ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0982/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Studies by the Commission into the toxicity and radiological hazard posed by depleted uranium

What studies have been considered by the Commission or Euratom into the toxicity and radiological hazard posed by depleted uranium?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0885/01, E-0977/01, E-0978/01 and E-0982/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

The Commission invited international organisations (World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)) to a round-table discussion on the issue of depleted uranium on 31 January 2001. There has been no correspondence other than the letter of invitation. In addition, the Commission informed the other organisations on the release of the Opinion of the Group of Experts established under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty on 6 March 2001 and the Commission was informed of the release of the UNEP report on 14 March 2001.

The Commission had no contact with the other organisations referred to by the Honourable Member. Among the material provided by different organisations, NATO in particular, there are American documents referring to the Office of Environmental and Health Sciences of the Department of Defence.

The flow of information on depleted uranium is considerable (in the form of documents and internet-based material for example). The Group of Experts has looked into much of this material and has spent considerable effort in identifying which are original, validated sources of information. The main references to such sources are included in the published Opinion.

The Commission believes that it is in the interest of all organisations to exchange information to the largest possible extent, while preserving full independence in evaluating the information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1225/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Enlargement of Ferrol harbour (outer harbour)

Is the Commission aware of the fact that Ferrol's planned outer harbour is to be constructed in an area protected under the Natura 2000 Network?

Is it aware of the complaints made by official bodies, fishermen's associations and NGOs against the plans for Ferrol's outer harbour which indicate the seriousness of the physical, environmental, social and employment-related impact of the project and make the point that such a project is not really necessary?

Does it not think that the project should be scrapped and that the EU funding which has been allocated to it should be withdrawn?

Does it intend to protect the Natura 2000 area without giving way over any of the criteria which it itself established or over the boundaries of the area, since that would set an extremely serious precedent which would render Natura 2000 meaningless and seriously jeopardise the integrity of the Natura 2000 network in Galicia and throughout Spain?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

The Commission became aware of the situation the Honourable Member is referring to through two complaints.

It has verified that the area where the project is planned has been proposed by Spain as a site (ES 1110002 Costa Artaba) for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1). The area contains 28 different habitat types listed in Annex I to the Directive, including seven priority types. It was also identified as a site of Community importance for birds (SCI No 5) in the SEO/BirdLife 1998 IBA inventory. The site is also important as a place of hibernation for certain migratory species of seabirds and waders.

As part of its examination of the two complaints, the Commission recently contacted the Spanish authorities to ask for their comments on the reported situation and for details of the project.

At present, the only information the Commission has is that supplied by the complainants. However, should the Honourable Member be able to send it any further information on the reported project, the Commission would certainly examine it closely.

The Commission is unable to say at this point whether or not Community law has been infringed, as it has yet to receive a reply from the Spanish authorities (including the environmental impact assessment). Once it has that information, it will examine it to check that the relevant Community legislation is being observed in this particular instance.

The Commission is not involved in the selection of each individual project co-financed through the Structural Funds, and has asked the Spanish authorities for additional information in this area.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0680/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(14 March 2001)

Subject: Use of chemical weapons in Turkey and Iraq and the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy

On Friday, 16 February American and British aircraft attacked the region of the capital of Iraq. Two people were killed and twenty injured. According to Iraqi TV two homes were destroyed in Hafriya, a village 40 km south of Baghdad. Damage was more limited in al-Rashdiya, 20 km north of Baghdad.

The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Robin Cook, said that the bombing was necessary to maintain the no-fly zones required to protect the Kurdish people in the north and the Shiites in the south. When Saddam was allowed to fly over the northern zone he used chemical weapons on the Kurds, Cook said. He would do it again if he had the opportunity.

