ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1366/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Twinning in the Commission's work programme

During an interview published in the Italian daily newspaper La Repubblica on 20 March 2000, Vice-President Kinnock, speaking about the challenges and priorities for the Commission's future, mentioned the question of twinning, saying that the Commission was working on twinning between cities, which was a task it had taken on with pleasure and which its officials had always carried out well. However, the shortage of staff meant that it had to ask itself whether twinning was one of the Commission's main tasks. This last question seems to be rhetorical. Indeed, when the question is asked in this way, it is clear that twinning cannot be seen as one of the Commission's main tasks. At least that is the impression given.

1. Has the Commission already answered the question asked by its Vice-President?

2. Did it perhaps intend to indicate by this rhetorical question that in future neither the staff nor financial resources would be available to implement the programme currently under way?

3. If so, does it not think that the withdrawal by the Commission of political and financial support from twinning represents the latest in a long series of setbacks to the people's Europe and the involvement of towns and cities in the Union in a measure designed to promote awareness and knowledge of the cultures of the different peoples of Europe?

4. Can it give formal assurances regarding its support for the programme?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1366/00, P-1446/00, E-1467/00 and E-1519/00 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2000)

In the interview in La Repubblica mentioned by the Honourable Members, Vice President Kinnock was asked about the review of all tasks and resources which was then being proposed in the Commission and has since begun, as publicly announced. The Vice President referred inter alia to the fact that there are some activities undertaken by the Commission which could not formally be regarded as core activities in terms of the Treaty, but which are nevertheless considered to have value for the development of the Union. In response to a request for examples of such activities he referred to town twinning.

The reference was factual and implied no decision or intended decision to withdraw commitment from town twinning.

Support for town twinning activities across the Union has been provided from the Community budget for several years. In the current year, 10 million is provided for that purpose. The finances are administered by two grade A officials in the Directorate general for Education and culture.

The comprehensive review of all tasks and resources is being undertaken as a requirement of responsible management by the Commission and with the intention of improving and increasing the transparency of the relationship between Commission activities and the staff available to provide them efficiently. A report based on the review will be compiled and presented to the Commission and, subsequently, to Parliament and Council, later this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0299/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Protection of minorities in the Czech Republic

At the Copenhagen European Council in 1993, the European Union adopted criteria for accession negotiations with the Central and Eastern European countries. In addition to democracy and the rule of law, these included respect for human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.

Bearing this in mind, what is the Commission's view of the legal status of ethnic Germans currently living in the Czech Republic, whose continuing expropriation pursuant to the Benes Decrees (1945 and 1946) violates the requirement to protect minorities and the prohibition of discrimination?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0293/00, E-0294/00, E-0295/00, E-0296/00, E-0297/00, E-0298/00, E-0299/00, E-0300/00, E-0301/00, E-0302/00, E-0303/00 and E-0398/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The accession negotiations with the Czech Republic concern principally its acceptance of and alignment with the acquis of the European Union and its ability to satisfy the conditions for membership established by the European Council. As a Member State, the Czech Republic will have to adopt and implement all areas of Community legislation and policy, including the principles of free movement of people and freedom of establishment. The issue raised by the Honourable Member has to be seen foremost in that context, but obviously also the political criteria of Copenhagen play a role given the fact that they contain the protection of the human rights and the protection of the rights of minorities. The Commission is closely monitoring developments on these matters in all the candidate countries.

It is, however, important to notice that the issue put forward in these questions relates to events which took place before the entry into force of the EC Treaty. The so-called Benesch decrees will therefore play no role in the accession negotiations. Moreover, Article 295 (ex-Article 222) EC Treaty states that the Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership. The Commission is thus not in a position to intervene in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

However, the Czech Republic has been a party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) since 1992. The implementation of the ECHR is the responsibility of the Council of Europe. Questions concerning issues arising under this convention should therefore be best addressed to the Council of Europe.

The Commission would furthermore refer the Honourable Member to the relevant provisions of the Czech-German declaration adopted on 21 January 1997 on mutual relations.

