ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2390/00

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Temelin nuclear power station

The loading of the reactor block of the Temelin nuclear power station and the physical commissioning are to start in early July, several weeks earlier than planned. In other words, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) will not take place until the fuel elements have been loaded and, at the earliest, during the physical commissioning, which is quite absurd. The Czech Ministry of the Environment has specified 13 procedures for design modifications, while ignoring the EIA procedure.

Is the Commission aware that the premature start-up of the Temelin power station in the Czech Republic fails to comply with EU rules of the acquis communautaire, in particular the EIA directive? Is the Commission aware that this is not because of a lack of flexibility, but because of political reasons and against the wishes of the Czech government's environment minister?

If so, what was the Commission's response at the last round of negotiations in June?

If not, how will the Commission respond to the Czech government now that it is in possession of the facts?

What effect will this ignoring of common rules on environmental matters have on the negotiations and on the pre-accession process for the Czech Republic?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2000)

The Commission is aware that the Czech domestic legislation on environmental impact assessment (EIA) is not yet entirely in line with the acquis. The Commission expects this legislation to be amended in accordance with Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) not only by the time of the Czech Republic's accession, but also in compliance with the short-term priority established in the Accession Partnership 1999. The Commission will report on progress in its regular report 2000.

The Commission is also aware that pending procedures are being conducted on the basis of the current Czech legislation. The transposition of the acquis will not change this domestic legislation retroactively or impact on pending procedures.

The new law, which would respect the environmental impact assessment acquis is in the Czech Parliament and should be voted shortly. It will meet the environmental concerns of the Community.

The Commission and the Czech Republic have discussed this matter within their bilateral relations under the Europe agreement and we are continuing to keep it under review with our partner so that the political sensitivity of the issue is clearly understood.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2971/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 September 2000)

Subject: Powers of the Commission in connection with the protection of dogs

Following the undertaking given by Commissioner Byrne at the sitting of 6 September that he would consider the matter and in the light of the attempt to set up a pet-passport scheme at European level, does the Commission believe that it has the power to intervene with the German Government regarding the proposed slaughter of large numbers of dogs, if it accepts that the German Government has been insufficiently rigorous in discriminating between dogs which are genuinely dangerous and those that are not? If not, will it indicate the legal basis on which it believes that the Commission's powers regarding pet-passports is based.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that it has submitted a proposal for a Regulation(1) to the Council with a view, among other things, to introducing a Community passport for pet animals moving with their owners within the Community. However, these passports are intended for veterinary purposes and should be regarded more as health cards. They should serve to limit the spread of diseases affecting public and animal health.

Consequently, compliance of the German regulations with Community law can only be assessed on the basis of Articles 28 and 30 (ex Articles 30 and 36) of the EC Treaty, since the Commission takes the view that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, it is for the Member States to adopt appropriate measures to protect the life of humans, provided such measures comply with the rules of the EC Treaty.

According to Article 28 of the EC Treaty, Member States may not adopt national measures which restrict the movement of animals. However, Article 30 of the EC Treaty authorises the adoption of such measures if they are justified on grounds of public morality and protection of the health and life of humans and animals, etc.

Nevertheless, according to the Honourable Member's information, the German authorities will, in this instance, have to find a reasonable balance between protecting the life of humans and permitting the free movement of animals. The Commission will have to assess whether this balance has been found on the basis of draft law on protection against dangerous dogs recently communicated by the German authorities in the framework of the notification procedure introduced in 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(2).

(1) COM(2000) 529 final.

(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3720/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Trade in cigarettes

The Commission's legal dispute with two American tobacco manufacturers has focused interest once more on the import and export of cigarettes.

There is a degree of uncertainty about the extent of the cigarette trade (including smuggling). I should therefore be glad if the Commission could answer these questions:

1. How many cigarettes were confiscated in the various EU Member States in 1997, 1998 and 1999?

2. Which were the five most confiscated makes of cigarettes in the EU, in order of importance, in 1997, 1998 and 1999?

3. Which Member States exported cigarettes to Cyprus in 1997-1999 (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

4. Which Member States exported cigarettes to Yugoslavia in 1997-1999 (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

5. From which countries were cigarettes imported into the EU in 1997-1999 through the port of Antwerp? (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

6. To which countries outside the EU were cigarettes exported from the Belgian Federation in 1997-1999? (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 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-2600/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Safety problems at Heraklion airport

A peculiar feature of Heraklion airport on Crete is that all landings and take-offs involve low-level flying over the densely populated district of Alicarnaso, with the result that there is a serious risk of an accident. At 9,55 p.m. on 9 July 2000, a Russian plane attempted to take off at an exceptionally low level, damaging several houses and causing panic among residents. Studies were carried out many years ago into the construction of a safer runway, but no contract for such a project has yet been awarded.

Does the Commission have any information on safety at the above airport? Has it received any application for Community support for the construction of a new runway at the airport in question? Is it aware of the reasons why no contract has been awarded to date, and what action will be taken in the future?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2000)

The Commission does not have specific information on safety rules applied at Heraklion Airport and is not in possession of information indicating that infrastructure features or operating rules applied at this airport constitute a particular risk or an infringement of international or national rules on air safety.

