ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0640/02

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 March 2002)

Subject: ECJ and ban on British beef

Given that it is now two months since the European Court of Justice ruled that the French ban on British beef imports was illegal, and given that, to date, France has not lifted the ban despite this ruling, what specific action does the Commission propose to take to see that the law is enforced, and precisely when does it propose to take it?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2002)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member.

The Commission has already requested France to indicate the action it intends to take to comply with the judgement of the Court of Justice of 13 December 2001 in the case concerned (Commission v French Republic C-1/00).

No satisfactory reply having been received to this request, the Commission has decided to invoke the procedure under Article 228 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0513/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Failure to comply with Directive 1999/22/EC by Valencia zoo

The author has recently received a number of complaints from members of the public concerning the conditions in which animals are kept at Valencia zoo. Although the facilities have been granted the necessary permits by the competent authorities, it is clear from a visit to the zoo that it is failing to comply with the provisions of Directive 1999/22/EC(1) relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos, Article 3, third indent, of which lays down the following requirement:

Accommodating their animals under conditions which aim to satisfy the biological and conservation requirements of the individual species, inter alia, by providing species specific enrichment of the enclosures; and maintaining a high standard of animal husbandry with a developed programme of preventive and curative veterinary care and nutrition.

Has the Commission received confirmation from Spain that it has transposed Directive 1999/22/EC into its national law?

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that this Directive is properly applied in the case of Valencia zoo, so as to ensure the protection and welfare of the animals kept there?

(1) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999, p. 24.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2002)

The Commission has not yet been informed of the measures adopted by the Spanish authorities to transpose Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 on the keeping of wild animals in zoos into national law. It should be noted that under Article 9 of the Directive the deadline for transposition is 9 April 2002.

In any event, the Commission will ensure that Community law is observed in this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0171/02

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Airport safety

I should like to know whether the Board of Directors of the national civil aviation agency has complied with European legislation on airport safety. At the beginning of 2002, following the accident which had taken place at Linate airport on 8 October 2001, a proposal was submitted to the government for a reorganisation of the bodies responsible for air transport safety ENAC (National Civil Aviation Agency) and ENAV (National Flight Assistance Agency). The proposal emphasises and reinforces, among other things, the status of the airport director, appointed by ENAC, who at present has a rather weak position.

On 21 December 2001, however, the ENAC Board of Directors turned this whole approach on its head by bringing several airports under the responsibility of a single director. A particularly worrying aspect is the arrangement introduced at Naples airport where it has been decided to transfer the current director, who has had thirty years' experience of this specific post, and to replace him with the head of the ENAC office which is responsible for airworthiness certification. This involves amalgamating posts which have hitherto been allocated to people with totally different professional backgrounds. Until now, the heads of certification offices throughout Italy have been aeronautical engineers while airport directors normally have qualifications in law.

A number of members of the Italian parliament immediately tabled questions, calling for an explanation of the objectives of the ENAC Board of Directors' decisions, especially in the light of the planned reform of the sector.

In view of the above, would the Commission state whether it is aware of this initiative which has not only baffled political circles but is also causing concern among members of civil society about the safety of air travel, a subject to which the European Parliament has devoted much attention?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that such decisions to amalgamate posts do not create disruption and additional risks in what is already a difficult situation in Italy?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2002)

With reference to the proposal that has been presented to the Council of Ministers in Italy, known as the Commissione Riggio report, the Commission understands that it has not yet been discussed and no date has been indicated for the possible debate.

The Commission is developing a regulatory framework to reinforce civil aviation safety, principally through the establishment of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). At present airport safety is not part of EASA's responsibility but the Commission intends to address this subject at a later stage through the possible extension of the scope of EASA's operations.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0323/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Export of live cattle to third countries

How many head of cattle are exported annually from EU countries to the Middle East and North Africa?

What is the total cost of EU subsidies paid to support this trade?

Is the Commission aware of allegations that the long journeys involved, together with the brutal unloading and slaughter methods used, inflict great suffering on the animals?

