ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2585/99

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Data on nuclear pollution of oceans

1. Where and in what context does the Commission publish the data it receives concerning this problem?

2. Are the requirements of the directive on environmental information satisfied?

3. Is this information available to the questioner?

4. What happens to the data evaluation by independent bodies (e.g. the University of Wales or other universities) and what conclusions does the Commission draw from it?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The Commission periodically publishes data relating to environmental radioactivity and to radioactive effluents from nuclear power stations and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants in the Community. The former are based on information on environmental radioactivity levels communicated to the Commission under the terms of Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty, and the latter have been based on data presented to the Commission in pursuance of Article 8(a) of the Commission's Recommendation 19/4/Euratom of 7 December 1990 on the application of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty(1). This recommendation has recently been revised by Commission Recommendation 1999/829/Euratom(2).

The Commission thus seeks, at all times, to provide full access to information on environmental radioactivity, in compliance with Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment(3).

The Commission also carries out specific assessments and evaluations, which include consideration of information available from other sources, such as the Marína series relating to radioactivity in Northern European waters (to which the reply to the Honourable Member's written question P-2524/99(4) is also relevant), the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.

All the documents mentioned above are available from the Commission(5).

In carrying out assessments within the Marína series of studies, the Commission takes account of a wide range of relevant information available and input from a number of expert bodies and individuals.

(1) OJ L 6, 9.1.1991.

(2) OJ L 324, 16.12.1999.

(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(4) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 63.

(5) Radiation Protection 110 in preparation, Radiation Protection 104 (ISBN 92-828-6098-I), Radiation Protection 94 (ISBN 92-828-2140-4), Radiation Protection 69, Radiation Protection 47 (ISBN 92-826-1113-2).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0466/99

by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Abandoned building project for a further training centre in Agios Dimitrios, Pelion, Greece

Work began on the construction of a further training centre, the EKTA (WZLS) building, for the local authority in Agios Dimitrios/Pelion, province of Magnesia in 1994. According to the signboards at the site, the Community budget is funding the project, to the value of some DM 40 million (GRD 600 000 000). However, once the foundations had been laid, the project was halted in 1995, since when the condition of the site has deteriorated and building materials have been unlawfully removed.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Why was construction of this further training centre halted? Is the Commission contemplating a resumption of the work?

2. How much of the estimate of GRD 600 million has been paid out, and under which budget heading?

3. What form of control is being exercised over the company responsible for planning supervision, ERGODYNAMIKI GmbH?

4. Does the Commission intend to initiate action for recovery against those responsible?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2000)

1. According to information received from the Greek authorities, the project of the Centre for the Continuing Training of Local Authorities at Agios Dimitrios/Pelion was planned to be implemented in two phases. The first phase was planned, implemented and co-funded through the Community support framework (CSF) for Greece during the 1989-1993 programming period. The second phase is to be concluded within the CSF for the 1994-1999 period.

2. The first phase was co-funded by the European regional development fund for a total amount of 200 million drachmas, under the budget line B2-1200.

3. The management of projects is decentralised to the Member States and it therefore lies within the responsability of the Greek authorities to exercise the appropriate controls whenever contractual problems arise with companies that have undertaken to execute CSF projects. In this case, the Ministry of the National Economy is the responsible authority.

4. The Ministry of the National Economy has already sent a letter to KEDKE, the project's implementing agency, requesting the immediate completion of the project if it is to be funded through the 1994-1999 CSF or to ensure its completion through the agency's own resources. Should the project not be completed, the Commission will recuperate the Community funds which had been allocated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2703/99

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Cotton production in Asia

According to a News Summary item published by the UN Information Centre earlier this year, The FAO has plans for a major project on environmentally friendly cotton production in Asia financed by the EU, for Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan, the Philippines and Vietnam, designed to reduce insecticide use by farmers by more than 50 % while increasing production.