In the context of the Community Framework 2000-2006 for Greece, the Greek authorities have presented to the Commission a draft operational programme Railways, Airports, Urban Transport which foresees the construction of a new runway at Heraklion airport. This draft programme is currently under negotiation.

The Commission is not in the position to directly answer to the question why no contract has been awarded to date since the Member State concerned is responsible for implementing these works.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3678/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: WTO waiver

Would the Commission give details of any progress which is being made in consultations to end the impasse on a WTO waiver for the EU-ACP Cotonou Agreement?

Would the Commission agree that reform of the EU's banana regime and the granting of a WTO waiver for the Cotonou Agreement are two entirely separate issues, and that ACP countries should not be penalised by any further delay in dealing with the waiver request?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member in that reform of the Community banana regime and the granting of a World Trade Organisation (WTO) waiver for the Cotonou Agreement are two entirely separate issues, and that the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries should not be penalised by any further delay in dealing with the waiver request. Indeed, the Commission, representing the Communities in the WTO council for trade in goods (CTG), has repeatedly stated this very same argument in its interventions in support of an examination of the request and then the granting of the waiver.

However, in spite of the concerted efforts of the Community and the representatives of the ACP countries in the CTG, it has not been possible to break the impasse on a WTO waiver for the Cotonou Agreement. Some members of the WTO continue to claim all documentation relating to the Agreement has not been made available since no details are given on the ACP preferential treatment for bananas. These members have not been convinced by the ACP and Community arguments that the waiver request refers to tariff preferences for the ACP, which is clearly foreseen in the Agreement, and not to the details of them.

The Commission wishes to underline that this situation has not penalised the ACP since they continue to fully enjoy their preferential access to the Community without restrictions.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2820/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Disqualified drivers

Will the Commission please detail what measures have been taken by the Member States to ensure that a driver who is disqualified in one Member State is also disqualified in other Member States? Is the Commission satisfied that current arrangements are working adequately, and if not, what measures does it propose to remedy the situation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 2000)

The enforcement of driving disqualifications in Member States other than that in which the disqualification was imposed requires judicial co-operation between Member States in a criminal matter. The introduction of such a measure, therefore, does not fall within direct Community competence but rather within the area of co-operation between Member States in Justice and home affairs.

Current arrangements in this field, if existent, are not established on the basis of multilateral co-operation, but rather within the framework of bilateral agreements between certain Member States. This system is inadequate in view of the requirements of the free movement of persons and the increase in international road traffic.

In order to ensure enforcement of driving disqualifications throughout the Union, a Convention on driving disqualifications(1) has therefore been drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 (now Article 31) of the Treaty on European Union within the framework of Justice and home affairs. So far, this Convention has not been ratified by a Member State.

Under Article 2 of this Convention, its objective is to ensure that drivers who are disqualified from driving in a Member State other than that in which they normally reside should not escape the effects of their disqualification when leaving the State of the offence.

Given that it is of utmost importance for road safety within the Union that a Union-wide effect be given to driving disqualifications by adequate means (see the first recital of the Convention) the entry into force of the Convention is a first important step to remedy the present situation.

(1) OJ C 216, 10.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2165/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Funding of the Turkish armed forces by the European Union

According to recent press reports, a Turkish general recently proposed that the new plan for the Turkish armed forces deployed in south-eastern Turkey should be funded from EU aid to Turkey. However, the aid granted to Turkey by the EU is intended to develop the country to make it a viable candidate for future membership of the EU and not to help tackle Turkey's long-term security problems in its south-eastern provinces caused by its refusal to resolve the Kurdish problem.

How confident is the Council that the appropriations allocated to Turkey with a view to promoting its bid for accession to the European Union will not end up in the budgets of the Turkish armed forces to be used to strengthen Turkey's military machine in violation of all the relevant EU legislation?

What means and procedures is the Council employing to ensure and monitor the proper use of EU funds in Turkey and to frustrate the wishes of the Turkish military?

Reply

(20 November 2000)

All projects funded out of the Community budget are decided on the basis of legislative acts of the Council and, very often, of the European Parliament. In the case of Turkey, those acts currently include the MEDA programme(1) and the Council Regulation regarding the implementation of measures to intensify the EC-Turkey customs union(2). In addition, the Council has recently forwarded to the European Parliament its common position with a view to the adoption of a Regulation regarding the implementation of measures to promote economic and social development in Turkey(3).

These three Regulations contain specific and well-defined criteria concerning the areas in which a cooperation project or measure may implemented and also lay down the objectives and principles which govern those measures. The area referred to by the Honourable Member clearly falls outside the scope of the Regulations. The Council is certain that the Commission, which implements the financial regulations with the assistance of the MED Committee, shares this view and takes all necessary steps to ensure that funds granted by the European Community are not improperly used.

The Council will use the means at its disposal to ensure that the appropriations allocated to Turkey by the European Community are not used by, or in order to strengthen, the Turkish armed forces.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1488/96 of 23 July 1996 on financial and technical measures to accompany (MEDA) the reform of economic and social structures in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership (OJ L 189, 30.7.1996, p. 1), as amended by Regulation No 780/98, (OJ L 113, 15.4.1998, p. 3).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 764/2000 of 10 April 2000 (OJ L 94, 14.4.2000, p. 6).

