ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1924/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE)and Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Construction work on the Puxeiros-Tui motorway (Galicia)

On 7 March 2002 a complaint was forwarded to the Commission by the association of residents affected by the work on the A9 motorway in Galicia, relating to the stretch Mos Porriño/Salceda de Caselas/Tui (i.e. the interchange for Rebullón and the Portuguese border). One of the objections made was that the construction work was not preceded by the mandatory environmental impact assessment. This has led to major problems, especially with regard to the accumulation of river water, since the transversal drainage tubes for the road surface have not been correctly positioned. The defective evacuation of these tubes is causing flooding, spillage, sedimentation and other disturbances, with grave consequences for crops and housing and for the lives of residents.

The complainants further state that the lack of an environmental impact assessment means that no account has been taken of the considerable increase in noise pollution.

Can the Commission provide information on the action taken so far on the above complaint?

Does the Commission not consider that this motorway construction project falls within the scope of Directive 97/11/EC(1) and that an environmental impact assessment should therefore have been mandatorily carried out?

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure the protection of the local inhabitants, who could be affected by water pollution arising from sedimentation generated by the construction work, with its inadequate drainage system? Does the Commission not consider that seepage and spillage risks exist with respect to the aquatic environment, and that these risks could be in breach of the provisions of Directive 80/68/EEC(2) on the protection of groundwater and Directive 76/464/EEC(3) on discharge of dangerous substances into the aquatic environment?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(2) OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43.

(3) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

The Commission was unaware of the situation reported by the Honourable Members and did not in fact receive the complaint mentioned by them until after receiving this written question and the accompanying annexes.

Given the information available, the Commission cannot at this stage issue an opinion as to whether the directives referred to in the written question have been contravened and has, therefore, registered the complaint with a view to obtaining further information on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0760/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Subject: Use of by-catches

It is clearly standard practice in some fishing nations that by-catches must be landed with the rest of the catch instead of being thrown back into the sea.

1. In which countries does the above procedure apply, and what experience has been gained with this method?

2. Does the Commission see any possibility of discontinuing the current practice of throwing by-catches (undersized fish, unwanted catches) back into the sea and landing and marketing them with the rest of the catch instead, counting them against the relevant quota and thereby easing pressure on stocks to some extent?

3. How is the Commission proposing to resolve the long-standing problem of by-catches and discards as part of the reform of European fisheries policy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

The term by-catch is not particularly helpful in this context. Many fisheries simultaneously exploit numerous species by each operation of the fishing gear. Usually, a relatively small number of species predominates the catches with a larger number of species being less predominant. However, the less predominant species are often of high value per unit weight and are therefore a welcome addition to the

income of fishermen. In addition, quantities of fish are also caught which fishermen do not wish to land, usually because they are of little or no commercial value, or which are prohibited by legislation to land.

1. In Norway, the principle applies that individuals of the major commercially exploited species which are caught shall not be discarded but shall be returned to port and counted against an appropriate quota. Despite a number of inquiries, the Commission has not succeeded in obtaining a full description of this system or of its success.

2. The Commission would wish to see the capture of small fish discontinued or much reduced. This is the basic intention of the Community's Technical Measures Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms(1). The suggestion to land undersized fish and market them implies dispensing with minimum landing sizes; in the Commission's view such a move would jeopardise rather than contribute to stock recovery. Unwanted catches may be landed provided that they are in compliance with legislative requirements but they are discarded into the sea precisely because they are unwanted by the fisherman who has caught them.

3. The basic attack on discarding will be by improvement of technical measures intended to prevent or reduce capture of small fish. The Commission is committed to producing an action plan for discards which should emerge by June 2002 and which may contain additional elements.

(1) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1682/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Subject: Use of sniffer dogs against spread of foot-and-mouth disease virus from South Korea

FMD has again broken out in South Korea (on 30 April), just after the International Office of Epizootics (OIE) had officially declared the country free of the disease (simultaneously with the Netherlands, France and Ireland).

This June, the 2002 football world cup competition is taking place in Japan and South Korea, and many football fans will travel there from the European Union. Whereas the organisers are concerned that fans will stay away from Japan because of the FMD outbreak, others are concerned about the risk that the infection may be spread by those fans who do come. The authorities maintain that the area concerned is a long way away from the football stadiums and that there is no risk that FMD will spread.

What will the Commission do to prevent FMD from being carried into the European Union from South Korea?

Are any measures being taken at European airports to use sniffer dogs to identify plants or meat and cheese products brought with them by private individuals and to destroy them?

Will disinfection measures be introduced at and around airports (in Japan, South Korea and Europe) to prevent the exportation and importation of the FMD virus?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2002)

With reference to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission wishes to refer to its reply to written questions P-1535/02 by Mr Böge and P-1544/02 by Mr Maat(1) on the same subject.

On 3 June 2002 a new outbreak was reported in addition to those 12 outbreaks reported until 20 May 2002. According to the information from Korea it would appear that also the last outbreak reported so far occurred in rural areas about 40 km away from the nearest football venue.

The competent authorities of the Republic of Korea have started an awareness campaign to inform soccer fans and provide information on the Internet (http://www.nvrqs.go.kr).

Equally, the competent authorities in the Member States have launched information campaigns for people returning from foot-and-mouth disease infected countries and the Republic of Korea in particular.

In addition, a draft Commission Decision aiming at harmonizing the methods employed to raise public awareness and to reinforce controls at ports of entry will be presented to the Member States at the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health shortly.

