ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3683/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Amounts allotted under and implementation of the Cohesion Fund

Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted to each Member State under the Cohesion Fund during the 1994-1999 programming period and what was the out-turn in each country?

Can it say what aggregate amounts have been allotted to each Member State under the Cohesion Fund in 2000 and what has been the out-turn to date in each country?

How does the Commission view out-turn of the Cohesion Fund during the 1994-1999 programming period in each of the recipient Member States?

How does the Commission view out-turn of the Cohesion Fund so far in the year 2000 in each of the recipient Member States?

Does it have any means of rectifying implementation of the Cohesion Fund in recipient Member States that are not implementing it fully or properly?

Could unused appropriations be transferred to Cohesion Fund countries which are making full and effective use of the resources allocated to them?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 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-2401/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: Transposal of the Community Directive on waste in Italy

The Italian Parliament is currently discussing a bill amending decree 27/97 concerning waste. This draft law includes rules interpreting the concept of disposal laid down in the Community definition of waste included in Directive 75/442/EEC(1).

1. Is the Commission aware of this bill?

2. Is there any requirement for the Italian Parliament to notify the Commission of this bill?

3. Given that Community law prohibits a Member States from adopting internal rules laying down criteria for the interpretation for a directive, what measures will it take to ensure uniform application of Directive 75/442/EEC throughout Community territory?

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 2000)

The Commission was informed about the draft law in question by the Italian representatives in the committee set up by Article 18 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, during the meeting of this committee on 16 June 2000.

Article 20 of Directive 75/442/EEC establishes that Member States shall communicate to the Commission the texts of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this directive. Therefore, based on this directive, there is no obligation to notify draft laws. However, such an obligation may exist if the draft law contains technical specifications falling under the scope of Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(1).

The Commission is responsible for ensuring that Community law is properly applied. On the basis of Article 211 (ex-Article 155) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the proper functioning and development of the common market, the Commission shall ensure that the provisions of this Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied. On the basis of Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty if the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

The interpretation of Community law is ensured by the Court of Justice. Should the Commission be of the opinion that the interpretation of Community law in a Member State does not conform to its content, it might make use of the possibilities which are available under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4021/00

by Lisbeth Grönfeldt Bergman (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Finnish environmental rules on packaging hinder competition

The deposit system on aluminium cans and PET bottles in Sweden has been criticised because it hinders imports and restricts competition on the Swedish market. That being so, it is noticeable that the Commission has not intervened at all in the environmental levies in use in Finland which apply to the same products. In order to have access to the Finnish market, foreign producers have to pay a FIM 6 ( 1,01) per bottle environmental levy, which amounts to a supplement of some 200 % on the product price.

In the light of the above, how does the Commission justify approval of the Finnish environmental levy, considering that it considerably weakens the competitive position of foreign producers in Finland?he

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

Concerning the Swedish deposit system, the Commission is not aware of what criticism the Honourable Member refers to. In any case, there is currently no indication that this system is not in conformity with Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994, on packaging and packaging waste(1) or the EC Treaty.

Concerning the Finnish system, two facts should be specified. Firstly, the supplementary levy for beverages which do not belong to an approved recycling or re-use system amounts to FIM 4 per litre (and not FIM 6 per bottle). Secondly, the supplementary levy is applicable not only to foreign products but also to products of domestic origin.

Concerning the compatibility of the system of the Finnish supplementary levy with the Directive and the internal market rules, the Commission is at present examining the issue on the basis of registered complaints.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3940/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Common agricultural policy and enlargement

Will the Commission cite candidate country official estimates, or private sector or academic estimates of the cost of applying the current common agricultural policy rules and support prices to as many of the candidate countries as are available?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2001)

Any serious estimate of the cost of applying after accession the current Common Agricultural Policy to the new Member States would require a reasonably accurate knowledge of the date, and the terms and conditions of the accession of the countries concerned to the Union. However, these aspects will be determined in the course of the accession negotiations with these countries. Consequently, any cost estimate made on the basis of assumptions no matter how carefully constructed will therefore necessarily be of a hypothetical, speculative and uncertain nature. At the present stage of the negotiating process the Commission therefore prefers not to publicly cite estimates from sources such as those mentioned in the question from the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3690/00

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: EU contribution to the Andalusian plan to promote development in Morocco

The Andalusian Regional Government will be allocating ESP 1 500 million to finance operations to promote development in Morocco under a cross-border plan, which will initially remain in force until 2005.

The programme is the first to have been agreed between a European region and a country linked by such close ties to the Union as Morocco. In addition to the contributions from the Autonomous Community of Andalusia and Morocco, the Andalusian Regional Government takes the view that the Union should be involved in the project, since this would boost the Intered and Medea programmes already under way.

Can the Commission say whether it is willing to accept the suggestion by the Andalusian regional government spokesman that it should participate actively in the joint programme being undertaken by Morocco and Andalusia by offering its active assistance and material support to enable the programme to achieve its aims?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

The Commission welcomes the aid of ESP 1 500 million pesetas which Andalusia is to earmark for a cross-frontier development plan with the Kingdom of Morocco. This cross-border cooperation will certainly help to develop the north of the country, the region which is the main source of the migratory pressure upon the EU from Morocco.

