ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2808/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(5 September 2000)

Subject: Promoting a European Dimension in schools

Would Romano Prodi or the relevant Commissioner please answer the following questions:

1. How much money has been allocated to promote a European Dimension in British schools?

2. How will the European Union promote a European Dimension? Will it be by means of leaflets, worksheets, books and conferences?

3. In line with its oft-stated desire to promote Cultural Diversity and preserve the identity of the nation-states, how much money will be spent on promoting a British identity, as opposed to a European identity?

4. Will parents be able to exclude their children from any education which promotes a European Dimension?

5. How does the European Commission propose to advance its programme to develop a European Dimension whilst at the same time fulfilling British legal requirements that education on controversial issues must always be balanced (Education Act)?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that any promotion of the European dimension in schools is within the competence, and the full responsibility, of the Member States in accordance with Article 149 (ex-Article 126) of the Treaty, which states that: The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity. This Article also sets out that Community action is aimed, among other things, at developing the European dimension in education, particularly through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States.

With a view to encouraging Community cooperation in education, Parliament and the Council have adopted the Socrates(1) programme. In the field of school education, this programme contributes to promoting a European dimension by supporting projects submitted by the Member States relating to school partnerships between schools in different Member States, transnational projects in the field of teacher training, and transnational networks focusing on current educational issues.

In this context:

1. No fixed amount of money is specifically allocated to promoting a European dimension;

2. The ways of promoting this dimension depend on the contents of the projects presented by the Member States;

3. The transnational nature of projects ensures cultural diversity and respect for different national identities;

4. and 5. The organisation of the education systems, including the contents of education and access to schooling, come within the competence of the Member States.

(1) Decision No 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 January 2000 establishing the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education Socrates (OJ L 28, 3.2.2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3553/00

by James Provan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Restriction of free trade

Is the Commission aware that the organisers of a trade exhibition in the UK, the only exhibition for this particular industry in the country, are refusing to allow a particular company to apply for a presence at the exhibition because that company is in competition with the main sponsors of the exhibition? Can the Commission indicate whether this discrimination breaches EU regulations on abuse of dominant position or freedom of trade?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The Commission in its interpretative communication concerning the application of the single market rules to the sector of fairs and exhibitions(1), set out the essential legal principles of the internal market that govern the various aspects of fairs and trade exhibitions.

It should be stressed that the relevant internal market rules are applicable when there is an intra-Community element, i.e. movement from one Member State to another. In this regard, exhibitors established in another Member State must, without being subject to discriminatory or unjustified restrictions, be allowed access to fairs and exhibitions held anywhere in the Community.

By virtue of this principle, any national rules allowing organisers, acting arbitrarily or according to ill-defined criteria, to restrict access to a fair to certain categories of exhibitors give rise to doubts as to the conditions under which operators can take part. Those doubts are unlikely to afford a sufficient level of legal certainty, or to safeguard properly the rights arising from the EC Treaty. At all events, any decision whereby an operator from the Community is not admitted to, or is excluded from, a fair or exhibition must be substantiated and must be open to judicial review.

As for the competition rules, an infringement may arise if an organiser of a fair or an exhibition is in a dominant position on the relevant market and imposes unjustified and unnecessary restrictions, thereby using its market power for anti-competitive ends. A refusal to deal by the organiser in question therefore could be considered as abusive. This would depend on the facts of the case

From the question it is not clear whether the issue to which the Honourable Member refers falls within the above mentioned rules. If there is a intra-Community element in the particular case, the interested company can address a complaint to the Commission for infringement of the rules of the internal market or of the competition rules.

