ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0893/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Subsidies for the Sensus police project

In reply to Question P-0009/01(1) the Commission stated that it would study the information brought to its attention and assess whether it needed to reconsider its position, which might involve a financial audit being carried out in accordance with the provisions of the contract. The information to which Commissioner Erkki Liikanen refers relates to the Sensus/Lernout & Hauspie/Bundesnachrichtendienst case referred to in Question P-0009/01.

Given the serious nature of this issue, and the Commission's close involvement, will the Commission arrange for a financial audit to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the contract? If not, why does the Commission refuse a financial audit of Sensus/Lernout & Hauspie/Bundesnachrichtendienst?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 154.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The need for a financial audit can reasonably be assessed only after the Commission has received all the cost statements covering the entire duration of the project.

According to the Commission services, all project financial records and cost claims received to date appear reasonable and within the budget foreseen in the contract.

Nevertheless, should inconsistencies appear in the incoming cost statements, in particular in the light of information brought to the attention of the Commission, the Commission may initiate a financial audit on some or all of the participants of the Sensus project, in accordance with the provisions of the contract. Directorate General Information Society has already initiated an internal review of the management of the Sensus project at the request of the Member of the Commission responsible for Enterprises and Information Society.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1481/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: The EU-South Africa Fisheries Agreement

Does the Commission have any predictions about the likelihood of a successful outcome to the ongoing negotiations with South Africa on fisheries?

Are there any particular difficulties which are being encountered and is it the case that other agreements are being jeopardised by the position of certain Member States?

Is there any analysis of what the benefits of such an agreement with the EU would be for South Africa at the time?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

The Council of Ministers delivered to the Commission in September 1995 a negotiating directive to enter into negotiations and conclude a fisheries agreement with the Republic of South Africa.

Despite many attempts by the Commission to open the fisheries negotiation, South Africa was not in a position before December 2000, to accept a fisheries negotiation with the Community.

The 1st round of these negotiations took place in Brussels on 5-6 March 2001. The South African delegation forwarded a draft co-operation agreement on fisheries which excluded any access to South African fisheries.

The Commission delegation could not accept this draft and presented a complementary draft including access to South African fisheries. South Africa could not accept such a draft because it did not correspond to their negotiating mandate.

South Africa cancelled the 2nd round scheduled for early April 2001 in Cape Town.

The failure of the negotiating process is due to the South African reluctance to include in any fisheries agreement the issue of access to fisheries which, according to the Union mandate, is the main element of the fisheries agreement.

In fact the Commission, when it negotiates fisheries agreement with third countries, does not only take account of the Community fishing interest, but in addition need for sustainable development of the sector in the third country concerned.

The Union proposed draft fisheries agreement offered to South Africa a cooperation for the development of research, surveillance and transfer of technologies and would have promoted joint operations in fisheries between Union partners and South African partners.

Under these circumstances, a successful outcome of the negotiations with South Africa seems unlikely for the foreseeable future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0907/01

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Granting of radio station licences and preserving pluralism in the mass media

Under the new legislative arrangements introduced by the Greek Government for the granting of radio station licences, three stations were put in joint last place, including Skai, the station with the highest ratings, which on many occasions does not follow the official Greek Government line.

Since, under Article 6 of the EU Treaty, the European Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, and since, under the protocol incorporated into the Amsterdam Treaty, the system

of public broadcasting in the Member States is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism:

1. Is there or is there not an express requirement that the Member States should respect and protect the above-mentioned principles, and in particular the principle of media pluralism?

2. Has it been ensured that the Greek legislative framework on broadcasting is in harmony with Community legislation and Treaty rules?

3. Is Community legislation being breached, and what does the Commission intend to do to prevent both the obvious breach of basic and fundamental principles in the case of Skai and other cases where the free and pluralistic functioning of the media in the Union is under attack?