Does the Commission intend to end the payment of such subsidies or to take other action to reduce the suffering alleged?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Community export of slaughter cattle as well as purebred animals during the last three years to the Middle East and North Africa is as follows(1):

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

The total amount of export refunds calculated for those exports equals 96,6 million in 1999, 67,2 million in 2000 and 30,4 million in 2001. In recent years subsidies paid for cattle traded for slaughtering were reduced significantly from 60,50/100 kg (in 1999) to 41/100 kg ( 32 %). The export refund for breeding cattle reduced from 63/100kg to 53/100 kg ( 16 %).

The Commission is aware of complaints from animal welfare organisations concerning the mistreatment of animals during transport and in particular after arrival to third countries. Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 90/496/EEC(2), provides a set of rules. Member States have shown clear difficulties to enforce the current Community legislation in this regard and the Commission intends to present a legislative proposal this year to improve the situation. About the ill treatment of the animals after arrival in the third countries of destination, the Community has no competencies to interfere in the way the animals are treated in third countries and in the way cattle is slaughtered within the own slaughtering facilities of these countries.

Concerning the end of export refunds, the Commission believes that it has to strike a right balance between several aspects of this very complex question. It would not be appropriate to remove export refunds for live cattle and give away the export of cattle to other exporting countries. The traditional cattle purchasing countries would not convert themselves into meat importers. This would be a too harsh measure for the beef sector as a whole and for the producers that are highly depending on export. Nevertheless, the Commission is now examining the possibilities to introduce stricter requirements and stricter controls in Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport(3), which subject the payment of export refunds to compliance with provisions of Directive 91/628/EEC.

(1) Data extracted from COMEXT.

(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(3) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0813/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Subject: The Italian Government and the Second World War

In the article in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, dated 4 February 2002, a minister in the Italian Government, Mirko Tremaglia, stated it would have been better if we'd won the war.

Given the suffering endured by many during the Second World War, what is the Commission's opinion of this statement?

Does the Commission intend to raise this issue with the Italian Government?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

It is Commission policy not to comment on public statements by politicians in the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0022/02

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 January 2002)

Subject: Funding for muscular diseases

What level of funding, if any, is awarded in each of the Member States for: spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), muscular dystrophy (MD or DMD), neuromuscular diseases?

More specifically, what level of funding is targeted for: research, support or general purposes?

What type of research is financed? (i.e. management research, therapy research, cure research)

What is the level of funding, if any, for the European Alliance of Muscular Dystrophy Associations (EAMDA)?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2002)

The Commission has no data available on the level of funding in individual Member States for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), muscular dystrophy (MD/DMD) or neuromuscular diseases.

Three projects on muscular diseases, two concerning mainly diagnostic and therapeutic research and one concerning research management, have been selected for funding within the Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources programme of the 5th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (RTD):

- QLRT-1999-00870, Genetic resolution of myopathies: European cluster, project funding: 2,4 million;

- QLG2-1999-00660, A funtional genomics study of lysyl-tRNA synthesis as a target for the diagnosis and treatment of microbial infections and mitochndrial myopathies, project funding: 1,4 million;

- QLK3-2000-01038, Disease insights from single cell signalling, project funding: 907,312.

Several such projects have been funded in the past, under the third and fourth Framework Programmes. More detailed information on all projects can be found through search on the Cordis website http://www.cordis.lu/en/home.html.

In addition, in 2000, DG Health and Consumer Protection, granted one recent (year 2000) project entitled Muscle diseases for a prototype of rare and disabling disorders: creation of a European information network (Project No 2000/RD:10003) with 128,000. More detailed information on this project can be found on the website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph/programmes/rare/proj1_en.pdf.

EAMDA did not receive any contribution from the Commission for the last three years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0466/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Assessment of the operation of the EAGGF paying agency in Greece

In September 2001 it was announced that the new agency for paying and controlling Community guidance and guarantee aid in Greece (Opekepe) was beginning work and replacing the Paying Agency accredited hitherto (Gedidagep).