(1) SEC(97) 2338 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3055/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 2000)

Subject: Nuclear safety at Sellafield

Bearing in mind that the Commission is currently suing Britain over plans to dismantle Windscale No 1 pile reactor at Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant, given the callous disregard shown for Irish citizens' safety by British Nuclear Fuels at Sellafield, as outlined in secret memos leaked from the BNFL Public Relations Office this week, in the light of the appalling history of safety and security breaches at the plant(1), and in the light of BNFL's plans to introduce changes to its nuclear waste handling procedures, which include a series of unmanned radioactive dumps and plans to scale back on the protective cladding for decommissioned reactors which would ultimately weaken the protection of the reactor cores, would the Commission outline its concerns regarding these three issues and the action it feels should be taken at all levels of authority against the Sellafield nuclear plant?

(1) The Guardian, 11 September 2000 The Guardian, Special Report on Britain's Nuclear Industry.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

The Commission considered that the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, because it had not submitted the general data related to the dismantling of the Windscale Pile I nuclear reactor. The Commission therefore decided in July 2000 to pursue an infringement case against the United Kingdom. The case related to a difference in interpretation of the Treaty, the United Kingdom arguing that the Euratom Treaty (and in this case Article 37) does not apply to the use of nuclear energy for military purposes. The Commission believes that Chapter III of the Euratom Treaty applies to protection from ionising radiation from all sources. The United Kingdom authorities have since indicated that there is currently no plan to dismantle the pile, and that when a feasible design concept is identified, general data will be submitted according to Article 37, as they consider the proposed operations to dispose of the waste to no longer be related to the defence programme.

The Commission is not in a position to confirm, or otherwise, the validity of references to British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) internal documents made in the Guardian article of 11 September 2000.

The Commission has as yet no information as regards plans for unmanned waste dumps nor details of planned dismantling operations such as those to which the Honourable Member refers. This information would be part of the general data submitted by the United Kingdom for any such plan for any location.

The Commission takes all appropriate measures to ensure that Community legislation, relating to common basic safety standards for the protection of workers and the public from the effects of ionising radiation, is applied within Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3324/00

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Subject: Noise emitted by high-speed trains

It has come to my knowledge that specifications relating to noise emitted by high-speed trains (TSI) are to be drawn up to supplement Directive 96/48/EC(1), but only within the framework of technical adaptation.

Is this true? If so, what leads the Commission to believe that in this instance it can decide to exclude the EP and the Council by not applying the codecision procedure?

(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2000)

Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system(1) provides for means of preparing and adopting technical specifications for interoperability (TSI). Among other factors those TSIs include the conditions to be met by the trans-European high-speed railway systems basic parameters. One of the basic parameters mentioned in Annex II to the Directive concerns the boundary characteristics linked to outside noise. It is against this legal background that the TSIs will lay down the sound emission level to be complied with by the rolling stock on a reference infrastructure and, if necessary, the specifications to be met by the infrastructure in order that the overall sound emission level generated might be acceptable. The draft TSIs will be the subject of a consultation of the Member States within the Committee set up under Directive 96/48/EC, as provided for in Article 6, paragraph 1, of said Directive. As stipulated by the interinstitutional agreement on the Committee procedure, Parliament is kept informed of the activities of that Committee.

Moreover, there is no provision that the TSIs are to lay down the acceptable level perceived by the local inhabitants since such a level greatly depends upon local conditions and is left to the Member States. However, the Commission recently put forward noise indicators and methods of assessing the perceived noise, but it does not propose that any boundary values be set for the noise indicators defined. This proposal for a Directive(2) is currently being submitted for a Parliament and Council co-decision. In the longer term, if adopted and implemented, that Directive could form the basis for laying down such boundary values.

(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996; OJ L 262, 16.10.1996.

(2) COM(2000) 468 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3466/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Sale of meat and milk from cows affected with cattle-wasting disease

1. Is the Commission aware that in the Netherlands meat and milk have been sold from cows suffering from cattle-wasting disease, i.e., cows which after vaccination against bovine flu lose weight and also suffer swelling, fungal infections, fertility problems, inflammation of the joints and inflamed udders, despite the fact that 7 000 farmers have reported this illness and the Ministry of Agriculture acknowledges that 350 farms are affected? [Source: TV current affairs programme Netwerk, 19 October 2000]

2. How was it possible for the meat from these cows to be passed for consumption without the industry or the inspection services playing an active role in providing the public with information?

