ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0672/01

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 February 2001)

Subject: Dealing with the cormorant problem

In some Baltic areas flocks of cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo) have become a real nuisance, driving out other species

and in many cases killing off plant life where they have passed. Nevertheless, action against these flocks has not been permitted, for example in Finland; some bodies and authorities maintain that cormorants are protected by EU directives.

What is the Commission's view on this? What action is permissible and how can the damage caused by cormorants be reduced?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

The cormorant is a naturally occurring bird species, and as such is covered by the Council Directive 79/409 EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1), the Birds Directive. In 1997 this species was removed from the list of birds subject to special conservation measures of Annex I of this Directive because it was no longer considered to have an unfavourable conservation status.

As the cormorant is not included in the lists of huntable bird species of the Birds Directive (Annexes II/1 and II/2), Member States have to protect it like most naturally occurring species, prohibiting for example deliberate killing or capture, destruction of or damage to their nests and eggs, and deliberate disturbance especially during the breeding period.

However, Member States may derogate from these strict protection provisions to prevent serious damage to fisheries and water and for the protection of flora and fauna where no other satisfactory solution exists.

In order to grant such a derogation there is however the need for some scientific evidence that such serious damage is taking place. At present the studies from Sweden and the information from Finland do not demonstrate an overall negative effect.

The Commission has received information indicating that damage to nests of cormorant is taking place in some locations. In the absence of substantive proof of damage to fisheries and wildlife, justifying a derogation as mentioned above, such actions are in contravention of the Birds Directive.

(1) OJ C 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0237/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2001)

Subject: Forcing up of house prices in Belgium by new Netherlands mortgage tax-relief option

1. Is the Commission aware that one consequence of the extensive changes to the Netherlands taxation system, effective as at 1 January 2001 is that the option, already longstanding in the Netherlands, of deducting the interest paid on a maximum 30-year mortgage on the first dwelling from income tax is being extended to cover dwellings in other countries, provided that the owner-occupier is someone who works in the Netherlands and pays income tax there?

2. Is the Commission further aware that the tax provision referred to in paragraph 1 is strongly forcing up house prices in Belgium's northern border region, in particular in areas of the Flemish provinces of Antwerp and Limburg within commuting distance of the Netherlands towns of Tilburg, Eindhoven and Maastricht, because Netherlands taxpayers buying there will incur much lower costs than Belgians, thereby forcing many intending Belgian house-buyers to retreat to more affordable areas further away from the border?

3. How does the Commission assess a tax provision that appears to be advantageous to those buying a house for their own use but in practice drives up prices to the advantage of sellers because the latter know that the tax concession enables buyers to afford significantly more than they would otherwise?

4. What action will the Commission take to help to solve the cross-border problem posed in this connection by protecting residents of Belgium's northern border area against steeply rising prices and what amounts to a form of banishment as a result of tax provisions adopted in another country?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

1. The Commission is aware of the change in Netherlands tax legislation which extended tax advantages on mortgage repayments applying only to dwellings in the Netherlands until 1 January 2001 to those in other countries, provided the owner-occupier works in the Netherlands and pays income tax there.

2. The Commission understands that Dutch nationals take the new provision into consideration when deciding to purchase a dwelling in Belgium. It further understands that the increased demand for houses in the northern border region of Belgium resulting from the increased interest shown by potential buyers from the Netherlands tends to push up house prices there, a change that is advantageous for vendors.

3. The Commission considers that the new tax provision adopted by the Netherlands is in accordance with Community legislation, which specifically prevents the Member States from imposing tax or other restrictions on their citizens' freedom of movement and freedom of establishment outside their own country.

4. The Commission does not consider that any specific Community measure is necessary to deal with the issue raised in this question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0618/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Defence budgets of European NATO countries

What are the national defence budgets of the European countries assigned to NATO for the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

The matter in question does not come within its jurisdiction of the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0302/01

by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Rare species of falcon becoming extinct

Eleonora's falcon is an important species of falcon, and 95 % of its nesting area lies within the territory of the EU Member States (chiefly in Greece, Italy and Spain).

