ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
(2000/C 27 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1512/99
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Report on use of uranium bombs by USA in Yugoslavia
The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe, whose headquarters are in Budapest,
has drawn up a report for the Commission  as yet unpublished  on the environmental impact of thebombing of Yugoslavia. The report notes that each of the special uranium-tipped bombs used by the USlightning-strike force against Serb armoured vehicles contained 275 grammes of depleted uranium, whichis possibly the most dangerous of the carcinogenic and toxic substances released into the environment inYugoslavia. Moreover, many of the substances released can cause deformities and genetic complications,while others are linked to fatal diseases of the nervous system and liver in humans. The most alarmingaspect of the report is its observation that this radioactive substance can become a moving aerosol with awider geographical range. The report also notes that US military regulations require personnel to weargloves and protective masks when handling this type of material. It is also stressed that the use of depleteduranium weapons in the Gulf War caused serious illness in American and British veterans and congenitalmalformations among the Iraqi population.
Please indicate:
1. Why does the Commission not publish the report of the Regional Environment Centre for Central and
Eastern Europe, which it commissioned itself?
2. Why does it not issue warnings, information and practical proposals for the protection of the
population in the regions affected by the bombing?
3. Will it, as a matter of urgency, examine the climatological conditions under which radioactive
pollution can turn into a moving aerosol and will it propose practical measures for the populationsof other regions in the Balkans?
4. Will it call for the polluter-pays principle to be applied, which would mean the USA footing the
entire bill for the clean-up operation?
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(8 October 1999)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his oral question H-429/99
during question time at Parliaments September 1999 part-session (
1).
(1) Debates of the Parliament (September 1999).
(2000/C 27 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1514/99
by Marie-Noºlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Lifting of the ban on exports of British beef
The Commission has announced that exports of British meat could recommence at the beginning
of August, but can it guarantee that the meat exported will be accompanied by certificates recognised bythe European Union?
Can the Commission also certify that the cattle traceability system is effective so that all measures can be
taken to give the necessary guarantees for public health, given that mad cow disease has still not beeneradicated in Great Britain and that the number of cases of CJD is increasing in that country?29.1.2000 EN C 27 E/103 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0924/99

by Christa Randzio-Plath (PSE) to the Commission

(8 April 1999)

Subject: European itinerant trade licence

The Commission has still not done any preparatory work on introducing an itinerant trade licence, valid in all EU Member States, which would contribute towards completion of the Internal Market and facilitate cross-border trade. Why has the Commission rejected all efforts to introduce an itinerant trade licence, valid in all EU Member States? How can it reconcile this with the principle of freedom of movement?

Answer by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1999)

The Commission would like to inform the honourable Member that the Council Directive of 16 June 1975 on measures to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of itinerant activities and, in particular, transitional measures in respect of those activities (75/369/EEC)(1) stipulates that where a host Member State regulates such activities in respect of its own nationals it shall accept as sufficient evidence documents issued by the Member State of origin of nationals of other Member States.

In particular, when the pursuit of such activities in a Member State is subject to the possession of specific knowledge, the effective pursuit of these activities for a certain period in another Member State must be recognised.

The Commission has submitted a proposal(2) for a directive establishing a mechanism for the recognition of qualifications for the activities covered by the directives laying down transitional measures (such as Directive 75/369/EEC). The aim of this mechanism is to allow migrants to apply for the recognition of their diplomas, even if they lack the professional experience required to invoke the directive in force relevant to their activity.

According to the Commission, Directive 75/369/EEC and the proposal referred to above are intended to eliminate the barriers to the freedom to provide services in the area of itinerant trade. The Commission therefore has no plans at the moment to put to the Member States any proposal for "harmonised" training or for a convergence of their respective systems governing access to the profession leading to the creation of a "European" licence or qualification.

This kind of project may be carried out by the relevant authorities in the field in question. It goes without saying that the Commission is ready to consider any initiative and it has always encouraged the various professional sectors to advance along these lines inasmuch as they can help to facilitate the free movement of the members of the professions concerned.