3. What action will the Commission take or what action has it already taken to put a stop to any further spread of this meat and milk for human consumption?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the replies to the Written Questions P-768/00 by Mr de Roo(1), P-788/00 by Mrs Thyssen(2) and P-1410/00 by Mr de Roo(3), where information has been given on the Commission approach to the wasting cattle problem.

As mentioned in these replies, the Commission's food and veterinary office (FVO) carried out an on-the-spot check in the Netherlands on 2-4 May 2000. The report(4) has been submitted to the Parliament and released on the Internet in accordance with the normal practice. It noted that there was still uncertainty on the origin of this problem and on its magnitude. It made a number of recommendations, in relation to which the Dutch authorities have taken several actions, which have been presented and discussed in a recent meeting of the standing veterinary committee.

The latest information provided by the Netherlands shows investigations on the origin and the potential risks related to the wasting cattle have been and are still being carried out. The available results of these investigations have not indicated specific risks for public health and have also suggested that this problem has ceased to occur. The information shows that milk and the meat of suspect animals are being excluded from the food chain, as required by Community legislation.

The Commission is not aware of any recent information suggesting that the above requirements are not being observed.

The results of the investigations in the Netherlands are being reviewed by the appropriate scientific committee.

The Commission is therefore continuing to follow the situation carefully, taking into consideration factual information concerning the phenomenon, scientific knowledge, provisions of Community legislation and the advice of the experts.

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 109.

(2) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 109.

(3) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001.

(4) document DG SANCO/1169/2000-MR final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2379/00

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Community programmes concerning education, vocational training and youth

I regularly receive visitors aged from 13 to 18. As well as giving a presentation on the daily activities of an MEP, I speak to them about the numerous Community programmes in the areas of education, vocational training and youth.

This reveals that what should be merely a reminder or additional information is in fact, very often, completely new to them.

This state of affairs is found not only in France but also in countries such as Germany.

How does the Commission explain the fact that this information has not got through to schools?

What solutions does the Commission recommend as a remedy for this?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

More than a million young people have so far taken advantage of the Community programmes to study, train and further their personal development in a Member State other than their own. This is a huge success, but the Commission is aware of the need to maintain and strengthen the communication activities in this area.

The Community programmes Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth are managed in accordance with the subsidiarity principle. In each participating Member State is appointed a national agency, which is responsible for most of the contact with the potential participants in the programmes. The main priority is given to ensuring that precise and operational information is available at the place where young people already seek information on education and career questions, that is careers advisers at schools, and youth information centres.

As a back up, the programmes are also promoted in communications activities directed to the general public, by means such as the Internet, publications, and presentations at youth fairs.

With the recent launch of the new generation of programmes 2000-2006, the Commission is currently making new agreements with national agencies, which will include a strengthening of communication activities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3126/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Death of seabirds

Does the Commission agree with the claim made by some environmental organisations that more than 250 000 seabirds are being killed annually by swallowing baited fish hooks set on long line fishing vessels?

What estimate has the Commission made of the number of birds killed annually by this means in European waters?

Is the Commission taking steps to try and reduce the number of deaths?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

The Commission is certainly aware of this issue, given the world-wide dimension of the Community's fisheries sector. However, it cannot judge the accuracy of the figure mentioned by the Honourable Member without more precise information on the species affected, the seas where the incidental catches occur, the type of fisheries involved and, finally, the accuracy of the sources of the claim.

The Commission is not aware that incidental catches of seabirds in longline fisheries within Community waters constitute a problem. Most of the concerns expressed to it have referred to the incidental catches of albatrosses in the Southern Hemisphere (oceans).

The Commission works to ensure that special priority is attached to the conservation of the marine environment and of non-commercial species. Member States also play a critical role in the definition and implementation of both environmental and fisheries' measures.

The Birds Directive(1) provides a strong legal framework to protect seabirds within the Community.