Cook's position on the use of chemicals weapons in Iraq is in stark contrast to the attitude of the EU Member States on the use of chemical weapons in Turkey. For example, the Council has still not expressed an opinion on the Turkish army's use of chemical weapons with German warheads on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999. Nevertheless there is a need to develop a clear view of the Kurdish question in Iraq and Turkey in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Will the Council take whatever action is necessary to put an end to the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in Turkey, to reflect Cook's line on the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in Iraq? If not, why does the Council refuse to develop a clear view of the use of chemical weapons against, on the one hand, the Kurds in Iraq (as witness Cook's position) and, on the other hand, the Kurds in Turkey?

Reply

(16 July 2001)

Regarding the issue of chemical weapons in Turkey, the Honourable Member is kindly invited to refer to the reply to the Written Question No E-0670/01 on German chemical weapons in Turkey. The use of chemical weapons against the Kurds has not been raised within the Council or Council bodies. The Council has not therefore expressed its views on the issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0970/01

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Assessment of the budgetary resources of the MEDA Programme and of the financial instruments for the Mediteranean strategy

At its meeting in Brussels on 8 and 9 February 2001, the second session of the Euro-Mediterranean Forum adopted a Final Declaration which calls for an assessment to be carried out of the partner countries' capacity to absorb the budgetary resources allocated under the MEDA Programme and of the financial instruments of the new European strategy for the Mediterranean (point 33 of the Final Declaration).

With regard to this specific request, what steps does the Commission intend to take in order to address the concern of the Forum at the earliest possible date? When does the Commission plan to present the results of such a request to the European Parliament, so that budgetary resources may be allocated on the basis of a comprehensive evaluation of the EU action?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

The concerns expressed by the Euro-Mediterranean Forum are addressed in the context of the reform of the management of the Commission's financial and technical co-operation with third countries. This is one of the key priorities of the Commission, as confirmed in the Commission's annual workprogramme for 2001(1). This involves the creation of the new EuropeAid Office on 1 January 2001, as well as the development of a more strategic approach and consolidated programming procedures vis-à-vis third countries. In addition, the reform of the external services will lead to a substantial strengthening of staff resources in the Commission's delegations. This should also contribute to a speedier implementation of its financial and technical co-operation with third countries.

Moreover, the provisions of the Council regulation (EC) No 2698/2000 of 27 November 2000(2) amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1488/96 introduce a number of specific amendments that will lead to greater efficiency and speed in the implementation of the MEDA programme.

Lastly, it should be recalled that partner countries also have to play an important role in the implementation of the MEDA programme. Sufficient resources for administering MEDA resources have to be made available by them. The Commission will monitor this carefully in the context of bilateral contacts with partner countries.

The Commission will report on the issues mentioned above in the context of its regular dialogue with the European Parliament, the annual MEDA report, as well as in the context of the reporting on the implementation of the reform of the management of the financial and technical co-operation with third countries.

(1) COM(2001) 28 final.

(2) OJ L 311, 12.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0121/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(24 January 2001)

Subject: Kidnapping and illegal detention of Mr Tsiakourmas

On 13 December 2000, Mr Panikos Tsiakourmas, a Greek-Cypriot building contractor, was kidnapped from a British base on the outskirts of the village of Pergamos. Since then he has been held by the Turkish-Cypriot authorities on the patently trumped-up charge of possession of drugs.

Mr Tsiakourmas has no previous criminal record and there has never been any indication that he was involved in drugs in any shape or form.

Mr Tsiakourmas, moreover, suffers from diabetes. The Hungarian diabetes specialist sent by the UN to examine him a few days ago described his condition as serious; Mr Tsiakourmas had a blood sugar count of 349 as opposed to the norm of 100, he was exhausted and no longer capable of walking.

What immediate measures will the Council take in response to this flagrant violation of human rights, which is tantamount to a premeditated attempt on the victim's life?

