ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3123/98

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Definition of rejection

According to the Sole 24 Ore of Wednesday 16 September the Commission has revolutionised the confused European scenario as regards interpretation of the definition of rejection and in particular has identified new principles, thereby reopening the whole question of this complex affair.

1. What specifically are these new principles that could revolutionise the subject?

2. Should the Commission's statement be interpreted as meaning that, pending conclusion of the process of creating a consensus between the interested parties (as mentioned in the newspaper article) the Member States are no longer required to comply with the definition as interpreted by the Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 1998)

The press article cited by the Honourable Member contains incorrect information. In particular, there are no "new principles", neither are there elements which "revolutionize the subject".

The definition of waste is contained in Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(1). This definition, although useful and necessary in order to pursue the double objective of environmental protection and unity of the internal market, has given rise, in certain cases, to practical problems of interpretation. On 30 September 1998 the Commission opened a debate on this problem in the context of the committee set up by Article 18 of Directive 75/442/EEC. In particular, the Commission intends to discuss with Member States the possible usefulness for the Community of the results of the discussions held by the Organisation for economic co-operation and development between 1995 and 1998 on this subject and the possible follow-up to that. This does not mean that the Commission sees any change in the definition of waste, which must continue to be correctly transposed in national legislation according to the non-exhaustive but useful indications of the Court of justice.

A change of the present definition of waste would require a modification of Directive 75/442/EEC by the Council following a specific proposal by the Commission. The Commission underlines that no proposal has been made. However, the discussion in the committee represents a valid occasion in order to try to reach a clarification on the interpretation, wherever this is necessary. In the end, the exclusive interpretation of this definition remains a prerogative of the Court of justice.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3150/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Renewable energy sources and wind farms

Wind farms make a valuable contribution to producing clean forms of energy. However, setting up wind farms to exploit the potential wind power of a given area should not be detrimental to the natural environment or residential areas. Nevertheless, attempts are often are made to set up wind farms on sites adjoining permanent or summer residences, which spoil the landscape and probably create noise which emanates from the wind-powered generators.

What action will the Commission take to compel the Member States to set up wind farms in such a way that the environment is not spoiled by haphazard sites?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 1998)

Wind farms may cause environmental damage by spoiling the landscape and creating noise and are therefore included in the infrastructure covered by Annex II to Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.(1) Annex II projects are subject to environmental impact assessment based on criteria or requirements to be laid down by the Member States regarding their size, location and specific characteristics.

The new Directive must be transposed by the Member States by 14 March 1999 at the latest.

Moreover, certain wind farms are covered by the provisions of the present Annex II(3)(a) to Directive 85/337/EEC if they are "industrial installations for the production of electricity".

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2467/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Continued imports of Italian waste for disposal in Biebesheim in Germany

Since 1997 the authorities in Darmstadt have, on a number of occasions, granted the Italian firm 3 R Servizi S.p.A. authorization, pursuant to Articles 4 (2)(a) and 5(1) of the Regulation on shipments of waste (EEC) 259/93(1) to ship Italian waste for disposal at the special waste incineration facility in Biebesheim. The waste is imported by the firm Hessische Industriemüll GmbH (HIM).

Up to 24 June 1998 authorization had been granted to import shipments of at least 7 000 tonnes of waste from Italy for disposal in Germany. 3 R Servizi S.p.A. has announced its intention of submitting further applications. The competent Land authorities feel unable, on grounds of European law, to forbid these waste imports.

Is it permissible, under the Regulation, for the competent authority of the State of destination to exclude in its entirety from its waste management plan the disposal of waste generated in other Member States, provided this is in conformity with Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC? Can the competent authority of destination object, pursuant to Article 4(3)(b)(iii) of the Regulation, if the regional waste management plan does not permit the import of waste from other countries?

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2723/98

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Doubts about the safety of a nuclear power plant in Cuba

1. Is the Commission aware that work has been resumed on the construction of a nuclear power plant in Juragua, Cuba, which was begun in 1991 and stopped in 1992, although the building was described as "ramshackle" in a recent report in "The Independent"?