Will the Commission provide details of this scheme and confirm that it will neither involve the use of genetically modified organisms nor threaten biodiversity?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The objective of this regional project is the sustainable, profitable and environmentally sound production of cotton in six participating countries (India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and the Philippines). This is being achieved through the development, promotion and practice of integrated pest management (IPM) by farmers and extension staff. Integrated pest management (Agenda 21), which combines biological control, host plant resistance and appropriate farming practices and minimises the use of pesticides, guarantees yields, reduces costs, is environmentally friendly and contributes to the sustainability of agriculture. IPM therefore entails a strong concern for biodiversity, and a substantial reduction in pesticide use which is achievable without the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The strategy of the project, which has just commenced (November 1999), will follow the policies outlined in Control of Pesticides and IPM, which will be one of progressive pest management based on three main principles: establishing control over pesticide use, reducing reliance on pesticide use and actions for the promotion of integrated pest management.

The Commission is aware that the Chinese public sector organisations have, since 1988, made major investments in plant biotechnology, and genetically modified cotton has been grown commercially in China in certain areas since 1998. The Commission has supported a mission of biosafety experts to China to investigate the safety of their work and the Chinese authorities have established biosafety regulations which are in accordance with international standards.

The adoption of transgenic plants in agriculture has proceeded at a rapid rate but the evaluation of the impact and integration of transgenic crops into IPM systems is an entirely new area. How these crops can be incorporated as safe and effective components of sustainable IPM systems remains to be determined. All this will be taken into account when the China component for this Community regional project is being decided with the Chinese authorities, together with the relevant social, cultural and environmental factors which are pertinent to China. Those discussions will provide an opportunity to examine the various viewpoints and to agree on project sites and cotton varieties that will not prejudice either the Chinese or the Community positions on the use of genetically modified plants.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2557/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Waste recycling

Would the Commission please give the latest available figures for the percentage of household waste recycled in each of the Member States?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2557/99 and E-2558/99 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

There are many factors that influence the recycling of household waste, the most important being the efficiency of the collection system, technological know-how and the existence of a market for recyclables or recycled products.

To enhance the recycling of household waste various regulatory instruments have been enacted in the Community, such as Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste(1), which sets targets for the recycling of packaging waste, and Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfilling of waste(2), which sets targets for the reduction of the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste.

In addition, the recycling of household waste can be encouraged by other instruments, such as market based instruments, quality standards for recycled products, integration of environmental aspects into public procurement procedures and the improvement of the image of recycled products.

To improve the possibilities for recycling in Europe, the Commission adopted a communication on the competitiveness of the recycling industry(3). Following the adoption of this communication a Recycling Forum was set up in 1999. The task of this Forum is to assess the key factors for the competitiveness of the recycling industry and identify the most appropriate mix of actions to be taken. The final report of the Forum will be ready in the beginning of 2000.

On 10 January 2000 the Commission adopted its report to the Council and the Parliament on the implementation of Community waste legislation Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/692/EEC, Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, Directive 75/439/EEC on waste oils, as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC and Directive 86/278/EEC on sewage sludge for the period 1995-1997(4).

For the data collected under Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(5), the percentage of household waste recycled in relation to the household waste produced per Member State for the period 1995-1997 breaks down as follows: Belgium 39 % Denmark 28 % Germany 30 % Greece 7 % Spain 16 % France 6 % Ireland 8 % Luxembourg 7 % The Netherlands 44 % Austria 43 % Finland 17 % Sweden 16 % United Kingdom 7 % Community average 15 %.

No data are available for Portugal and Italy.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

(3) COM(98) 463 final.

(4) COM(1999) 752 final.

(5) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2804/99

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Concerns felt by the avocado sector as a result of the EU-Mexico agreement

Farmers in the province of Malaga (Spain), one of the main centres for avocado production in the Community, have expressed their concern at the possible consequences of the recent signing of the trade agreement between the EU and Mexico.

At present the EU import duty on Mexican avocados is 4 % from January to May, 7,5 % from June to November and 5 % in December. Under the free trade agreement these duties will disappear, causing serious damage to the EU avocado sector.

How will the Commission protect the interests of Spanish avocado producers in the face of Mexican imports of this product, given the serious consequences they will suffer as a result of the liberalisation brought about by the entry into force of the EU-Mexico free trade agreement?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Under the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, avocados from that country will indeed benefit from a gradual, linear reduction in ad valorem customs duties on imports into the Community from July 2000 and from the complete abolition of such duties from 2008. This reduction will be applied to basic duties of between 2,7 % and 5,1 % (depending on the months involved). In addition, a 20 000 tonne duty-free quota will apply to Mexican imports during the period from 1 June until 30 September, which is outside the traditional Community production period (October to May).