Given the problems that have arisen in the current period in almost all the spheres of responsibility of the Opekepe (delays in the payment of aid, mistakes and omissions in the IACS (Integrated Administration and Control System), arbitrary interpretations in implementing the regulations, etc.) which have caused great confusion and exasperated Greek producers and stock breeders and also raised questions about the credibility of controls, will the Commission say: has any assessment been carried out concerning the operation of the Opekepe so far? Have the Commission services investigated whether the accreditation criteria and, more generally, all the conditions provided for in Regulation (EC) 1663/95(1) have been met?

(1) OJ L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy(1) makes clear that Member States are responsible for accrediting paying agencies. The Commission is only informed of the decisions of the Member States.

Nevertheless, the Commission has closely followed the developments in Greece, and the establishment of a new paying agency, Opekepe, in September 2001. It carried out an evaluation of the respect of the accreditation criteria by this paying agency in November 2001. This evaluation identified a number of positive points, but also noted that many weaknesses remained, both in the organisation of the paying agency and in the overall control system in Greece.

The Commission is continuing to monitor the situation closely. It will work constructively with the Greek authorities to try to ensure that the positive efforts noted continue and come to fruition. However, at the same time, it will protect the financial interests of the Community by proposing financial corrections wherever it identifies a risk of loss to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. Such financial corrections have in the case of Greece totalled 610 million since 1995.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0175/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Exchange of letters with the Netherlands concerning the Iron Rhine

The Iron Rhine is the symbolic name given to the rail link between the port of Antwerp and the Ruhrgebiet. Belgium is very keen to see this rail link revived, but the Netherlands seems to be allowing the project to drag on. Invoking the European Habitats and Birds Directives, Mrs Netelenbos, Netherlands Minister for Transport and Water Management, is demanding that a tunnel be built to take the line under a nature reserve near Roermond. The Commission has apparently written to the Belgian authorities concerned, the Netherlands and Germany informing them of its opinion. The Belgian Minister for Transport acknowledges that she has received such a letter, but her Netherlands counterpart states she has not been informed.

1. Is it necessary to build a tunnel under the nature reserve near Roermond, pursuant to the European Habitats and Birds Directives?

2. Has the Commission in actual fact written to Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands about this matter?

3. If so, what was the substance of its letter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

The nature protection Directives (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2)) do not give a mandate to the Commission to take decisions, in the framework of mitigation of compensation measures related to the effects of infrastructure projects, about the necessity to build tunnels under any of the sites designated as part of the Natura 2000 network or belonging to Member States' own national nature reserves.

The three Member States involved in the Iron Rhine reactivation project (Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands) requested a meeting with the Commission to expose their views. This meeting took place in Brussels on 5 July 2001. At their request, Directorate general Environment sent on 19 September 2001 to the delegation leaders present at the meeting a written account of the answers it gave to Member States' questions, with additional remarks about certain points that were discussed and some general observations.

A copy of the letter of 19 September 2001 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0845/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 March 2002)

Subject: Ban on conclusion of public contracts with media companies

The Greek Government has submitted a proposal for a new draft law concerning restrictions on the conclusion of public contracts with persons having interests in media companies. The proposal prohibits the conclusion of such contracts with natural or legal persons who are main shareholders. The proposal defines main shareholder as anyone owning a shareholding amounting to up to 5 % of the media company's total share capital.

