ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3979/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: 'Western Landfill Utility' (Aterro sanitário do Oeste)

The Movement for Proper Information about the Western Landfill Utility (MPI), which has its headquarters in the Vilar local government building, in Cadaval (Portugal), has lodged a complaint with the European Commission's Directorate General for Regional Policy, about the procedure used to select this landfill site, located in the Torres Vedras groundwater recharge area, which could prove harmful to local groundwater resources.

As specialists have pointed out, and as I was able to establish on a recent visit to the site, there are alternatives in the vicinity which would not entail the same environmental, social and economic costs as this site, on which building work has already begun and whose boundary is next to a small residential area.

There has been no public debate or prior environmental impact assessment of the project. Moreover, the Cadaval Municipal Council voted against this site.

The Commission:

1. What is it's position on the complaint submitted by the Movement for Proper Information about the Western Landfill Utility?

2. What measures are to be taken to ensure that any Community funding will only be granted once it has been shown that the site selected for the Western Landfill Utility is the one which entails the lowest cost and the least harmful environmental and social impact?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2001)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question P-3498/00 from Mr Jorge Moreira da Silva(1).

The Commission can in fact add that the Portuguese authorities have recently replied to the Commission's letter. As an annex to their reply, the Portuguese authorities have sent a copy of all studies carried out on their initiative for the purpose of analysing any impact the project might have on various environmental resources.

Furthermore, the Commission has also had additional informal contacts with the complainants' representative and the Portuguese authorities in order to shed light on the project's implications, in particular as regards the protection of aquifers and human health.

Lastly, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it is currently examining all the information in its possession in order to take a decision on the case as soon as possible.

The Commission reserves the right to ask the national authorities for repayment of any co-funding in the event of non-compliance with Community law.

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 141.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3796/00

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Blackmail of Community exporters

Further to the Commission's answer to my Question No E-2793/00(1), in which the Commission points out that exporters can apparently confidently use an unloading and import certificate issued by a control agency as primary documentation for approval of import documents, will the Commission say:

- on what grounds it published a notice in OJ C 295, 18.10.2000 in connection with the publication of the list at 1 September 2000 of international control and supervisory agencies?

- can that notice be interpreted as meaning that other Commission departments have begun to doubt the reliability of these reports?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 97.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2001)

The unloading and import certificates made out by control and supervisory agents form part of the primary evidence of arrival at destination.

For the sake of transparency and to keep Community exporters duly informed, the Commission periodically publishes an updated list of control agents approved by the Member States in the C series of the Official Journal. The warning which accompanies the list published in OJ C 295, 18.10.2000 features nothing new; it is the same warning which appeared when the list was first published.

The purpose of this warning is simply to remind exporters of the precautions to be taken with regard to documents issued by the control and supervisory agents.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4113/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Sudan

In light of the escalation in hostilities in the area around Sudan's oilfields, the continuing human rights abuses and displacement of civilians in that country, and of the fact that there is little evidence to suggest that the Government of Sudan is seriously committed to progressive change, what plans does the Commission have to review, with a view to ending, its policy of critical engagement with the Government of Sudan?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2001)

The relationship between the Union and Sudan has been strongly influenced by the renewed political dialogue that the Union initiated in November 1999. Its purpose was to discuss and follow up developments in Sudan in the fields of democratisation, human rights and the rule of law, the peace process, policies against terrorism and relations with neighbouring countries. The Union initiated the dialogue in the hope that the government of the Sudan would make substantial progress in these areas.

A Union Troika mission visited Sudan on 6 December 2000 to assess the results of the first year of the renewed dialogue. It voiced once more its concerns about the human rights situation in the country and about the lack of progress in the Intergovernmental authority on development (IGAD) led peace process. Despite these concerns, the Member States and the Commission view the outcome of the first year of the political dialogue as generally positive and agreed to continue the dialogue for another year. An important advantage of the dialogue is that the Sudanese authorities have been made aware of the precise expectations of the Union and, more generally, of the role of the Union as an important actor in international relations. The political dialogue allows confidence building whilst at the same time constant pressure is applied on the issues addressed, especially in the fields of human rights, democracy and the peace process.

Given the well established position of the Union on issues like democracy and human rights in its relations with third countries, any further improvement of the relations between the Union and the Sudan will depend on the concrete measures the Sudanese government takes in these areas. The dialogue will henceforth mainly concern questions relating to human rights, democratisation and civil liberties, as well as the peace process.

The Commission strongly encourages the peace process, not only by providing political and moral support to the mediation efforts of IGAD, but also in its direct contacts with the belligerent parties. It subscribes to the call for an immediate, inclusive cease-fire agreement under international supervision and to the demand for a complete stop to the provision of arms to either side, as decisive steps towards a political solution of the conflict in the south.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3060/00

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Subject: Dolphins and pair trawlers

With increasing numbers of dolphins being caught up in the nets of pair trawlers off the coast of the south of England and France, can the Commission provide details of Member State measures to monitor by-catches, in particular within the scope of the Habitats and Species Directive?

What data does the Commission collect on by-catches, and can it provide the most up-to-date statistics on dolphin by-catches?

