ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0513/01

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(23 February 2001)

Subject: Declaration of state of emergency and serious situation in Ecuador

The economic austerity policy pursued by the Ecuadorian Government in an attempt to resolve the grave economic crisis that has been affecting the country for more than three years has been accompanied by serious social unrest. In addition to the emigration of a large section of the working population prompted by poverty, there has also been increasing mobilisation and protest on the part of the section of the population most severely affected by the crisis, mainly the Indian population.

Apart from a crackdown by the forces of order, the Ecuadorian authorities have responded to this social unrest by declaring a state of emergency.

Given the ethnic character of the protest, which has so far remained essentially peaceful, is the Council not afraid that the current economic crisis might jeopardise the plurinational and democratic State enshrined in the country's new constitution?

Has the Council expressed its opposition to the state of emergency that has been declared, or does it intend to do so?

Will the Council call on the Ecuadorian Government to guarantee the civil and political freedoms of the population during the protests, provided they are peaceful, in order to prevent the situation from deteriorating?

Given the conditions of real poverty faced by around 70 % of the population at a time of political instability, does the Council not think that the international community should tackle the problem of Ecuador's external debt and the need to rebuild its economy in the context of the Paris Club and on the basis of criteria that seek to avoid an aid-based approach and focus on large-scale national and international investment?

What other initiatives will the Council take to help Ecuador overcome this difficult situation?

Reply

(13 July 2001)

The Council is aware of the difficult economic situation experienced by Ecuador and the hardship endured by the poorest sections of the population in the current context of dollarisation and economic adjustments undertaken by the Government at the behest of the IMF.

In January and February the Council monitored very closely the events to which the Honourable Member refers in his question. The Council believes that there can be no solution to these problems outside the framework of a democratic system.

The Council has expressed its willingness to contribute to the efforts made by Ecuador and all the Andean countries to strengthen democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These are the pillars on which economic co-operation and political dialogue between the EU and those countries are based. The same message was conveyed to Ecuador and the other Andean countries at the recent ministerial meeting between the EU and the Andean Community, in Santiago de Chile on 28 March 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1742/01

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Air traffic

Since the creation of AENA (Spanish airports and air traffic), a public body established in 1990, all technical staff specialising in air traffic operations and services who are employed in air traffic services must have qualifications and a licence, in accordance with European rules (Eatchip I and II) and those of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). A document produced recently by the ICAO states explicitly that Spain is the only country that fails to comply with these rules. Is the Commission aware of this problem?

Given the danger to air traffic that a lack of appropriate training could represent, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the allegations raised by the Honourable Member's communication but can inform that at present there are no Community wide provisions for the licensing/certification of Air Traffic Management (ATM) personnel.

Eurocontrol at its November 2000 meeting, adopted a Eurocontrol Safety Regulation Requirement (ESARR) on ATM Services' Personnel requiring the Designated Authorities of the Member States of Eurocontrol, which include Spain, to ensure that all personnel responsible for tasks in the provision of air traffic services, which are considered to be related to the safety of air traffic, are competent to carry out those tasks and satisfy applicable medical fitness requirements. Such competencies shall be subject to appropriate measures to ensure their ongoing viability and recognised by an appropriate certification/licensing system. These provisions are to become effective within three years from the date of adoption by Eurocontrol, i.e. November 2003.

The Commission is closely following the development and implementation of these requirements with a view to their transposition into Community law at some future date.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1752/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Cancellation of the White Paper on European Union youth policies

The Spanish Youth Council has criticised the cancellation of one of the main projects embarked on by the Commission in relation to young people: the White Paper on European Union youth policies. According to the Youth Council, the Commission decided to cancel the project after two years of intensive work with thousands of young people, experts, researchers and EU governments.

The project responded to the calls made by European youth organisations and appeared to open up the possibility of providing youth policies with a structure at Community level.

Bearing in mind the expectations raised and the initial date of November 2001 for the project's submission, why has the project been cancelled?

