ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2407/99

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Esperanto

Has the Commission undertaken any studies on the use of Esperanto across the Union? Does it feel that there is any place for Esperanto as a tool for creating cohesion between the present and future European Union nations, and is Esperanto included in any of the current EU language schemes?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

Respect for cultural and linguistic diversity is a crucial element of European integration. Promoting better knowledge and understanding of the cultures and languages of other Europeans is therefore of particular importance. Languages will continue in future to be the key to knowing others.

Esperanto does not feature in the Community's programmes on education and vocational training. The aim of these programmes is to promote linguistic diversity with a view to granting equal status to each of the Union's languages. It is therefore necessary to vary language teaching and language use in order to enable all Europeans to experience the cultural wealth that is embedded in the EU's linguistic diversity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2727/99

by Ulpu Iivari (PSE) to the Council

(13 January 2000)

Subject: Right of EU citizens to use their own cars in another Member State

One of the fundamental rights of EU citizens is the right to move freely to other Member States of the Union and spend time there. For example, many pensioners from Nordic countries make prolonged temporary visits to other Member States. Many of them wish to use their own cars registered in their home states. However, the national legislation of many Member States restricts the length of time for which a car registered in another Member State may be used.

Does the Council propose to take steps to ensure that nationals of one EU country can themselves use their own cars registered in their home country while they are staying in another Member State?

Reply

(10/11 April 2000)

1. Under the Treaty, the Commission alone is entitled to propose changes to the current situation. So far, no proposal to that effect has been presented by the Commission and, as far as the Council is aware, there is no road traffic proposal in the pipeline. For the time being, then, the Council cannot take any action in this area.

2. As regards taxation, under Directive 83/182/EEC concerning the temporary use of vehicles Member States are obliged to authorise the tax-free temporary use of vehicles for a period, continuous or otherwise, of not more than six months in any twelve months.

3. The Council would also inform the Honourable Member that on 16 February 1998 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive governing the tax treatment of private motor vehicles moved permanently to another Member State in connection with a transfer of residence or used temporarily in a Member State other than that in which they are registered. That proposal is being examined by Council bodies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2757/99

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Administrative simplification

On 29 April 1999 the Commission submitted to the Council an action plan, which was supported by all the Member States, to improve the administrative environment for business and remove the unnecessary burdens hampering the competitiveness of European undertakings.

Can the Commission say what response its initiative has received in the various Member States? What specific measures has it adopted to improve the competitiveness of undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The action plan to promote the spirit of enterprise and competitiveness approved by the Member States on 29 April 1999 does indeed state that the Commission will report on the progress made as a matter of routine.

Since the Commission and Member States are in the middle of conducting this exercise the Commission will not be in a position to put forward an initial report before the Council that is to be held under the French Presidency in late 2000. It would thus be premature to carry out an initial assessment. Nevertheless, the Commission is in the process of expanding bilateral contacts in cooperation with the various Member States in order to ensure that the measures adopted are properly carried out.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1715/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Internet surveillance by American secret services

Following on from Echelon, the Anglo-American system for monitoring communications between citizens, the NSA (National Security Agency) and the CIA, under the United States National Plan for Information System Protection drawn up by the National Security Council, are now able to monitor all information and communication that takes place worldwide on the Internet, through a federal intruder detection network (Fidnet).

What measures does the Commission intend to take to protect the privacy of Union citizens and businesses against this new attack on individual and commercial freedom?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1999)

On 24 October 1995 the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data(1). On 15 December 1997 the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 97/66/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector(2). The deadline for implementing these Directives expired on 24 October 1998. Both Directives aim to ensure the rights and freedoms of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data, and in particular their right to privacy.

These directives are obviously relevant to the matters raised in the Honourable Member's written question. The scope of the Directives is naturally limited to the issues which come within the framework of the EC Treaty and both Directives allow exemptions in order to safeguard particular interests such as public security or the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences. Any citizen who feels that his or her privacy is prejudiced can either complain to the national supervisory data protection authorities or make submissions to a national court.

