ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0466/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 February 2001)

Subject: Assessment of consequences of bombing Yugoslavia

The Balkans Syndrome has justifiably caused alarm throughout Europe concerning the consequences of the bombing of Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo.

Will the Council say whether the European Environmental Agency (EEA) which is funded by EU citizens through the Community budget has undertaken a study of the environmental pollution in the former Yugoslavia caused by the use of depleted uranium shells and the destruction of many chemical and other factories?

Has the EEA undertaken an assessment of the health consequences for inhabitants of the regions which were bombed and for citizens (both soldiers and civilians) of the European Union serving, residing or studying in the affected areas? Has any research been carried out into environmental pollution in the EU Member States having borders with Yugoslavia? If it has not looked into these matters, why not? Precisely what work is it engaged in?

Reply

(16 July 2001)

1. In accordance with Council Regulation No 1210/90 of 7 May 1990, as amended by Council Regulation No 933/1999 of 29 April 1999, one task of the European Environment Agency (EEA) is to provide the Community and the Member States with objective information necessary for framing and implementing sound and effective environmental policies. To that end, in particular it provides the Commission with the necessary information to carry out successfully its task of identifying, preparing and evaluating measures and legislation in the field of the environment. Since the role of the EEA is, in particular, to support and assist the Commission, the Council does not have detailed information on its activities except when the EEA reports to the Commission, to the Council and to the European Parliament according to provisions of the above Council Regulation.

2. The Council is not aware of any study by the European Environment Agency of the environmental pollution in the former Yugoslavia caused by the use of depleted uranium shells and the destruction of many chemical and other factories.

Therefore it is recommended that the Honourable Member address questions relating to the detailed activities of the EEA to the Commission.

3. At their meeting on 22 and 23 January 2001, Ministers discussed the issue of depleted uranium and agreed to re-examine it in the light of scientific evidence to be compiled by the Article 31 Committee (Euratom Treaty), as well as by competent NATO bodies. The conclusions of the report by the Article 31 Committee (Euratom Treaty) were published on 6 March 2001. The Council is currently assessing these reports. Furthermore, at their meeting on 9 April 2001, Ministers decided to remain committed to following possible further investigations closely and reexamining the issue in the future, due to the apparent health and environmental problems in the region.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0933/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Speeding up emergency aid

The Eurocrats, a Danish TV programme broadcast on 11 February 2001 on Swedish television, reported inter alia on the time taken to process emergency aid and aid projects in general. One example was a project to save the rainforests in Bolivia. The project application was lodged with the Commission in December 1997. It was formally approved by the Commission five months later, but the work on the contract and the budgetisation etc. has dragged on. Commissioner Nielson stated in February 2000 that the finance had been arranged, but in November 2000 nobody yet knew whether the project would be allowed to go ahead.

Another example quoted was the emergency aid following the devastation caused by Hurricane Mitch in Central America in November 1998. In December 1998 and May 1999 the Commission promised 200-250 million as disaster aid. The appropriations were approved in May 2000 which was followed by the procedure to launch the emergency aid project. The project began three years after the disaster.

The handling of these emergency aid projects reveals only too well the bureaucratic inefficiency involved. Has the Commission reviewed its emergency aid procedures and produced any proposals for establishing a fast-track emergency aid procedure which does not take years?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-1085/01 by Mr Schmidt(1).

The Commission would like to underline yet again that there is a confusion between humanitarian aid provided by the European Community's Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and the longer-term development aid provided by other Community instruments. Therefore, it reaffirms that humanitarian aid to victims of hurricane Mitch was delivered in a record period and the amount committed (around 40 million) has been totally disbursed.

The development projects that are being implemented have had to be agreed with national authorities and have had to undergo a long phase of preparation (needs assessment, appraisal, design of proposals, etc. ). This necessarily implies a longer-term approach.

Nevertheless, the Commission has recognised the need for urgent and major improvements in the speed and quality of aid delivery, and is currently working on it in the context of the reform of Community's external aid.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 197.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0101/01

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Changeover to the euro for SMUs and SMIs

The changeover to the single currency presents a real challenge for SMUs, SMIs and extremely small enterprises, particularly cottage industries. According to a survey by Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, only 25 % of European firms are currently basing their accounts on the euro. Several studies indicate that many firms, particularly SMUs, SMIs and cottage industries are not ready for the changeover to the euro. Several ill-informed firms are even considering waiting until 2002 to start doing their accounting in euro. The switchover to the euro will, however, be rapid, given that national currencies must be withdrawn from circulation during the first two weeks of January 2002.

1. Can the Commission sum up the specific measures it recommends in order to facilitate the changeover to the euro for SMUs, SMIs and cottage industries?

2. Is the Commission not concerned that the business sector appears to be lagging behind in its preparations for the changeover to the euro?

