ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2429/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: EU enlargement and the regions

In the first paragraph of its reply to Written Question E-1178/00(1) on the same subject, the Commission refers back to its reply to a question by Mrs Evans (H-666/99)(2). As the Commission rightly points out, Article 190 (2) of the EC Treaty states that mldr each Member State must ensure appropriate representation of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community.

Does the Commission consider that appropriate representation is possible in view of the negotiations currently under way aimed at reducing Spain's representation from 64 to 46 seats, bearing in mind the single-constituency system used in Spain for elections to the European Parliament?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 139.

(2) Written reply of 16 November 1999.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

The Commission points out that the issue of parliamentary representation was settled at Amsterdam (Article 189 EC), where the maximum number of Members of Parliament was set at seven hundred.

In its Resolution of 13 April on the Intergovernmental Conference (Dimitrakopouloulos/Leinen Report), Parliament establishes the criteria for distributing seats when enlargement takes place. The Commission can only abide by Parliament's recommendations. It obviously cannot prejudge the positions that Member States may take during the IGC.

In addition, the electoral system in each Member State is currently governed by national legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3001/00

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Power lines

There is keen and widespread debate in the European Union about the threat to the population posed by the proximity of high-tension power lines to residential areas, because of the electric and magnetic fields. People are also becoming increasingly aware of the environmental damage caused by power lines in highly-valued areas. These health and environmental concerns have given rise to proposals both to increase the compulsory distance between buildings and power lines and to run high-tension cables underground.

Can the Commission say what decisions may be taken at Community level as a coherent response to the concerns outlined above?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

In order to ensure coherence and a high level of protection at Community level from the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields, on 12 July 1999 the Council adopted a Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0Hz to 300 GHz)(1), which set maximum limit values for exposure. Implementation of this legislative framework by Member States will ensure the coherence at Community level that is called for by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2645/00

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Committee of Experts on reform of the Commission

Is the Commission in a position to assess the overall cost of the task carried out by the Committee of Independent Experts on reform of the Commission, possibly by requesting some data from Parliament's Administration?

In accordance with the objective of transparency recommended by the experts, can the Commission list the allowances, travel and subsistence expenses and other emoluments received individually by the five experts?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

It was Parliament which determined the financial and practical implications of the activities of the Committee of Independent Experts set up following Parliament's resolution of 14 January 1999.

In accordance with Parliament's wishes, the Commission agreed, in principle, to defray half of the Committee's expenses, with Parliament handling the operational management of the contracts involved.

On the basis of statements of expenditure from Parliament, the Commission made an initial payment of 75 256.62 to cover the phase of the Committee's activities ending in March 1999. The costs to be borne by the Commission for the second phase come to 101 377.43: the funding procedure is about to be wrapped up.

It should be borne in mind that Parliament directly covered all the Committee's operating costs and provided various contributions in kind (offices, office supplies, telecommunication and computer infrastructure, and secretarial services). The Commission would therefore suggest that the Honourable Member ask Parliament to provide comprehensive information on all the costs arising from the activities of the Committee of Independent Experts.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2859/00

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(7 September 2000)

Subject: Elections in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Presidential, federal and municipal elections are being held in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 24 September 2000. What is the Council's official position vis-à-vis the elections and is it committed to recognising the results, action which it has not so far taken?

Reply

(30 November 2000)

The Council is monitoring the elections on 24 September in the FRY very closely indeed.

The General Affairs Council meeting on 10 July 2000 watched with concern as Mr Milosevic, with elections in mind, pushed through a revision of the FRY Constitution that was immediately approved by Parliament. On the strength of this new constitutional framework Mr Milosevic then decided to call presidential and legislative elections in the FRY and local elections in Serbia.

On behalf of the Union, the next day the Presidency made a public declaration denouncing this decision as manoeuvring on the part of Milosevic to hold on to power. In the same declaration the Union reiterated its hopes for democratic and peaceful change in Belgrade and reaffirmed its support for and its confidence in the opposition and in civil society in Serbia, and it called upon the opposition to unite to bring about this indispensable change.

In the run-up to the elections, at its meeting on 18 and 19 September the Council adopted the text of a message to the Serbian people which stressed that a choice made by voters that inevitably led to democratic change would entail a radical change in the European Union's policy towards Serbia, in particular regarding sanctions and reconstruction aid. The last sentence of this declaration reminded Serbian voters that a vote for democracy in Serbia will be a vote for Serbia in Europe.

At that same meeting the Council requested the Parliaments of the 15 Member States to send democracy witnesses to evaluate the elections in situ, on the basis of internationally recognised standards. The Parliaments of the Member States responded to the Council's request by designating 25 democracy witnesses. The Yugoslav Consular posts did not issue them any visas to enable them to fulfil their mission. Under the circumstances their mission was cancelled.

