ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4009/00

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

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Greenhouses in the Cabo de Gata habitat area

Is the Commission aware that the Spanish government has proposed designating the Cabo de Gata nature park in Almeria, Andalusia, as a natural habitat area?

Is the Commission moreover aware that intensive greenhouse agriculture is being practised illegally within the Cabo de Gata nature park?

Is the Commission aware that there are plans by the regional government to legalise the said greenhouses after 2002?

Does the Commission agree that any such action would conflict with the provisions of the Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The Commission had not been aware of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member.

This area had been put forward by Spain as a site of Community relevance (SCR) under reference ES 000046 Cabo de Gata-Nijar for its inclusion in the Natura 2000 network, in pursuance of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna(1).

Article 6.3 of said Directive states that any project that is not necessary to the management of a Natura 2000 site, but is likely to have a significant effect thereon, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives.

The Commission has asked the Spanish authorities for information on the project referred to above in order to check the proper implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC in this instance.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3988/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Future spread of the dwarf tapeworm in Sweden

There is a risk that the deadly dwarf tapeworm will proliferate in Sweden unless the requirement of a deworming certificate is maintained for pets transported over Swedish borders. In Switzerland and Germany, the population is being urged not to eat preserved raw lingonberry, for example, as they may ingest dwarf tapeworm in doing so. The incubation period for disease from this worm is 20 years and only if detected at an early stage can it be cured.

At present, dwarf tapeworm does not exist in Sweden and to prevent dogs and cats bringing it into the country, they are required to take a drug which kills the worm.

However, to facilitate freedom of movement of pets within the EU, some of the current rules applicable to them are being scrapped.

Can Sweden have an exemption from the rules on pets transported over EU borders and require a deworming certificate?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

In the third quarter of 2000 the Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on animal-health requirements applicable to non-commercial movements of pet animals(1). This legal measure is based on the available scientific data, the aim being to reduce to an acceptable level the health risks resulting from movements of pets.

Moreover, Article 8 of the proposal includes a provision that makes it possible for a Member State to obtain additional guarantees where this is justified by a particular situation. The Commission is aware of the risk of the introduction of Echinococcus multilocularis into the Member States that are free of this tapeworm, as a result of movements of carnivores from areas where this parasitic disease is endemic. It is therefore possible to make use of the provisions of this Article for this zoonosis.

The public health problem related to Echinococcus multilocularis has therefore been taken into account in the Commission proposal and can thus be dealt with for Sweden, and for Ireland and the United Kingdom, through this procedure.

(1) COM(2000) 529 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4064/00

by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Environmental rehabilitation work in Emilia Romagna (Italy)

Can the Commission provide information on the environmental rehabilitation work now completed at the Mezzano sugar refinery (Vasche dello zuccherificio di Mezzano, cod. IT 4700012) (Ravenna, Italy), a site which has been designated under the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) and Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds(2), given that it was not carried out in full compliance with the recommendations on the protection of the wildlife living in the area, and has completely altered the entire natural habitat?

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

What action does it intend to take on the matter?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

Answer given by Mr Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The case raised by the Honourable Member has been dealt with by the Commission in the framework of petition no 238/99. This petition has been last discussed during the meeting of the Committee on Petitions of the Parliament on 23 May 2000. No infringement of Community legislation on nature conservation had been identified at the time and the case was consequently closed.

The information given by the Honourable Member does not include any new elements that would justify the Commission changing its earlier analysis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3168/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(16 October 2000)

Subject: Cyprus and the Loizidou case

1. Will compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey be a condition laid down in the EU's accession partnership agreement with Turkey?

2. Will any reference be made to Cyprus in the EU's accession partnership agreement with Turkey?

3. In the opinion of the Commission, has Turkey, since the Helsinki Summit, made any progress:

(a) towards fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria, and

(b) towards complying with the preconditions laid down in the communique issued by the European Council in Helsinki?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

1. The Honourable Member will note that the Council registered political agreement to the accession partnership with Turkey and the relevant framework Regulation at its meeting on 4/5 December 2000.

In so doing, it recalled the terms of the Helsinki European Council conclusions as regards the criteria to be met by all candidate countries.

2. The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it cannot formally adopt the framework Regulation until such time as the European Parliament has delivered its Opinion, which it is expected to do in February 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3252/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Complaint in Spain by milk producers against industrialists

The Spanish Union of Small Farmers has lodged a complaint against Spain's industrialists on the grounds that they have agreed to keep prices artificially low in order to maintain their levels below the intervention prices, in other words, below the minimum price levels guaranteed to producers by the state.

The Union of Small Farmers believes that the price paid for milk by Spanish industrialists (ESP 40) is the lowest in Europe.

Can the Commission state in what way it can intervene in support of the Spanish milk producers' complaint and what action it could take to meet their demands?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

So far, the Commission has received no information leading it to conclude that there is a price agreement between industrialists in violation of Article 81 (formerly Article 85) of the EC Treaty. If the Spanish Union of Small Farmers has such information, it could refer it either to the Commission or to the national competition authorities, who are responsible for any application of national law to the situation in question.