Will the Commission continue with the preparatory work on the White Paper on EU youth policies, and what date will it set for its finalisation and presentation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The Commission feels that the policy of co-operation on matters concerning European youth must be strengthened.

For this reason, at the initiative of the Member of the Commission responsible for education and culture, the Commission embarked upon the preparation of a White Paper on the subject.

The Commission wished this to be preceded by widespread consultation on an unprecedented scale. It is therefore aware of young people's expectations and of the responsibilities such expectations give rise to, not only at EU level but also in fact especially in the Member States.

Bolstered by the support of young people and the Member States, the Commission is continuing with the preparatory work on the White Paper, which should be published by the end of the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1412/01

by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE), Heinz Kindermann (PSE) and Willi Görlach (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 2001)

Subject: Free trade in the plant protection sector, EU Directive 91/414/EEC

Small and medium-sized producers in the plant protection sector take the view that Directive 91/414/EEC(1), and in particular Article 13(3)(d) thereof, consolidates the monopoly position of multinational firms instead of promoting free trade, and argue that small and medium-sized producers do not have the financial resources to fund the studies required to obtain renewed authorisation from the EU authorities for existing active substances. As few firms can afford to fund such studies, they claim, this requirement clearly places small and medium-sized producers at a competitive disadvantage.

Does the Commission endorse that view?

In the United States, by contrast, multinational companies are obliged by law to share newly completed studies on existing active substances with their smaller competitors, subject to their paying an appropriate share of the costs (the data compensation system).

Is it true that the situation described above arose because of the lack of legislation in the Member States on fair access to data?

Would it be possible to consider solving such problems by means of a pan-European system to ensure fair access to data within the framework of Directive 91/414/EEC? Would the Commission be prepared to take action to achieve that end?

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4, of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market contains the rules on data protection. These rules have to be applied by Member States when granting authorizations for plant protection products.

The rules, adopted by Council in 1991, intend to strike a balance between the interest of research-based companies and the smaller companies. The research-based companies have to invest a large amount of money in order to present a dossier meeting the strict requirements of the Directive. The fact that smaller companies can enter the market after the expiry of the data protection period aims to ensure that no unlimited monopoly positions are created and that plant protection products are available at competitive prices for users. Nevertheless, the Commission recognises the concerns expressed by smaller companies and will consider what measures might be introduced to encourage their involvement in the market and the development of innovative products in a forthcoming review of Directive 91/414/EEC planned for 2002.

The Commission is aware that the current rules are complicated to apply for Member States and are also contested by the smaller companies. An intra-industry attempt to reach agreement between the two main industry groupings on developing a single industry position was unsuccessful after several years of negotiation.

The Commission will also examine the need to amend the provisions on data protection in the forthcoming review.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1350/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Implementation of Seveso II

What arrangements has each Member State made for the implementation of the land use planning sections of the Seveso II Directive? Are the controls now fully implemented in each Member State?

Where Member States have implemented land use planning controls, has this been done to a nationally defined standard or has it been done on a local basis?

If controls have been implemented, have the controls been based on a risk assessment of each site? Has the method by which the distances are calculated been made public?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

The Commission is currently checking the transposition of the Seveso II Directive, Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances(1) in the Member States. Currently, infringement procedures against five Member States for non-communication or incomplete communication of transposition measures are pending before the Court of Justice (Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Austria, and Portugal).

As in many cases the transposition of the provisions concerning the land-use planning require measures to be taken at regional level, different sets of laws, regulations and administrative provisions have to be checked for each Member State, and therefore, the process of controlling the transposition of the Directive is not yet finalised. In most Member States, land use planning is carried out at local level, though under national/regional guidance or oversight. However, should it show that Member States have not fully transposed the requirements of Article 12 of the Seveso II Directive, infringement procedures against these Member States will be initiated in due time.

In order to facilitate the implementation of the provisions of the Seveso II Directive on land use planning, and in order to promote a consistent application throughout the Community, a guidance document on land use planning has been elaborated by the Commission in close co-operation with the Member States. It was published in 1999 and can be received from the Major Accident Hazard Bureau established within the Joint Research Centre of the Commission (http://mahbsrv.jrc.it/GuidanceDocs.html).