As regards the MEDA II (2000-2006) programme, the Commission compiled a country strategy paper (CSP), which was discussed with the Member States. This CSP served as a basis for drawing up, with the Moroccan authorities, the 2000-2002 national indicative programme (NIP). The Member States delivered a positive opinion on the NIP, which was recently adopted by the Commission.

Since no such request was made by the Kingdom of Morocco, the 2000-2002 NIP does not include any cross-border project or programme. Under the MEDA regulation cross-frontier projects cannot be financed under bilateral programming.

The Commission could consider financing a Moroccan component of a project under the Interreg programme, which covers only the frontier areas of the EU, if the Kingdom of Morocco so requested and if the Member States agreed as part of a future revision of the NIP.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3649/00

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(23 November 2000)

Subject: Funding for fish farms

Will the Commission identify which EU funds are being used to develop or assist the development of fish farms in the Greek Dodecanese islands?

Will the Commission make available the environmental impact assessments which preceeded the granting of this funding?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2000)

The Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) was used to develop aquaculture in Greece within the framework of the fisheries operational programme (1994-1999). Nineteen projects were financed in the region of Dodecanese for a total cost of 10,58 million of which the FIFG contribution was 3,69 million.

The Commission does not have the requested environmental assessments available because since 1994 Member States are responsible for selecting individual projects which, under provision of a national ministerial decision, should be submitted to an environmental impact assessment.

The individual environmental impact assessments should be collected and kept on files managed by the national administrations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3770/00

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Progress reports

On 8 November 2000 the Commission published progress reports on the 13 countries with which talks are being held with a view to membership of the European Union. However, few of these countries were pleased with the Commission's conclusions. For example, the Czech republic, through its Foreign Minister Mr Kavan, reacted angrily and was disappointed that the country had been placed behind Poland, Hungary and Estonia.

This very negative reaction, like those of the other countries, is perhaps also due to the excessive optimism created by the various announcements made from time to time by the Commission. Perhaps it should reconsider the strategy it is pursuing concerning candidate countries' expectations in order to avoid similar disagreeable reactions in the future, since these have a negative effect on the European Union's image in third countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

On 8 November 2000, the Commission has adopted its third series of Regular Reports on Progress(1) made by the candidate countries towards accession. These reports have subsequently been presented to the Parliament and the Council, as well as to the candidate countries.

In the candidate countries, the Commission's reports have generally been well received. In particular, the objectivity of the reports' findings has been welcomed by all thirteen candidate countries without exception, including by the authorities of the Czech Republic, to which the Honourable Member makes explicit reference. In early December 2000, the Czech authorities have provided a detailed written reaction to the report, which says, inter alia, that The Czech Republic considers the Regular Report to be a well-balanced document and accepts it as such.

As the Honourable Member indicates, it is true that there has been some disenchantment in the Czech Republic, immediately following the publication of the Commission's enlargement strategy paper(2), over the economic conclusions included in that document (which repeat the conclusions of the individual Regular Reports in this regard). However, in the Commission's view this was not the result of excessive optimism of earlier utterances of the Commission; on the contrary, this year's report on the Czech Republic is definitely more favourable than in previous years, including on the country's economic performance. The objectivity of the Commission's analyses has been recognised by all candidate countries, including by the Czech Republic. The initial disenchantment mentioned above may have arisen because a summary of the economic conclusions was misconstrued as an overall ranking in terms of readiness for accession.

(1) COM(2000) 701 final to COM(2000) 713 final.

(2) COM(2000) 700 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3909/00

by Adeline Hazan (PSE), Anneli Hulthén (PSE), Ulpu Iivari (PSE) and Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Council

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Alcohol awareness

There is increasing evidence that more and more people start drinking younger and younger, with specific alcoholic drinks being targeted at the very young. Much of the advertising is directed towards young women in particular. The evidence also indicates that this is a Europe-wide problem.

What action is the Council taking to raise awareness in the Member States of the need to address this growing social problem?

Reply

(12 March 2001)

The Council recently received from the Commission a draft proposal for a Council recommendation on Drinking of alcohol by children and adolescents(1) which was presented in response to an invitation from the Council in an earlier resolution on alcohol abuse(2). It is expected that work will progress on this proposal as a matter of priority and that the recommendation will be adopted at the Health Council on 31 May 2001.

It should also be pointed out that an explicit objective of the current Community action programme on health promotion, information, education and training within the framework for action in the field of public health (1996-2000)(3) is the promotion of examination, assessment and exchange of experience and support for actions concerning measures to prevent alcohol abuse and the health and social consequences thereof. This action programme has been extended until 31 December 2002 or until the date of entry into force of a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council adopting a new programme of Community action in the field of public health, whichever is earlier. The proposal for a decision on a new programme foresees, inter alia, the preparation and implementation of strategies and measures on life-style related health determinants such as alcohol.

