ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1847/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Noise pollution from aircraft

Can the Commission state whether there are or should be common arrangements to cover noise pollution from aircraft at EU airports, and to what extent these arrangements cover light aircraft?

Are there and should there be any requirements to ensure consultation with local communities that may be affected?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

As part of its environmental policy the Commission intends to present in the near future to the other institutions a proposal for a framework directive on the assessment and reduction of environmental noise exposure. This framework directive is intended to be applicable to major airports, i.e. airports with a number of annual movements exceeding a certain threshold. Therefore, noise nuisance caused by light aircraft would be covered insofar as such aircraft operate at major airports and their noise levels are incorporated in the noise exposure assessment methods.

The Commission is of the opinion that the availability of neutral and transparent information about levels of noise exposure to the public, as required in the draft framework directive, will facilitate the consultation process for those who may be affected.

In addition, in its communication on air transport and environment(1) the Commission has stressed the necessity to give due consideration to establishing enforceable rights for local communities to request consultations and negotiations on the introduction of new operating rules at airports, as well as guarantees that noise nuisance is actually reduced and not just shifted to other areas. It intends to undertake discussions with interested parties on the appropriateness of framework regulations at Community level serving this purpose.

(1) COM(1999) 640 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1557/00

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Appointment of Ricardo Levi to the post of Director of the Forward Studies Unit at the Commission

On 3 May 2000 Mr Prodi, President of the European Commission, announced that Ricardo Levi would be appointed to the post of Director of the Forward Studies Unit.

1. What procedure was followed for this appointment? Was the vacancy published? Did other candidates apply? Was there no suitably qualified internal candidate available to fill the post?

2. Is this appointment a temporary one linked to President Prodi's term of office, or a permanent one?

3. If the standard procedure was not followed, and if the appointment is permanent, would the Commission agree that this example of back-door entry conflicts with its stated intentions of reform, openness and promotion on merit?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2000)

In the case of Mr Ricardo Levi, the Commission decided to re-assign him to the job of Director of the Forward Studies unit with his temporary agent post.

As this was not a transfer to a vacant post, the procedures set out in Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations were not applicable.

It is normal practice for the Institutions to exercise a wide degree of discretion in organising their departments internally to meet the tasks they have to fulfil as well as in assigning the staff available to them.

The appointment in question is confined to Mr Prodi's term of office and the appointment is therefore not permanent.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1074/00

by Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Promotion of European legal culture in the Republic of Slovenia

In view of the ongoing accession negotiations, how does the Commission view the fact that discriminatory laws are in force in the Republic of Slovenia which are directed against other Member States or groups of their citizens?

Does it agree that the abrogation of these decrees and laws would represent a welcome contribution to the establishment of a common European legal system?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The accession negotiations embrace all areas of Community legislation and policy, the acquis, which each applicant country will have to adopt and implement fully by the time of accession to the Union.

Within the scope of the acquis, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, Slovenia will have to cancel any discrimination on grounds of nationality by the time of its accession.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1829/00

by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Exploitation of Lake Trasimeno's water

Although Lake Trasimeno (near Perugia) is classed as a Site of Community Interest (SCI) and a Special Protection Area (SPA) under Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC, it is still being wrongly used as a basin for irrigation water. Almost uniquely in Italy, its broad cane thickets harbour more than 200 species of birds, and it boasts extremely rare plant species that have already disappeared from the majority of wetlands.

The water depletion is caused, firstly, by the enormous volumes taken for water-hungry crops such as maize, which have replaced traditional, more environmentally friendly agriculture and which receive large sums of Community aid, and, secondly, by water taken for public waste supplies.

Will the Commission examine whether this form of industrial farming, supported by Community funds, is not very much at odds with the need to safeguard this unique and irreplaceable habitat?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Lake Trasimeno has been designated by Italy as special protection area under Article 4.1 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1).