(1) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975.

(2) OJ C 264, 30.8.1997.
(2000/C 27 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1827/99
by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission
(13 October 1999)
Subject: Structural aid for private firms marketing and staff training
What will the Commission do to prevent the distortion of competition and waste of EU resources which
are caused by the EUs subsidising of private firms marketing, in-house training and rationalisationmeasures?
This week, the Danish press has reported that EU structural fund aid has been granted to Danish firms for
the training of private-sector staff, company rationalisation and advertising campaigns.
It has caused astonishment that individual firms, with the aid of consultants versed in the formulations and
key words which persuade the EUs administration to grant money, have obtained such subsidies. Thefunds are allocated to firms entirely at random, thereby distorting competition. I have received a 16-pagepamphlet of advertising from the Landsforeningen af Danske Plantehandlere (the national Danish associa-tion of plant traders), 1 230 000 copies of which have been distributed, i.e. one to practically everyhousehold in Denmark. Household-distributed printed matter is one form of squandering resources thatmany members of the public wish to restrict. This pamphlet bears the EUs logo and the captionCampaign funded with the aid of the European Community.
The structural aid allocated to Denmark is very limited and there are far more provocative examples of the
absurd use of structural fund aid in those countries which receive massive subsidies. If the EU granted aidto improve basic education in Denmark or to expand facilities for training doctors at our universities, thatwould undoubtedly make a positive impression on the Danish people but to hand out European taxpayersmoney at random to private firms is a provocation which highlights the fact that the Commission is notcomplying with EU rules designed to avoid distortion of competition and is not interested in what it getsfor the money but merely aims to ensure that the funds are used up.
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(11 November 1999)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.
(2000/C 27 E/216) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1835/99
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(13 October 1999)
Subject: Community initiative on fisheries in Greece
The Community initiative on fisheries in Greece includes four subprogrammes, together with a fifth
concerning technical aid. Since each of the subprogrammes 1-4 has been given a timetable.
Will the Commission say:
1. What is the state of implementation of the subprogrammes so far and which actions have made
progress in each subprogramme?
2. Has there been any delay in take-up and, if so, what are the main reasons for this delay?C 27 E/174 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
projects to be monitored and can be consulted by promoters on the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int/en/
comm/dg22/leonardo.html). The same site also contains a chart giving complete and up-to-date informa-tion on the position of the projects. In addition, a table summarising the position of the Baden-Württemberg projects has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and the European ParliamentsSecretariat.
To sum up, the delays in paying promoters are due to quite exceptional circumstances. The Commission,
since February 1999, has done everything possible to guarantee the smooth completion of the 1999 callfor proposals, has prepared contracts and effected payments for the 1998 projects, and has evaluated theinterim and final reports and paid out the second advances and final balances on the 1995, 1996 and1997 projects. The situation should have returned to normal by October 1999, and certainly by the end of1999, thanks to the cooperation of the promoters, the national coordination units and the Commission.
(2000/C 27 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1539/99
by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(8 September 1999)
Subject: Promoting the Königsbrücker Heide and Am Spitzberg nature conservation areas (in Saxony,
Germany) in the context of the Communitys Konver initiative
As part of the Konver initiative the Community has given financial aid to the Königsbrücker Heide and
Am Spitzberg nature conservation areas in Saxony:
Can the Council answer the following:
1. What is the amount of subsidies and loans, what are they for and what specific measures have they
been used to support?
2. Have the measures resulted in the protected status of the areas being impaired (e.g. as a result of
destruction of biotopes, afforestation of open areas or provision of firebreaks in woodland areas)?
3. Have the measures jeopardised the areas suitability as natural habitats (Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora)?
4. To what extent do the measures supported contradict environmental or nature conservation legislation
in force or violate the provision in the Community initiative Konver that measures supported must be
such as to improve the environment?
5. Is the Council aware that for the purpose of applying for more money from Konver an application has
been made to remove the protected status of the Am Spitzberg conservation area?
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Reply
(8 November 1999)
The Council is not in a position to respond to the questions put by the Honourable Parliamentarian on the
situation of the Köningsbrücker Heide and Am Spitzberg nature conservation areas in the context of theKonver Communitys initiative, since the implementation, management and follow-up of this Communityinitiative in the Free State of Saxony is not within the competence of the Council, but the responsibility ofGermany, the Free State of Saxony and the Commission.C 27 E/120 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(1 September 1999)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.
(2000/C 27 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1447/99
by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Persecution of Gypsies in Kosovo
A few days ago, Euronews and RAI television broadcast pictures of the entire Gypsy community of Kosovo
abandoning the province en masse.
It is has been estimated that some 100 000 Gypsies living in Kosovo will be forced to abandon their
homes by the Kosovars, who are accusing them of being Serb collaborators.
What is the Commissions position on this new round of ethnic cleansing whose victims, this time, are the
entire Gypsy community of Kosovo, who are suffering the same kind of persecution as the Serbs allegedlymeted out to the Kosovars and what measures will it propose to put an end to this persecution and toenable the people affected to return to their place of origin and their homes?
Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(10 September 1999)
The Commission is opposed to, and strongly condemns ethnic cleansing of any sort directed at any ethnic
community. The Union condemned ethnic cleansing as carried out by the Serbian authorities on otherethnic communities, and has condemned recent incidents in Kosovo involving members of other ethniccommunities.
The Union is participating in the United Nations mission in Kosovo (UNMiK), the civilian administration of
Kosovo. This civilian administration, working together with the military administration, military force forKosovo (KFOR), is in the process of ensuring that such incidents cease, and that a tolerant, peaceful, multi-ethnic society is built in Kosovo, in which all can participate fully.
(2000/C 27 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1448/99
by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Infringement procedure initiated against Italy in respect of training and employment contracts and
the serious repercussions on businesses which have helped to create jobs in recent years
According to figures published by the Commission itself (Eurostat), unemployment is an extremely serious
problem within Europe. There are reportedly at least 16 million unemployed people in the EU and one ofthe worst-affected regions is Southern Italy.
Very serious social and economic repercussions may stem from the recent Commission decision to initiate
an infringement procedure against Italy on the grounds that the training and employment contractsconcluded over the last four years by many southern Italian SMEs with young unemployed people (whowould otherwise be excluded from the employment market) on the basis of the EUs own employmentpromotion guidelines are illegal.29.1.2000 EN C 27 E/73 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0707/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(26 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the average Community inhabitant are classed as "Objective 1 regions" and are entitled to substantial Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation, COM(98) 0131 final(1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