Recent initiatives to address this problem are: Council Regulation (EC) No 66/98, of 18 December 1997, which lays down certain conservation and control measures applicable in the Antarctic zone(2), aimed at

diminishing the incidental catches provoked by longline fisheries; and the adoption at the Food and agriculture organisation (FAO), in 1999, of the international plan of action (IPOA) for reducing incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries. This plan concerns all States. The Community will present a Community action plan for seabirds at the next FAO committee of fisheries (COFI), in February 2001.

(1) Council Direcitve 79/409/EC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of the wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979).

(2) OJ L 6, 10.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2603/00

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Implementation of the Birds Directive

The European Parliament, represented by its President, Mrs Nicole Fontaine, received in March 2000 around 2,2 million signatures of citizens from all countries of Europe expressing their utmost concern about the persistence of hunting practices that do not respect the conservation requirement of European legislation on wild birds.

1. Does the Council share the view of the European Parliament, expressed before, that one closing date for the hunting season for all bird species, adapted to the earliest species, would be best to secure a complete system of protection of wild birds in line with the judgments C-157/89 and C-435/92 of the European Court of Justice?

2. Does the Council share the view that one opening date for the hunting season for all bird species, adapted to the latest species, would be best to ensure complete protection of wild birds?

3. Does the Council also agree that European wide dates would serve legal certainty, implementation and enforcement?

4. Is the Council prepared to consider the wish of Parliament and at least 2,2 million citizens for a proper implementation of protection requirements of the Birds Directive? Would the Council accept a guideline ensuring Europe-wide and proper implementation of the Birds Directive?

Reply

(20 November 2000)

The Council understands the concern voiced by the Honourable Member and the other signatories of the petition.

It considers, however, that the approach adopted in Article 7(4) of Directive 79/409(1), which does not lay down single closing and opening dates for the hunting season in the Community, is an appropriate solution, which takes account of the biological and ecological diversity of the vast area of territory to which the Directive applies.

The Council would stress that the dates applied in the Member States must, under the terms of the above Article, comply with the principles of wise use and ecologically balanced control of the species of wild birds concerned.

Moreover, Article 2 of the Directive stipulates that Member States shall take the requisite measures to maintain the population of the species referred to in Article 1 at a level which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, or to adapt to the population of these species to that level.

It is the responsibility of the Commission to ensure that the Directive is properly implemented.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3064/00

by Francesco Rutelli (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Death penalty

A commitment to end the use of the death penalty has for some time been a priority for Parliament and for the European Union's foreign policy. In 1999, with a view to actively helping to affirm the principle of the inviolability of human life,

Parliament adopted several amendments to enable budget headings B7-702, B7-703, B7-704, B7-705 and B7-707 to be used, additionally, for campaigns and initiatives promoting a moratorium on capital punishment. In moral terms, this represents a highly significant undertaking to provide active support to those who are fighting against the death penalty all over the world. Could the Commission therefore give details of the initiatives taken under the various budget headings to implement Parliament's amendments?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Since 1995 the Community budget has included an appropriation under which funding can be provided for measures by non-governmental organisations against the death penalty (heading B7-7040). Two regulations adopted by the Council on 29 April 1999 provide a legal basis for conducting human rights-related activities and allow initiatives of this sort to be developed(1).

In 1999 the Commission and the Council of Europe jointly financed a programme intended to win public support for the ending of the death penalty in Council of Europe member countries. Two operations were approved in 2000, one to provide condemned prisoners in the Caribbean with funds to appeal against the death sentence ( 512 952) and the other to raise public awareness and support those campaigning for abolition of the death penalty in the Philippines, the United States, the Caribbean and Europe ( 675 859).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 975/1999 of 29.4.1999 laying down the requirements for the implementation of development cooperation operations which 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, and Council Regulation (EC) No 976/1999 of 29.4.1999 laying down the requirements for the implementation of Community operations, other than those of development cooperation, 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 countries (OJ L 120, 8.5.1999).