4. What steps does the Commission intend to take to preserve pluralism, the provision of information on equal terms and journalistic standards, as well as the meritocratic organisation of the National Broadcasting Council and the competence to withdraw licences in cases where transparency rules are breached?

5. What is the Commission's position in more general terms towards the Member States under Article 11(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which states that the freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

The Commission takes the view that respect for pluralism in the media is one of the fundamental principles on which democracy and the rule of law are based, as is reflected in Article 11(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

It would point out that the granting of radio station licences, in the domestic context described by the Honourable Member, does not fall within the scope of Community law in the light of case-law handed down by the Court of Justice. The Honourable Member's questions should be raised with the Greek regulator, the National Broadcasting Council.

Article 51(1) of the Charter states that the Charter is addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law.

Lastly, the Commission would point that, if freedom of expression is deemed to have been infringed, the matter may be brought before the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in Strasbourg under the aegis of the Council of Europe, once remedies in domestic law have been exhausted.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1508/01

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(15 May 2001)

Subject: Nuclear waste

On 23 April 2001, the Danish media reported the adoption by the Russian Duma of a proposal enabling Russia to import nuclear waste from a number of EU Member States. What are the implications of existing EU legislation regarding Russia's wish to set up nuclear waste disposal sites and to import and store waste for payment? Will the Commission also say whether, in the light of the disturbing developments in Russia, there are plans to revise the current provisions and lay down common rules to ensure that extremely hazardous nuclear waste is always handled in the safest possible way?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

Euratom legislation requires the Commission to authorise exports of nuclear materials from any Member State to a third country. The Commission has to ensure compliance with international agreements, verify supply requirements and satisfy itself that the general interests of the Community will be safeguarded. In cases where nuclear material is sent for reprocessing and subsequently returns to the Community, the Commission's authorisation is not required, but the Commission has to be informed.

Export of radioactive material falls under the scope of Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of health of workers and the general public against dangers arising from ionising radiation(1). This provides for principles of justification, optimisation and dose limitation as well as reporting obligations that must be respected by Member States.

Under Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community(2), Member States are prohibited from exporting shipments of radioactive waste to third countries that do not have the technical, legal or administrative resources to manage it safely. It would therefore be for the relevant authorities in Member States to assess whether this condition is met before any nuclear waste could be shipped to the Russian Federation. Similar rules will apply to any shipments of spent fuel with the entry into force of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and Radioactive Waste (18 June 2001).

The Commission is preparing the accession of the Euratom Community to this Joint Convention, and Community legislation will be revised to align it fully with the Convention.

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.

(2) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0860/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Commission advisory committees

Will the Commission provide a list of all its advisory committees and indicate:

1. their terms of reference;

2. the frequency of their meetings;

3. the names of their current members;

4. the availability of their papers and minutes;

5. whether meetings are open to the public?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2001)

The list of advisory committees is published annually as an annex to the budget. The terms of reference are indicated in the same list. The frequency of meetings depends on the Commission's need to consult them. The list of participants, including organisations, is published in an annex to the Commission Decision setting up the committee. The papers and minutes of the Committees are made available to Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the framework agreement. The meetings are not usually public. The Honourable Member is also requested to refer to the answer given to his Written Question E-0861/01(1).

(1) See p. 136.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1297/01

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Inspection at GAL Cadispa in the Campania Region

Given the numerous complaints from companies which responded to invitations to tender but which have only benefited from a minimal amount of Community funding worth millions, will the Commission say whether it intends to conduct an audit in the GAL Cadispa Consortium in the municipality of San Mauro Cilento which, via the Campania Region, is a recipient of the Community funding concerned? This funding is allegedly being used imprudently and irrationally in totally unnecessary expenditure which brings no benefit to local farmers.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2001)

The Honourable Member asks whether the Commission intends to fulfil its control task with regard to the consortium GAL Cadispa in the municipality of San Mauro Cilento, a beneficiary of Community part-financing under the Leader II programme of the Campania region for the period 1994-1999.

