ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3329/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Chlorine and fluoride in drinking water

Bearing in mind:

- the wide range of research carried out on the fluoride issue, which has led almost all EU Member States to remove the substance from drinking water,

- the fact that Ireland has not yet removed fluoride from drinking water,

- recent research by the National Institute of Public Health in Norway which provides new evidence to show that drinking water treated with chlorine is associated with higher levels of birth defects, in particular spina bifida (as published in the American journal Epidemiology),

- that effective and non-toxic alternatives to chlorine are available.

Would the Commission give its views on the health implications of adding chlorine and fluoride to drinking water, comment on whether it feels more research is required on the implications of adding these substances to drinking water and whether Member States in the meantime should proceed on the basis of the precautionary principle, and state whether it feels there is scope for legislative changes to mitigate any possible effects on health?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

The Honourable Member raises the addition of chlorine and fluoride to drinking water.

Concerning chlorination, both drinking water directives, the original Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption(1) and the new Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998(2), which has to be implemented before the end of 2003, set out requirements which oblige Member States to control the addition of chlorine in order to avoid unacceptable risks for human health.

The current level of knowledge indicates controlled use of chlorine has far more positive effects than potential negative effects. The main problem with other disinfection practices is that they are effective in the water treatment plant but cannot guarantee effectiveness in the distribution system. Very often the problem lies there, especially when the distribution pipelines are not in good condition. It is important that water is safe at the consumer's tap.

Concerning fluoridation, there is a standard in both directives (1,5 miligramm per litre (mg/l)) which is in accordance with the recommendations of the World health organization (WHO). At this level, according to WHO, there is a good balance between the positive and negative effects of fluoride. Regardless of its origin, either naturally or artificially present, if the Community standard on fluoride is respected, the Commission cannot intervene as the matter lies within the responsibility of Member States.

Finally, WHO in June 2000 held a five-day meeting in order to launch the revision of its drinking water quality guidelines, which will be completed by 2002-2003. The Commission representative raised both matters during this meeting and the above views were confirmed. Naturally, whenever there is new reliable evidence which requires action, the Commission will act upon it.

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.

(2) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3569/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Guarantees regarding the freedom of movement of foreign sportsmen and women in transfer procedures

Are the Commissioners for sport, employment and competition aware of the contractual terms applicable to foreign sportsmen and women as laid down in the regulations of certain sports federations in some Member States and in the rules and regulations of European leagues and international federations, under which, in order for the said sportsmen and women to obtain authorisation to pursue their profession, a transfer document from the national federation to which they belonged in the previous season confirming its acceptance of the transfer must be presented to the federation in the Member State before the new season starts?

If so, and bearing in mind that such transfer terms are presumably in breach of Community legislation, what measures are being envisaged to guarantee the freedom of movement of foreign sportsmen and women in transfer procedures?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2001)

The Commission considers that the requirement of a transfer certificate does not appear, in itself, to be incompatible with Community law. Nevertheless, the conditions for granting such a certificate, as well as the consequences of one being refused, could constitute obstacles to the free movement of sports professionals.

The Commission makes sure that Community rules on competition and the free movement of workers within the Community are fully respected.

The Commission is currently examining the new framework which the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) is drafting in response to the statement of objections which the Commission forwarded to it in 1998. The methods for transferring professional footballers within the Community are included in this framework.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2776/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Torture in Turkish prisons

Bearing in mind:

- the likelihood that Turkey will become a member of the European Union,

- the importance of the Copenhagen Criteria in the enlargement process, particularly the provisions concerning respect for human rights and

- the reports from Amnesty International and the Committee for Struggle against Torture Through Isolation that Turkish prisons are rife with cases of torture and human rights abuses;

Would the Council comment on the conditions and the human rights record in Turkish prisons, especially in relation to the status of Turkey's application for accession to the Union?

Reply

(8 March 2001)

The Turkish authorities are well aware that they have much to achieve in improving prison standards, ending torture and reforming their judicial and penal system generally in order to meet the Copenhagen Criteria.