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0689/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: The situation in Angola

A report by the NGO Médecins sans frontières published in November 2000 (Angola: unassumed responsibilities - a people on the verge of the abyss) sets out the testimonies of displaced Angolan civilians and details the deterioration in the health of the displaced (76 % of the population have no access to health care) and the danger and difficulties faced in obtaining humanitarian aid from the outside, thanks to a government-imposed ban.

The mortality rate for children under five is 292/1000, and life expectancy at birth has fallen from 47 in 1970 to 42 today.

The UN, meanwhile, appears to have abandoned the principle of fair and equal humanitarian access to the parties in conflict.

If the above figures are confirmed, what measures does the Commission intend to adopt to alleviate this situation?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2001)

The Commission is aware of the seriousness of the humanitarian situation in Angola and has been actively providing support to alleviate the suffering of the populations. In spite of an improvement during late 1999 and 2000, when the government obtained control of a significant part of the territory, security and access remain affected and there have been no significant breakthrough in reversing the humanitarian crisis.

EC support is currently targeting, through the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and EuropeAid, both food and non-food aid to displaced populations with a particular emphasis in the heavily war affected Central and Eastern Provinces. Furthermore, the Commission intends to continue to provide support in all areas of the country, as long as security conditions allow it, and to accompany humanitarian assistance with support for transition to rehabilitation and development.

The health situation of the displaced populations is particularly looked at by the Commission through various ongoing actions. The Commission is one of the main partners in the health sector in Angola and over 60 % of the ECHO funds approved for this country in 2000 were spent to respond to the emergency health needs of the Angolan population. The Commission recalls that the Union's political objectives with regard to Angola are set out in the Council Common Position of 19 June 2000(1) (2000/391/CFSP). This position addresses the issue raised by the Honourable Member by calling for securing safe and unrestricted access to internally displaced persons by relief agencies in accordance with internationally accepted humanitarian principles. The Commission, in co-ordination with the Member States, has been urging the Government to respond to the more immediate concerns; in particular, the re-establishment of local administrations and the re-opening of road access appear to be critical to the improvement of the livelihoods of population.

(1) OJ L 146, 21.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1926/01

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 June 2001)

Subject: Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993: incorporation into national law

Article 211 of the EC Treaty stipulates that the Commission has the task of ensuring that the Treaty is applied. The information in the Celex system about the transposition of Directive 93/16/EEC(1) (to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications) is incomplete and in some cases incorrect or out of date. Can the Commission say what steps the Member States have taken to transpose Directive 93/16/EEC and supply the current texts of the national laws concerned?

(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

First of all, the disclaimer in the CELEX database clearly indicates that the documentation provided on national implementing measures is not necessarily comprehensive and does not necessarily guarantee conformity with all requirements of Community law.

Secondly, the Directive to which the Honourable Member refers (Directive 93/16/EEC)(1) is a consolidation of four directives, which had themselves been adopted after the basic Doctors Directives 75/362/EEC and 75/363/EEC(2). No additional implementing measures were therefore required of Member States at the time of the adoption of this Directive which did not change the substantive obligations involved. Reference can therefore be made - under the above conditions - to the national implementing measures referred to in connection with the preceding directives.

Equally Directive 93/16/EEC itself has been amended several times(3).

While, in general, the Doctors Directive has largely been implemented in all 15 Member States, specific problems still persist. This is why the Commission is pursuing infringement procedures against Germany (1999/2065), Austria (1998/4293, 1998/4296) and France (1998/4265) for the non respect of different provisions of the above directives.

The Commission services do undertake an evaluation of all national measures which are necessary for the implementation of Directives and which are required to be notified to the Commission. However, the services do not seek to maintain a single up-to-date archive of all such measures on a comprehensive and continuous basis. Information on the development of Member States' regimes is exchanged with Member States in a variety of ways including through the meetings of various committees of national officials.

(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993.

(2) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975.