The Commission is not aware of any irregularities or misuse of Community and national funds by GAL Cadispa.

In this context it is important to stress that the Leader II Initiative follows a bottom-up approach, not only to drawing up programmes but also to implementation on the ground, which is entrusted mainly to local action groups made up of various socio-economic players and private and public partners at local level.

Local groups were selected primarily on the basis of the quality of the action plan drawn up by local players and their innovative features for testing new approaches to rural development in practical terms. Responsibility for the selection of the groups and implementation of local measures, including the control tasks as provided for in Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the interventions of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments(1) (amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993)(2), lies exclusively with the Campania region. In view of this responsibility, the Commission has requested additional information from the Campania region about possible irregularities by GAL Cadispa.

In the light of the information it receives, the Commission may decide to carry out on-the-spot checks as provided for in Article 23(2) of the above-mentioned Regulation.

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.

(2) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0604/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 March 2001)

Subject: Community police officers whose nationality is not that of the Member State in which they serve

Among the innovations introduced in recent times by various Member States in the area of policing, the concept of community police officers stands out as one which has resulted in increased security for the public notably in the urban periphery.

For a variety of reasons, certain urban areas have a large foreign community made up of EU citizens.

Does the Council consider that in the interest of the approachability and empathy which community police officers should maintain vis-à-vis the community they are supposed to protect, police cooperation programmes should be initiated between the police forces of different Member States to enable police officers from the Member States concerned to assist in local community policing in areas with a large foreign community of EU citizens?

Reply

(30 May 2001)

1. The European Police Chiefs Operational Task Force, at its meeting in Paris on 14 and 15 September 2000, highlighted similarities in approach between the various community policing methods

which exist in Europe. All the police forces in the Member States share a willingness to learn from each other for community policing.

It was considered appropriate to:

- develop study missions on the principles and practicalities of community policing;

- create a documentary base in order to capitalise on experience and practice;

- hold meetings on topics central to community policing.

2. In its Decision of 22 December 2000 establishing a European Police College(1) the Council assigned to this College responsibility for disseminating best practice and research findings [Article 7(e)].

3. During 2001 France will organise an exchange and training session on community policing for police officers in the field.

(1) OJ L 336, 30.12.2000, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1038/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Development cooperation policy for Latin America (the environment)

What guidelines will be followed by the Commission in its development cooperation policy for the countries of Latin America, particularly with reference to the environment?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2001)

The Commission takes great care to ensure that its development cooperation policy with Latin America is in line with the major international conventions on the environment such as those on climate change, biodiversity or desertification, and with international processes on the conservation and sustainable management of forests

such as the United Nations Forum on Forests. A new Regulation was adopted in November 2000: Regulation (EC) No 2493/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 November 2000 on measures to promote the full integration of the environmental dimension in the development process of developing countries(1), concerning operations financed by budget heading B7-6200. Even before this Regulation existed, every operation to assist Latin America, where necessary, included an environmental impact assessment. Council Regulation (EEC) No 443/92 of 25 February 1992, on financial and technical assistance to, and economic cooperation with, the developing countries in Asia and Latin America(2) stipulates that 10 % of funding should be set aside for the environment and, in particular, protecting tropical forests. This objective is fully met.

Latin America is one of the main areas that benefits from environmental projects on tropical forests and both European and Latin American non-governmental organisations are very active in the field of environmental protection, at the same time paying particular attention to the local population. The Commission is the second biggest donor (after Germany) to the Pilot Programme to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forests (PPG7).

(1) OJ L 288, 15.11.2000.

(2) OJ L 52, 27.2.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0602/01

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Cat and dog fur in the EU

With regard to the Commission proposals laying down strict health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption and, in particular, the special conditions for the placing on the market, trade and importance of dog chews, is the Commission aware that dog chews are being manufactured from animal hides from cats and dogs slaughtered for their pelts in China and other parts of Asia?