Therefore the provisions set in Article 4.4 of the same Directive apply, i.e. Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbance affecting the birds, in so far as these would be significant having regard to the objectives of this article. Outside these protection areas Member States shall also strive to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats.

Detailed information is needed to correctly assess the case. For this reason a lettter has been addressed to the national authorities.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1224/00

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) and Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Commission decision to recover illegal aid payments from the Greek Cotton Board

By Commission decision of July 1999, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 10 March 2000(1), Greece is required to recover the aid received by Greek cotton-growers by way of compulsory contributions collected from 1992 to the present time by the Greek Cotton Board. This aid was financed by parafiscal charges unduly imposed on products imported from other Member States of the European Union, amounting to 1 % of the price of ginned cotton.

1. As the notification of the Commission's decision makes no reference to the total sum of the aid concerned, will the Commission state the amount of the illegal aid together with interest which Greece must recover from cotton-growers?

2. Could Greece, in agreement with the Commission, have taken measures to ensure that aid for technical assistance, dissemination of know-how, training and research did not contravene the common market rules and were consistent with the rules on State aid?

3. Why did the Commission delay taking its decision for so long, despite the fact that Greece did not invoke the exemptions from application of the rules on State aid provided in Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty such as aid to facilitate the development of certain economic areas so that such aid could be considered to be consistent with the common market?

(1) OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, p. 27.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2000)

1. A brief communication by the Greek authorities dated 21 March 2000 put the total amount of levies paid to the Greek cotton organisation under Article 30(3) of Law No 2040/92 between 1992 and 1998 at GRD 366,3 million. The final Commission Decision requires interest on this amount to be calculated as from the date of the levies.

2. Although the state aid measures referred to could by their nature be considered compatible with the common market, they are financed by means of the collection of parafiscal charges also imposed on products imported from other Member States, which is not compatible with the Commission's policy on parafiscal charges. Moreover, the charges contravene the Act of Accession of Greece, which prohibits any restrictive measure on cotton imports from third countries. This incompatibility could be remedied by amending the system of financing the Greek cotton organisation and by refunding the charges wrongly collected.

3. The fact that Greece did not invoke the exception provided for in Article 87 (ex-Article 92) (3)(c) of the EC treaty has no connection with the time required to take a final decision on the case. It should be noted that this matter was also the subject of an infringement procedure (Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty) concerning the compatibility of the levies with the common organisation of the cotton market. Only after this matter had been concluded was it possible for the Commission to close the file from the point of view of the state aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2172/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Failure by SMEs to prepare for the single European currency

The length of time being taken by many small and medium-sized businesses to prepare for the introduction of the single European currency on 1 January 2002 is the reason for the worrying statements which various members of the Commission have made in recent times.

Taking as a yardstick the submission of VAT returns in euros (which is the one used by governments), very few businesses have so far adapted their accounting practices. According to one member of the Commission, most businesses are going to opt for a big bang on 1 January 2002.

What is the Commission's recipe for remedying the failings of which many Community businesses are guilty in this area? Who is responsible for not having urged businesses to adapt, and what action would the Commission advise business associations to take as a way of ensuring that its members finally adopt the required approach to this issue?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member's analysis that many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are not yet ready for the end of the transitional period and the bringing into circulation of coins and notes denominated in euros on 1 January 2002. Most are continuing to carry out their commercial operations and to make their VAT declarations in national currencies.

However, this does not mean that all SMEs are lagging behind. According to a Eurobarometer Flash survey carried out in May-June 2000 for the Commission, 22 % of the SMEs questioned said they were already prepared for the euro and 46 % believed it was time to prepare themselves. Furthermore, 48 % of SMEs already had an action plan and in Spain and Italy over 65 % had such a plan. Compared with various earlier surveys, a new level of awareness is apparent and more SMEs are now putting their preparations into practice.

