ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2680/01

by Hans-Gert Poettering (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Implementation of the Habitats Directive

Since Parliament's resolution of 16 March 2000, a number of Member States have complied with their obligations to designate Natura 2000 areas.

1. Which Member States have now complied with their obligations under the directive?

2. As regards Germany in particular, has Germany complied with its obligation to designate areas, and when was the Commission informed of them?

3. What areas were designated in Lower Saxony?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

1. To date, none of the Member States has met all its obligations under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1).

2. Over the last few months, the Member States, and especially Germany, have made significant progress in proposing sites pursuant to Article 4 of the Habitats Directive. Germany put forward its proposals in a series of separate notifications during that period. Over the next few months the proposals will be assessed at biogeographical seminars organised by the Commission, inter alia to determine whether enough proposals have been received to set up the Natura 2000 network. Depending on the outcome of this assessment, Germany and other Member States might have to be asked to submit further proposals.

3. For Lower Saxony, 172 sites covering a total of more than 5 000 km2 have been proposed as sites of Community interest. Given that the Commission has not yet adopted the Community list, it would ask the Honourable Member to contact the German authorities for details of the proposed sites.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2442/01

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Low Frequency Active Sonar

There is considerable evidence that the US Navy's use of Low Frequency Active Sonar is having major adverse effects on marine life, in particular Cuvier's beaked whales. It is strongly suspected that resonance phenomena in the whales' cranial airspaces, caused by LFAS, have been responsible for mass strandings in Greece and the Bahamas in recent years.

Does the Commission have a position on the use of LFAS, and is it doing anything to try and persuade the US to stop using it?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2001)

As the Honourable Member is no doubt aware, cetacean species are strictly protected under Council Directive 92/43/CEE(1), which obliges Member States to take the requisite measures to avoid, inter alia, the deliberate disturbance of these species.

Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS) consists of loud and low frequency sonic pulses. There is certain evidence that this kind of noise may disturb cetaceans. For this reason, the duties established by the above mentioned Directive should be honoured by Member States.

As far as the use of LFAS by the American Navy is concerned, the Commission has no competence and has not raised the matter with the United States.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992), as amended by the Accession Act of Austria, Finland and Sweden (OJ L 1, 1.1.1995).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2390/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 August 2001)

Subject: Health indicators

Will the Commission list the ten (or more, if deemed necessary) principal indicators of health outcomes by which it would judge the success of health policy? Will it give its quantitative or qualitative judgment of each Member State's success in attaining each indicator?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2001)

The Commission has given high priority to establish a Community health information system. At present the Action Programme on health monitoring and the future Action Programme on Public Health aim at developing and making available adequate, reliable and comparable data sets and indicators of public health. This work will continue and be strengthened under the future Public Health Programme. The indicators will cover the entire public health field reflecting the effects on health of a health policy. Both quantitative and qualitative indicators will be included. The data in relation to these indicators will be collected at the Member State level and thus analysis at Member State level will be possible.

A project entitled Design for a set of European Community health indicators has now completed its first phase. Copy of this report will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

The 2000 health status report will soon be made available, which already shows where health policy action is called for.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2239/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Situation in Western Sahara

On 24 March 2000 I tabled a written question to the Council on the referendum in Western Sahara (E-0908/00)(1), specifically on whether the Council intended, via the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, to include in its work programme participation in the control and monitoring of issues affecting the future of the Sahara, in particular as regards the referendum.

The Council answered my question on 10 July 2000, when it expressed its willingness to contribute to this process and help build a climate of confidence among the interested parties in order to find an acceptable negotiated solution based on respect for human rights and democratic principles.

One year on, the European Union's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana has stated in Rabat that the European Union supports the position taken by the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan regarding the Sahara conflict, i.e. the temporary freezing of the settlement plan under which a referendum was to be held on self-determination in exchange for granting a degree of autonomy to the former Spanish colony, which would remain under Moroccan sovereignty.

Is this the case?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 77.

Reply

(26 November 2001)

The Council fully supports the process within the UN as set out in the UN Security Council resolutions, and particularly Mr James Baker's efforts. In its resolution 1359 of 29 June 2001, the Security Council clearly indicated the course to be followed, inter alia encouraging the parties to examine, whether directly or indirectly, the draft framework agreement on the status of the Western Sahara contained in Annex 1 to the UN Secretary-General's report of 20 June 2001 (S/2001/613), and any other proposal for a political settlement which might be put forward by the parties in order to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. The resolution also calls for the proposals submitted by the Polisario with a view to overcoming the obstacles to applying the UN settlement plan to be examined while these talks continue. Moreover, Mr Solana, Secretary-General/High Representative of the EU for the CFSP, has never spoken of the freezing of the settlement plan, with the latter still remaining a basis for a solution. Whatever solution that may be, it should be based on full compliance with democratic principles and human rights, and encompass the worrying issue of Moroccan refugees and prisoners, particularly those who are in urgent need of medical attention.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2178/01

by Mario Borghezio (TDI) to the Council

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Infringement of the rights of a European citizen in Algeria

For a year now Mrs Michela Silvestri and her daughter Meriem who had been abducted by her father, who is a Muslim have been taking refuge in the Italian Embassy in Algiers. Mrs Silvestri and her daughter cannot return to Italy because civil proceedings are under way in an Algerian court.