Is it aware that the EU may become a dumping ground for such products now that the US has imposed a blanket ban on imports?

What steps is it taking to prevent such products from entering the EU?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

The import of petfood into the Community is subject to strict Community animal health and certification rules. In particular, import of dog chews is allowed only if they are made from skins of ungulates.

The Commission has no data or information concerning the manufacturing or marketing of dog chews from animal hides of cats and dogs. It would ask the Honourable Member to transmit any evidence he has regarding such practices.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1492/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Phthalates in toys

Does the Commission have any evidence that children's toys made of, or containing plastics softened with phthalates are being imported into the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2001)

Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the Safety of Toys(1) applies to all toys to be placed on the Community market, without any restriction concerning the origin of the products. Therefore, it is the responsibility of market surveillance authorities from Member States to check that all toys (imported or not) comply with the legislation. This also applies to the Commission Decision 1999/815/EC of 7 December 1999 adopting measures prohibiting the placing on the market of toys and childcare articles intended to be placed in the mouth by children under three years of age made of soft polyvinyl chloride (PVC) containing one or more of the substances di-iso-nonyl phthalate (DINP), di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), di-iso-decyl phthalate (DIDP), di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP), and butylbenzyl phthalate (BBP)(2) which bans the use of six phthalate esters in soft PVC toys and childcare articles intended to be mouthed by children under the age of three.

Member States must ensure that they are correctly applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 of 8 February 1993, on checks for conformity with the rules on product safety in the case of products imported from third countries(3). The Regulation provides a framework for co-operation between customs officers and product safety officers. Under this Regulation, customs authorities are given powers to suspend the release of goods which create significant concern of a serious and immediate risk to health and safety. The same applies where the required documentation or labelling is missing. Customs authorities must notify market surveillance authorities of their decision to suspend release of a product on these grounds, and surveillance authorities must then be in a position to take appropriate action.

In the framework of the rapid exchange of information among Member States for products that they consider present a serious and immediate risk (RAPEX system), the Commission has received a very small number (3-4) notifications that concern imported products containing phthalates. Given the vast number of imported soft PVC toys, the small number of notifications confirms the general compliance of toys to the provisions of the toy Directive and the Commission Decision.

Apart from the RAPEX notification, Member States have not communicated to the Commission any other information concerning imported toys made of plastics softened with phthalates.

(1) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.

(2) OJ L 315, 9.12.1999.

(3) OJ L 40, 17.2.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1584/01

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Bathing water in France

Could the Commission please inform me about the different quality of statistics reported to it by different countries in the Blue Flag scheme for beaches, particularly with reference to the resort of St George de Didonne in the Poitou-Charentes region of France.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

It is important to note that the Blue Flag campaign is not a Commission scheme. It is the Foundation for Environmental Education in Europe (FEEE), based in Copenhagen, that is solely responsible for this campaign. This Foundation has associated organisations in the Member States who assess the beaches, which are candidates for a Blue Flag. This assessment is made for four major issues, for which both imperative and guideline criteria are established: environmental education and information, environmental management, water quality and safety and services. The Commission is only connected to the Blue Flag because the water quality criteria for a Blue Flag beach are based on the guideline values of the European Bathing Water Directive, Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water(1). Any request about the attribution of Blue Flags should be addressed to FEEE(2).

Regarding the information about a particular bathing area in France, the Commission must record with regret that for the second successive year and due to industrial action by the staff responsible for submitting the data to central government, France has not communicated any results to the Commission. The Commission has been assured though, that measures to monitor bathing water quality and to protect bather's health were taken throughout the 2000 bathing season and that that information has been made available to the public at the concerned bathing areas and/or the local town/city hall.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.

(2) FEEE, for the attention of Finn Bolding Tomson, Scandiagade 13; DK-2450 Kobenhavn, fax +45-33-790179.