According to data from the Museum of Natural History of the University of Crete for the period 1999-2000, a considerable number of deaths has been recorded for birds of this species in Crete, putting Eleonora's falcon under threat of extinction.

In view of the above, could the Commission say:

1. whether this species is included in the Community directive on the protection of wild birds?

2. whether it intends to draft an action plan for the protection of Eleonora's falcon to ensure that this species does not become extinct, particularly in areas (Greece) with a delicate ecological balance?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

The Eleonora's Falcon (Falco eleonorae) is listed in Annex I of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1), as a species which must be the subject of special conservation measures concerning its habitat. The Member States have in particular to classify Special Protection Areas for the conservation of species listed in Annex I.

Greece has not classified sufficient areas for the protection of wild birds listed in Annex I, including the Eleonora's Falcon. The Commission has therefore opened a file and is investigating the matter.

The Commission has arranged for the preparation of Action Plans for certain bird species listed in Annex I that are considered as priority for funding under the LIFE programme(2). In this context, an action plan for F. Eleonorae has been prepared by Birdlife International and agreed at the last meeting of the Ornis Committee of Member State official representatives, which assists the implementation of the above-mentioned Directive.

This action plan includes recommendations specific to Greece, which holds important breeding colonies of the species. The implementation of these recommendations is a matter of national competence.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) (OJ L 192, 28.7.2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0547/01

by Wilhelm Piecyk (PSE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Dues payable by pleasure and recreational craft on entry into Greek waters

In answer to Written Question E-1062/00(1) by Mr von Wogau, the Commission indicated on 6 June 2000 that it would examine in greater detail the questionable legality under Community rules of dues on entry.

The Commission undertook to contact the Greek authorities and any other bodies necessary to clear up the situation and obtain all relevant further information and, if necessary, to proceed under Article 226.

In view of this:

1. What additional information has the Commission obtained to date?

2. What conclusions has the Commission arrived at in the light of information obtained concerning the legality under Community rules of dues on entry?

3. What are the Commission's reasons for its conclusions? Has it already initiated proceedings under Article 226 or does it intend to do so in the foreseeable future?

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 150.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

On 12 September 2000, the Commission sent Greece a letter of formal notice concerning the traffic charges referred to by the Honourable Member. The Greek authorities' reply on 20 November 2000 was unsatisfactory. Greece does not intend to abolish the charges; its arguments to the effect that they comply with Community legal requirements are unconvincing.

Consequently, the charges in question do appear to be taxes with equivalent effect to customs duties on import, which are incompatible with Articles 23, 25 and 133 of the EC Treaty (formerly Articles 9, 12 and 113), and the Commission intends to continue the proceedings initiated against Greece.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0359/01

by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Cat and dog fur trade

Is the European Union aware that we may face an embarrassing situation recently revealed by undercover investigators looking into the trade in cat and dog fur from Asia?

At one Asian showroom, the investigators documented life-size tigers made of dog fur groupee as the Asian merchants call it. Asian representatives told the investigators who posed as businessmen that those large statues are being sold to hotels and museums in Europe for USD 5 000 each.

Would our tourists be happy to hear that dog and cat fur is being used in our facilities? Would the Commission please comment on whether it intends to halt this trade before it tarnishes our businesses and tourism?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

The Commission does not have at his stage precise official information nor any data on imports of cat and dog furs into the Community.

On the question of whether the Commission intends to stop this trade, it should be recalled that trade policy is only an outward projection of the internal policy of the EU. According to the information available, no Member State prohibits the commercial use of such furs. This is why, at this stage, and in the absence of an internal prohibition, the Commission does not intend to propose a prohibition of imports of cat and dog furs which would be contestable as discriminatory and an obstacle to the principle of national treatment.