2. Is the Commission prepared to seek information as to the safety of both the building and the reactors which, it is claimed, will be ready to go on stream within four years?

3. What prospects does Cuba's observer status under the Convention of Lomé offer for the finding of a solution to this issue which will be satisfactory and safe for Cuba in particular and for the region and the world in general, and is the Commission prepared to make use of this new political relationship between the EU and Cuba?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 1998)

The Commission is aware of the Cuban government's plans to complete the construction of the Juragua nuclear plant.

Safety at the plant is a matter for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the international organisation specialising in these issues. However, the IAEA can only recommend safety measures, it cannot enforce them.

The Council has made it quite clear that Cuba's admission as an observer member to the group of African, Caribbean and Pacific countries does not make its accession to the Lomé Convention a foregone conclusion. The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that relations between the Union and Cuba are governed by the common position adopted on 2 December 1996 and confirmed on 9 June this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2665/98

by Ilona Graenitz (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Framework directive on foodstuffs

In his statement on the Breyer report (Foodstuffs additives - A4-0242/98) Mr Bangemann referred on 14 July 1998 to the debate on a framework directive for foodstuffs. A directive of this kind was called for by Parliament in its resolution of 10 March 1998 (A4-0009/98).

Has the detailed discussion of such a directive already begun? Can a proposal for a directive still be expected during the life of the current Parliament or during the term of office of the current Commission?

Will such a directive still be produced in sufficient time for it to be accepted as part of the "acquis communautaire" by the applicant countries?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 1998)

The Commission is able to assure the Honourable Member that its departments will soon begin to prepare the final touches to a proposal for a framework directive on foodstuffs.

Given the complexity of the subject matter and the need to conduct highly detailed consultations with all of the parties concerned, the Commission is at the moment unfortunately not able to give it any indication as regards the deadlines needed in order successfully to complete those preparations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2402/98

by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Council

(28 July 1998)

Subject: Financial transactions carried out by Mr Karadzic

According to a report which appeared in the Banja Luka weekly Nezavisne Novine and which was taken up by the Corriere della Sera of 22 June 1998, DM 17 million (the equivalent of Lire 17 billion) were transferred in March 1997 from the National Bank of the Republika Srpska (the Serb Republic) to the Nuova Banca di Credito di Trieste (also known under the Slovene name of Trzaska Kreditna Banka); this transfer of funds seems to have been carried out by henchmen of the war criminal Radovan Karadzic shortly before they were obliged to hand over the government of the Serb Republic to the "moderates" of the current Prime Minister, Milorad Dodik. The enormous capital sum transferred is assumed to consist either of the proceeds of the looting carried out by the Bosnian Serbs in the course of their "ethnic cleansing" drive or of funds misappropriated from the Serb Republic.

- what information can the Council obtain concerning the activities of the Liechtenstein-based company Sarnos Establishment, which seems to be used by the "Karadzic clan" as a cover for capital transfers?

- what information can the Council obtain concerning the activities of the Rome-based International institute for political and economic research on cooperation and development (Ispeco), headed by Mr Gianfranco Oliverio, which appears to have emerged in June 1995 as a political and economic pressure group lobbying on behalf of Radovan Karadzic in Italy?

- what action does the Council intend to take to prevent, in future, any direct or indirect collusion or connivance with the war criminal Radovan Karadzic and to strengthen the European institutions' cooperation with the ad hoc Tribunal dealing with war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia?

Reply

(14 December 1998)

The Council thanks the Honourable Member for having drawn its attention to this matter. The Council regrets that, due to the nature of the question, it cannot provide the information requested. But the Council has handed over the text of the Honourable Member's question to the authorities of Italy and Liechtenstein who are looking into the questions raised.