The Director-General of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) disclosed at the meeting of Parliament's Subcommittee on Monetary Affairs of 17 February 1999 that the statistical data corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 already included the data corresponding to the hidden economy of the regions analysed, although he did not say exactly what criteria had been followed in order to estimate or assess this type of activity.

What proportion of the regional income corresponds to the "hidden economy" and what proportion to the "regular economy" in Catalonia in each of the years in question?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0414/99

by Vincenzo Viola (PPE) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: Scheduled air services between island regions and the mainland

Articles 154 and 158 of the Amsterdam Treaty refer to the island regions of the European Union and to the need for them to be linked to the central regions of the Community on account of (inter alia) their status as less-favoured regions, a status derived from geographical structural disadvantages, the persistence of which hinders their social and economic development.

What initiatives does the Commission intend to introduce in order to counter the detrimental effects which the opening of Malpensa 2000 has had on flights to and from Sardinia? Is the Commission monitoring the implementation of Regulation (EEC) 2408/92(1) on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, which should ensure the provision of continuous, regular, reasonably priced services with adequate capacity - criteria which flights between, for example, the smaller Sicilian islands (Pantelleria and Lampedusa) and the Italian mainland or Sicily itself currently fail to meet?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 1999)

As mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question, Council Regulation (EEC) 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes makes provision for Member States governments to declare public service obligations. The legal power to decide whether to impose public service obligations on certain routes to regional airports, because such routes are considered to be vital for the economic development of the region does not, therefore reside with the Commission. The conditions must be necessary to ensure the adequate provision of air services on such routes according to certain standards which airlines would not assume if they were solely considering their commercial interest.