The question of alleged interception for national security reasons falls outside the competence of the Commission as defined by the EC Treaty. In this respect, the Honourable Member is referred to the answers provided by the Commission to written question E-1039/98 by Mrs Van Dijk(3), E-1040/98 by Mrs Van Dijk(4), E-1306/98 by Mrs Muscardini and others(5), E-1429 by Mrs Raschhofer(6), E-1776/98 by Mr Manisco(7), E-1987/98 by Mr Kaklamanis(8), H-1067/98 by Mrs McKenna

during question time at Parliament's December 1998 part-session(9), H-1237/98 by Mr Schorling during question time at Parliament's January 1999 part-session(10) and H-0092/99 by Mr Theonas during question time at Parliament's February 1999 part-session(11).

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

(2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.

(3) OJ C 354, 24.11.1998.

(4) OJ C 354, 24.11.1998.

(5) OJ C 402, 6.1.1998.

(6) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999.

(7) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999.

(8) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999.

(9) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1998).

(10) Debates of the European Parliament (January 1999).

(11) Debates of the European Parliament (February 1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2558/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Waste recycling incentives

Would the Commission please outline the principal causes of the substantial differences which exist in the recycling of household waste, notably the existence (or otherwise) of public policy measures to encourage such recycling, and describe which are the most effective public incentives for recycling?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2557/99 and E-2558/99 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

There are many factors that influence the recycling of household waste, the most important being the efficiency of the collection system, technological know-how and the existence of a market for recyclables or recycled products.

To enhance the recycling of household waste various regulatory instruments have been enacted in the Community, such as Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste(1), which sets targets for the recycling of packaging waste, and Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfilling of waste(2), which sets targets for the reduction of the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste.

In addition, the recycling of household waste can be encouraged by other instruments, such as market based instruments, quality standards for recycled products, integration of environmental aspects into public procurement procedures and the improvement of the image of recycled products.

To improve the possibilities for recycling in Europe, the Commission adopted a communication on the competitiveness of the recycling industry(3). Following the adoption of this communication a Recycling Forum was set up in 1999. The task of this Forum is to assess the key factors for the competitiveness of the recycling industry and identify the most appropriate mix of actions to be taken. The final report of the Forum will be ready in the beginning of 2000.

On 10 January 2000 the Commission adopted its report to the Council and the Parliament on the implementation of Community waste legislation Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/692/EEC, Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, Directive 75/439/EEC on waste oils, as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC and Directive 86/278/EEC on sewage sludge for the period 1995-1997(4).

For the data collected under Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(5), the percentage of household waste recycled in relation to the household waste produced per Member State for the period 1995-1997 breaks down as follows: Belgium 39 % Denmark 28 % Germany 30 % Greece 7 % Spain 16 % France 6 % Ireland 8 % Luxembourg 7 % The Netherlands 44 % Austria 43 % Finland 17 % Sweden 16 % United Kingdom 7 % Community average 15 %.

No data are available for Portugal and Italy.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

(3) COM(98) 463 final.

(4) COM(1999) 752 final.

(5) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2541/99

by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Fixing of prices of pharmaceutical products in Italy

The Commission has received a series of complaints regarding the economic and social implications deriving from the fixing of the prices of pharmaceutical products allowed by the rules governing the national health service in Italy.

The Commission issued a formal notice to the Italian Government in February 1996, followed by a reasoned opinion in 1998, asking Italy to bring its laws into line with European competition rules, since it considered that the criteria used for fixing the price of pharmaceutical products (in particular, Article 36 of Law No 449/97 and the CIPE decision No 10/98), allowing prices to be adjusted over an excessively long period of six years, were inappropriate.

These provisions run counter to Community law, since they make it impossible under any circumstances for importers to cover the cost of products and, directly or indirectly, serve as an obstacle to imports, with the result that it is difficult to find certain basic pharmaceutical products on the Italian market.