As concerns the strengthening of the European institutions' cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, the Council would like to point out that cooperation with ICTY is first and foremost the responsibility of individual member States. Nevertheless, the Council has always put its political support behind the work of ICTY and has made cooperation with the tribunal an important aspect for assessing compliance by the successor states of former Yugoslavia with the Dayton Peace Accords.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2710/98

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Money laundering and the introduction of the euro

How does the Commission intend to strengthen the arrangements to combat "illicit money" and the underground economy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

On 1 July 1998 the Commission adopted its second report(1) to Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Council Directive 91/308/EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering(2).

As well as assessing the current state of the Community's efforts to combat money laundering the report also announces that the Commission is currently working on a new proposal for a directive to update and extend the 1991 Directive. This corresponds to the wishes voiced by Parliament in its 1996(3) report and resolution2 and to the recommendations of the action plan to combat organised crime approved at the Amsterdam European Council(4). The new proposal will aim at a wider prohibition of money laundering, an extension of the obligations of the Directive to certain non-financial professions, and improved cooperation between anti-money laundering authorities in the Member States.

As regards anti-money laundering efforts at the time of the transition to the Euro the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to oral question H-501/98 by Mr Corbett during Question Time at Parliament's June 1998 part session(5).

(1) COM(98) 401 final.

(2) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991.

(3) Document A4-0187/96 and OJ C 198, 8.7.1996.

(4) OJ C 251, 15.8.1997.

(5) Debates of Parliament (June 1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2944/98

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (ARE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: B7-6601 - Cooperation agreements with third countries

On the initiative of the European Parliament, the European Union budget provides in Item B7-6601, Cooperation agreements with third countries, for ECU 1,6 million intended for the co-financing of external measures with the Republic of China with a view to Taiwan's integration into the World Trade Organisation.

On 31 July 1998, seven months after the budget was adopted by the budgetary authority, only 19 % of the commitment appropriations had been committed.

Since the Commission entered this budget line in its preliminary draft budget with the same remark and the Council retained it at first reading, why has the Commission still done nothing and what is it waiting for in order to implement it?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 1998)

As the Honourable Member will be aware, there is currently no legal base for actions concerning Taiwan under budget line B7-6601 devoted to cooperation agreements between the Community and third countries. The Commission is actively reflecting on how to put this part of the budget line into practice, but at this stage its top priority must be to establish the legal base, without which actions taken under this line would risk being unwound at a later stage.

Nonetheless, the Commission underlines that it remains committed to strong and healthy economic and commercial ties with Taiwan.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1902/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: Special provisions relating to quality wines produced in specified regions

Will the Commission explain why, at a time when the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case brought by Belgium against Spain (Case C388/95) is so eagerly awaited, the Commission is proposing to amend Regulation 823/87(1) so as to permit Member States to allow particular Appellations to prohibit the despatch of their quality wines in bulk outside their specified regions provided that certain criteria are met?

In view of the above situation can the Commission explain why a proposal for the controlled consignment of wine in bulk - aimed at protecting the authenticity of the wine in question - has been languishing in the Commission for longer than the Judgment in Case C388/95 has been awaited?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 1998)

In relation to the first part of the question, the Commission informs the Honourable Member that in connection with the question of the bottling of quality wines produced in a specified region (psr), it decided, simultaneously, to present a statement in intervention before the Court of justice in case C-388/95 pending between Belgium and Spain, and to review the legislation.

The Commission transmitted to the Council a proposal(2) for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) 823/87 laying down special provisions relating to quality wines produced in specified regions(3) with the aim of proposing a Community framework in this area and in order to avoid this measure being taken without a proper justification and the consensus of majority of operators in the area. In relation to the content of this proposal the Honourable Member should refer to the answer given to Written Question P-1657/98 by Mr Buffetaut(4).

In relation to the second part of the question as to why a proposal for the controlled consignment of wine in bulk has not been approved, the Commission informs the Honourable Member that this proposal did not find the support of producing Member States on the grounds that the proposal was too burdensome and could not be widely applied to all quality wines psr transported in bulk. To make this measure compulsory for all quality wine psr was considered disproportionate because while it might improve the control of authenticity of the transported wine in bulk, it could not guarantee the specific intrinsic quality and identity of origin of each bottled quality wine psr.