It is for the several reasons mentioned above, that the Commission finds it difficult to take a position on the specific cases raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Building of car parks at Piazza Vescovio and Via Moricone in Rome

The Rome local authorities have started building two large car parks, one in Piazza Vescovio, with 92 spaces, and another in Via Moricone, with around 100 spaces. The areas concerned are geologically unstable because of the existence of caves, catacombs, old pozzolana pits and underground waters and therefore pose a potential danger to residents and to many buildings in the area. In addition, Piazza Vescovio has recently been undergoing renovation work.

The nature of the work, which is likely to last at least 16 months, will make living conditions difficult in the whole district. The scale of the work and the possible consequences deriving from the nature of the terrain would suggest that the project ought to be subject to a detailed environment impact assessment, as provided for in Directive 85/337/EEC(1).

This would seem to be confirmed by the letter of 25 March 1997 from Commissioner Enthoven to Ambassador Cavalchini, stressing the need for an environmental impact assessment for a project similar to this one. The permission to use public land granted solely to the purchasers of the parking spaces also suggests that there may be an infringement of the rights of citizens, who will not be entitled to use the land for the 90-year period laid down and will thus be deprived of their right to make use of a public asset.

In the light of the above:

1. Does the Commission think that this project should be subject to an environmental impact assessment?

2. Does it think that the work should be allowed to go ahead only after consultation of local residents, as provided for in Directive 85/337/EEC?

3. Are there any directives governing the possible abuse represented by these car parks, which restrict public use of a public asset?

4. What are its general views on the matter?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the Commission's answer to her Written Question E-2858/99(1).

1. Consultation of local residents is only required if the works are subject to an environmental impact procedure.

2. The Commission is not aware of any Community directive concerning the restriction of public use of a public asset.

3. Not being aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member, the Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about it and to ensure the observance of Community law.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 120.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/00

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Biosafety Protocol Conference and the decision-making process

How does the Commission decide what stance the European delegation should take in fora such as the Biosafety Protocol Conference in Montreal, when European legislation on genetic engineering (in particular Directive 90/220/EEC(1) is still mired in controversy?

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2000)

The Community managed to reach an agreement with all (133) governments present on the adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety on 28 January 2000. This is a major international achievement, integrating environment, trade and development concerns in a balanced way with the full support of the developing nations.

The Community's negotiation position was based on the Council conclusions of 13 December 1999.

The Protocol addresses the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) that may have an adverse effect on biodiversity with a specific focus on transboundary movements. It establishes an advance informed agreement (AIA) procedure for imports of LMOs intended for introduction into the environment, an alternative procedure for LMOs intended for food, feed and processing (LMO commodities) and detailed information and documentation requirements. It specifically incorporates the precautionary principle in the operative part of the Protocol. The Protocol also contains provisions regarding confidential information and information-sharing, capacity-building, and financial resources, with special attention to the situation of developing countries and those without domestic regulatory systems as well as an enabling provision for a future liability regime.

The Protocol gives the option of applying domestic procedures or the minimum provisions under the Protocol. The latter option is provided as assistance for developing countries without adequate administrative and legislative measures in place for the protection of their biodiversity. This means that the Community will continue to apply its own procedures consistent with the objective and provisions of the Protocol.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0712/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Amending Directives 98/95/EC and 98/96/EC

Can the Commission indicate whether either of these Directives 98/95/EC(1) and 98/96/EC(2) prevents the UK Government from maintaining the 1982/844 UK statutory instrument's provision of public consultation (part 3 paragraph 21-30)?

(1) OJ L 25, 1.2.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 25, 1.2.1999, p. 27.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

Articles 21-30 of Part III of the United Kingdom's Seeds (National List of Varieties) Regulations 1982 make provision for a public consultation procedure prior to the adoption of decisions by the United Kingdom authorities concerning the registration, refusal of registration, renewal or withdrawal of registration in the National List of a seed or of a maintainer. These provisions do not derive from a Community obligation and are therefore the result of a decision by the United Kingdom legislature.