The Commission is aware that the Italian authorities are considering possible means of facilitating air transport services to peripheral regions, including the smaller islands of Sicily. The options available under Community law are the impositions by the Italian authorities of public service obligations on the routes concerned, as mentioned above, or the adoption of a non-discriminatory form of social aid for the benefit of the residents of such islands. It is for the Italian authorities to decide which air transport services should be covered by these arrangements. As regards the services to Milan, it would be difficult to introduce specific measures in relation to one airport if there is adequate service to other airports serving that city.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0066/99

by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: The European railway corridors project

In 1995 the Commission submitted a European railway corridors project establishing a range of cross-border railtracks with the purpose of creating harmonised transport conditions able to cope with any type of European train.

One of those tracks was to link Valencia and Rotterdam via Barcelona, Lyon and Metz.

The absence of a legal basis meant that lengthy negotiations were inevitable. What stage has now been reached? Has the Commission decided to push ahead with the project on an appropriate legal basis, or is it trying some other approach? What is the forecast for the project's implementation?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 1999)

In the 1996 White Paper(1) on the revitalisation of Europe's railways the Commission proposed that international rail freight services could be enhanced through the establishment of a number of trans-European Rail Freight Freeways. The concept was developed in a later Communication(2) and a number of voluntary projects have subsequently been put forward and implemented in 1998.

The Commission's proposal was based on the view that enhanced voluntary cooperation between infrastructure managers on capacity allocation and charging for international train paths could produce more efficient and commercially attractive international freight train services and also offer the prospect of opening up these Freeways for all licensed railway undertakings.

No specific routes were proposed by the Commission, although a number of potential routes were shown in the White Paper and Communication in order to illustrate where it might be attractive to develop Freeways. The proposed Freeways would not overcome interoperability problems and would remain subject to the national regulations in force on each part of the route. Freeways have been developed by the infrastructure managers concerned between Muizen (Belgium), through France and Luxembourg to Gioao Tauro (Italy) and Barcelona (Spain), and between Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Germany, via Austria and Switzerland to Italy (Milano, Gioao Tuaro and Brindisi). These Freeways are now operational and are starting to be used by a number of services.

The experience that the Commission has gained in this exercise is reflected in its proposal to amend Council Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June 1995 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of infrastructure fees(3). The proposal is currently being discussed by Council and Parliament(4). In addition, in a separate initiative, the Commission has proposed that rail freight services be gradually liberalised. This proposal is still pending. The Commission will address interoperability and other infrastructure problems for rail freight in a report on the revisions of the trans European networks and a report on the interoperability of conventional rail, later this year.

(1) COM(96) 421.

(2) COM(97) 242.

(3) OJ L 143, 27.6.1995.

(4) COM(98) 480.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1161/99

by Winifred Ewing (ARE) to the Commission

(27 April 1999)

Subject: Europe that puts citizens first

What action has been taken to guarantee the fundamental Community right of establishment for lecturers from other Member States who wish to exercise that right in Italian universities?

Can the Commission confirm what action it has taken to ensure, in the exercise of the right of establishment, that lecturers from other Member States are not discriminated against in relation to employment conditions relative to lecturers of Italian nationality?

Can the Commission confirm the status of infringement proceedings being brought against Italy concerning this matter?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0957/99, E-0974/99, E-0978/99, E-1053/99 and P-1161/99 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question E-0585/99 by Mr McCartin(1) and to the replies it gave to Oral Questions H-223/99 by Mrs McKenna and H-306/99 by Mr McMahon during question time at Parliament's April 1999 part-session(2).

(1) See page 122.

(2) Debates of the Parliament, (April 1999).