Reply

(10 July 2001)

The Council has been informed by the British authorities of the kidnapping of Mr Tsiakourmas from a British base. British authorities consider that there is strong circumstantial evidence that Mr Tsiakourmas was arrested illegally and taken away

from their Eastern Sovereign Base Area. The matter has been pursued by EU Member States, and also by Unficyp. The UK took the matter up with both the Turkish authorities and the Turkish-Cypriot Community, and by Greece with the Turkish government. The Council is relieved that Mr Tsiakourmas has now been released, but is concerned by the guilty verdict, which appears to take no account of the evidence gathered by the base police or the fact that he had been taken against his will from the Eastern Sovereign Base Area (ESBA).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0735/01

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2001)

Subject: High-speed trans European communications network

The 2000 Lisbon European Council called on the Council and the Commission, together with the Member States where appropriate to facilitate the creation by the end of 2001 of a very high-speed trans European network for electronic scientific communications, with EIB support, linking research institutions and universities, as well as scientific libraries, scientific centres and, progressively, schools. Does the Commission believe that this target will be met, and what evidence can it supply to support its view?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 June 2001)

The major action leading to the creation of an high performance network for research in Europe was the launching of the GÉANT backbone for research in Europe, in November 2000, in the context of the Information Society Technologies (IST) Programme (with a Community contribution of 80 millions for a total estimated cost of 200 millions).

GÉANT increases the geographic coverage of Europe's internet backbone for research from 24 to 30 countries, and increases its capacity by a factor of 16 times to that provided by the previous 155 Megabits per second (Mbit/s) technology. In fact, it is expected that in November 2001, 2,5 Gigabits per second (Gbps) connectivity will be installed between eleven countries.

Such a European development matches, and complements the developments taking place at national level through the National Research and Education Networks (NRENs). This backbone interconnects all NRENs of the Community and Associated Countries which are also being significantly and continuously upgraded and which are responsible for bringing research and education institutions connected. GÉANT has set up a working group that investigates how funds from the European Investment Bank (EIB) could be used for the further upgrade of the European or national backbone networks.

The Commission is also supporting advanced trans-European scientific testbeds favouring the deployment very high speed (beyond Gigabits) communications and GRID technology. In this respect the e.g. Datagrid project (lead by the European centre of nuclear research (CERN) and with a Community contribution of 10 millions) deploys a testbed linking the most advanced high energy physics institutes in Europe with the most advanced technology on high performance computing and networking.

Testbeds on GRIDs and GÉANT are a major support to the eEurope initiative and constitute essential infrastructures for the European Research Area, in line with the objectives set by the European Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1669/01

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Daytime running lights and twilight switches

For some time now the Commission has been looking into the impact of daytime running lights and of the introduction of twilight switches on fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions.

1. Has this research produced any clear findings yet, and if so, what are the implications for the possible introduction of compulsory daytime running lights or encouragement of the introduction of twilight switches in the European Union?

2. If no clear findings have been made yet, when are they to be expected?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

The main point of daytime running lights is in the road safety benefits of their use and for this the Commission has undertaken several studies and is aware of many others world-wide. The conclusion of this work is that daytime running lights have a positive safety benefit. However, these studies have been conducted mainly in northern climates and there is a certain reluctance to automatically extend their findings to southern countries. At the moment, a study has just been concluded in the South of France and interim reports on the results are encouraging. Should the final report not be conclusive as to their generalisation, then the Commission will examine the introduction of twilight switches.

However, on the negative impact that the use of daytime running lights would have for fuel consumption and hence the emissions of carbondioxide (CO2), there has not yet been any specific study done by the Commission. The Commission is aware of earlier work that has been done on their fuel consumption disbenefit by certain Member States and the overall conclusion is that daytime running lights would have the effect of increasing fuel consumption by between 1 % and 1,5 %. However, in view of the fact that in the meanwhile fuel consumption is affected more and more by other equipment in cars such as air-conditioners, the Commission is at the moment subsidising a study that intends to clarify this issue. The results should be available in mid-2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1879/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (the Netherlands)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in the Netherlands have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in the Netherlands have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01, E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01, E-1882/01, E-1883/01 and E-1884/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0727/01

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Regional policy

What European Union aid and subsidies are scheduled to be granted to the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country from 2000 to 2006 inclusive, under the structural funds (Objective 1, Objective 2 and Objective 3) and the Cohesion Fund?