Directives 98/95/EC(1) and 98/96/EC(2) have no effect on the possibility of maintaining the provisions referred to above. In any event, the decisions adopted by the national authorities following the consultation procedure must comply with the general and specific provisions of the EC Treaty or of acts adopted by the institutions pursuant thereto.

(1) Council Directive 98/95/EC of 14 December 1998 amending, in respect of the consolidation of the internal market, genetically modified plant varieties and plant genetic resources, Directives 66/400/EEC, 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 66/403/EEC, 69/208/EEC, 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC on the marketing of beet seed, fodder plant seed, cereal seed, seed potatoes, seed of oil and fibre plants and vegetable seed and on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species.

(2) Council Directive 98/96/EC of 14 December 1998 amending, inter alia, as regards unofficial field inspections under Directives 66/400/EEC, 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 66/403/EEC, 69/208/EEC, 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC on the marketing of beet seed, fodder plant seed, cereal seed, seed potatoes, seed of oil and fibre plants and vegetable seed and on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1097/00

by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Disposal of Rover Cars by BMW

The Commission will be well aware of the sudden decision by BMW, on Thursday, 16 March 2000, to dispose of its Rover Cars operation, which will be restructured into a new MG car company and employ much fewer people.

Could the Commission advise:

1. whether the provision of aid by the UK Government for this restructuring will be deemed to fall under the Commission's state aid provisions and therefore be subject to extended review, and

2. whether the sudden withdrawal of supply to contracted Rover dealers constitutes a breach of contract under the Commission's block exemption rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

1. The United Kingdom has notified to the Commission a detailed aid package linked to the planned investment of BMW in the Longbridge plant. At the time being the Commission investigation of the

notified aid package is still pending. It is up to the United Kingdom authorities to inform the Commission whether the changed situation as regards the future ownership of Rover has an impact on the notified aid package. After having received this information from the United Kingdom, the Commission will act accordingly.

2. The provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements(1) (the block exemption regulation) with regard to dealers' rights and obligations essentially apply to dealers' sales targets, dealers' stock requirements, cross-selling between dealers within the network, and the duration and termination of the dealer's agreement. The obligation of the carmaker to supply his dealers with cars is a matter of contractual law which would not fall within the scope of the block exemption.

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0181/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Reintroduction of wolves, bears and lynx

Further to Written Question E-2432/99(1) can the Commission provide more precise information on the projects to reintroduce wolves, bears and lynx referred to in its answer? What was the main goal of these projects, how much did each project cost and through what bodies were they funded? Can the Commission provide as detailed as possible an answer?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 161.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

The Commission, in its reply to Written Question E-2432/99(1) by the Honourable Member, answered that under the financial instrument LIFE-Nature and its predecessors many projects had been financed aiming either directly or indirectly at the conservation of the wolf (21 projects), the lynx (14 projects) and the brown bear (17 projects).

In the light of the Honourable Member's new question the Commission would point out that only two of these LIFE-Nature projects include specific actions for the re-stocking of the brown bear, while no project has ever been financed for the re-stocking or re-introduction of the wolf and the lynx.

Full details of these two projects are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament.

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 161.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0439/00

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: European invitation to tender for EU contract for supply of gabion matting to Bolivia

On 22 November 1999 a European tendering procedure (SCR-E/11095/D/S/BO) was published on the TED Alert System concerning the supply of gabion matting and gabions to Bolivia for the project to protect the town of Montero against flooding by the Pirai river. The tendering procedure was closed on 20 January 2000.

1. Can the Commission inform me of the outcome of that invitation to tender? How many firms participated? How many firms met the conditions for submitting tenders? What firm was awarded the contract and at what price, and what is that firm's nationality?

2. Can the Commission inform me why one of the conditions for the tender was that the materials supplied must bear a certificate of origin from an EU country, a Mercosur or Andean Pact country, or Bolivia or Chile? Is that condition in accordance with European tendering rules?

3. Can the Commission provide me with a table showing the results of all tenders for the supply of gabion matting and gabions under EU development programmes in Bolivia and the rest of South America since 1992?