Nevertheless, 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, and will report back to the Parliament on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0655/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: German chemical weapons in Turkey

In December 1999, the German Defence Ministry admitted that it was prepared to help with the construction of a military chemicals laboratory in Turkey. The project would have a purely defensive function. However, the German TV programme Kennzeichen D (broadcast by the second public channel ZDF) has quoted military sources which claim that, on 11 May 1999, the Turkish army used chemical weapons against the Kurdish PKK movement. Research carried out by the University of Munich shows that the heads for the chemical shells used by the Turkish army were supplied by two German companies, Buck and Depyfag. It is now fourteen months since questions were tabled to the Commission about these two issues. In its answer to Written Question E-3876/00(1), the Commission stated that the implementation (of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000(2)) was the responsibility of the Member States. According to Commissioner Patten, it was, therefore, the task of the Member State in which the exporter had his/her registered office to take a decision on requests for authorisation and to ensure the execution thereof.

There is nothing in that answer to suggest that there is any obstacle to the Commission taking an initiative under Article 22 of the EU Treaty. On the contrary, Article 22 lays down expressly that Any Member State or the Commission may refer to the Council any question relating to the common foreign and security policy and may submit proposals to the Council.

1. Will the Commission submit proposals to the Council pursuant to Article 22 of the EU Treaty in order to secure information from the University of Munich on the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of the mortar heads used by the Turkish army in a chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999? If not, why would the Commission refuse to submit a proposal in accordance with Article 22 of the EU Treaty?

2. Will the Commission submit proposals to the Council pursuant to Article 22 of the EU Treaty in order to secure information from the German Defence Ministry about that Ministry's help with the construction of a military chemicals laboratory in Turkey? If not, why would the Commission refuse to submit a proposal in accordance with Article 22 of the EU Treaty?

(1) See p. 75.

(2) OJ L 159, 30.6.2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-3876/00(1).

That answer is still valid.

(1) See p. 75.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0741/01

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2001)

Subject: Research and development

The 2000 Lisbon European Council called on the Council and the Commission, together with the Member States where appropriate, to map by 2001 research and development excellence in all Member States in order to foster the dissemination of excellence. Does the Commission believe this target will be met, and what evidence can it provide to support its view?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

Following the resolution of the Research Council of 15 June 2000 inviting the Commission to map scientific and technological excellence in all the Member States by the end of 2001, the Commission, with the help of a group of representatives appointed by the Member States, undertook to establish the objectives and expected results of the exercise.

On the basis of discussions with the said group, supplemented by expert consultations, the Commission produced a working paper(1) setting out the methodology to be applied and a timetable for the exercise. This was sent to Parliament and the Council on 12 March 2001.

In the first phase, the exercise will be limited to mapping ten or so emerging scientific and technological fields spread over the areas of Life sciences, Nanotechnologies and Economics. An expert panel will be set up for each of these fields to help the Commission characterise the field by keywords and identify best research capacity, initially on the basis of surveys. In parallel with this, a bibliometric analysis will be launched to identify competent and excellent entities on the basis of objective data. The experts' findings should be available in October 2001, while the bibliometric study will produce its first results at the end of 2001. The two sets of results will be compared and consolidated at the beginning of 2002.

The exercise will be conducted in such a way that the majority of areas of science and technology of relevance to the Community are mapped by the end of 2002.

(1) SEC(2001) 434.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1575/01

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Renovation of the Berlaymont Building

According to recent editions of Belgian newspapers (for example De Standaard of 23/24 April 2001), Mr Daems, Belgian Minister for Public Works, has decided to instruct Tractebel to support Berlaymont 2000, to the tune of BEF 1 billion, so that the renovation of the Berlaymont Building may be put back on track. The press reports and the statement made in the Belgian Senate lead us to believe that this cost overrun is a result of mismanagement by Berlaymont 2000.

Is the amount involved to be added to the renovation costs, and will the Commission have to pay it?