Community production will, therefore, have a substantial period of time to adapt to the dismantling of duties on Community imports of Mexican avocados. Furthermore, since the ad valorem duties currently in force are already low (between 4 % and 5,6 %, depending on the months involved), it seems unlikely that the entry into force of the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico could have a detrimental effect on Community avocado production, which is characterised by a very high degree of competitiveness.

Adverse effects on Community production are all the less likely in view of the fact that, first, Mexican production is handicapped by rather irregular yields and, second, relatively high demand on the domestic market affects the price and, therefore, the competitiveness of Mexican avocados. Moreover, the progressive lifting, since 1997, of plant-health restrictions on imports of Mexican avocados to the United States should gradually result in Mexican avocado exports being redirected to that market.

If necessary, however, the Commission may consider implementing the safeguard measures enshrined in the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 15 of the Agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2785/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Destruction of a Natura 2000 protected area by an EU-funded project

It is claimed that the Aliakmon Gorge area, which is protected under the Habitat's Directive, 92/43(1) (Natura 2000) as a priority habitat, is being devastated by a series of works being carried out in the course of the construction of the Veria-Polymylos section of the Egnatia highway. More specifically, the contractor for this project is, in breach of environmental regulations, extensively dumping spoil on the hillsides above the river, although it is required to deposit the spoil at specially designated points.

As this is destroying an area of exceptional beauty by virtue of the wealth of its flora and fauna, what action does the Commission intend to take to halt the destruction of the environment by this contractor? What action will it take against those responsible to oblige them to restore the site to its original state?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The Greek authorities have informed the Commission that human error caused a landslide during the construction of a small access road to the works site for the Veria-Lefkopetra section of the Egnatia motorway.

Under the terms of the contract in force, the contractor (the Aktor Mechaniki Olympiaki Techniki Korontzis construction consortium) is required to apply the environmental impact statement approved by the Greek authorities for the project in question and to dump spoil away from the banks of the Aliakmon river.

The Commission has reminded the company responsible for the Egnatia project, Egnatia Odos ITS, of the need to comply with all the terms of the contract.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2822/99

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Administrative investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office at the European Investment Bank

Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999(1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) requires all institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union to forward to OLAF without delay any information relating to possible cases of fraud or corruption or any other illegal activity.

The regulation has been in force since 1 July 1999. On 29 June 1999 the newsletter Europa-Journal, which is published in Brussels, reported under the headline Procurement scandal at the European Investment Bank that a member of the Bank staff had enriched himself, but the Bank had not brought charges because the amount concerned was negligible.

When did the Bank inform OLAF of the incident pursuant to Article 7(1)?

Did OLAF investigate the incident, and was it able to satisfy itself that the amount concerned was indeed negligible?

What steps did OLAF recommend to the Bank?

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2821/99 and E-2822/99 given by Mr Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

In the Commission's view, the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 7 October 1999 concerning fraud prevention and the decision notified by the European Investment Bank (EIB) do not correspond to the legal framework established with the creation of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and particularly the provisions relating to internal investigations contained in Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

By failing to meet these requirements, the decisions also jeopardise the overall cohesion intended by the Community legislator for the protection of the Communities' financial interests.

For that reason, the Commission has lodged two actions with the Court of Justice. These actions were brought on 13 January 2000 in the case of the ECB and 19 January 2000 in the case of the EIB.