4. Can the Commission inform me of the budget entry under which the above project is being financed?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

1. It has to be noted that the contracting authority, Searpi, and not the Commission is the authority responsible for the receipt and evaluation of offers. The results of the tender are not available yet. The tender opening session took place on 20 January 2000 and to date the beneficiary has not submitted for the Commission's approval the evaluation report with the results of the examination of the offers and the contract award proposal.

2. According to Community procurement rules related to external aid, all supplies must originate in the countries as defined in special conditions, Article I of the tender dossier (Member States, Bolivia, Pacto Andino, Mercosur and Chili). Under Article XIV.4 the tenderer must indicate the origin of supplies. The tenderer must present the certificate of origin to the contracting authority when the supplies arrive in the recipient country (Article 1.10 of Part C Technical Annex).

3. Detailed statistics, up to this level, are not available.

4. Budget line B7-310.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0061/00

by Josu Ortuondo Larrea (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Extension of the franchises of private motorway operators in Spain

By means of an amendment to the draft law accompanying the year 2000 budget the Spanish Congress has recently allowed motorway franchises to be extended before the initial period of operation for which they were granted comes to an end. This applies inter alia to the franchises held by Aumar (13 years), Acesa (5 years) and Iberpista. In addition, the government is drawing up a royal decree which will allow the franchise on the León-Campomanes motorway to be extended by a further 29 years. Extensions are justified on the grounds that they will lead to lower toll charges and further investment.

Francisco Sosa Wagner, who is Professor of Administrative Law at the University of León, takes the view that franchises should be extended only if there are guarantees to the effect that the extra business which they bring to private operators will result in benefits to the general public(1). Furthermore, the reductions in toll charges must be genuine ones (not fictitious or merely apparent) and the interests of the consumer must be paramount.

Does the Commission know whether or not the extensions granted by the Spanish authorities are in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Directives 92/50/EC(2), 93/37/EC(3) and 89/440/EC(4) on the coordination of the procedures for awarding public services and works contracts?

If not, what action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that the Spanish authorities comply with the above directives and to ensure that the interests of consumers prevail in any assessment of the benefits stemming from toll motorway management policy in Spain?

Does the Commission think that the reductions in charges which have been used to justify the extensions are genuine ones and that consumers have therefore benefitted from the operation?

Does the Commission not think that a policy of extending motorway franchises in exchange for further investment in those motorways could run counter to Community guidelines which are intended to steer the transport system towards alternative, non-road forms of transport and that it could have an adverse effect on the drawing up of long-term national transport policy strategies?

(1) See opinion of October 1998, issued at the request of the Barcelona city authorities.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

(4) OJ L 268, 15.9.1989, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The Commission has no knowledge of either the new legislation or the draft Royal Decree mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission will do everything necessary to verify that the Member State complies fully with the obligations arising from Community law, and the policy on public contracts in particular.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1017/00

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Transfer of surplus EU fishing vessels to third world countries

How does the Commission view the current practice of transferring surplus fishing vessels from EU Member States to Third World countries, given that this seriously endangers current fish stocks as well as existing small-scale fisheries ventures in those countries? To date, the Commission has spent 30 million on redeploying surplus fishing vessels. Since EU fish stocks are seriously over exploited because of the over-efficiency of the EU fleet, it surely cannot be sensible policy to impose the same threat on countries that depend to an even greater extent on the sustainability of their fish stocks?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The Commission recognises that the transfer of fishing capacity from Member States to third world countries should be mutually beneficial and should not endanger the fish stocks or the existing small scale fisheries in those countries.

For this reason, financial aid for the transfer of capacity to third countries can be granted only under the conditions specified in Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC)No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1). Financial aid can be granted only with the agreement of the competent authorities of the third country concerned and if there exist appropriate guarantees that international law is not likely to be infringed, in particular with respect to the conservation and management of marine resources and with respect to working conditions of fishermen.

The Commission considers that, provided these conditions are met, the transfer of fishing vessels and the creation of joint enterprises can be beneficial for the development of the fishing industry in third world countries.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.