ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3657/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Derailment of a Greek Railways train in Kallipefki

There has been an alarming increase in Greek Railways train derailments recently, indeed there have been some 140 such incidents since 1992. One of the principal reasons has been shown to be the age of the railway network in Greece. However, on 9 November 2000 a train was derailed at the station of Kallipefki on the Athens-Thessanloniki line on a part of the track that had been renovated a month earlier with funds under the Second CSF. It is worth pointing out that before the renovation work the speed limit on the track section in question had been 70 km/h, while after renovation it was lowered to 50 km/h.

1. Does the Commission have any information about the reasons for the incident in question?

2. Was the accident caused by shoddy workmanship on the section of track in question?

3. What information does it have about shoddy workmanship during the construction of new railway lines in Greece with funds from the Second CSF?

4. How much modernisation work was carried out on the Greek Railways network under the Second CSF compared to that carried out in 1994?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Further to its answer of 15 December 2000(1), the Commission can now provide further information:

- The Greek authorities have stated that the derailment of a train on 9 November 2000 near Kalipefki station did not occur on the new Athens-Thessaloniki line but on the old Tithorea-Domokos line, which had been partially modernised using funds from the Community support framework (CSF) for 1994-1999. The accident was not the result of defects on the line but to the fact that the suspension of the wagons did not comply with the small anomalies tolerated on any railway line. The Greek authorities have confirmed that the quality controls carried out so far on public works in the rail sector part-financed under the above CSF have not revealed any defects.

- By the end of December 2000, the implementation rate for rail projects in Greece under the CSF for 1994-1999 was 87 %, 544 million

out of a total of 627 209 million. The conclusions of this programming period will soon be presented by Greece as part of the final report on implementation of the Rail operational programme.

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3947/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Wine production methods

Will the Commission confirm that in certain wine-producing Member States it is the practice to use products made from dried blood in order to clarify wine?

Will the Commission also confirm that such blood may come from cattle?

Does it believe there is any risk of contamination if such blood were to come from BSE infected herds?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

The list of substances which may be used for the clarification of wine is laid down in Annex IV of Council regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1). As blood is not included in this list, it may not be used for this purpose.

In relation to the general point of the safety of bovine blood with respect to bovine spongiform encephalopathy, the Scientific Steering Committee has considered the point of the safety of ruminant blood with respect to transmissible spongiform encephalopathy risks. While it recommended the avoidance of slaughter techniques causing the dispersion of potentially contaminated brain material in the blood stream, such as pithing, it did not recommend the removal of ruminant blood from the human food chain. Pithing has since been prohibited by Commission Decision 2000/418/EC of 29 June 2000 regulating the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Decision 94/474/EC(2).

(1) OJ L 271, 21.10.1999.

(2) OJ L 158, 30.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0495/01

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

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Turkey

Is the Commission prepared to ask the Turkish Government to explain the three-year prison sentence imposed on Yousef Akbulut, a priest from Diyarbakir, who told journalists that members of the Syrian Orthodox Church suffered genocide around 1915?

Does the Commission know, and can the Commission confirm, that 1,5 million Christians were killed in Turkey in mid-1915, including a large number of Syrian Orthodox Christians?

Is the Commission aware that in the past thirty years almost all of the Syrian Orthodox community have fled or emigrated from Turkey, and are now scattered abroad, above all in Europe and the US?

Is the Commission aware that there are more than 10 000 Syrian Orthodox Christians from Turkey living in the Netherlands, and that these naturalised citizens are extremely concerned about the repression of the small group of Syrian Orthodox citizens still living in Turkey?

What are the consequences of the way in which the Turkish Government deals with small Christian minorities against the background of Turkey's being an applicant for accession to the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

The case of Father Abkulut to which the Honourable Member refers is under consideration in the Diyarbakir State Security Court. A third hearing will take place on 5 April 2001. No verdict has yet been given in this case.

The Commission, together with the Union Presidency and other members of the international community, is monitoring closely developments in this case, and will continue to do so. Such public concern has had positive effects, in that Father Abkulut has not been subjected to preventive detention during the legal proceedings.

The Commission is aware of the situation of the Syrian Orthodox Christians and other Christian communities in Turkey. It has addressed this issue in the Regular Report 2000(1) on Turkey's progress towards accession. It is also taken up in the Accession Partnership with Turkey. In this document the Commission asks Turkey to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This would be a significant step forward since Article 27 of this Covenant affirms the need to respect cultural, religious and linguistic rights.

The Commission considers that the historical events, to which the Honourable Member refers, should be the subject of independent research, based on full access to relevant sources.

(1) COM(2000) 713 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0312/01

by Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Single European Sky

What progress has been made in implementing the provisions of A Single European Sky? What is the current status of the High Level Group and when does the Commissioner expect the Council of Ministers to make the decisions necessary to bring the Commission's proposals into effect?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2001)

The High Level Group report on the reform of air traffic management (Single European Sky) was completed in November 2000 and forwarded to the Parliament as well as to the Council in December 2000. It will be published but is already available under

http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/library/hlg-final-report-en.pdf.