What further measures are contemplated by the Commission to minimise these by-catches, and what assistance can it provide?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive(1), Member States are obliged to draw up a report on the measures they have taken in implementing the Directive, including information on the systems to monitor incidental catches and killing of strictly protected species. These reports should be sent to the Commission in the first half of 2001. The Commission is therefore not yet in a position to provide information on the above mentioned measures or systems. The Commission is however aware of the initiative taken by Denmark to implement an action plan for reducing incidental by-catches of harbour porpoises(2) (19 August 1998, J. No SN 1996-402-0035).

The Commission is also aware of the scarcity of reliable information on cetaceans' population dynamics and incidental catches, and the problems caused. Research and monitoring projects, funded either within the research framework programme or by other Community schemes, will help provide relevant data to the scientific community working in this field.

The critical role that Member States play in the definition and the implementation of both environmental and fisheries' measures should never be neglected. The Commission is committed to ensuring the effective application of the existing provisions, including the designation by Member States of sites to protect bottle nose dolphins, and which eventually will form part of the Natura 2000 ecological network, as required by the Habitats Directive; and the ban on the use of drift nets(3), the prohibition on encircling mammals with the purpose of catching tuna, and the prohibition on fishing sandeels in an area where they constitute a major food item for marine life.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna an flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).

(2) 19 August 1998, J. No SN 1996-402-0035).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ L 171, 17.6.1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3266/00

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Support for the arts in the EU

Can the Commission give details of Community legislation providing for EU subsidies for all types of schools and academies of music (both public and private) in the Member States? What Community programmes are in force which provide for financial aid to such institutions?

Which Community initiatives provide subsidies for projects to promote the book sector? Are there plans to provide aid for the publication of major works of European and world literature, such as the ancient Greek tragedies, and to subsidise pioneering projects such as the translation of ancient philosophical, historical and scientific texts into all the official languages of the Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2000)

The Community action programme in the field of education, Socrates, subsidises transnational activities initiated by institutional partnerships involving at least three participating countries. In principle, the Comenius action on school education is open to all establishments recognised as schools by the participating countries. A detailed list of eligible institutions appears in the programme application guide. None of the Socrates actions is exclusively concerned with the arts.

The Culture 2000 programme, which is the single financing and programming instrument for cultural cooperation within the Community established by Decision No 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000(1), is designed, inter alia, to promote cultural dialogue and mutual knowledge of the culture and history of European peoples and to encourage creativity and the transnational dissemination of culture.

The objectives of the framework programme are to be achieved through actions which are either vertical (concerning one cultural field) or horizontal (associating several cultural fields).

In the case of books and reading, the vertical approach of the Culture 2000 programme is intended, in particular: to improve awareness and the distribution of literary creation and the history of the European people through supporting the translation of literary, dramatic and reference works mldr.

As regards support for certain types of project, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the 2001 project priorities are to be announced under the call for programme proposals to be published in the Official Journal during November 2000.

(1) OJ L 63, 10.3.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3801/00

by Earl of Stockton (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Longline fishing

What action is currently being taken or is being considered to counter the threat caused to seabirds by longline fishing?

Will the Commission consider calling on the relevant organisations and authorities to introduce measures to mitigate the danger, including:

1. using bird-scaring line with plastic streamers attached,

2. weighting the lines so that they sink faster and pose less risk,

3. prohibiting the discharge of offal at sea, which attracts seabirds to the lines,

4. setting the longlines at night when albatross and other seabirds are less likely to be foraging?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Community is well aware of the incidental catches of seabirds in longline fisheries and has therefore actively participated in the preparation of the Food and agriculture organisation (FAO) International plan of action for reducing incidental catch of seabirds. This plan foresees the presentation of voluntary national plan of action to reduce incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries where this occurs.

The Community has the intention to present a Community plan of action to the next FAO fisheries committee (COFI) at the end of February 2001. This plan of action will recall the commitment of the Community towards the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources (CCAMLR) conservation and control measures that have been incorporated into Council Regulation (EC) No 66/98 of 18 December 1997 laying down certain conservation and control measures applicable to fishing activities in the Antarctic and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2113/96(1). Those CCAMLR mitigation measures include the one quoted in the Honourable Member's question and are already implemented.

(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3424/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Funding of European Union island regions

Further to the Commission's reply to my question on funding of European Union island regions (E-1738/00)(1) and on the basis of the provisions of the Amsterdam agreements and the guidelines for the 2001 budget that Parliament has already voted on:

1. How does the Council explain the Commission's refusal to create a legal basis for the funding of EU island regions?

2. What initiatives does the Council intend to take to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on this subject are applied?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 38.

Reply

(26 February 2001)

1. Regarding the first question, the Council would like to remind the Honourable Member that it has no power to reply on the Commission's behalf.

However, the Council would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Question E-2975/00 on the funding of the European Union island regions in which it stated that in the context of economic and social cohesion, the Structural Funds and in particular the ERDF are, in this connection, an important instrument for action, having a positive effect on the growth and convergence of the island regions of the European Union.