(1) OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 59.

(2) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.

(3) OJ L 84, 27.3.1987.

(4) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 65.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2655/98

by Antoinette Spaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Use of languages in the Institutions of the European Union

1. What was in the past, and what is at present, the number of pages produced in the original in a language of the European Union, and in which languages were/are they sent for translation?

2. What is the position of the European institutions, in the light of enlargement, as far as languages are concerned?

3. What are the languages of negotiation used by the WTO, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Cyprus, the Baltic States, and the States of the former Soviet Union?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1998)

1. In 1997, the Commission Translation Service received some 250 000 pages to translate into one or more official languages or all of them. English and French were the main source languages. A little over 1 100 000 pages were translated over the same period, 700 000 of them into all the official languages. For some language combinations the volume of pages translated was negligible.

2. At present the use of languages remains subject to Regulation No l of 1958, as amended following successive accessions. The rules can be amended in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 217 of the EC Treaty.

In the preparation of its Agenda 2000 proposals the Commission implicitly assumed that the languages of the applicant countries would be included in the language rules. A training plan was established to meet new translation requirements.

In the case of interpretation, the Commission is convinced of the feasibility of an enlarged interpretation service, in particular by using modular booths combined with asymmetric interpreting, by providing adequate and intensive training and by targeted recruitment. In this context, the reorganisation of the Joint Interpreting and Conference Service that began in the second half of 1996 has enabled interpreting to be provided from an additional 500 passive languages for the same cost; interpretation of the future new Community languages will be provided at minimum cost within five years. The Commission is accordingly making a special effort to train interpreters in the languages of Central and Eastern Europe.

3. The negotiating languages used by the WTO are English, French and Spanish.

The position with regard to the languages used in accession negotiations with Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia is as follows. Negotiations started with an analysis of the Community acquis. It involved negotiations chapter by chapter. At meetings, the applicant countries could use their own language. In this case, interpretation was provided into English, French and German. When a negotiated chapter was reviewed, the applicant countries presented their formal negotiating positions. So far these documents have always been drafted in English.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2612/98

by Mirja Ryynänen (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Sustainability of Member States' finance policies

The institutional frameworks for Member States' finance policies, and, more particularly, the procedures for drawing up the annual budget and the degree to which those procedures are decentralised and rigorous, vary quite substantially. Now that the decision concerning the third stage of EMU has been taken, attention in the Member States should focus on the need to guarantee the stability of the monetary union, which may be undermined, for example, by an expansive finance policy implemented by a Member State, with the additional spending so to speak hidden in the budget.

In the light of this danger, the institutional frameworks governing public sector finance policies should be comparable.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the finance policies implemented by the Member States can be compared?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 1998)

It is true that the preparation of budgets in Member States takes different forms. This is natural as budgetary procedures result from years of budgetary practices and are outlined to fit different traditions and institutional frameworks. However, the importance of differences should not be exaggerated. Furthermore, a tendency for convergence can be observed in line with the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No 5 on the excessive deficit procedure which obliges Member States to ensure that national procedures in the budgetary area enable them to meet their obligations in this area deriving from the Treaty. For example, almost all Member States prepare nowadays their budgets on a calendar year basis rather than on a financial year basis.

In the run up to economic and monetary union important efforts have been made by both Community and Member States to produce transparent and comparable budgetary figures. In this context it should be remembered that figures used by the Commission for its monitoring of budgets are produced according to common accounting rules in all Member States (the European system of national accounts, ESA). Thus, even if budgetary procedures do differ, the Commission has the necessary tools to analyse the fiscal stance and the policy-mix in Member States and in the Community as a whole.

It is now the Commission's intention to complement the important efforts that have been put into the production of annual figures with an improvement in the comparability of short-term public finance indicators. The expected results will facilitate further a timely and accurate analysis of the fiscal stance and policy-mix in the Community.