The Commission intends to adopt a communication on the follow-up to this report in time for discussion at the European Council in Stockholm on 23 March 2001 and shortly to put forward some legislative proposals on the principles underlying the Single European Sky and on the organisation of work.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0094/01

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Improved construction of vehicles for transporting livestock

In July 1997, the Commission presented a proposal for a directive on motor vehicles and trailers for the transport of certain animals. This proposal amended Directive 70/156/EC(1). Parliament delivered its opinion in July 1998 and proposed several amendments to the vehicle construction provisions, all of which would have improved animal welfare. The Commission accepted many of those amendments, and an amended proposal was published in April 1999. A common position is now awaited as the proposal for a directive was submitted under Article 189a(2) of the EC Treaty and is long overdue. Can the Council give an assurance that it will shortly establish a common position and allow this legislation to progress so that further improvements may be made to the welfare of farm animals being transported?

(1) OJ L 42, 23.2.1970, p. 1.

Reply

(7 May 2001)

1. As mentioned in the Honourable Member's question, the Commission in 1997 submitted a proposal concerning the construction of vehicles for transporting livestock.

The proposal has been examined on a number of occasions within the Council in an effort to reach a common position, most recently in March 2000. There remain a number of unresolved questions, in particular the technical specifications for loading and unloading ramps and the duration of journeys, which stand in the way of overall agreement being reached.

2. There are no plans to resume examination of the proposal in the Council for the time being.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0041/01

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Closing down the Europartnership programme

Small and medium-sized enterprises operating in economically disadvantaged regions particularly those coming under Objectives 1 and 2 have found the Community Europartnership programme to be a useful means of establishing cooperation between companies operating in regions with development problems which are a long way away from central markets.

The two annual events held under the programme have given local entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs from other European regions an extremely valuable opportunity for transnational cooperation, and this has been particularly true of the Mediterranean, which is an important area in strategic and development terms.

Despite the programme's success, the Commission has now decided to close it down.

Would the Commission state:

1. what are the real reasons for this decision?

2. whether it would not agree that by closing down the programme it is further penalising economic operators in such regions?

3. whether any thought is being given to partnership measures or programmes to promote business activity in such disadvantaged areas?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2001)

1. The Commission has been reviewing its priorities. In this context it has decided that it would no longer be appropriate to be directly involved in the management of Europartenariat events. This decision must be seen in the wider context of the reorientation of the Commission towards concentrating on core activities rather than direct actions.

2. The Commission is of the view that this decision should not have a negative impact on local actors, nor should it be seen as a negative attitude of the Commission vis-à-vis the intrinsic added value of such events designed to facilitate co-operation between enterprises. In the Commission view, it does neither prejudge their future development.

The Commission remains convinced that there are many economic players at local, national, or Community level who remain prepared to organise such events, with or without the direct financial intervention of the Commission. The Council Decision 2000/819/EC of 20 December 2000 on a multiannual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship, and in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (2001-2005)(1) provides for the Commission to develop actions to promote the organisation of Europartenariat-type business co-operation events.

3. The Commission will however not prepare a specific programme to financially support Europartenariat-type events. It will continue its efforts aimed at facilitating co-operation between companies and promoting internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterpises (SMEs) by other means, e.g. by its innovation programme or the opportunity offered to candidate countries to participate in the multiannual programme.

In the context of regional policy, support to SMEs remains an objective eligible for structural funds.

(1) OJ L 333, 29.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0106/01

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Help for Honduras after hurricane

After the hurricane, the European Union has promised several millions of euros for rehabilitation of schools and clinics, but to date not a single euro seems to have been delivered. Why?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

In order to respond to the most urgent needs, the European Community's Humanitarian Office (ECHO) implemented emergency relief actions in Honduras amounting in total to 15 million between 1998 and 1999 and committed a further 1,5 million in 2000. ECHO's intervention focused on three main sectors of assistance: water and sanitation, health and rehabilitation of houses. Aid for food security in the region totalled 30 million in 1999, the majority of which was committed to Honduras. All the food aid and ECHO aid committed to Honduras was disbursed via European and local non-governmental organisation (NGO) throughout the country in the months following the hurricane.

In addition to this important emergency assistance, the Community is highly committed to contributing to the reconstruction and transformation programme of the Central American countries affected by Hurricane Mitch: a longer term effort which had to be thoroughly prepared and co-ordinated with the national development strategies and other donors' activities. In this respect, the Commission has started to implement the Regional Programme for Reconstruction of Central America (PRRAC). A decentralised team, including officials and local agents is managing the PRRAC programme from its Delegation in Nicaragua, in order to ensure the proper use of public funds.

The programme totalling 250 million covers, in the four beneficiary countries (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala), public health, water and sanitation, housing, education and training, in an attempt to give continuity to and strengthen the activities previously undertaken by other Commission departments. In December 1999 the Commission made the first financial commitment for the PRRAC, amounting to 82,5 million. On 22 December 2000, the Commission committed the second part of the PRRAC for a total amount of 44 160 000 of which approximately 22 million are devoted to Honduras.

