ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0842/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Erika disaster and environmental liability

In the parliamentary debate of 2 March 2000 on the oral question Erika, I asked the Commissioner Fischler to respond to two questions:

1. What was his assessment of the likelihood of securing compensation from the owners of both the ship and its cargo, in accord with the call previously made by Parliament?

2. Whether the Commission's proposals for a directive on environmental liability would embrace maritime incidents of this kind, ensuring in future that the polluter-pays principle can be firmly applied?

The Commissioner answered neither of these questions.

Will the Commission please do so now?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2000)

1. Compensation for victims of the Erika accident is governed by two international conventions; the 1969 International Convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage, as amended by the 1992 Protocol thereto and the 1971 Convention on an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage, as amended by the 1992 Protocol thereto. These conventions ensure that victims can receive compensation without having to prove fault or negligence of the shipowner and without having to rely on the solvency of the owner (since there is compulsory insurance for tanker owners). Compensation will therefore be available

but it is limited to certain maximum amounts. For the shipowner the maximum compensation limit in this case is about 13 million, due to the relatively small size of Erika. Further compensation is provided by the fund, which is financed jointly by the oil receiving companies, and compensates up to a total of 185 million. If the compensation claims exceed that amount, all claims will be proportionately reduced. Whether this will happen in the Erika case is not yet known. The chances of full compensation of the Erika victims are greatly increased by the undertaking of Total-Fina and the French government to refrain from claiming their expenses until all other claimants have been paid.

2. The white paper on environmental liability(1) refers to existing international liability regimes in paragraph 4.8. In general it notes that the relationship between the Community liability regime and international liability conventions has to be further clarified. In the case of oil pollution, it refers to a Commission communication on oil tanker safety(2), adopted by the Commission on 21 March 2000 which examines a number of potential measures to improve the existing oil pollution liability and compensation regime. A further communication, including more precise proposals on this issue, will be presented in the course of this year.

(1) COM(2000) 66 final.

(2) COM(2000) 142 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0698/00

by Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Accession negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of Slovenia

At the Copenhagen summit in 1993, the European Council reaffirmed its determination to ensure that all people were protected against violations of fundamental rights and freedoms. It referred, inter alia, to the United Nations Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Convention requires signatories to repeal discriminatory laws and regulations.

What view does the Commission take of the fact that in the Republic of Slovenia, contrary to this requirement, the Avnoj decrees (dating from 1944 and 1946), which are explicitly directed against individual ethnic groups, still remain in force?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0697/00 and E-0698/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The Commission has assessed in its opinion on Slovenia's application for membership of the Union of June 1997 that Slovenia meets the political criteria laid down in Copenhagen and that Slovenia has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.

Slovenia has undertaken to fulfil the criteria with respect to the rule of law and adherence to human rights principles. However, the AVNOJ decisions were adopted and implemented before the founding of the Communities and are remnants of the legislation of the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia. The process of restitution of property continues.

The Commission is aware of the fact that the process of property restitution is very slow in Slovenia. It follows this process in the context of its bilateral relations with Slovenia. However, the Commission cannot intervene directly in this question. Article 295 (ex Article 222) of the EC Treaty states explicitly that it shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3222/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Tobacco Directive derogation

The common position on the EU Directive on Tobacco will ban the manufacture in and export from the EU of cigarettes of above 10 mg of tar from 1 January 2004 in 14 out of the 15 Member States. It will, however, include a derogation for Greece that will allow manufacture, distribution and export of cigarettes above this level until 2007. Is this not a clear breach of single market and competition legislation which will discriminate against other EU manufacturers, particularly in the UK, who would be affected by a similar social economic impact?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Council Directive 90/239/EEC of 17 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the maximum tar yield of cigarettes(1) contained a transitional period for the respect of tar limits in cigarettes in Greece. This exemption was connected with the socio-economic difficulties particular to this Member State resulting from the fact that the tobacco cultivated in Greece had a high tar content. This Member State is therefore more concerned by the provisions of the directive than other manufacturing Member States. Moreover, changing these varieties of tobacco takes a considerable period of time while the change affects a large number of people as tobacco production in Greece is labour intensive, involving a significant number of families. The continuation of this transitional period is justified for the same reasons in the framework of the continued reduction of tar levels envisaged in the amended proposal for a directive of the Parliament and of the Council the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (recast version) currently under discussion(2). This derogation is limited to cigarettes manufactured and marketed within the territory of the Member State concerned, and will not be continued beyond 2007.