In other words, will the European taxpayer have to foot the bill for the professional shortcomings of Berlaymont 2000?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

The Commission has given no undertakings relating to the renovation costs of the Berlaymont building. The Commission has made it clear to the Belgian authorities and to S.A. Berlaymont 2000 that it will not bear any direct or indirect cost due to mismanagement, including extra costs due to delays.

Negotiations with the relevant Belgian authorities are continuing, with the purpose of reaching an agreement on a contract defining the precise rights and obligations of all of the parties involved. Following existing procedures, and before signing takes place, this contract will be submitted for approval to the Budgetary Authority.

For purposes of general information the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the answer to Written Question E-936/01 submitted by Mr Sjöstedt(1).

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 155.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1513/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: OLAF establishment plan

The 2001 budget substantially increased the overall number of category A posts available to OLAF and altered the breakdown between established and temporary posts.

The number of established posts was reduced from 83 to 53, and the number of temporary posts was increased from 15 to 61, the budgetary authority's intention being to make it easier to recruit experienced public prosecutors and officials from the Member States' relevant investigation services, preferably to temporary posts.

The reduction in established posts was also meant to enable OLAF to part with officials transferred from UCLAF but not possessing the qualifications and experience required for working in OLAF.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. How many officials and temporary staff did OLAF employ at 1 January 2001? How many officials and temporary staff did it employ at 1 May 2001?

2. When was the procedure provided for in Article 41 of the Staff Regulations opened so as to assign officials affected by the reduction in established posts non-active status?

3. How many officials are on the list drawn up pursuant to Article 41(2), and in what grades are they? When were they/will they be assigned non-active status?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The budgetary authority approved 224 posts for the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in the 2000 budget, of which 83 were A category permanent posts and 15 were temporary posts.

As at 31 December 2000 OLAF employed a staff of 153, of whom 71 were category A officials.

When the 2001 budget was approved, the number of posts for OLAF was increased to 300. The number of category A permanent posts was reduced from 83 to 53, i.e. below the number of category A officials employed at the time. The total number of A posts at OLAF, including temporary posts, was increased from 98 to 114.

The number of permanent posts in the Commission as a whole was also increased. This is particularly true of category A posts.

The Commission takes the view that the conditions governing the application of Article 41 of the Staff Regulations to OLAF officials have not been met.

According to Article 41, an official having non-active status is one who has become supernumerary by reason of reduction in the number of posts in his institution. Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)(1) states that the posts allocated to the Office must be listed in an Annex to the Commission's establishment plan.

Given that OLAF is not a Community institution, the Commission takes the view that Article 41 does not apply either to OLAF itself or to the Commission as a whole, in so far as the number of the latter's posts was not reduced in the 2001 budget.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1364/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Use of land for grazing horses

Can the Commission confirm whether there is any EU regulation concerning the use of farm land for grazing horses? Is there any restriction on where horses used for recreation and those used for agricultural purposes can be grazed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2001)

There are no Community restrictions as such limiting the use of farm land for grazing horses, apart from those connected with the conditions for granting area payments, and in particular that of not using set-aside land.

The Commission has in the past received requests to allow racehorses to graze on land for which farmers were receiving set-aside aid under Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops(1). These requests have been refused.

Such use of land withdrawn from production runs counter to the objective of making this scheme effective in terms of maintaining balance in and outlets for Community cereal production.

Moreover, it would be difficult to justify the use of Community funds for such a measure.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0778/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 March 2001)

Subject: Recent statements by the Belgian foreign minister

The Council:

1. Will it condemn the bizarre statements made by the colourful Belgian foreign minister, Louis Michel, concerning possible sanctions against Italy in the event of the Casa delle Libertà party winning the forthcoming elections there?

2. Will it ask the Belgian minister to refrain from attending Community meetings?

Reply

(13 July 2001)

It is not for the Council to comment on statements such as those referred to in the Honourable Member's question.