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that Italy complies with European rules on competition?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Since the Commission issued its reasoned opinion in September 1999, under the infringement procedure for the violation of Article 28 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 30) mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Italian authorities have indicated their wish for further discussions on this matter. In this context, the Commission has received a draft amendment to the regulations proposed by the Ministers concerned. The adoption of this amendment, which must be approved by various national authorities, should remove the obstacle in question, whilst maintaining the budgetary requirements behind the disputed measure, which forms an integral part of the social security system. In view of the promises made by the Italian authorities, a decision will be made as to whether this case should be brought before the Court of Justice once the final text has been received.

Given that the proposed amendments have yet to be finalised, the Commission is not in a position to provide more detailed information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2652/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Reliability of airbags

With regard to road safety and accident prevention, Directives 96/27/EC(1) and 96/79/EC(2) (compulsory as of 1 October 1999) set out the criteria and requirements by which airbag performance must be evaluated.

In the light of this:

1. What is the state of implementation of legislative and non-legislative measures in the EU for the improvement of road safety in the 1997-2001 period?

2. Can the Commission say if the data it has at present on road safety and accident prevention enable it to express a definitive view on the reliability of the airbag systems fitted?

(1) OJ L 169, 8.7.1996, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

In April 1997 the Commission presented a communication on promoting road safety in the Community(1) which contained a detailed action programme for the period 1997-2001.

Following suggestions by the Parliament and the Council the Commission is preparing a further communication which gives a progress report on the action programme and establishes priorities for future action. This is currently the subject of consultations within the Commission, and it is hoped to present the document to the Parliament and the Council in the very near future.

Concerning the reliability of airbags the Honourable Member is referred to the two type approval directives on car crashworthiness, Directive 96/27/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1996 on the protection of occupants of motor vehicles in the event of a side impact and amending Directive 70/156/EEC, and Directive 96/79/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 on the protection of occupants of motor vehicles in the event of a frontal impact and amending Directive 70/156/EEC, both of which became compulsory for all new cars from October 1999. In order to pass the test, in particular the frontal impact test into an offset deformable barrier at 56 kilometer per hour, air bags for the driver and passenger are effective technologies.

Nevertheless, the directives do not specifically necessitate air bags to be fitted and there are no specific standards on their performance. However, what is done is to measure the deceleration forces produced by the crash on anthropometric dummies and air bags are used to ensure that the impact energy is within survivable limits.

In the future, industry will no doubt develop even better crashworthy structures and that will prompt even more air bag development, perhaps smart air bags and restraint systems that actually start to activate prior to the aggressive impact and also systems that take account of the age, and physical stature of the occupant.

(1) COM(97) 131 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2706/99

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Fisheries FIFG and the UK

Could the Commission provide statistics as to the availability of funds under the FIFG for the United Kingdom in 1998 and 1999 and the extent of their utilisation, specifying in particular any unused amounts?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2705/99 and E-2706/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

A Member State can, within the framework of the regulations on the structural funds, re-allocate Community finance from one programme to another or between funds in a Member State. It can also return the allocation in part or in whole to the Commission for re-distribution to another Member State or for other purposes as appropriate. One or more of these options has been exercised by many Member States.

The total allocation to the Financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) in the United Kingdom for fisheries for the period 1994-1999 was 128,14 million. In 1999 this amount was reduced by 25,25 million at the request of the British authorities due mainly to a reduced financial requirement for a measure to decommission fishing vessels. The amount returned by the United Kingdom was not reallocated to another Member State but was used to help balance the Community budget for 1999.

The 1998 and 1999 FIFG allocations for the whole of the United Kingdom (all objective 1 and 5a programmes) totalled 14,5 million and 41,2 million respectively. All of these FIFG allocations have been committed.

It is important to note that financial amounts allocated to measures in a programme are indicative only and it is normal for changes to be made from time to time as circumstances dictate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2674/99

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Possible health effects of waste to energy incinerators

Given the concern of people in communities in Wales about the possible health effects of waste to energy incinerators which are located near housing,

could the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What standards are used to regulate the proximity of a landfill site to housing?

2. What standards are used to regulate the proximity of power generators fuelled by the incineration of waste to housing?