(1) OJ L 137, 30.5.1990.

(2) COM(2000) 428 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2507/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Substantial petrol price variations

In Valle d'Aosta, a special-status region, the inhabitants are entitled to a bonus of ITL 1 294 per litre for high-octane petrol and ITL 1 209 for green petrol, up to a maximum of 75 litres per person per month.

Given that even over a great many years I have not managed to elicit a proper answer from the Italian authorities, can the Commission say:

1. why, for the reason outlined above, petrol in Valle d'Aosta should cost less than ITL 1 000 a litre;

2. whether it can take steps to end this instance of unequal treatment among Italian citizens?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 2000)

The taxation of mineral oils in the Community is governed by the provisions of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils(1). Article 8(4) of this Directive enables the Council to authorise Member States to introduce derogations that allow exemptions or reductions in duty for specific policy considerations.

During the negotiations that lead up to the adoption of Council Directive 92/81/EEC, Member States obtained exemptions or reductions under Article 8(4) as part of the adoption process. Under this procedure, the Italian authorities were authorised by the Council to introduce a derogation for consumption in the regions of Val D'Aosta and Gorizia. The application of this derogation will have contributed to the price differentials mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Council authorised this derogation on the basis that it would continue to apply automatically unless, on the basis of a Commission proposal, the Council unanimously decides otherwise. Therefore, for the derogation to be withdrawn as the Honourable Member suggests, the Italian delegation within the Council would need to agree to its repeal.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2456/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: The case of William Shaiboub

On Monday, 5 June 2000, Coptic Christian William Shaiboub was sentenced to 15 years with hard labour for the murder of two men in El-Kosheh village, Egypt, in August 1998. William Shaiboub's arrest followed the indiscriminate round up and detention of over 1000 Copts in late August/September 1998. Many of these, including William himself, were tortured, the photographic evidence of which was leaked to the West. The sole prosecution witnesses against William Shaiboub both quickly retracted their statements saying that they had only admitted his guilt under duress. In addition, William Shaiboub's trial was postponed on numerous occasions, leading to widespread speculation that the timing of his sentencing was being deliberately delayed in order to await a time when international attention might have diverted elsewhere.

Is the Council aware of William Shaiboub's sentencing?

What representations does it intend to make on his behalf to the Egyptian authorities?

Reply

(20 November 2000)

The Council bodies have discussed the outbreak of sectarian violence perpetrated upon the Coptic community in Upper Egypt, particularly in El-Kosheh. The Council is aware that on 5 June William Shaiboub was sentenced to 15 years' hard labour for the murder, in August 1998, of two men in El-Kosheh. He lodged an appeal against that sentence on 12 June. The Council will continue to follow this case very closely.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2799/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Involvement of European companies AGIP and BP Amoco in the exploitation of Tibetan oil resources by the People's Republic of China

The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has begun building a gas pipeline to transport gas from the Tsaidam Basin in Tibet to Lanzhou. The CNPC is a state monopoly with sole rights to exploit Tibet's oil and gas resources. The CNPC's partners are the Italian company AGIP Petroleum, the British company BP Amoco and Enron.

What information does the Commission have regarding the extent of the involvement by AGIP and BP Amoco in the project by China to appropriate and exploit Tibet's natural resources? Does it not consider that the implementation of this project will lead to a further influx of Chinese settlers into Tibet, as well as damaging the environment, and that it should therefore deter any involvement by Union companies? Does the Commission have any information as to whether there have been any discussions concerning the project between the European companies involved and the Tibetan government-in-exile? Does it not consider that this project is inconsistent with the principles of self-government for Tibet, protection of the environment, sustainable development, and respect for human rights, which are stated objectives of the Union and guidelines for its external action?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

The Commission is committed to the preservation of the cultural, linguistic, and religious identity of the autonomous region of Tibet. This issue has been consistently raised within the Union-China human rights dialogue as well as in the framework of the political dialogue with Beijing. The Commission also endeavours to promote sustainable development through its cooperation programme with China, and maintains a dialogue with China on global environmental objectives, in particular biodiversity.