This situation is an example of a violation of human rights, since Mrs Silvestri is being deprived of her right to take her daughter back to Italy and bring her up in accordance with her own religion.

What steps will the Council take vis-à-vis the Algerian Government to put an end to this situation, which is a serious violation of human rights?

Reply

(27 November 2001)

The Council would draw the attention of the Honourable Member of Parliament to the fact that the Council has no specific powers under the treaties in the case referred to, which is a matter of bilateral relations between Italy and Algeria.

However, it should be noted that the Belgian Presidency is to take the initiative of organising a conference on parental responsibility. In this context, it will be looking at the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989, particularly the definition of a regional instrument for the protection of the rights of the child including the problem of parental abductions and respect for the right to personal relationships.

In addition, the draft Association Agreement which the Commission is in the process of negotiating with Algeria provides inter alia for a strengthening of mutual assistance for the purpose of cooperation in handling civil, commercial and family disputes and cases. The negotiations have not yet been completed, but it appears that this provision has been agreed to by the Algerian side.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2459/01

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Involvement of Spanish and Portuguese scientists in researching the state of fishery resources in Community waters

Galician shipowners and fishermen frequently query the scientific information used by the Commission in relation to the state of fishery resources in Community waters, complaining that no Spanish and Portuguese scientists and experts are involved. Is this true? If so, why are these scientists excluded?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2001)

Both in the Commission's own scientific bodies (such as the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF)) and in the scientific committees of the regional fisheries organisations in which the Community is represented, the participation of Community scientists always includes scientists of all Member States with an interest in the resources in question.

In fact, in all scientific bodies, Member States are usually very well represented and Spain and Portugal are extremely active participants.

Consequently, there is not the slightest reason to assert that Portuguese and Spanish scientists are excluded from Community and international scientific fisheries organisations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1884/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Italy)

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 payments only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

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

- how many agricultural holdings in Italy 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?

Supplementary joint answerto 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 annd E-1884/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) was used as a source to determine the number of holdings with an area of less than 50 hectares and of 50 hectares or more under cereals, oilseeds and protein plants (COP). Though that database is weighted by the results of the Farm Structure Survey (Eurostat), it is generally acknowledged that large holdings are over-represented. The figures given below should accordingly be regarded as upper limits. The year used is 1997, the last year for which data for all Member States are available in the FADN database.

Columns A and C of the table below give the percentages per Member State of holdings with an area under COP of, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more.

Columns B and D of the table below give the percentages per Member State of the area under COP of holdings with, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more under COP.

Column F gives the percentages per Member State of the area under COP that would be excluded if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied.

Lastly, Column I gives the savings in millions of euro per Member State if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied. The yields used are the reference yields supplied by the Member States. The total reduction in cost to the Community would amount to EUR 4 billion.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3388/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 December 2001)

Subject: Construction of the Dutch A73 motorway through nature conservation areas in the long narrow strip of land between the River Maas and the German border

1. Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands Government, which has long been planning to build a new A73-south motorway between Venlo and a junction with the existing A2 motorway south of Roermond, has now granted an exemption to allow the road to pass through protected natural areas along the east bank of the River Maas, so that the new road can pass through the long narrow strip of land between the Dutch-German border and the Maas?

2. Is the Commission also aware that the Netherlands State Secretary for Nature Management recognises that both the Dutch Nature Conservancy Act and the European Habitats Directive prohibit disturbance to the habitats of protected animals and plants, but says that in this case a major public interest is at stake and there are no satisfactory alternatives?

3. Does the Commission consider the argument about the lack of alternatives to be valid in this case, bearing in mind that as long ago as 1995 complete and detailed plans existed for building this road to the west of the Maas, which the government was then proposing, and that ultimately this alternative was exchanged for the present east-bank variant due to pressure on the Dutch Parliament from businesses in the area which considered the environmentally unsound eastern variant more advantageous to themselves?

4. What can be done to induce decision-makers to revert to the variant already developed which would entail building the road with the least possible damage to nature and the environment?

Source: The Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant, 16 November 2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-2244/01 by Mr de Roo(1)

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 137.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2610/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(20 September 2001)

Subject: Council procedures

Will the Council please describe the procedures used in deciding upon amendments to Commission draft directives and regulations, including provisions for votes if any?