(3) Directive 97/50/EC (OJ L 291, 24.10.1997); Directive 98/21/EC (OJ L 119, 22.4.1998); Directive 98/63/EC (OJ L 253, 15.9.1998); Directive 1999/46/EC (OJ L 139, 2.6.1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0988/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: EASA

At the end of last year the Commission issued a proposal for a Regulation setting up the EASA (European Aviation Safety Authority). However, the fifteen Member States of the Union are also members of the ICAO which means that the text of the EASA Convention must not be contrary to their obligations under the Chicago Convention.

Will the Commission say whether in drawing up the proposal for a Regulation in question:

1. It checked whether the provisions of this Regulation clashed with the provisions of the Chicago Convention?

2. It has reached a preliminary understanding with the ICAO?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2001)

The purpose of the proposal for a regulation(1) to which the Honourable Member is referring is to confer on the Community the task of exercising its Member States' responsibilities in respect of air safety and the environmental compatibility of aviation, so as to ensure a uniform level of protection in the single market. In so doing, the Community will of course have to make sure it meets the Member States' international commitments, particularly those under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, known as the Chicago Convention.

The Commission's proposal contains two key elements.

Firstly, Articles 5 and 6 introduce into Community legislation the standards adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in the areas in which the Community will initially exercise executive powers (certification of aeronautical products); as the Community, pursuant to Article 7, gradually broadens the scope of those powers, it will have to see that it continues this practice. Third countries which are Parties to the Chicago Convention will thus be assured that aeronautical products certified in the Community offer a level of safety and environmental compatibility at least as high as that required by the ICAO.

Secondly, Article 4(2) stipulates that application of the Regulation and of the acts implementing it must be without prejudice to the rights of third countries under current international conventions, including the Chicago Convention. Certificates and approvals issued by third countries in accordance with ICAO standards are therefore certain to be accepted for the purpose of overflying or stopping over in Member State territory covered by the EC Treaty.

Accordingly, the Commission believes its proposal is in line with international law. Contacts with ICAO representatives on this matter have given no reason to think there is any doubt as to its compatibility with the Chicago Convention.

(1) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation and creating a European Aviation Safety Agency (COM(2000) 595 final).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1069/01

by Harlem Désir (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2001)

Subject: Infringement of Directive 91/308/EC on prevention of the use of the financial system for money laundering

What action does the Commission intend to take to investigate the facts presented in the book Révélation$, published by Les Arènes in March 2001 in France, on serious breaches of Community legislation, in particular the June 1991 Directive 91/308/EC(1) on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering?

What action is the Commission going to take in view of that fact that a third-country company implicated in the embezzlement of IMF funds in Russia, Menatep, would appear to have been able to open an unpublished account at the Luxembourg-based clearing house Clearstream, as have other third-country banking establishments, e.g. Banque Colombienne? It would appear that sums far in excess of the ceiling indicated in Article 3 of Directive 91/308/EC have been transferred to Clearstream accounts from establishments offering no guarantees, without raising suspicions, and that transfers have been made to offshore centres regarded as uncooperative by the OECD.

(1) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991, p. 77.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

The Commission is responsible for checking that Community directives are correctly incorporated into national law by the Member States and correctly applied by national public authorities. However, it is up to the national authorities in the Member States to check that national legislation implementing a directive is correctly applied by individuals and firms.

Luxembourg has correctly incorporated into its national law Directive 91/308/EC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system, the purpose of money laundering and, as far as the Commission is aware, the Luxembourg authorities are applying it extensively and correctly. They are taking account, inter alia, of the requirements of combating corruption and consider this crime to underlie money laundering. In particular, pending ratification of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention on combating corruption of foreign officials in international transactions, they have taken the necessary steps to ensure that Luxembourg's financial system effectively applies measures to combat such crime.

In these circumstances, the Commission has at present no reason to think that the Luxembourg authorities are not taking tough action if, in the case cited by the Honourable Member, they consider it necessary to conduct an in-depth investigation. However, in exercising its prerogatives, the Commission will not fail to ensure that Community law is applied correctly and to take any measures that may be necessary for this purpose.