3. Does the Commission not consider that it should target a practical information campaign at SMUs, SMIs and the cottage industries to supplement the campaigns which are to be conducted by each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

1. The euro impacts on most aspects of a company. As in the case of most companies, small and medium-sized undertakings and small and medium-sized businesses (SMUs and SMIs) will therefore have to adapt their computer and accounting systems, for example, consider the consequences for their business and marketing policy (e.g. new psychological prices), check that their cash registers are compatible (e.g. whether they can deal with payments involving a mixture of euros and the national currency or whether they comply with the round-off rules) and inform their staff about the details of the changeover to the euro (e.g. raise awareness of the new pay slip).

2. The Commission conducts regular surveys on the subject, which suggest that much still remains to be done. It has repeatedly warned the national authorities of the problem. The Commission recommendation of 11 October 2000 contains several measures aimed at greatly increasing awareness among economic operators regarding preparations for the euro(1). By and large, some of these recommendations are currently being implemented (e.g. early switchover of accounts and non-cash means of payment).

3. The Commission budget for providing information on the euro is mostly used to cofinance national communications programmes targeting, among others, SMEs. It is also being used to help fund a number of transnational campaigns aimed at SMEs, particularly in partnership with the association of Chambers of Industry and Commerce (Eurochambres).

(1) OJ C 303, 24.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1815/01

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: CD prices in the European Union

Music CDs are an important source of income for CD producers in the European Union and should be sold at prices which young people, who are the main buyers, can afford.

According to press reports, some music CD producers have adopted an anti-competitive pricing policy and some of the leading companies in the music sector have obliged retailers to maintain CD prices above a given level, thus placing an additional burden on consumers over and above the taxes already payable on CDs.

Given the above, would the Commission:

- not agree that it should open an formal inquiry with a view to determining whether anti-competitive practices are being used;

- ascertain whether the national anti-trust authorities in the various Member States are looking into the possibility of a cartel of some kind having been set up by leading CD producers;

- say how it intends to ensure that such products are sold in compliance with internal market rules, with particular reference to the principle of fair competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

The Commission appreciates the cultural and economic importance of the music sector but at the same time considers that it must remain vigilant to potential restrictions of competition harmful to consumers.

In 2000, the Commission was concerned that the merger of EMI and Time Warner, and in particular the move from five major music companies to four, would have had anti-competitive effects. The merger was abandoned before the end of the procedure.

Earlier this year, the Commission's anti-trust department opened an investigation into allegations of vertical retail price maintenance by each of the five major music companies. This investigation has not yet concluded, but the Commission has found limited evidence of questionable activities, such as the inclusion of minimum advertised prices in some contracts for the provision of advertising funds. Those activities were abandoned as soon as the Commission's investigation began. This investigation did not examine the possibility of horizontal price fixing activities by the record companies as the Commission has seen no hard evidence to suggest that such activities are taking place or that further investigation is appropriate.

Separately, the Commission is aware of an inquiry opened by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) the British competition authority into allegations that the major music companies are taking steps to restrain parallel imports of CDs into the United Kingdom. The effect of such restrictions would be to maintain artificially high prices for CDs in the United Kingdom. The Commission and the OFT are in regular contacts on this issue.

The Commission believes that its active examination of the music sector is necessary given the highly concentrated nature of the music market, and the benefits that competition can have for consumers. The Commission will open further investigations if evidence emerges of competition law concerns.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1113/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Geographical restrictions on assisted property purchase

Is it compatible with EU law for a UK local authority to offer grants for the purchase of property to tenants of condemned public housing, subject to the restriction that assistance will only be provided if the property to be purchased is located within England or Wales?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

Article 56 (ex Article 73b) of the EC Treaty prohibits all restrictions on capital movements. Capital movements would include cross border purchases of real estate. According to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice restrictions include indirect barriers to conducting operations such that the freedom granted by the EC Treaty is rendered illusory. The Commission does not consider, however, that the local authority measures cited by the Honourable Member, involving grants to tenants of condemned public housing to purchase property within a delimited area of a Member State, are contrary to the freedom most involved. It is the Commission's understanding that there is no nationality distinction made between tenants of the condemned public housing involved. Taxation and expenditure policies at national and local level will generally involve incentives or disincentives to conducting specific operations generally in specific areas under the jurisdiction of the entity involved in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity set out in Article 5 (ex Article 3b) of the EC Treaty. Thus, for instance, all industrial grants provided nationally or locally will involve establishment of the facility in a delimited area, rather than elsewhere within the Community, from taxes raised in the same or similar areas. While in this case State aids could be an issue, there has never been any question of maintaining that national measures, such as these, might be contrary to EC Treaty freedoms.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0703/01

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: The plight of defendants in Palestine

Defendants in Palestine are regularly subjected to execution following military trials, having been denied access to lawyers and the right to appeal. What action has the EU Commission taken to end this unacceptable procedure?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

The Commission is opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances and is committed to campaign for the universal abolition of the death penalty. That stance is rooted in the Commission's belief in the inherent dignity of all human beings and the inviolability of the human person.