The PRRAC has committed 52,7 million via its Subprograma Honduras to this country which are being implemented during the period 1999 to 2002. Moreover, in 1998 the PRRAC's studies and technical assistance project committed 8,2 million.

In addition to the above programmes, the Community will contribute around 15 million for Honduras within the framework of the Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) initiative. This will be dispursed when the International Monetary Fund (IMF) decides that Honduras is in a position to receive it.

The Commission is also implementing several projects by traditional bilateral co-operation for development aid which includes programs in the education and health sectors. In March 1999, approximately 40 projects were being implemented by the Community, totalling 60 000 000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0306/01

by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Transmission of BSE

It appears that one of the ways in which BSE can be transmitted is from a cow infected with the disease to its own calf, which is then born with the disease.

Will the Commission therefore say:

1. what security is provided by conducting tests on calves more than 20 or 30 months old?

2. what percentage of animals tested, although infected, may have been able to slip through the net?

3. finally, whether there is any truth in the report which appeared in The Times last summer concerning a baby born with BSE that had been transmitted during the mother's pregnancy?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

According to the scientific advice available to the Community, epidemiological studies point at an enhanced risk of approximately 10 % of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in offspring born to BSE affected dams within 12 months of onset of clinical signs of BSE. However the mechanism for the transmission is not known and it is still unclear if maternal transmission of BSE in cattle in the traditional sense occurs. Even if maternal transmission does occur it appears to be of minor importance compared to feed-borne transmission.

The current tests for BSE are used to detect clinical BSE cases or BSE infected animals close to the clinical phase. As the tests cannot detect the infection early in the incubation period, a negative test result is not a guarantee that the animal was not infected. The most important direct public health protection measure is therefore the removal of specified BSE risk material at slaughter. At present it is not possible to establish what percentage of the animals tested negative have actually been infected.

The Commission does not have the information requested in the Honourable Member's third question. However, up to now, no case of transmission of human transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) from mother to child has been substantiated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0254/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Redundancies

The C. & J. Clark footwear manufacturers in Arouca (Portugal) intend to make 368 workers redundant on the grounds that orders have fallen off.

However, according to the footwear workers' union (Sindicato dos Operários da Indústria de Calçado, Malas e Afins) of the Aveiro and Coimbra districts, the company has transferred various pieces of modern equipment from that plant to other manufacturing plants which it owns in Castelo de Paiva.

It would appear that the company has received national and Community subsidies towards plant modernisation, job creation and professional training, which has also been used to support another of the company's manufacturing units in India.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What Community aid has the company received?

2. If the company received subsidies aimed at creating or maintaining jobs, what measures will it take to defend the jobs of workers at the C. & J. Clark plant in Arouca, Portugal?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2001)

The Honourable Member's question concerns the management of projects cofinanced by the Structural Funds. In accordance with Community rules and in line with the principle of subsidiarity, project management is the responsibility of the Member States.

The Commission does not currently have sufficient information to reply to this question. It will ask the Portuguese authorities for the necessary information and forward it directly to the Honourable Member as soon as it has been received.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0183/01

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

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Investment in Andalusia

At a time when the future of the EU fisheries sector is a cause for serious concern, it is worth reviewing the situation in communities which are particularly affected by the crisis, for reasons which need no explanation.

With reference to Andalusia (Spain), the 1997-1999 Community Fisheries Initiative and the 1994-1999 Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance, how much was invested by the European Union in Andalusia's fisheries sector and how much by the beneficiaries of the various measures?

During the same period, how much was invested by Spain as a Member State and by the Andalusia Regional Government?

What would be the European Union's assessment of the way in which the money has been spent?

How much money has been repaid by Andalusia in the fisheries sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about the fishing industry in Spanish regions faced with increasingly difficult access to fish stocks. It would point out that the implementation period for programmes under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) and Pesca in respect of Spanish Objective 1 regions will not expire until 31 December 2001.

For the period as a whole, the Commission is able to state that all appropriations have been committed but does not have final data on payments.

At 31 December 1999, expenditure carried out in respect of Andalusia under FIFG and PESCA programmes was as follows:

>TABLE>

In accordance with the Community rules in force, the Member State is responsible for taking appropriate measures to prevent irregularities and fraud and to introduce a monitoring system which ensures that the public funds at stake are managed soundly and efficiently.

The Commission in any case intends to carry out an on-the-spot inspection at the Andalusian regional authority during the first half of 2001 to check that the current monitoring systems comply with the rules in force.

To date, the Autonomous Community of Andalusia has not had to pay money back to the Community in respect of structural aid for fisheries.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0418/01

by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Absence of an index in the selected instruments taken from the Treaties

Can the Commission say why there is no index in the paper version of the selected instruments taken from the Treaties; why the protocols, declarations and institutional acts and texts are missing from the Intranet version; why the Intranet version is not available in the usual Word format?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

As the author of this publication is the Council of the European Union, the Commission is not in a position to reply to the question posed by the Honourable Member.

The Office for Official Publications of the European Communities which serves all the EU institutions and agencies has followed the instructions of the Council for both the paper edition of this publication and the version available on the Internet.