The information provided by the Honourable Member relating to the EIB has been forwarded to the European Anti-Fraud Office.
I
(Information)
EUROPEANPARLIAMENT
WRITTENQUESTIONSWITHANSWER
(2002/C309E/001) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2239/99
byChristopherHuhne(ELDR)totheCommission
(19November1999)
Subject:Costoftranslationandinterpretation
PleaseindicatethecostoftranslationandinterpretationintheEUin1999andestimatethecostineach
case,assumingthecontinuationofpresentlanguagepolicies,ifone,two,three,four,five,six,seven,eight,nine,tenorelevenlanguageswereaddedtotheexistingofficiallanguages.
Supplementaryanswer
givenbyMrsSchreyeronbehalfoftheCommission
(17July2002)
Furthertoitsinitialreply,senttotheHonourableMemberin2000,theCommissionwouldaddthatthe
additionalexpenditurefornineenlargementlanguages,accordingtotheestimatesmadebytheinstitutionsinthesecondreportonHeadingVoftheGeneralBudgetoftheCommunity(drawnupinMay2002),wouldbe:
(Inmillioneuro)
In Fortranslation Forinterpretation
2003 31 7,5
2004 127 40
2005 161 542006 175 60
(2002/C309E/002) WRITTENQUESTIONP-2890/01
byKonstantinosHatzidakis(PPE-DE)totheCommission
(10October2001)
Subject:Substandardworkonpublicprojectsfundedunderthe2ndCSF
InitsanswertomyquestionNoE-3481/00(1),theCommissionrecognisedthattherewereawiderangeof
problemsconcerningsubstandardworkonpublicconstructionprojectsinGreecefundedunderthe2ndCSF.12.12.2002 EN C309E/1 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0222/00

by Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Duty of the Member States to submit reports

Will the Commission of the EU state how many legal provisions laid down by the Communities (EU and EC), divided into policy fields, entail a duty for the Federal Republic of Germany to submit reports?

Will it also give a detailed list of the legal bases of the Community legal provisions involved, stating how often those reports must be submitted (each year, each month and so forth)?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

In order to answer the Honourable Member's questions the Commission would have to undertake lengthy and costly research. It cannot consider doing this at the present time because of other priorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0037/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Disaster in Venezuela

The much publicised natural disaster in Venezuela has killed thousands of people, destroyed homes and property over a vast area, and rendered many thousands of families homeless, including those of Portuguese emigrants from Madeira, one of the remotest regions of the European Union.

How has active solidarity been displayed and what assistance has been made available?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Immediately following the recent floods in Venezuela, the Commission mobilised emergency aid for 3 600 000, through its humanitarian office, and continued its support with a decision adopted on 7 February 2000, for an additional amount of 2 000 000 of humanitarian assistance. Furthermore, the

Commission is considering an action to assist reconstruction in the area, for which an expert mission is being prepared, to carry out an evaluation and to identify specific actions.

The Commission, depending on the findings of the expert mission, will decide on a medium-term plan for the reconstruction of Venezuela. The Commission will closely co-operate with other donors in order to encourage a co-ordinated international action, and a clear definition of the priorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0080/00

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: European Medicinal Evaluation Agency (EMEA)

Given that early access programmes for new medicinal products are at present subject to national legislation, which results in serious delays as fifteen different authorities negotiate with pharmaceutical companies, compared to the USA, where one central authority, the FDA,

grants such access and that this laborious process can mean that several years elapse before European patients, unlike their American counterparts, can join such early access programmes, therefore denying them the possible benefits of promising new treatments, which in the case of HIV patients, for example, can mean the difference between a good quality of life and, at worst, death.

Will the Commission consider drawing up proposals to amend present legislation in order to allow the European Medicinal Evaluation Agency to represent the 15 Member States when negotiating early access programmes with the pharmaceutical industry, thereby closing the gap and ending the disparity between European and American patients?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2000)

Most of the Member States have laid down procedures to allow patients with serious illnesses to have access in particular to medicinal products for which marketing authorisation has not yet been given. There are no Community rules and the above procedures are not harmonised. However, for medicinal products which are able to use the centralised procedure provided for in Council Regulation No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products(1), when the application for authorisation to place a product in the market is ready, the applicant has the possibility of submitting the application to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products where a Community evaluation is carried out to enable the Commission to issue a marketing authorisation which is valid in all Member States and with identical information in the eleven languages. In the framework of the review of the marketing authorisation procedures planned for the year 2000, which are likely to lead to proposals for amendments of the current rules in 2001, the Commission could consider proposing harmonisation of the access to new major medicinal products once there are sufficient safety and efficacy data to allow this. The evaluation of those data could take place as part of a centralised evaluation with the possibility of a continuing review as supplementary data become available.

(1) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993.