The Commission is aware of media reports that European companies seek participation in the Chinese oil and petrochemical industry. The Commission is also aware of concerns which have been expressed about the effect on Tibet's environment of exploration activities there. However, the Commission has no means and no competence to influence investment decisions by individual European companies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1547/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Microfinance and poverty reduction

Will the Commission please state what funds have been committed by the EU for the expansion of microcredit as part of the fight against poverty?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1547/00 and E-1609/00 given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

The Community plays an active role in financing activities in this field. A survey carried out last year estimated that 214 million were committed for projects in microfinance, including activities carried out by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) during 1995-1999. This is, however, an estimate. The figure may be significantly higher because microcredit is an integrated part of many different activities, especially in rural development projects and women targeted activities. As to the actual spending on an annual basis, the Commission is unfortunately at this stage not able to report a concise figure.

The Commission approach is going through a process of revision. Based on evaluations of interventions in the field of micro-credit, the Commission has started a process of rethinking its previous approaches. This followed the ongoing debate in the donor community on the so called microfinance revolution. It published in 1998 a communication to the Council and the Parliament on microfinance and poverty reduction(1) and methodological guidelines.

This new approach underlines the importance to address in a more integrated, sustainable way the different financial needs of the majority, and not only the credit dimension previously emphasised in micro-credit schemes. In the past this dimension often led to inefficient interventions, market distortions and the spreading of the culture of indebtedness, without significant, sustainable impact in terms of poverty reduction. In this new perspective, particular attention should be devoted to the institutional strengthening and capacity building of microfinance institutions and NGOs presently dealing with microfinance, to support their process of professionalisation and institutionalisation.

Finally, the overall reform package adopted by the Commission on 16 May for the management of external aid is expected to have a positive influence on the efficiency and speed with which financing decisions, including those concerning micro credit, can be processed.

(1) COM(98) 527 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2897/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Hardwood dust and the directive on carcinogens

Under Council Directive 1999/38/EC(1) of 29 April 1999 amending for the second time Directive 90/394/EEC(2) on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work and extending it to mutagens, all types of hardwood dust have been classified as carcinogens (definite risk of causing cancer).

The Austrian and European timber industry has consistently argued against such a classification, since it has always been convinced that untreated wood dust poses no risk to the health of workers and considers the concept of hardwood dust to be too broad and much too imprecise. All the studies on which the decision was based concentrated on wood dust.

A study carried out over several years by the German Cancer Research Centre in Heidelberg has now confirmed that the cause does not lie with dust from untreated wood, specifically oak and beech dust, but with the contamination of wood dust with certain chemicals.

Is the Commission aware that the scientific basis for Council Directive 1999/38/EC of 29 April 1999 amending for the second time Directive 90/394/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work has been contradicted by a study carried out by the German Timber Trade Association?

What action will the Commission take in response to the results of the Timber Trade Association study?

(1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999, p. 66.

(2) OJ L 196, 26.7.1990, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Council Directive 1999/38/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work and extending it to mutagens includes work involving exposure to hardwood dusts according to the proposal of the scientific committee for occupational exposure limits (SCOEL).

The Commission is aware of the new study by the German cancer research centre (Deutschen Krebsforschungszentrum) in Heidelberg. The study was presented in June 2000 by a scientific expert of the Holz-Berufsgenossenschaft to the SCOEL and extensively discussed.

