use, therefore it is impossible to calculate the total area.

The Member States are required to notify areas that meet the scientific criteria of the habitat and bird protection Directives for Natura 2000. This obligation is the responsibility of the Member States' authorities and the Commission is not in a position to indicate if and why the areas in military use were excluded. The Commission is of the opinion that these areas must be notified for Natura 2000 where their ecological characteristics so require.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1608/01

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Effects of Mr Berlusconi's election programme on the stability of the euro area

Last Sunday's elections in Italy seem to have resulted in a win for the centre-right Forza Italia party. The election programme of the chairman of the party and possible future prime minister, Mr Silvio Berlusconi, MEP, included promises of significant tax cuts and increased public investment. Unfortunately, it was not made clear how these promises would be financed.

1. Does the Commission propose to take any measures if this expansionist economic policy is implemented in Italy at a time when the inflationary pressure on the euro area is still high?

2. Is the Commission considering initiating the same type of procedure as in the case of Ireland? In other words will it give a warning to Italy too, if Italy's taxation and public spending solutions are in conflict with the country's growth and stability package and have a harmful impact on the stability of the euro area as a whole? Or are such warnings only given to the small countries in the euro area?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

The Commission actively monitors economic and budgetary developments in all Member States. Member States' policies are assessed on the basis of government policy objectives and of their implementation.

Based on the Italian government's budgetary strategy and its implementation, the Ecofin Council has recently formulated a set of Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, which recommend that the Italian government achieve its fiscal policy targets. Electoral programmes do not count as government policy.

The recommendation issued by the Ecofin Council to Ireland was based on the inconsistency of the Irish government's budgetary plans with the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines for 2000.

The Commission will continue to monitor budgetary developments in Italy, including for consistency with the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines for 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1321/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: General census in Greece

On 18 March 2001, a general census of the population was carried out in Greece. The questionnaire issued by the National Statistical Office contained questions which were obviously hangovers from a previous era (such as whether the home has a toilet), while there were also significant gaps such as the lack of questions on key factors such as possession of a car and the use of new technologies in Greece (e.g. the number of computers per household, access to the Internet etc.). Doubts were also expressed from several quarters about the overall organisation of the census and, therefore, the accuracy of the data that will ultimately be produced.

Is the Commission satisfied with the overall organisation of the census, and with the questionnaire used by the National Statistical Office to collect data from the population?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The content of a general census of population and housing usually reflects a combination of national data needs, international recommendations and, in the case of a Member State, the Community data needs expressed in the Community Census Programme. The Statistical office of the European Communities (Eurostat) is not in a position to judge how well the Greek 2001 census satisfies Greece's national data needs. However, it should be noted that a general census is a huge and extremely costly operation. Therefore, the contents of censuses are usually restricted to the very basic structural variables of population and housing conditions, this data being needed either at a very detailed regional level or at a detailed level of classification. Obtaining a broader spectrum of variables is usually achieved by means of sample surveys, which enable a great variety of data to be produced at reasonable cost.

In terms of its questionnaire, the content of the Greek general census is fully in line with the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) - Eurostat recommendations for the 2000 censuses of population and housing in the ECE region, and with the Community Programme for Population and Housing Censuses in 2001, as agreed

by the Statistical Programme Committee and published by Eurostat under the heading Guidelines and table programme for the Community programme for population and housing censuses in 2001.

As far as the degree of exhaustiveness of the Greek census is concerned, no information is yet available. However, it is known that the National Statistical Service of Greece had planned to carry out a post-enumeration survey to check the coverage of the census. The results of this quality-control exercise should become available in the coming months.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0070/01

by Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Use of depleted uranium ammunition in the Balkans

Was the European Commission informed, as were the NATO Member States and aid organisations active in the Balkans, by NATO in July 1999 of the possible toxic risk associated with the use of depleted-uranium ammunition(1)?

If so, what action has the European Commission taken to protect its staff present in the Balkans against possible harmful effects?

If not, will the Commission now be prepared, on the basis of the information that has recently come to light, to take action to protect Commission staff in the Balkans?

Does the Commission agree that it should, in view of its activities in the Balkans, play a part in the international inquiry that has been announced?

Does the Commission share the position not only that the international inquiry must investigate the possible effects of depleted uranium on the health of NATO personnel, but also that the impact on the health of local communities in the affected areas visited by UNEP(2) must be investigated to an equivalent standard?