Given the difficulty of identifying main shareholders at both Community and international level, will the Commission say:

1. whether there is a breach of the principle of equality as a general principle of law, in view of the fact that it will not be possible to scrutinise companies registered in another Member State or offshore companies to the same extent as national companies,

2. whether the Member States are required to cooperate with the relevant national authorities in identifying main shareholders (provision of information, conducting inquiries, etc), particularly if there is no provision for such scrutiny in the national legislation concerned,

3. whether any delays in carrying out checks in respect of Community companies constitute a breach of the principle of equality and discrimination against those companies compared with domestic firms, and

4. whether it is feasible and legally valid to exclude Community companies from concluding public contracts concerning broadcasting licences, given the impossibility of carrying out effective checks in those cases?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

The Commission lacks sufficient information about the problem mentioned by the Honourable Member, and given that this problem only relates to a proposal for a new law, it is not in a position to comment on the questions raised on the basis of the information provided.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0783/02

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 March 2002)

Subject: Energy supplies

In the 1970s the Community suffered from energy price increases, the Middle-East conflicts and inflationary trends stoked by the petrodollar. This type of situation could reappear and might well be worsened by developments in neighbouring geographical areas.

The Commission estimates that, within twenty or thirty years, the EU will be 90 % dependent on imports to cover its oil needs. The figure for gas is estimated at 70 %; and for coal, close on 100 %. Most of our energy imports come from politically unstable regions. Western Europe, which is now one of the world's most stable and peaceful regions, may be affected by the consequences of this external instability.

The Commission's Green Paper Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply provides an overview of the factors which affect security of supply in economies which are becoming increasingly interdependent and will continue to do so in the future, even though the period considered (up until 2030) is not sufficiently long since it would have been preferable to envisage scenarios from now until 2050. In this context, and bearing in mind the 11 September events, what action does the Commission intend to take in this field, i.e. by what means, at what rate and at what cost can we diversify our supply sources and promote new sources of energy?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

The Commission's Green Paper on the security of energy supply(1) stimulated an unprecedented fifteen month debate across Europe and wider afield on energy supply prospects and policies. The risks created by the Union's needs for imported energy supplies has been one of the focal points of the debate.

The Commission is in the process of developing some of the instruments which will serve to help the Union face the challenges to its energy supply in the future: for example, the proposed revisions to the Internal market directives(2), the Renewables Directive 2001/77/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market(3), the proposed package to promote alternative fuels in transport(4), the proposed directive on energy efficiency in buildings(5), the proposed regulation on state aids to the coal industry(6), the strategic partnership with Russia, the Sixth Research and Technological Development Framework Programmes and the Communication on energy infrastructure(7). New proposals are being prepared to improve energy efficiency, enhance our security stocks system and examine the future role of nuclear generation.

The Commission proposes to present a synthesis report to the European Council at their Seville meeting (21 and 22 June 2002) on the results of the Green Paper debate and future actions.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.

(2) COM(2001) 125 final.

(3) OJ L 283, 27.10.2001.

(4) COM(2001) 547 final.

(5) COM(2001) 226 final.

(6) COM(2001) 423 final.

(7) COM(2001) 775 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0742/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Construction of a dam on the Rio Mouro (Portugal)

According to local councillors who are members of the Association of Parishes of the Vale do Mouro in northern Portugal, it is proposed to construct a dam incorporating a 50-metre-long wall on the Mouro river (a tributary of the Minho), which could destroy a whole ecosystem.

The scheme under attack, which emanates from the company Águas do Minho e Lima, appears to have been promised Community funding. The local councillors argue that alternatives exist, such as river-based collection, which would not call for a dam.

The Commission:

1. Can it confirm that the scheme for a dam on the Mouro river has been promised Community funding?

2. If so, can it state whether an environmental impact assessment will be carried out, and whether consideration has been given to alternative solutions?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

The Portuguese authorities sent to the Commission in 1999 a request for co-financing by the Cohesion Fund for the Minho-Lima supply and waste water treatment multi-municipal system, which provided for a dam in the Mouro river Barragem de Lamas de Mouro as part of one of its water supply sub-systems.

Given the fact that some subsystems had not yet been totally defined both in technical and environmental impact assessment terms, the Commission asked the Portuguese authorities to reformulate their proposal. As a result, some subsystems were retained in the revised request and granted funding in 2001 but not the one including the dam. It is nevertheless possible that it may eventually be re-submitted at a later stage.