3. What scientific studies have been carried out on the health effects of waste to energy incinerators on communities in the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

There are no specific standards for the distance of a landfill site to housing. However, Annex I to Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste(1) provides that the location of a landfill must take into consideration requirements relating to the distance from the boundary of the site to residential areas.

The approach taken in regulating the co-existence of industry and housing is twofold. On the one hand, Community legislation provides for requirements to limit the impact regardless of the location; and on the other hand it sets quality standards for ambient air or water. There is no specific legislation which regulates the distance between industrial installations and housing areas.

Most studies concerning health effects have been carried out on the basis of specific pollutants rather than specific industrial sources, since the chemistry of pollutants is independent of the source. However, several preparatory studies were carried out to evaluate the costs and benefits of the current proposal for a directive on waste incineration(2). In particular the study Economic evaluation of the draft incineration directive(3) gives a good overview of the impact of municipal waste incineration.

Though it has financed a number of projects relating to the health effects of air pollution in general, the Commission has not financed any studies on the specific effects of waste incinerators on human health. However, the work programme of the Environment and health key action of the Quality of life and management of living resources thematic programme(4) of the 5th framework programme of research and technological development (RTD) is open for proposals on that subject.

(1) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

(2) OJ C 372, 2.12.1998.

(3) ISBN 92-828-0083-0, European Communities 1997.

(4) OJ L 64, 12.3.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2594/99

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Ridham Dock incinerator

Plans have been drawn up for the construction of a waste incinerator plant at Ridham Dock in the Swale Special Protection Area, Kent.

Those objecting to this development point to Directive 79/409/EEC(1) and the ECJ Ruling in Commission -v- Germany, 1989/91, Case No 13 Ley Bay.

Does the Commission consider that the proposed development is in breach of EU law?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2000)

The Commission is not aware that there are currently plans to build a waste incinerator plant at Ridham Dock in the Swale special protection area in Kent.

The Swale site has been classified by the United Kingdom as a special protection area (SPA) pursuant to Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. Member States must take steps to avoid any disturbance of the birds, for which this site has been classified as a SPA, as well as any deterioration of their habitats.

The Honourable Member is invited to submit further details on the nature and extent of the threat to the birds and their habitats so that the Commission will be able to investigate the matter with the United Kingdom authorities. In particular, it would be helpful if the Honourable Member could provide details of the current plans regarding the proposed incinerator and the stage these have reached in the planning process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2572/99

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Air fares in the EU

Air fares within the EU vary alarmingly. Domestic flights are significantly cheaper than comparable flights to neighbouring countries of the Union.

Lufthansa, for instance, quotes the following fares:

- Munich-Frankfurt, 1 hour, DM 299,

- Munich-Düsseldorf, 1 hour 5 minutes, DM 448,

- Munich-Vienna, 1 hour, DM 527,

- Munich-Paris, 1 hour 10 minutes, DM 763.

Since these airports are served by various other carriers, it cannot be a case of differing market prices. Airport charges cannot be so very different either.

How can the price differences between domestic flights and comparable flights to other EU countries be explained? What is the European Commission doing to bring about an internal market in air transport?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

Since the entry into force on 1 January 1993 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services(1), airfares within the Community have been completely liberalised. Prices are therefore determined by market forces. The differences in price between domestic flights and other intra-Community flights are gradually diminishing with the arrival on the market of new carriers with low operating costs. The remaining differences are mainly due to distance and volume of traffic. Generally, the operating costs of a route per passenger drop as the volume of traffic increases. Routes with heavy traffic also attract more competition. Domestic routes often have more traffic than other intra-Community routes.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 provides for the possibility of withdrawing a basic fare when it is excessively high in relation to the long-term fully allocated relevant costs of the air carrier. It is for the Member States to apply this safeguard clause where necessary. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission is monitoring the implementation by the Member States of the last liberalisation package in the air transport sector which entered into force on 1 January 1993. It has already had to adopt several decisions regarding the granting of Community carrier licenses and, in particular, access to the market. The Commission is also monitoring the application of Community competition rules in the air transport sector, to prevent the creation of anti-competitive structures and to oppose agreements and practices by carriers which could restrict or eliminate competition.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.