(1) NRC Handelsblad for 8 January and Berliner Morgenpost for 7 and 8 January 2001.

(2) Le Monde 6 January 2001.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation(NATO)recently confirmed that ammunition containing depleted uranium had been used. The Commission was already aware of the potential toxic risks of this, notably through the provisional report of the United Nations (UNEP) of October 1999, essentially based on extrapolations from the data known after such weapons had been used in the Gulf.

The Commission appreciates the worry this might cause for staff sent to the Balkans on mission and its associates in the region, and has taken the necessary steps to inform those involved as to the nature of the risk and to carry out the analyses and examinations needed if the risk is confirmed.

The group of experts set up under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty will soon be making a statement on the possible radiological risk. The Commission is also in close contact with all the international organisations which have begun enquiries and studies on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1226/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Construction of the Ferrol waste-water treatment plant in a Natura 2000 Network area

In order to comply with EU requirements regarding the treatment of waste water, the Ferrol municipal authorities, together with the Regional Planning Ministry and the Northern Hydrographic Confederation, are intending to build a waste-water treatment plant covering six hectares in an area located within the Natura 2000 Network (Costa Artabra-Ensenada, located between Cape Prioriño Grande and Cape Prioriño Chico, Ferrol district).

Does the Commission consider that locating a waste-water treatment plant within an area included in the Natura 2000 Network is a suitable way of solving a serious environmental problem (the city of Ferrol discharges 60 000 m3 per day of waste water into the estuary on which it stands)? Does it not think that an alternative solution should be found which will not affect the Natura 2000 Network site?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2001)

Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment(1) requires agglomerations of more than 15 000 population equivalent (population equivalent is a unit of measurement of organic pollution representing the average pollution produced per person per day) to be equipped with collecting systems and secondary (i.e. biological) treatment systems by no later than 31 December 2000. Ferrol falls into this category.

The fact that the project described by the Honourable Member is indeed located in an area designated a site of Community importance (SCI ES1110002 Costa Artaba) by the Spanish authorities in accordance with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2) does not a priori prevent the project from being carried out, provided it does not have a significant effect on the site.

The question does not provide sufficient information for the Commission to establish whether Directive 92/43/EEC has been infringed.

However, the Commission does not rule out the possibility of investigating the problem raised by the Honourable Member should she be able to provide it with information proving that the project would have a significant effect on the site.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1572/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Recruitment of temporary staff to OLAF

Over the past few months the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has launched a recruitment drive for temporary staff specialising in criminal law and anti-fraud legislation.

Will the Commission provide the following information:

- the overall result of this recruitment drive;

- the number and names of applicants who were already working for OLAF, and

- the number and names of such applicants who are to be re-recruited and when this is to occur?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) organised three separate selection procedures in 2000 for the recruitment of temporary staff, two for investigators (categories A and B) and one for specialists (category A) in the area referred to by the Honourable Member (criminal law and anti-fraud legislation).

As regards the selection of investigators, the two reserve lists comprise 64 names in category A, with seven successful candidates recruited on 31 May 2001, and 52 names in category B, with 17 candidates recruited on the same date.

As regards the selection of specialists in criminal law and anti-fraud legislation, the reserve list contains 10 names in career bracket A7/A6, with four successful candidates recruited on 31 May 2001, and 24 names in career bracket A5/A4, with five candidates recruited on that date. Of the nine new members of staff recruited, one was already working for OLAF.

Recruitment from the reserve lists will continue as and when budgetary funds become available in line with departmental requirements.

With a view to safeguarding the confidentiality of personal data, the Commission declines to provide the names of persons already working for OLAF or likely to be recruited in future in reply to a written question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0975/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Stockholm Summit

Recent reports suggest that the Swedish Presidency intends to the make the March Summit a baby summit concerned with remedying the EU's demographic profile by encouraging Europeans to have more children.

What studies has the Council made of effectiveness of similar exhortations in the past? What estimates has it made of the strain on the EU's resources and natural environment that an increase in the birth rate would place? And how does it believe such a policy would dovetail with the EU's emerging common policy on immigration?

Reply

(16 July 2001)

The Stockholm European Council on 23 and 24 March 2001 addressed the demographic challenge of an ageing population and the consequences for social welfare systems.

It was pointed out that the ageing society calls for clear strategies for ensuring the adequacy of pension systems, as well as of health care systems and care of the elderly, while at the same time maintaining the sustainability of public finances and inter-generational solidarity.