(1) 14270/00 SAN 137, 4/12/00.

(2) OJ C 184, 23.7.1986, p. 3.

(3) OJ L 95, 16.4.1996, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3887/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against workers in the nuclear sector

Is the Commission aware of Dr William Cramp's work that led to the development of the Nuclear Precipitation Test, whereby individuals who are particularly sensitive to the effects of radiation may be identified?

Does the Commission take the view that such tests should not be used to pre-select individuals to work in nuclear facilities and that, rather than discriminating on grounds of individual human biology, environments should be made safe for all?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2001)

The work of Dr W Cramp is know to the Commission. However, in the current state of the art the results and findings of studies on differing sensitivity to radiation cannot yet be put to any practical use.

The Commission therefore shares the view of the Honourable Member that these tests should not be used to pre-select staff, especially as the focus of this particular scientific research into the sensitivity of human organisms to radioactive radiation is the treatment of cancer tumours.

Annual exposure limits are set in order to protect workers against the hazards of ionising radiation. These limits are always based on the latest scientific and technical developments in the field of the biological effects of ionising radiation. Workers in the nuclear industry also undergo annual medical examinations designed to establish their fitness for such work.

These two measures form the basis for EU basic safety standards for radiation protection, the effectiveness of which is highlighted by the high level of protection afforded to workers. The Commission therefore takes the view that no further measures are needed along these lines.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3493/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Community measures to stop war in the Middle East

Once again a dramatic, bitter and bloody conflict has been going on in the Middle East for several weeks. Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting battles for which no end is in sight. President Clinton and the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan are working to safeguard peace in the future and to eliminate the flashpoints of war, the victims of which include Israelis and, even more, Palestinians.

What practical steps has the European Union taken to assist the work of Clinton and Kofi Annan (apart from the empty words uttered in Biarritz)?

In the context of the MEDA programme the operation of which seems to be paralysed by unjustified bureaucratic delays there is scope for structural as well as humanitarian measures. How does the Commission intend to harness this programme, and the relevant funding, as a force for peace?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Commission is extremely concerned about the current spread of violence in the territories of West Bank and Gaza and the difficulties in finding an agreement to end violence. The Commission is monitoring with increasing preoccupation the closure of the Palestinian territories and the economic impact, in particular on the civil population, of the economic measures taken by Israel against the Palestinian Authority.

In this context, the Commission is carefully examining all possibilities offered by its current co-operation with the Palestinian Authority in order to help the Palestinian population to meet the additional needs raised by this crisis.

In the meantime, the Commission allocated on 13 October 2000 620,000 for emergency aid to provide medical assistance to the Palestinian victims of recent clashes, including ambulances, emergency medical supplies and equipment for medical centres.

Furthermore, the Commission has also authorised a payment of up to 27 million to the Palestinian Authority to help it meet urgent current expenses such as salaries for public sector employees. The payment has been made under a special fund set up in 1998, through the Mediterranean development assistance programme (MEDA) allocation, to provide funding in the form of refundable advances to the Palestinian Authority in cases where the Israeli authorities did not transfer tax receipts on time to the Palestinian Authority as provided in the 1994 Israeli-Palestinian Paris Protocol on economic relations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3701/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: UN special session on children

Does the Commission intend to prepare, and submit to the Preparatory Committee of the UN General Assembly Special Session, a report on the effectiveness of its development cooperation programmes in relation to the progress made towards achieving the targets which were agreed at the World Summit for Children in 1990?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

The special session of the United Nations General Assembly on children will next September 2001 renew the world wide commitments made at the World Summit for Children in 1990 and consider further action for children in the forthcoming decades. The plan of action established seven major and 20 supporting time-bound goals.

There is currently no explicit Community policy focus on children's issues. However children have an important role in sectorial, especially social policies such as education and health. These issues are being addressed in the recent declaration from the Council and the Commission on development policy of the Community and in the programme of action discussed at the Development Council in November 2000. They also form the backbone of the new Cotonou Partnership Agreement as well as in the general framework of poverty eradication.

Furthermore Council Regulation (EC) No 975/1999 of 29 April 1999 laying down the requirements for the implementation of development co-operation operations(1), and Council Regulation (EC) No 976/1999 of 29 April 1999 laying down the requirements for the implementation of Community operations, other than those of development co-operation, which, within the framework of Community cooperation policy, contribute to the general objective of developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law and to that of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms in third countries1, state that Community action should focus on those discriminated against or suffering from poverty or disadvantage, including children. Community support has been targeted at projects in six main areas between 1996 and 1999.

In the field of humanitarian aid the Commission is giving special emphasis on the situation of children in conflicts and is actively engaged in the campaign against the use of child soldiers. Many Commission-funded NGO projects are specially targeted for children.

The Commission will participate in co-ordination with the Member States in the preparatory process and Special Session for Children and is considering submitting to the Special Session a factual document providing an overview over its activities in support of children, including in the field of development co-operation.

(1) OJ L 120, 8.5.1999.