Conditions in Turkish prisons feature in the Commission's regular report on Turkey's progress towards accession(1) and in Turkey's Accession Partnership.

(1) COM(1999) 513 final, p. 13.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3275/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Taranto

Given that:

- Taranto Sviluppo has been singled out by the EU as the intermediary body responsible for administering the overall allocation of funds for the Taranto crisis area;

- after the launch of measure 2 (Aid for investment in production), Taranto Sviluppo brought to the attention of the EU and the Ministry of the Treasury the high casualty rate of projects that had been declared eligible to receive funding, given the excessively short deadlines within which undertakings were supposed to submit the copious documentation specified in calls for tenders;

- Taranto Sviluppo has moved on to the next projects on the list while, with the approval of the Italian Ministry of the Treasury, the EU has insisted that this procedure should be followed only up to a maximum of 20 % of the overall funding for the measure in question, with the result that Taranto Sviluppo will be able to draw on only part of the funds potentially available.

Does the Commission intend to authorise Taranto Sviluppo to continue processing the projects listed until all the funds originally allocated for the communes of Taranto, Massafra, San Giorgio Jonico and Statte have been committed?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

The global grant for the Taranto crisis area was approved by the Commission Decision of 19 May 1998. It fixed the deadline for commitments at 31 December 1999.

With regard to measures relating to aid schemes, as the Honourable Member mentions, the Commission agreed to drop a maximum of 20 % of projects from the list. This limit takes account of the failure rates for measures of this kind and the need to provide rigorous training to ensure that the best projects are selected, in line with objectives.

The existence of higher failure rates is the responsibility of the managing body. As pointed out by the Honourable Member, the very tight deadlines for companies to submit documentation is the sole responsibility of the intermediary organisation and is due mainly to the delay in implementing the measure in question.

The Commission does not consider there to be a case for reviewing its position regarding the dropping of projects from the list.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3807/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Illegal deductions of aid for farmers

In its report on the 1999 financial year the Court of Auditors has found that in Greece the Community aid paid to producers at both central government and local levels is subject to deductions which are not permitted by any Community legislation. Deductions of the order of 1 % are made in respect of aid for olive oil producers in favour of the National Federation of Olive Oil Producers and deductions of the order of 3 % (some Drs. 17 billion) in respect of olive oil, tobacco and cotton producers in favour of the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA).

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that Community aid is paid in full to those entitled to it without the slightest financial deduction being made in Greece, in accordance with Community rules?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2001)

It is true that in Greece there are several deductions of the Community aid, either at central level (e.g. Agricultural Insurance Fund, Elaiourgiki Union of the olive oil producers organisations, etc.) or at local level (e.g. producers organisations etc.).

The Greek authorities have claimed that these amounts have to be considered as contributions of the producers because they have an apparent compensating effect; in the case of deductions by the producers organisations, that these have been decided by the general assemblies of their members.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy(1), which applies from 1 January 2000, has introduced a clear full payment requirement (Article 2) for all the support schemes indicated in its Annex, including olive oil and tobacco but not cotton.

The Commission is examining the nature and the size of the deductions, as well as the arguments of the Greek authorities. Where appropriate, it will follow the normal clearance procedure with a view to applying financial corrections.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3866/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: WEEE incineration of plastic

Is the Commission aware of the development and operation of state-of-the-art waste incinerators in which waste plastic can be used as fuel? Is the Commission aware that this new type of incinerator has either very low levels or zero emission of hazardous substances?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2001)

The Commission will start the work on a guidance document on best available techniques (BAT) in the field of waste incineration in the second half of 2001. Normally the work should be finalised within two years. The so-called BREF (BAT reference document) will include the determination of the best available techniques for air and water emissions and energy efficiency.

The minimum standard for incinerators at European level is described in Directive 2000/76/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste(1).

The Commission is aware that the great improvements have been made in the field of incineration of waste plastic in an environmentally friendly way, where energy is recovered at a high level and emissions of pollutants into air and water are very low.