The question of demographic change was debated in that context, but the Stockholm European Council did not explicitly debate encouraging Europeans to have more children and therefore cannot be considered to have been a baby summit.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0746/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Launching a case within the WTO's dispute settlement procedures (Commission's recommendation)

When the Commission recommends to the Council of Ministers that it is to launch a case within the WTO's dispute settlement procedures, are the details of the recommendation made available to the public before the Council of Ministers takes its own decision? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0746/01 and E-0747/01 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

As the Honourable Member knows, there are two possible ways for the Commission to ensure the enforcement of the rights of the Community through World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement procedures.

The first one is action under the Trade Barriers Regulation, i.e. Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community's rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the WTO(1).

Article 8 paragraph 1(a) of that Regulation provides that when the Commission considers that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an examination procedure, it publishes a notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities giving a summary of the information received and inviting interested parties to submit comments.

If, at the end of the examination procedure, the Commission decides to initiate a WTO dispute settlement procedure, Article 12 paragraph 4 of the Council Regulation provides that such decision shall state the reasons on which it is based and again be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. A similar publication happens in case no action is undertaken.

As the guardian of the Treaties, including international agreements, the Commission may also enforce the negotiated rights of the Community outside the specific framework of the Trade Barriers Regulation (see Article 15 of the Council Regulation).

In that case, the Commission consults the special committee established under Article 133 paragraph 3 of the EC Treaty.

In both instances, the current Commission has decided, in a spirit of increased transparency, to make available on the website of Directorate General for Trade the texts of the requests for WTO consultations and of the requests for the establishment for a WTO panel submitted by the Commission on behalf of the Community. These documents provide a description of the measure or practice challenged in the WTO, as well as the indication of the legal provisions which allegedly are breached.

(1) OJ L 349, 21.12.1994. A description of that regulation is also available on the website of DG Trade.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1016/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Publication of statistics in the US and EU

1. Will the Commission examine the forthcoming timetables of a group of leading international investment banks (e.g. Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, UBS, Deutsche Bank) for the listing of the statistics regularly published (quarterly or monthly) by United States agencies deemed to have an effect on the euro-dollar exchange rate (e.g. GDP growth, inflation, non-farm payrolls, etc.)?

2. Will it compile a matrix setting out the time delay between that US publication date and the period to which it refers, together with a further column indicating the euro area equivalent statistical series, if any, with the equivalent time delay between Eurostat publication and the period to which it refers?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of the importance attached by financial market operators to the release of infra-annual economic indicators (e.g. gross domestic products (GDP), inflation, employment, trade balance, etc.) in the Community and the United States. The Commission believes also that the comparative evolution of such indicators has an impact on the euro-dollar exchange rate and considers it of utmost importance that financial market operators are adequately informed.

A detailed analysis of the release of infra-annual economic statistics in the Community and United States will be made in the context of a report comparing Community and United States practices, which will be submitted in autumn 2001 to the Statistical Programme Committee (SPC). Such an analysis will, of course, contain a table matching Community and United States release dates for a comparable set of infra-annual economic indicators.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0087/01

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

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Fisheries agreements between Morocco and Japan, Russia, Korea and Norway

At a time when the Community fleet (notably vessels from Galicia, Andalusia and the Canaries) is immobilised in port, unable to fish in the Canaries/Saharan waters thanks to the non-renewal of the fisheries agreement with the Kingdom of Morocco, Morocco itself appears to have entered into new agreements with Japan, Russia, Korea and Norway. How does the Commission interpret this development, given the arguments on overfishing of its resources advanced by Morocco to justify not signing a new fisheries agreement with the EU within the next few years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

To the Commission's knowledge, Morocco has only concluded two other State-to-State fisheries agreements.

Firstly, with Russia, there was an agreement involving access for Russian vessels to fish pelagic resources such as mackerel, horse mackerel, and sardinella. This agreement expired on 30 November 1999 and has not been renewed.

Secondly, with Japan, there is an agreement involving 15 longline vessels to fish blue-fin tuna for those three months of the year when the tuna migrates through Moroccan waters. This agreement expires in September 2001.

Therefore, it is clear that these two Agreements do not interfere with the Community's past and future interests and that the one with Japan is the only agreement currently in force.

Moreover, it should be underlined that the fleets involved do not target the same sensitive species with which Morocco claims to have conservation problems.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0560/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Enlargement

At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Enlargement provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission's financial management on the basis of this single indicator.

Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.

Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.