2. As to the second question, the Council is unable to give a precise answer to the Honourable Member as it has not received any proposal from the Commission along the lines indicated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4003/00

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Abolition of the current system of vehicle retail monopoly

The Commission is currently drawing up a directive designed to increase competition by abolishing the current vehicle retail monopoly, to come into force at the end of next year. How will the entry of new players hitherto unconnected with the business of vehicle retail, benefit this market? How does the current system limit and stifle competition? Would the Commission actually claim that in the field of vehicle distribution in Europe, the situation as regards competition is imperfect, and therefore, in the last analysis, prejudicial to consumers' pockets? Does the Commission believe that the current system which in the case of the Spanish market, for example, guarantees access to 49 makes, 235 models and over 2 200 versions of vehicles, in addition to providing professional service to the user actually prejudices the interests of consumers to such an extent that we should allow superstores to enter a market sector which in Spain alone involves 10 000 largely small and medium-sized undertakings, and employs some 150 000 people?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements(1) will expire on 30 September 2002. The Commission has recently adopted the report evaluating the application of this Regulation(2). This Report is a factual analysis of the current regulatory regime. It does not contain any proposal for the future legal framework for motor vehicle distribution, but will form an essential basis for the discussion which will start in 2001 about the future regime.

The question of effective competition in the motor vehicle industry has been one of the issues treated in the report, as it is one of the assumptions underlying the current Regulation. The Commission believes that currently effective inter-brand competition exists in the Community. The report identifies however certain factors limiting intra-brand competition within a Member State or across the Community between dealers of the same brand. The question of whether the sector and consumers should benefit from the emergence of other distribution channels, such as e-commerce and sales via supermarket chains, will indeed have to be assessed in the analysis which will be carried out in 2001 in view of determining the future regime for motor vehicle distribution.

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.

(2) See IP/00/1306 of 15.11.2000. The Report has been published in the internet under the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/car sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3771/00

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: The Ilios People of the Chagos Archipelago

Further to the answer given by Commissioner Pinheiro to my question concerning the Ilios People of the Chagos Archipelago (H-0833/98)(1), can the Commission indicate its response, and the action it intends to take in the light of the UK court ruling of Friday, 3 November that the original inhabitants of the islands of the Chagos Archipelago, which forms part of the EU associated territory of British Indian Ocean Territory, were unlawfully evicted to make way for a US air base, forcibly exiled outside the EU to Mauritius and have the right to return to their homeland?

The British Judge, Lord Justice Laws, ruled that a British ordinance of 1971 used to evict the islanders had been an abject legal failure. Lord Justice Laws stated in his ruling, I cannot see how the wholesale removal of a people from the land where they belong can be said to conduce the territory's peace, order and good governance.

What action, if any, will be taken by the EU against the UK for its continued violation of the human rights of the evicted islanders which occurred while the UK was a Member State of the EU?

(1) Oral answer of 6 October 1998.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The Commission is aware of the Chagos issue, but has never taken part in official discussions on this matter. The United Kingdom is the public authority responsible for its British Indian Ocean Territory. Chagos Islanders are British subjects, and the islands fall under British sovereignty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4111/00

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Hunger strike by Turkish prisoners

For more than fifty days hundreds of prisoners have been on hunger strike in 18 prisons in Turkey: they are protesting about the decision by the authorities to transfer them to new F-type prisons with smaller cells, since this deprives them of basic rights, such as the right to communicate and the possibility of giving each other moral support.

In view of this, will the Council say how a country seeking accession to the European Union can violate prisoners' rights in such brutal manner and endanger their lives, and whether behaviour such as that of the Turkish authorities is in keeping with the partnership agreement concluded recently between the EU and Turkey?

Reply

(30 May 2001)

The Turkish Government is well aware of the EU's strong views on the need to improve the situation in Turkish prisons. Indeed, the Council has included this issue in the medium-term priorities of the Accession Partnership: adjust detention conditions in prisons to bring them into line with the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and other international norms. Moreover, Turkey has recently adopted a National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis, which indicates Turkey's intentions with regard to the Accession Partnership.

In bilateral meetings with Turkey, the European Union has registered its concern about the police methods deemed necessary by the Turkish authorities in December of last year to deal with the hunger strikes and the unrest in Turkish prisons, such practices not being required for the introduction of the reforms provided for in the Accession Partnership. The Council welcomes the intention of the Turkish authorities to continue to cooperate with the Council of Europe in this respect, in particular with its Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The Council will continue to monitor the situation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3972/00

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: WTO challenge by Canada to French Chrysotile Ban

On 18 September 2000 the WTO announced that the EU's defence of the French ban on chrysotile had been upheld. The hard work of the EU defence team and the support of the EU's expert witnesses

were pivotal to this victory. Does the Commission wish to thank the EU lawyers, led by Theofanis Christoforou, and experts, including Dr Morris Greenberg from the UK and Dr Barry Castleman from the USA, for their dedication and perseverance?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

The Commission is very pleased with the conclusions of the panel that, on 18 September 2000, confirmed the consistency of the French ban on asbestos with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and it is grateful to all those who have contributed to achieving such a positive result. The Commission hopes that the panel's final conclusion will be confirmed by the WTO Appellate Body.