Since the Commission's objective is for all European enterprises to cope with the deadline of 1 January 2002 without difficulty, the Commission has made the preparation of SMEs a clear priority both for itself and for the Member States, as underlined in the communication on communications strategy in the last phases of the completion of EMU, adopted on 2 February 2000(1). In addition, the Information Programme for the European Citizen (PRINCE) aims to apply this priority through the Commission's own initiatives (support for transnational measures, partnerships with business intermediaries and communication products) and through action by the Member States.

Nevertheless, the Commission is aware that many SMEs will tend to prefer to wait until the last minute to take the necessary measures, which is a dangerous but deliberate choice by the business.

(1) COM(2000) 57 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1307/00

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Slaughter of seals

Is the Commission aware that this year Canada has given authorisation for the killing of 275 000 harp seals and 10 000 hooded seals?

Is the Commission aware that 22 Canadian scientists have seriously advised the Canadian government against allowing this slaughter of marine mammals, the largest in the world, to take place?

Is the Commission aware that as a result of the premature melting of ice in Eastern Canada many pups were not born or suckled on time with the result that the young seal population is much smaller than expected?

Is the Commission aware that because of the premature melting of the ice many hunters shot young seals from their boats, resulting in many seals drowning so that the number of 275 000 dead seals is much greater than permitted?

What can the Commission do to prevent slaughter on this scale next year?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behaf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

As stated in the Commission's reply to Written Question P-0395/00 by Mrs Corbey(1), Canadian catch quotas for harp and hooded seals have remained unchanged since 1996.

Conclusions of a national marine mammal review committee meeting in Ottawa on April 11-12/2000, on the stock status of the harp seal stated that the harp seal population has been stable since 1996 at the highest level since estimates have been available (1960), the population estimate for 2000 is 5,2 million seals (there is a 95 % chance that it is in the range of 4,0 to 6,4 million) and that aerial surveys results provide an estimate of total pup production for harp seals in the Northwest Atlantic in 1999 of approximately 1 million pups (range 200 000 to 1 200 000). Pup production has been increasingly steady since the early 1980s.

Furthermore the Commission noted that the Ministry of fisheries and oceans has announced the formation of an independent panel of scientists to evaluate the current state of scientific knowledge of the seal population in Atlantic Canada and to provide advice on a long-term strategy for its management.

Although the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member concerning this year's ice conditions are regrettable indeed, it does not appear that they pose a conservation threat to the species. Consequently the Commission considers that, apart from a strict implementation of the Council Directive 83/129/EEC of 28 March 1983 concerning the importation into Member States of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom(2), there is no scope for Community involvement in this matter.

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 150.

(2) OJ L 91, 9.4.1983.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1765/00

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

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Use of the portion of premium withheld from tobacco growers for research purposes

Is the Commission aware that since 1999 2 % (1993-1998: 1 %) of the premium paid to tobacco growers has been withheld for research purposes?

To what use is this money put?

The money is intended for funding research relating to tobacco growing in Europe. The Land Institute for Plant Production in Forchheim/Baden takes part in such research programmes. More than DEM 300 000 has still not been paid in respect of research contracts dating from 1997-1999, yet the Institute is vitally important for tobacco-growing in Germany.

Furthermore, no new programmes have probably been launched in this research sector in the past three years. How, then, will the accumulated reserves and future revenue be used?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1636/98 of 20 July 1998(1) amended Article 13 (establishing a Community Tobacco Fund) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco(2), widening the purposes of the Fund and raising to 2 % the deduction from the premium paid to growers on each crop. At present this yields around 19 million. The Commission has prepared a new implementing Regulation(3) for the Fund to replace the old one.

In practice the Commission launches projects financed using an ad hoc line, Community fund for research and information (B1-175). Its appropriations correspond to the estimate of actual incurred costs for the year in question.

The Fund has not financed any new projects since 1997 but the appropriations available have allowed financing of the projects in progress which were selected following two calls for proposals in 1994 and 1996. These are multiannual projects financed in annual instalments. The Commission plans to launch new projects in the coming months.