The outcome of the elections has proved that the time has come for change in Belgrade. As promised, in the light of recent events, at the Council meeting on 9/10 October 2000 the European Union decided to lift its sanctions on the FRY that it had imposed under the Milosevic regime.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2498/00

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

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Textbook on the European Union

Schoolchildren of all ages, who are now coming across subjects relating to the European Union on a daily basis and in every aspect of their educational lives, are constantly asking for a more specific basic grounding to assist them in shaping their perception of the political climate governing their lives present and future.

As a result, a sizeable number of teachers have been wondering whether it might be advisable to introduce an official textbook on the European Union which schoolchildren of all ages could use to study all aspects of the Union and the kind of impact it will have on their lives when they complete their studies.

In view of the above, does the Commission see the need to propose a standard textbook for schoolchildren which provides them with an insight into the European Union, thus ensuring that the teaching material provided to schoolchildren anywhere in the EU paints a uniform, fair and balanced picture of the Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the organisation of education systems, including the content of teaching, is the responsibility of the Member States. As provided in Article 149 of the EC Treaty, the Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States (mldr) while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems (mldr).

The Commission nevertheless has an active information policy and as a result has published several texts for the public, including publications targeting young people. A catalogue of the works available can be consulted on the Europa site and includes: Hello Europe A youth guide to Europe and the European Union (CD-ROM); Europe-15; Europe from A to Z.

All three are available in the eleven official languages and help to give young people and teachers a uniform picture of the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1888/00

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Agriculture in the most remote regions

The most remote regions are facing an increasingly competitive international situation. In the COM area alone, their agricultural products such as rice, bananas and sugar face strong competition from neighbouring ACP countries. The ACP countries have much lower social costs than do the most remote regions and they also nave preferential access to the Community market.

In its report on Article 299(2) of the Amsterdam Treaty, the Commission demonstrates an awareness of the problem, stating that the circumstances call for vigilance and increased monitoring, and also that the frontier situation may be an advantage if it is exploited.

What specific measures does the Commission intend to take to protect the agriculture sector of the most remote regions in this international context, and how does it intend to exploit their potential as active frontiers of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

The outermost regions and their products are given special treatment within the framework of the common market organisations in rice, sugar and bananas, with additional support under the specific programmes to deal with their remoteness and island status (Poseican, Poseima, Poseidom); the latter are designed to modify and supplement the operation of the common agricultural policy in these regions.

In line with the Commission's own report, adopted on 14 March 2000(1), on the implementation of the new Article in the EC Treaty concerning the outermost regions (formerly Article 227, now Article 299(2)), the Commission has proposed that the evolution of the international context should be carefully studied and more closely monitored. In this context, the agricultural strands of the three specific programmes are to be reviewed in autumn 2000.

Before introducing any new Community legislation, the Commission will determine whether there are any aspects concerning the most remote regions which need to be born in mind. Indeed, all Community policies should be devised with an eye to their possible impact, direct and indirect, positive and negative, on these regions. The Commission will be giving this matter all due attention.

Possible future activities of the Community in this field will therefore pursue two main approaches. In terms of regional cooperation, the aim should be to continue encouraging cooperation between the outermost regions on the one hand and the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP countries), the overseas countries and territories (OCT) and further partners, on the other. The Commission is currently preparing to launch a study on the impact on the most remote regions of the new ACP/Community partnership agreement. The results of this study should be available around mid-2001. The Commission will of course give these results careful consideration.

(1) COM(2000) 147 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3310/00

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Subject: Illegal building works

The municipality of Villa Castelli (Brindisi, Italy) includes a gravina (natural canal that is a characteristic feature of the Apulian countryside), which is of outstanding natural beauty.

The whole area, including the gravina, is subject to environmental restrictions under the decree issued on 18 September 1996 by the Ministry for Environmental and Cultural Assets (within the meaning of the Galasso Law).

Law No 56/1980 enacted by the Apulia Region prohibits any building within 200 metres of a gravina.

In document 3347 of 14 May 1996, the Apulia Region (Environmental Directorate Ecology section Office for nature reserves and parks) stated that siting a new building with a surface area of 490 m2 within the natural environment of the gravina would have an immeasurable negative impact on the landscape, countryside, soil and surface water.

The municipality of Villa Castelli, using MOP Community funding (measures 7.3.9 and 7.3.10), has started building work on a 693 m2 multipurpose centre within the area of the gravina in violation of environmental regulations laid down by national and regional law.

Is it admissible to take advantage of MOP funding to carry out building works in violation of laws enacted to safeguard the countryside and natural heritage?

What action does the Commission intend to take once the facts have been verified through an on-the-spot inspection by its officials?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2000)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the multi-purpose centre in Villa Castelli is not eligible under the Structural Funds because the final beneficiary did not submit the project by the deadline for the decision adopting the Operational Programme for the region of Apulia for 1994-1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2844/00

by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Toxic chemicals in aeroplanes

International research has established that, in many types of aircraft, the air in the passenger cabin is laden with chemicals, channelled through the ventilation system, posing a risk to the health of both passengers and crew.

Does the Commission intend to carry out its own checks on the above issue and to take the measures necessary to eliminate this public health risk?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 2000)

The Commission is well aware of the doubts expressed by some as regards the quality of the air in civil aircraft. It is also aware of the studies conducted in this area by various scientists and of the investigations conducted by several European and foreign administrations.