In this context, the Commission has fully supported the Union Presidency Declaration of 15 January 2001 deeply regretting the latest executions that have taken place in West Bank and Gaza in January 2001 and requesting President Arafat to respect its commitment with the Union as regards a moratorium on death penalty. This declaration also appealed to President Arafat to commute the death sentences against Ali al-Hatib and Husa al-Din Musa in Bethlehem. The Palestinian Authority has for the moment suspended those executions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1126/01

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Cais dos Vapores river jetty, Montijo, Portugal

The Civic Platform for the Defence of Cais dos Vapores jetty has informed me that Montijo town council plans to transfer the river station there to another jetty, Cais do Seixalinho.

The citizens' group concerned takes the view that the option chosen by Montijo town council would have a highly negative social and environmental impact.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Has any Community funding been allocated to this project?

2. Given that the area in which Cais do Seixalinho jetty is situated forms part of a significant ecosystem for birds and aquatic species, what type of environmental impact assessment has been carried out?

3. Does this project comply with the Directive on the conservation of wild birds and the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member, to transfer the river station from the Cais dos Vapores to the Cais do Seixalinho is not the object of Community co-financing.

The Cais do Seixalinho lies outside the Special Protection Area Estuário do Tejo designated by Portugal under the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1) and the proposed site of Community importance of the same name designated under the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2). However, according to article 6 of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC, all projects likely to have a significant impact on the sites, even if located outside those sites, must be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. The Commission is therefore asking the Portuguese authorities for the necessary information concerning the project, including what type, if any, of impact assessment has been carried out.

The elements supplied by the Portuguese authorities will also allow an evaluation of the compliance with the Council Directive 97/11/EEC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(3).

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1044/01

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

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Oppression of women in Afghanistan and the need for European Union humanitarian intervention

Does the Council not believe that there is an increasing need for European Union humanitarian intervention in Afghanistan to end the terrible oppression being suffered by women at the hands of the country's regime, thus responding as part of the international community in the face of this genocide? What new and effective action will it take?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

In reply to various oral and written questions over the past weeks and months, the Council has on several occasions informed the European Parliament of its position concerning various aspects of the Afghan problems, and in particular of action taken in respect to the humanitarian crisis and regarding the alleviation of suffering of Afghan women. In the absence of particular new developments, the Council therefore invites the Honourable MEP to revert to the replies given to Questions E-0088/2001, H-0032/2001, H-0052/2001 and H-0170/2001, the texts of which will be sent as an annex.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0492/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Specific measures for transport for the Ultra-peripheral Regions

Given that the Community guidelines for implementing the Trans-European Transport Networks need to be revised, in order adequately to integrate the ports and airports of the ultra-peripheral regions into these

networks, according to the undertaking given by the Commission in its report on implementing Article 299(2), which concerns the ultra-peripheral regions and other issues relating to transport,

When does the Commission intend to draw up a proposal adopting specific measures in favour of these regions as regards the implementation of the Common Transport Policy?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2001)

As the Commission indicated in its report of 14 March 2000 on the application of paragraph 2 of Article 299 (ex Article 227) of the EC Treaty, it is taking account of the problem of the outermost regions, where such is not already the case, in its various common transport policy and trans-European network initiatives.

Thus it is that the Commission has made an active effort to take greater account of the outermost regions in amending Decision 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network(1) in respect of maritime and inland ports and Project No 8 of Annex III. As the Commission indicated in its answer to Written Question No 297/01 by the Honourable Member, Parliament and the Council are about to adopt this amendment.

According to the joint text adopted by the Conciliation Committee on 28 February 2001, ports located in the insular, remote and outermost regions and which allow maritime connections between these regions or connect them with the Community's central regions may thus be considered to belong to the network. The adoption of this amendment will thus provide a new opportunity for the insular and outermost regions of the Union to boost their economic development.

Moreover, as the abovementioned report indicates, the review of the guidelines for the development of the trans-European network will be a further opportunity for the Commission to implement the policy priority it gives to projects for these regions when they reach a satisfactory stage of maturity. In its examination of the economic and technological developments which are necessitating changes to the guidelines, the Commission is thus taking account of the question of the outermost regions.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1733/01

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: White paper on EU youth policies

In September 1999, Commissioner Viviane Reding informed Parliament of her intention to bring out a white paper on the EU's youth policies. This initiative was formally presented at a meeting of the Council of Ministers for Youth in November 1999.

The prospect of this white paper has raised hopes and expectations in the youth organisations of Europe, who have expressed their trust in the Commission.

Can the Commission provide information on the state of progress of this white paper?

Can the Commission confirm that the white paper will be submitted in November 2001, in line with the original targets?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1694/01, E-1733/01, E-1903/01, E-1904/01 and E-2050/01 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2001)

The Commission believes that the policy of European co-operation in the youth field should be strengthened. This is why, at the end of 1999, the Commission began to draw up a White Paper on this subject at the instigation of the Member of the Commission with responsibility for Education and Culture.

The Commission wanted a hitherto unprecedented consultation process to take place beforehand: consultations with young people in each Member State in 2000, in connection with which a European-level meeting was held in Paris in October 2000; consultations with civil society organisations and academics; discussions with the Member States. This process was completed in March 2001 in Umeå, Sweden.

The Commission, now sure of the support of young people and the Member States, has since then been in the process of drawing up the White Paper, which should be published before the end of the year.