With regard to the price paid to the milk producers, the data sent by the Member State to Eurostat for the period from January 1999 to April 2000 (the most recent data available) show prices ranging from ESP 44,12 to ESP 47,67 per kilo ( 0,2652 to 0,2865). It should also be noted that the rules lay down a guide price which is not a minimum purchase price. The purchase price of milk at the dairy is determined by supply and demand and the quality of the milk offered, in terms of its fat, protein and lactose contents and the level of micro-organisms present.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4071/00

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Commission intervention in connection with the Júcar-Vinalopó diversion (Spain)

At the end of October 2000 the Commission was looking into the environmental impact of the Júcar-Vinalopó diversion project, having received a complaint in addition to my own series of written questions. As part of its investigations, the Commission had asked the Spanish authorities for their remarks on the project and on the application of the Birds Directive in this case.

Nevertheless, the Spanish Environment Ministry recently approved the commencement of work on the project.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in its investigations into the environmental impact of the Júcar-Vinalopó diversion?

Is the Commission aware of the Spanish authorities' approval of these works?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2001)

As the Honourable Member was informed in reply to Written Questions E-0819/00(1) and E-2650/00(2), the Commission has received a complaint about the Júcar-Vinalopó diversion project in which it is claimed that Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(3), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(4), Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(5), and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(6) may not have been properly applied.

As part of its examination of this case, the Commission has written to the Spanish authorities to ask them for their observations on the above project and on the application to it of the Community Directives concerned.

The reply from the Spanish authorities arrived recently and is currently being examined by the Commission.

The Spanish authorities have informed the Commission that the project in question is undergoing an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC. The project is part of the Hydrological Plan for the Júcar basin. The Spanish authorities have also pointed out that the environmental impact assessment has already been carried out and that the public has been consulted. It should be noted that the Spanish authorities state that the environmental impact statement on this project has not yet been adopted.

The Spanish authorities have furthermore indicated that the final construction project will not be approved until the environmental impact statement has been adopted by the Minister of the Environment. At all events, the Spanish authorities point out that the basic project, for which a pubic contract has already been awarded, will have to take account of the results of the ongoing environmental impact procedure.

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 29.

(2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 66.

(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(5) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(6) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3293/00

by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Failure to comply with the Schengen agreement

The Italian civil aviation authorities oblige persons travelling to countries that have signed the Schengen treaty from Italian airports without customs facilities, airfields and helipads to comply with various formalities precluded by that agreement.

For example, circular 133/U of 21 April 1999, issued by the Bergamo-Orio al Serio Air Traffic Control office, provides for authorisation to be given for the purpose of carrying out frontier controls and explicitly states that these should apply to all flights, regardless of whether they involve Schengen or non-Schengen countries.

Do these provisions comply with the Schengen treaty and, if not, what action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the Italian civil aviation authorities also observe that agreement?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the circular and the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. It is conducting an enquiry in the Member State in question and will inform the Honourable Member of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3627/00

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: budget contributions

Can the Commission give, for the latest year available, the gross and net contributions to the European Union budget for all Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2000)

The material the Honourable Member is seeking is available in the Europa site in the world wide web.

Specifically, the latest data on net contributions, defined according to the operational definition of the budgetary balance, are for 1999 and can be found in Table 6 of the statistical annex of the report Allocation of 1999 Operating Expenditure by Member State, issued in July 2000. Data on gross contributions by Member State, consistent with the 1999 budgetary balance estimates, are also reported in Tables 4a to 4f of the report (the gross and net contributions data go back to 1993). The report can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/en/agenda2000/a2000rp.htm.

The data for the 2000 gross contributions according to the supplementary and amending budget (SAB) 1+2/2000 and the 2001 gross contributions according to the preliminary draft budget (PDB) 2001 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3336/00

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Attacks on press freedom in Austria

On Monday, 9 October 2000, as was reported in the most respected European newspapers, the journalists of the State-run Austrian television service, ORF, spoke out with one voice against the massive pressure being exerted by senior leaders of Jörg Haider's Freedom Party (FPÖ) and their intolerable attempts to censor the station's editorial staff and management. One of the main culprits has been the head of the FPÖ parliamentary group, Peter Westenthaler, who within the space of a single day intervened on as many as 22 occasions in an attempt to obstruct the journalists' work, influence the subjects covered and the format and scope of reports, and demand counter-reports whenever the television news was not to his liking.

Furthermore, according to Profil magazine, the management of the State television service has opened an internal investigation to discover why the text of news items was leaked to politicians before the programmes concerned had even been broadcast. Lastly, another source has revealed that two police-officers have been implicated in a criminal plan to physically punish the television presenter Josef Bronkal for his severe criticism of Jörg Haider's party.