Although there is an indication that wood dust might not be the only cause of nasal tumours in animals used in experiments, the results are regarded as preliminary. Questions mainly concerning re-evaluation of the inflammatory process were addressed by the SCOEL to the author of the study. If, on receipt of this additional data, the Commission decides it is appropriate to reconsider the issue of carcinogenicity of wood dusts, it will do so.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2659/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: European ban on the keeping of dangerous dogs

In recent weeks, the death of a young boy in Germany, who had been attacked and literally torn to pieces by a pitbull dog, as well as a large number of other incidents of a similar nature, have caused a great sensation and led to a situation where the keeping of dangerous dogs in Germany is now subject to extremely strict rules. In this regard, does not the Commission deem it necessary to establish uniform European standards resulting in a total ban on the breeding, import and keeping of dangerous dogs so as to ensure that such incidents cannot recur in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

The Commission is aware of the danger that the keeping of combat dogs represents as far as the protection of human life is concerned.

However, the Commission's work programme currently includes no plans for rules to introduce a total ban on the breeding, import and keeping of combat dogs on the territory of the Community.

Against this background, the Commission tends to the view that it is the responsibility of the Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, to take the appropriate measures to reflect national sensibilities, while complying with the rules of the EC Treaty.

Accordingly, although Article 28 stipulates that Member States may not adopt national measures that create restrictions on the free movement of the animals concerned, Article 30 authorises them to do so if such measures are justified on grounds of the protection of the health and life of humans, provided that the restrictions concerned are proportionate to the objective to be attained and are applicable without distinction.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2533/00

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Standardisation and certification of early warning systems

The Federal Republic of Germany has created the legal framework for the introduction of early warning systems in the business sphere. Does the Commission know whether other Member States have introduced similar systems?

Does the Commission feel it would be advisable to introduce, in a common market, arrangements for the standardisation and/or certification of systems of this kind?

Very recently, Germany created a legal framework for the introduction of early warning systems. The use of such systems is specified in the law on monitoring and transparency in the business sphere, the law implementing the directive on corporations with partners and in Article 91(2) of the law on shares. Since the beginning of this year auditors have been required to draw up a report on the existence of an early warning system.

If similar systems are in use in other Member States, this raises the issue of whether, in a common market, it would be beneficial for capital investors if a joint framework were to be created governing the quality and comparability of such early warning systems.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

The Commission knows the German system to which the Honourable Member refers. It appears that the aim of this system is to ensure maximum protection for investors and creditors by requiring company managers to report on the resources implemented to detect risks.

The Commission does not currently know of any comparable laws in other Member States.

At Community level, there are no provisions laying down such obligations.

However, as part of the Financial Services Action Plan the Commission has launched a study on the Member States' existing codes on corporate governance. It will thus gain a more accurate view of the current position in all the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2938/00

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Commission's position on water privatisation

In a number of Member States the issue of the privatisation of the supply of water is being fiercely debated. In the Netherlands a law is currently being prepared under which the privatisation of the supply of water would not be allowed. At the European Council summit in Lisbon, proposals concerning the liberalisation/privatisation of the supply of water received insufficient support.

1. In the light of the above, can the Commission confirm that no proposals for the liberalisation/privatisation of the water sector are being developed?

2. Would the Commission set out its views on this issue in order to put an end to all doubt regarding its position?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 2000)

The Commission attaches a great importance to the secure supply of high-quality water throughout the Community. At its initiative, the Community has adopted legislation in particular to guarantee that high quality standards for water are met.

However, the decision on how public water supply services are organised is primarily incumbent on the Member States. The role of the Commission is to ensure that the means employed to ensure water supply in the Member States are compatible with Community law. These principles were highlighted in a recent communication of the Commission on services of general interest(1) in which the Commission stressed that it is above all the responsibility of public authorities at the appropriate local, regional or national level to define the missions of services of general interest and the way they will be fulfilled.

In this context, the Commission can confirm that it is not preparing any legislative proposals concerning the liberalisation or privatisation of water supply in the Member States. As regards privatisation, the Commission wishes to add that Article 295 (ex Article 222) of the EC Treaty guarantees the neutrality of the Community as regards public or private ownership of undertakings. Therefore, the Commission never proposes or requires the privatisation of public undertakings.

(1) COM(2000) 580 final.