What is the breakdown for the allocation of this funding by province (Alava, Guipúzcoa and Vizcaya) for the period in question?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

During the 2000-2006 programming period, the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country (Spain) is not eligible under Objective 1 of the Structural Funds.

Where Objective 2 is concerned, the single programming document (SPD) for the Basque Country provides for assistance of 558 855 222 from the European Regional Development Fund and 28 781 155 from the European Social Fund. These amounts cannot be broken down between the three Basque provinces of Alava, Guipúzcoa and Biscay at present since, according to the provisions of the programming supplement, the choice of projects to be part-financed under this SPD is the responsibility of the managing authorities.

Where Objective 3 is concerned, the operational programme (OP) for the Basque Country provides for assistance of 222 646 434. In addition, likewise under the Objective 3 Community support framework, five multi-regional OPs will finance activities in the seven autonomous communities outside Objective 1, providing a total Community contribution of 1 375 921 635. A regional financial breakdown of multi-regional assistance will be presented annually in the implementing reports.

The Autonomous Community of the Basque Country is also eligible for assistance under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance. The SPD concerned covers all autonomous communities outside Objective 1 and provides for total Community assistance of 207 500 000. According to the initial indicative breakdown carried out by Spain, assistance of 106 220 000 has been earmarked for the Basque Country.

As regards the Cohesion Fund, it is not possible at this stage to quantify the amount which will be allocated to the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country during the 2000-2006 programming period or to break down this amount by province. At this stage, under Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/1999 of 21 June 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 establishing a Cohesion Fund,(1) the total resources to be committed under this Fund during the period in question amounts to approximately 18 billion for all four eligible countries and the indicative allocation for Spain is 61 % to 63,5 % of this amount. It should be borne in mind that the national authorities are responsible for the initial choice of projects to be submitted under the Cohesion Fund and that these projects are presented to the Commission at intervals throughout the programming period.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0838/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Publication of limits on residues by the 15 EU Member States

On 30 March 2000, John McCartin, MEP, tabled a written question to the Commission concerning maximum permissible residue limits and residue surveillance policy (E-1114/00(1)). On the basis of data provided by the pharmaceutical industry, the CVMP in London determines maximum permissible residues for the active ingredients of veterinary medicines destined for use in food-producing animals.

The 15 EU Member States are required by law to submit their food-residue monitoring programmes for the coming year and the results for the previous year to the Commission. The results indicate the incidence of residues from veterinary medicines in food samples from the European Union.

Only one EU Member State the United Kingdom publishes such detailed results every three months. The other Member States fail to comply or else publish incomplete information, in some cases on the Internet. Yet complete and transparent publication of such residue results by all EU Member States could promote consumer confidence.

Can the Commission confirm that only one EU Member State the United Kingdom publishes a detailed overview of residues of veterinary medicines detected in food samples every three months? If not, do other EU Member States similarly publish (at the same intervals and in the same degree of detail) the quantities of residues detected in food samples?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 77.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

According to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996, on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products(1), Member States shall forward to the Commission, on a yearly basis, the results of their residue and substance detection plans and of their control measures. Member States shall make public the outcome of the implementation of the plans.

In accordance with these requirements, every year, before 31 March, the Commission receives the monitoring plans of the Member States and the results of their plan of the previous year. It is the task of the Commission to evaluate this information. However, it is the responsibility of the Member States to make public their results, but the Directive does not specify under which form.

The Commission is not aware of the refusal of any Member State to provide this information upon request.

As regards the two precise questions posed by the Honourable Member, the Commission can confirm that the United Kingdom transmits yearly to the Commission a full public report on the results of their residue control plans, as do all other Member States in various forms.

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.