(1) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3872/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Mineral water from Greenland

A group of businessmen in Greenland have decided to bottle the pure ice which covers four fifths of the island and market it as mineral water.

Consumption of mineral water is growing by 10 % per year and this product from Greenland could therefore easily invade European markets. Can the Commission take steps to put a stop to the use of Arctic ice and the possible marketing of the island's mineral water?

Can the Commission also introduce appropriate environmental protection measures, since this practice will eventually damage the planet, already endangered by destructive human activities, in particular the ice cap, which is receding at a rate of 45,8 cubic metres every year?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Greenland does not form part of the Community or of its customs territory. Relations with Greenland are governed by decisions on the association of the overseas countries and territories (OCT) with the Community. The trade provisions relating to OCTs prescribe that their products shall benefit from the principle of free circulation of goods, meaning that they shall be imported into the Community free of customs duties and charges having equivalent effect, and that the Community shall not apply quantitative restrictions or measures having equivalent effect to imports of products originating in the OCTs. There are two exceptions to these provisions: a general exception for measures justified on grounds of public morality, protection of health, protection of the environment, etc, and the possibility to introduce safeguard measures under certain conditions. In this particular case, it appears that the environmental exception would be the only exception potentially applicable but the Commission does not believe, at this stage, that such a trade restriction could be justified on environmental grounds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3226/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Mergers in Spain and use of the golden shareholding by the government

Following the announcement of the merger between the two main electricity companies in Spain, Endesa and Iberdrola, which seems to enjoy government approval, there has been speculation that the purpose of the merger was to prevent Iberdrola being acquired by a foreign competitor. The government has a golden shareholding in Endesa but not in Iberdrola.

Does the Commission think it appropriate for the Spanish Government to extend its golden shareholding to the company produced by the merger between Endesa and Iberdrola? Will the Commission take any steps to prevent this from happening?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

The Commission has not officially been informed that the Spanish Government is to extend the golden shareholding to the company to be created by the proposed merger between Endesa and Iberdrola. Therefore, it would be premature for the Commission to comment on this matter.

As far as the special rights or golden shares that the government holds in Endesa are concerned, they reflect the rights stipulated in the Spanish Law No 5/1995 of 23 March, the privatisation framework law. As the Honourable Member is aware (see Written Question E-1944/00(1) by the Honourable Member) the Commission opened infringement proceedings against Spain concerning the above law and following the reasoned opinion delivered in July 1999, decided on 5 July 2000 to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 153.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3916/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 December 2000)

Subject: BSE in Germany

On 24 November 2000 it became known (reported in the Frankfurter Rundschau, Germany, 25 November 2000) that seven weeks earlier in the Portuguese Azores a bovine animal born in Saxony-Anhalt had developed BSE. According to information from the Ministry of Agriculture in Portugal, the animal, born in September 1995, had been brought to the island of Sao Miguel in 1998. The animal was slaughtered on 2 October 2000. Under the European BSE compulsory notification regulation this case should have been notified immediately to the European and the German authorities.

1. When and by whom was the Commission notified of this case of BSE?

2. Has this animal, which came from Germany, been assigned to both the Portuguese and the German BSE statistics?

3. When were the German authorities notified of this case by the Portuguese Government?

4. In the wake of this case of BSE 2 800 cattle were slaughtered on the Azores. Are requests for compensation being made to Germany or to those in the agircultural sector who supplied the animal infected with BSE?

5. In accordance with the European BSE notification requirement the farmers in the Member State should have been informed by the authorities. To what extent did this happen in Germany?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member's Written Question P-3881/00

The Commission would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the answer it has already given to that question(1).

(1) See page 171.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3944/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Variable VAT rates

Will the Commission please state what restrictions are imposed by EU law on the freedom of regions or local authorities to levy variable VAT rates should they so desire?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

According to the Community legislation on VAT which is currently in force, Member States must apply a single standard rate to all goods supplied and all services provided. They also have the power to institute either one or two reduced rates.