(3) Common position adopted by the Council on 13 June 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3316/00

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

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Malta: power station visit of Commissioner Wallström

In the light of the accession negotiations taking place with Malta, what is the position which is being taken by the Commission with regard to the serious environmental and health problems caused by an antiquated and obsolete power station at Marsa, Malta? Is the Commission aware of this problem and, during her visit to Malta later this year, will EU Commissioner Wallström meet with environmental NGOs, local councils and the Malta Green Party campaigning on this issue?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The Commission has received information about the power station in Marsa from the Maltese authorities, but is not aware of any specific environmental problems related to the plant. The Commission understands that the Marsa plant was constructed between 1964 and 1987, and therefore counts as an existing plant according to Community legislation on large combustion plants. Therefore no emission limit values are required for this plant, and its emissions are to be taken into account in the country's national emission ceilings.

Furthermore, the Maltese authorities have informed the Commission that ensuring compliance with air quality standards in Malta is the joint responsibility of the Environmental protection department and the Department of public health. Malta has identified air quality zones and agglomerations, and has in place an ambient air quality monitoring programme, which meets the requirements of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management(1).

The Commission continues to underline the importance of accelerating the adoption and implementation of the full acquis when meeting Maltese representatives and will strive to interact with all concerned in order to reach a comprehensive understanding of the situation in relation to environment and health on the island.

(1) OJ L 296, 21.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2559/00

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Use of investment aid

There is currently a great need to develop the wood-processing industry in Eastern Europe. Whilst we naturally support its development, the Swedish wood-processing industry is very concerned that the wood-processing industry in eastern Germany is being modernised with the help of substantial public investment aid. It is of course important to pursue active regional policies, but such policies must be designed so as to be neutral from the point of view of competition.

Is the Commission aware of differences in the way Member States use investment aid? Does it consider that regional policies should not distort competition between Member States, and does it intend to take action regarding this matter?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

The Commission is aware of the development of the wood-processing industry in eastern Europe and in the new German Länder in particular.

This sector is not covered by specific industrial guidelines.

Accordingly, investment projects may qualify for aid under the provisions applicable to regional aid, within the limits of the schemes approved by the Commission. Under the EC Treaty Article 87(3)(a) and (c) (formerly Article 92), regional aid benefits from two exceptions to the general ban on state aid. The new firms that have received or applied for investment aid are located in assisted regions suffering from serious underemployment within the meaning of Article 87(3)(a). Provided the requirements of the Commission decisions approving the aid measures are complied with, the aid that has been granted or applied for is compatible with the common market.

According to the information available to the Commission following in-depth investigations, the aid granted for the setting-up of the new firms in question is below the threshold stipulated in the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects and does not have to be notified individually by the Member State concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2633/00

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

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Fisheries agreement between the European Union and Greenland

In 1984 the European Economic Community signed a fisheries agreement with the Government of Denmark and the Autonomous Government of Greenland. At the time when the agreement was signed, Spain had not yet joined the Community but when it did it was not granted any entitlement to fish in Greenland waters, pursuant to the principle of relative stability.

The agreement currently provides for the setting up of pilot schemes or temporary business associations which in theory would enable Spain to fish in the waters concerned but in reality (on account of the Greenland authorities, and other practices), Spanish vessels (including the sizeable Galician fleet) have never had access to those waters.

In view of the fact that the Member States catch nothing like their full quota of fish in Greenland waters (and since a senior Commission representative even went as far as to describe them as paper quotas), is the Commission proposing to amend this state of affairs? Could the Commission explain how Galicia and Spain should set about altering this absurd situation so as to be able to fish in a country's waters in which they have been historically active?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2000)

The internal distribution amongst Member States of fishing possibilities under a fisheries agreement is not the subject of negotiations with the third country but an internal matter to be resolved within the Community.

In general terms, the Commission is of the opinion that available catch quotas in third country waters under a fisheries agreement must be utilised in a rational and optimal manner and that appropriate mechanisms making transfers of unused or under-utilised catch quotas to other interested Member States should be designed without prejudice to the principle of relative stability.

The Court of Justice ruled, in its judgement given on 13 October 1992 (case C-63/90, Portugal and Spain v. Council) that, under the principle of relative stability, under-utilisation alone offers no valid motive for a re-allocation of the catch quotas concerned to other interested Member States. Furthermore, the Court declared that, by accepting the acquis communautaire pursuant to the relevant provisions of the 1985 Act of Accession, Spain was barred from invoking earlier traditions of fishing in Greenland waters as a motive to obtain a re-distribution of catch quotas allocated in accordance with the principle of relative stability.

Under the 1985 Community-Greenland fisheries agreement currently in force, forthcoming negotiations will concentrate on a fourth fisheries protocol covering the years 2001-2006. The Commission has submitted a recommendation for a Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations for a fourth fisheries protocol. The Commission will, in due course, following the conclusion of these negotiations submit a proposal to the Council for the approval of the intended fourth protocol.