Reply

(10 December 2001)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the general rule in this matter is contained in Article 205(1) of the EC Treaty, which provides: Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, the Council shall act by a majority of its members. This implies that other provisions of the Treaty and this is particularly the case with provisions that confer a power of action on the Council may specify another voting rule in accordance with which the Council must act.

As to the voting rules that apply when the Council decides on amendments made by the European Parliament at its first and second readings of a proposed legislative act in the course of the co-decision procedure, these are laid down in Article 251 of the EC Treaty.

For the cooperation procedure the relevant article is Article 252 of the EC Treaty.

As to the voting rules applicable in the Council with regard to amendments suggested by the European Parliament in an Opinion delivered during a consultation procedure, the Council takes its decisions in accordance with the voting rule specified by the legal basis of the act concerned, it being understood that in the context of the EC Treaty the Council cannot amend the Commission proposal against the Commission's wishes except on the basis of unanimity (Article 250(1) of the EC Treaty).

Voting arrangements and matters relating to the quorum and the representation of a member of the Council are dealt with Articles 4 and 11 of the Council's Rules of Procedure; the arrangements concerning the written procedure are set out in Article 12.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2326/01

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Mutual recognition of free travel for the elderly schemes

Ireland operates a scheme where persons of 66 years and above are entitled to travel free on all public transport in the country. The scheme is funded by the Irish Social Welfare Department.

Has the Commission studied this scheme and compared it with similar provisions existing in other Member States? Would the Commission support the introduction of mutual recognition of such schemes, so as to allow greater cross-border movement of the elderly by granting them equivalent rights outside the Member State where they have their entitlement? Would the Commission support the introduction of a common EU travel pass for pensioners, similar to the model of the EU driving licence, which would be recognised in all Member States and allow pensioners free access to public transport across 15 Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E-2406/99 by John McCartin(1) and E-1054/99 by Angela Billingham(2), and to the replies to oral questions H-1148/98 by Nial Andrews during question time at Parliament's December 1998 part-session(3) and H-1023/98 by Robert Evans during question time at Parliament's November 1998 part-session(4).

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000.

(2) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999.

(3) Written reply, 15.12.1998.

(4) Oral reply, 17.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2509/01

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(7 September 2001)

Subject: Trade in conflict diamonds

International ability to curb the trade in conflict diamonds is closely linked to the success of the Kimberley Process. At present this process is moving forward slowly, partly because the European Union does not have a common position. How soon does the Commission intend to submit to the Council a proposal for a mandate for the Kimberley Process negotiations?

Furthermore, border checks on the import of diamonds, preventing conflict diamonds being imported into the EU, require specialist knowledge on the part of the customs services. Does the Commission consider that it would be useful to limit the points through which diamonds can be imported to one per Member State so as to concentrate the expertise?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2001)

The Kimberley Process represents a major international effort to curb the trade in conflict diamonds. Such trade fuels conflict in particular in several countries in Africa.

The Commission has actively participated in the Kimberley Process meetings, together with several Member States. Progress on the Kimberley Process will be reported to the United Nations General Assembly in December 2001, and a ministerial conference on process is due to take place in November 2001. The Commission intends to submit a proposal for a negotiating mandate to the Council well in advance of the next meeting in Luanda 30 October 2001 1 November 2001.

The measures that are under consideration in the Kimberley Process consist of a certification scheme and minimum standards for controlling production, transport, export, import and re-export. Participants have set as one of their objectives that the scheme should be both effective and use a minimum of administrative resources. Restricting the number of customs entry points is a measure that may be considered at some stage in further technical discussions, but it does not appear as essential for the operation of the certification scheme which is currently being discussed. The scheme should also respect participants' international obligations, in particular those accepted in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) framework.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1032/01

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Commission workload

How many regulations and how many directives have been proposed by the Directorates-General for Environment and for Health and Consumer Protection respectively since the current Commissioners took office? How many regulations and directives have been superseded by those proposals and how many of the proposals were subject to a statutory impact assessment?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2001)

The Commission suggests that the Honourable Member refer to its very detailed answer to Written Question P-841/01 by Mr Harbour(1). Providing an even more detailed answer to the Honourable Member would entail carrying out additional research which would appear to be disproportionate to the results, particularly considering the resources available.

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 14.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3108/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: European CE-standard markings on stun weapons

It has been brought to my attention that non-European Union manufacturers have been advertising that their stun weapons are marked with the CE safety-standard mark. These weapons are frequently used as torture devices in prisons and detention centres.

Could the Commission clarify the process by which the European CE-standard marks are awarded? Could the Commission also explain how many stun-weapon manufacturers are using CE markings on their products? Finally, what action is the Commission taking to prevent stun-weapon manufacturers from using CE markings to promote the sales of their products?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2934/01, E-2965/01, P-3012/01, E-3108/01 and E-3191/01given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Honourable Members are referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question P-2783/01 from Mr Ford(1).

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 209.