Save in the case of specific derogations concerning the approximation of VAT rates granted during the negotiations on Directive 92/77/EEC(1), these rates must be applied throughout the entire territory of the Member State.

VAT is a general tax, which is intended to apply to all economic transactions within the Member State concerned. The tax is proportional to the price of goods and services. It is levied at every stage in the production and distribution process, and its impact is passed on to the consumer.

Moreover, the measures which Member States take in this respect cannot be allowed to endanger either the free circulation of goods or the proper functioning of the single market.

VAT is also subject to the principle of a single rate, namely, that identical goods or services cannot be taxed at different rates.

For all these reasons, regional and local authorities cannot be empowered to set variable rates of VAT, for this might undermine the neutrality of the tax.

(1) Council Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992, supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT rates); OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3529/00

by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Deaths and murders of illegal immigrants in southern Italy

Dead illegal immigrants dumped by roadside

The bodies of six illegal immigrants, presumably Kurds, have been dumped by the roadside in southern Italy. It is assumed that they died of asphyxiation and that the smuggler decided to get rid of his morbid cargo. The head of one of the dead had been squashed, as if the lorry had run over it. This is only the latest in a long series of deaths and murders which occur weekly in southern Italy, the main conduit from Albania and Montenegro of illegal immigration to northern and western Europe.

With reference to the above report in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica of 18 October 2000, and in view of the fact that the number of people who have died at the EU's external borders has risen since the start of the 1990s; given, moreover, that the majority of EU Member States are making increasing efforts (from a financial and technical point of view) to protect borders:

- Can the Council confirm this and similar reports, and what is its own assessment of such occurrences?

- How many investigations into deaths have been instituted in this connection, and what has been their outcome?

- What concrete measures does the Council intend to take in order to prevent more and more people dying as they attempt, perhaps illegally, to enter the European Union?

Reply

(8 March 2001)

1. The Council has no information or statistics which would allow it to reply to the questions put by the Honourable Member. It also draws the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the investigations into the events which he mentions, the prosecution of those responsible for criminal acts committed in such circumstances and the adoption of preventive measures are matters falling within the competence of the Member States.

2. As regards the measures which it has taken and is continuing to take in the fight against illegal immigration, the Council would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question P-1391/00 put by Mr Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3766/00

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Labelling and checking of animal skins

In reply to a recent question on the labelling of animal skins, Commissioner Lany said that the trade in cats and dogs is not prohibited in the Community under the CITES convention. Such a ban has been announced in the USA, partly because it is not easy to distinguish between the skins of endangered species and those of cats and dogs. University research has also confirmed that the visual checking of skins is a totally useless measure.

Is the Commission considering stricter checks in order to prevent the skins of protected animal species being imported into the EU as cat and dog skins?

Is the Commission considering announcing a ban on cat and dog skins, both in order to improve the protection of these animals against commercial exploitation, and in order to close the loopholes in the CITES convention and to improve compliance with the ban on the trade in the skins of endangered species?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2001)

The Commission's responsibilities towards animal protection have increased under the recent amendments of the Community, which includes a Protocol requiring the European institutions and Member States to pay full regard to animal welfare

when drawing up policies concerned. Therefore, Commission's policies tend to further the objective of improving protection and respect for the welfare of animals as sentient beings. However, as already recalled in the Commission's answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2654/00(1), the commercial exploitation of fur-bearing animals is not against the law in the Community or its Member States.

The Commission has no data on fraudulent imports of protected fur-bearing animals covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

With regard to more stringent controls on the import of animal skins, the Commission confirms that under the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein(2), which implements CITES in the Community, appropriate controls of imports of specimens of endangered species are being carried out by customs officers, equiped with the necessary identification materials.

In the light of public concern about the commercial exploitation of cat and dog furs, including in international trade, the Commission will follow up this question in order to examine whether it should propose measures at European level, taking into consideration the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission will report back to the Parliament on progress on this issue.

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 69.

(2) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.