In the light of the statement issued on 12 September 2000, in which the 14 Union governments announced that they were lifting the diplomatic sanctions imposed on Austria but at the same time pointed to the need to keep an especially close watch on Jörg Haider's Freedom Party, does the Council not believe that the Union institutions should roundly and unambiguously condemn the continuing blatant attacks on freedom of the Press, and hence democracy, being mounted in Austria?

Reply

(12 February 2001)

The Council has not been informed of this issue which, in any case, is a matter for the Austrian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3397/00

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Soul for Europe Programme

Can the Commission give the following information regarding what is known as the Soul for Europe Programme:

1. Has the Soul for Europe Programme received any grant from the European Union budget?

2. How does the Soul for Europe fund or programme function, what are its objectives and who administers it?

3. If such grants are given to the Soul for Europe Programme from the EU budget, how does the Commission answer the criticism that it should not seek to give financial support to religious organisations to promote closer political integration which members of those organisations do not necessarily support?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

There is no Community programme called Soul for Europe. There is an organisation of this name which coordinates the work of religious associations of all denominations.

Soul for Europe is an organisation independent of the European institutions. Its objectives and who administers it are its own responsibility.

The associations which are members of Soul for Europe, like all others concerned, have access to budget heading A-3024, which since 1999 has operated on the basis of the publication of a call for proposals.

Soul for Europe is not subsidised directly via budget heading A-3024. However, it received an operational grant of 44 000 for the year 2000 on the basis of budget heading A-3021.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4052/00

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Implementation of Community environmental legislation structural fund financing in the Epirus region

Two hydroelectric plants are to be built in the municipalities of Egnatia and Metsovo in the Ioannina region of Greece. One is already under construction in the area of Mikro Peristeri (Paleokhorio district) and the other is planned for the area of Anilio.

In both areas there are monuments at risk of being destroyed by these projects and in neither case have the procedures for informing the public been observed or public opinion been taken into account.

Furthermore, the projects are receiving 45 % of their funding from the operational programme for energy under the 2nd Community Support Framework for Greece.

In addition to the general framework set by Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999(1) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, concerning the observance of environmental legislation, Articles 6 and 8 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC(2), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC(3), provide for the public concerned to be given information and for their opinion to be taken into account when the projects are funded.

Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, has not yet been fully transposed into Greek national law. What measures will the Commission take to ensure that Community Directive 85/337/EEC, and Articles 6 and 8 thereof in particular, is implemented in practice in the above areas to avoid the adverse impact of the above projects on the cultural and natural environment in the region of Ioannina?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

According to the information provided to the Commission by the Greek authorities, the procedure required by national and Community legislation on environmental impact statements and consultation of the public concerned was followed in the case of these two projects.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3265/00

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Council

(16 October 2000)

Subject: Proposal for a directive on physical agents

A new report by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work highlights vibrations as one of the most important problems in the work environment which require preventive measures by most countries. In 1992, the Commission submitted a proposal for a directive on physical agents, including vibrations. A European Parliament opinion on the subject has been awaiting consideration by the Council since 1994. Will the Council set out its timetable for work on this proposal for a directive and say whether it will complete the task during the French Presidency?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

1. The Council is very mindful of the fact that vibrations represent an important problem for health and safety at work and that it is necessary for Member States to undertake preventive work on this.

2. The proposal for a Directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents, and in particular from vibration, has already been the subject of intensive discussions in the various Council bodies. The Council would inform the Honourable Member that, at its meeting on 27/28 November 2000, it reached unanimous political agreement on a draft common position concerning the amended proposal for a Directive setting minimum health and safety requirements for workers exposed to risks arising from mechanical vibrations. The purpose of this Directive is to combat the effects of vibrations causing muscular and skeletal disorders which are now the primary source of occupational illnesses.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3322/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Sugar Management Committee opinion on draft Regulation No 1481/2000

Does the Commission agree that according to current legislation, draft Regulation No 1481/2000 of 6 July 2000(1) should be referred to the Sugar Management Committee for its opinion?

If so, would the Commission provide me with a copy of the Committee's approval of the draft regulation pursuant to the minutes of the Committee's meeting?

(1) OJ L 167, 7.7.2000, p. 6.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 February 1992 introducing specific measures in respect of certain agricultural products for the Azores and Madeira(1) provides in Article 10 that the Commission should determine, according to the Comitology procedure, the measures for implementing the specific supply arrangement. These measures include in particular producing special supply balances.

It is within this framework that the Commission submitted to the management committee for sugar, on 21 June 2000, a draft Commission Regulation establishing the sugar forecast supply balance for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands for the marketing year 2000/01 provided for under Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 of 15 June 1992 introducing specific measures concerning certain agricultural products for the Canary Islands.

Once the management committee for sugar had expressed its favourable opinion on the proposed measures, the Commission adopted the above Regulation (EC) No 1481/2000 on 6 July 2000 establishing the sugar forecast supply for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands for the marketing year 2000/2001 provided for under Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92(2).

A copy of the draft regulation text, as submitted to the management committee, is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.

(2) OJ L 167, 7.7.2000.