In order to make up the accumulated delay the Commission committed 5,2 million between December 1999 and April 2000 to regularise the 1997/1998 financial situation and for advances for 2000. A commitment for 500 000 is planned between now and the end of the year for 1999. So far 1 million has been paid out in advances for 2000. The Commission will commence site checks in July in order to proceed, in line with Article 21 of Contract Annex II, to pay the balances due. As the Forchheim Plant Production Institute in Baden has been participating in three projects the sums due will be paid to it through the coordinators when the site checks on the projects in question are completed.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998.

(3) Not yet published.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1937/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Budget Item A-3037

600 000 is allocated to the European Women's Lobby from Item A-3037. Could the Commission indicate the aims and objectives of this organisation and the selection procedure used for this item?

Does the Commission set specific targets for the Women's Lobby, and how is the use of these funds monitored?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The European Women's Lobby (EWL) was founded in 1990 in order to put pressure on European policy-makers to advance the status of women in society. The idea was to bring the maximum number of women's associations together under one umbrella. Today, the EWL has more than 2 700 women's organisations as members either directly or indirectly through national umbrella organisations in the 15 Member States or European non governmental organizations (NGOs).

In 1996, the EWL created the European centre on violence against women with an independent mandate to collect statistics, lobby for anti-violence policies, and inform women, policy-makers and the general public about violence.

The EWL is an observer in the advisory committee on equal opportunities in the Commission and the elected co-ordinator for all the European NGOs for the Beijing+5 process (follow-up to the 1995 World conference on women)

The EWL has conducted several successful campaigns, for example, on the integration of mainstreaming into the EC Treaty, the reinforcement of equality provisions, and the inclusion of an equal opportunities pillar in the European employment guidelines. It also ran two election campaigns for women in the European Parliament, at national level, with the co-ordination in Brussels.

The EWL runs a number of projects, such as: Agenda 2000 for Women; Young women's project Training and empowerment of young women on European policies and in particular on gender; Women and Health: Study on particular health issues of concern to women with recommendations for the European level and the Database on women's organisations in Eastern and Central Europe.

The budgetary authority takes the decision on the allocation of funds under budget line A-3037. The Commission implements this decision.

The EWL submits its proposed annual work programme to the Commission for approval. Once approved, the work programme forms part of the annual contract between the Commission and the EWL. The contract is governed by the general terms and conditions applicable to European Community operating grant agreements, so it is covered by the general rules on financial controls.

Payment is made in three instalments: an advance payment; an interim payment following the acceptance by the Commission of an interim report and financial statement; and a final payment following the acceptance by the Commission of a final report and financial statement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2589/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: European transplant list

The Benelux countries currently run a European transplant list, whereby citizens of these three countries in need of a transplant can put their name down on the list and may receive a donated organ from anywhere across the Benelux area. However, it appears that only citizens of these three countries are eligible to be put on this European Transplant List.

Would the Commission indicate if there is currently a similar scheme running across the whole of the EU, and if not, whether it has any plans to implement a genuinely European-wide transplant list for all EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The Commission is not aware of transplant waiting lists running across the whole of the Community, which would be similar to the list which exists in the Benelux countries.

The question is currently under discussion within the Council of Europe and the Commission is associated with the work.

Furthermore, Article 152 (ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty requires the Community to adopt measures setting high standards of quality and safety of organs and substances of human origin, blood and blood derivatives.

Under the new health strategy(1) which has been set up inter alia to apply these requirements, objectives in the field of transplantation (see Annex 2.1) have been defined. One of the proposed aims is to develop and operate a Community network on organs and substances of human origin. Whether such a network could also have a role in the management of waiting lists for transplantation, remains to be seen and will be looked at in close collaboration with Member States.

(1) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the health strategy of the Community, COM(2000) 285 final.