No other aspect of those studies and investigations enables it to be concluded that there is a particular risk that justifies immediate action. Nevertheless, by way of a precaution, the Commission stated in its communication on the protection of air passengers(1) that it was going to set up a group of independent experts in order to identify the factors enabling it to form its own opinion. The work will be continued during 2001.

(1) COM(2000) 365 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3188/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Failure by insurance companies to cover treatment of road accident victims

The financial burden incurred by Greek social security agencies to cover hospital expenses, outpatient care and benefits for road accident victims is a substantial one. This is because a large part of the medical expenses are not covered by the private insurance companies which insure vehicles and drivers, but by public social security agencies, which are not able to claim back these expenses from the private companies. A typical example is the IKA social security institution which during 1996 paid out GRD 20,6 billion on medical expenses for victims of road accidents.

What are the Commission's views on the situation described above, which is tantamount to an indirect subsidy to private Greek insurance companies and is a burden on the budget of public social security agencies? Should it be seen as a competition problem? Are social security agencies in other Member States entitled to claim back from insurance companies part of the expenses they pay out in connection with road accidents?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2000)

One of the objectives of the Directives in force with regard to motor vehicle insurance(1) is to ensure that victims of accidents who suffered injury through the fault of a driver are covered by the compulsory insurance of the vehicle which caused the accident. This insurance covers liability for bodily harm to all passengers apart from the driver. Under Community law as it stands at present, the driver is excluded from cover through his own compulsory motor vehicle insurance where he was at fault.

The question asked by the Honourable Member refers to an external aspect of insurance relations, that is to say, the possibility for a third party who bore the hospitalisation costs of the victim (in this case social insurance bodies) to obtain reimbursement of these costs from the insurance company of the vehicle at fault. The Directives on insurance do not deal with this aspect which is left to the national law of the Member States.

(1) Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 (OJ L 103, 2.5.1972), Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 (OJ L 8, 11.1.1984), Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 (OJ L 129, 19.5.1990) and Directive 2000/26/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 16 May 2000 (OJ L 181, 20.7.2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3191/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Pollution of Lake Vegoritis in Greece

On 13 September 2000, the Commission sent a second reasoned opinion to the Greek Government concerning hazardous substances in Lake Vegoritis and failure to implement its depollution programmes. The reasoned opinion states that the Greek Government's failure to act is contrary to the basic Community Directive on water quality.

1. Does the Commission intend to set the Greek Government a deadline for cleaning up the lake?

2. Are there any other similar cases pending against Greece pursuant to the same Community Directive, for which the Commission is preparing to issue a reasoned opinion?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

In its judgment of 11 June 1998, the Court of Justice found in the joined cases C-232/95 and C-233/95 (Commission v. Greece) that: by failing to establish programmes including quality objectives and setting deadlines for their implementation in order to reduce the pollution of Lake Vegorrítis and the River Soulos and of the Gulf of Pagasaí by the dangerous substances within List II of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, mldr the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under mldr Directive 76/464, in particular Article 7 thereof.

On 7 September 2000 the Commission, considering that the steps taken by the Greek authorities to comply with the above judgment were fragmentary and certainly did not constitute programmes including quality objectives, delivered a reasoned opinion on the basis of Article 228 (formerly Article 171) of the EC Treaty.

In connection with the same Directive, in case C-384/97 (Commission v. Greece) the Court found in a judgment of 25 May 2000 that by failing to establish programmes including quality objectives in order to reduce water pollution caused by the 99 dangerous substances covered by List II in the annex to Council Directive 76/464/EEC(1), Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive. The Commission has asked the Greek authorities to communicate to it the measures necessary for them to comply with the judgment.

(1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2811/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Improving the standard of slaughterhouses in candidate Member States

In view of the impending accession of a number of Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs), representatives of the EU's agricultural sector are establishing contacts with possible partners in those countries. It appears that slaughterhouses in the CEECs rarely, if ever, comply with the strict European standards. Representatives of the Belgian slaughterhouses also point out that a number of slaughterhouses have had to be demolished because of their limited capacity. Provided the plans are modified, there is sufficient expertise within the Union to rebuild the demolished slaughterhouses, if so requested by the CEECs, thereby enabling them to be used again.

Can the Commission say whether it supports this approach (recommissioning of old and/or dismantled slaughterhouses) and whether it is willing to provide financial aid for pilot projects for the (re-)construction and modification of these CEEC slaughterhouses so that they comply with European standards?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2000)

The Commission does not have a view on the merits of re-commissioning of old or dismantled slaughterhouses in the applicant countries mentioned by the Honourable Member. It does however consider that, consistent with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period(1), it is in the Community interest for support to be given to applicant countries mentioned in that regulation to improve processing and marketing of agricultural products, including meats. The Commission anticipates that in countries where there is a need for the (re-) construction and modification of slaughterhouses, Community aid will be granted so that they comply with European standards, without it being limited to pilot projects.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.