(1) See page 172.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1007/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: The enlargement negotiations, agriculture and the Sapard programme

Article 5(1) and (2) of the various multiannual financing agreements between the Commission and the governments of the individual candidate countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Romania) in connection with the Sapard programme imposes a requirement to communicate in English: Any communication between the Commission and () related to this Agreement shall be in English. Article 10 of these agreements stipulates that only the English text of the agreement shall be authentic.

Why did the Commission choose English as the language of communication? Can it give an assurance that these documents will be translated into all the official languages of the Union, and does it also intend that English should in future be the sole medium of communication for other contacts with authorities in the candidate countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2002)

It is not the policy of the Commission to use solely English as the means of communication with candidate countries. The choice of language in the contacts between candidate countries and the Commission depends on whether it is understandable and expedient to both parties.

A particular good example for language use is the co-operation between candidate countries and long-term experts in the field of twinning, where it is not unusual e.g. for Estonians to use Finnish with Finnish pre-accession advisors; French is used widely e.g. in Romania, and German is also frequently a common language.

Concerning the Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development (Sapard) English was chosen for practical reasons. In particular, the Commission point out that the volume of documents per country would already average around 1000 pages.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1413/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Absence of Dutch language sections at the European Schools in Alicante and Frankfurt

Neither of the two new European Schools which are being set up in Frankfurt and Alicante and which are expected to open in September this year is to include a Dutch language section, unlike the European Schools in Karlsruhe and Munich. In Frankfurt the planned language sections are German, English, French and Italian. In Alicante they are German, English, French and Spanish.

Why has it been decided not to have Dutch language sections at the European Schools in Frankfurt and Alicante?

What will the Commission do to ensure that Dutch language sections are after all included?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2002)

The two new European Schools set up in Frankfurt and Alicante have no Dutch-language section because of the number of children of Community staff in those two cities who have Dutch as their mother tongue falls below the minimum required to open a language section.

Under the viability criteria laid down on 24 and 25 October 2000 by the Board of Governors of the European Schools, the intergovernmental body responsible for those schools, each language section must have a minimum of 75 pupils at primary level and 84 at secondary level.

If at any stage in the future it becomes likely that the validity criteria would be met for languages other than those provided at Frankfurt and Alicante, the Commission would, of course, support opening the relevant language sections in the schools concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0925/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Referral of Greece to the European Court

The Commission has decided to refer Greece to the European Court for breach of Regulation (EEC) 3577/92(1) concerning freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage). Could the Commission state which articles of this regulation Greece has contravened, and for how long it has done so?

(1) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

The referral to the Court of Justice referred to by the Honourable Member concerns the interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage)(1). The Greek circular orders concerned date back to December 1998. This procedure does not therefore affect Greek Law No 2932/2001 on the liberalisation of cabotage.

The rules applicable to manning are in principle the responsibility of the Member State in which the vessel is registered (flag state). However, under Article 3 of the Regulation, Member States may impose their own rules on manning (host state rules) for vessels registered in another Member State carrying out island cabotage in their territory.

The dispute between the Commission and Greece centres on the nature and extent of the manning rules that may be decided by the host state. Greece considers that the host state is responsible for determining the number of seamen on board a ship. The Commission believes that such a condition, when it goes beyond minimum safety standards, excessively restricts the freedom to provide services. The Commission and Greece are also in disagreement over the manning rules applicable to cruise liners carrying out island cabotage.

(1) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1473/02

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Preservation of the Sicilian puppet opera and popular theatre

The Sicilian puppet opera, which is an art form of great originality and cultural value, has long been in severe crisis.

Fifteen years ago the Trapani puppet opera ceased activities; the same had happened at Caltanissetta in the 1960s; and in Caltagirone and Sortino the deaths of the last two puppet showmen, Gesualdo Papa and Ignazio Puglisi, have also led to the disappearance of their art.

Immediately after the second world war there were 25 puppet theatres in Palermo alone, but for five years now there have been only three companies left.

The Commission:

1. Can it state what measures it could take to ensure the recovery and survival of the puppet opera, given its unique characteristics as an expression of the Sicilian and European cultural tradition?

2. Can it state what initiatives it intends to promote more generally for the support and preservation of the Sicilian dialect theatre, including the involvement of educational institutions and tourist bodies?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2002)

Article 151 of the EC Treaty gives the Community responsibilities in the field of culture. According to Article 151, action by the Community shall, while fully observing the principle of subsidiarity, be aimed exclusively at contributing to cooperation between Member States, to the flowering of their cultures while respecting their national and regional diversity, and to fostering Member States' cooperation with third countries and the competent international organisations in the sphere of culture.

In this connection, the EU supports initiatives in the cultural field, including the live arts (especially musical theatre, theatre and dance) within the framework and according to the selection criteria of the Culture 2000 programme, which is the EU's sole financing and programming instrument for cultural cooperation. The Commission would point out that the visual arts including theatre will figure prominently as part of the Culture 2000 programme in 2003.

The Commission would, however, draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the Culture 2000 programme does not provide support for cultural initiatives specific to a region, but for projects for cooperation in the field of culture at European level in keeping with the Community's mandate under the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2354/02

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2002)

Subject: European farm subsidy for the Netherlands royal family

According to a report in the Volkskrant newspaper on 16 July 2002 under the headline Beatrix looks forward to Balkenende's arrival, Queen Beatrix told a group of Members of the Netherlands Second Chamber in February 1999 that the Netherlands royal house had received European subsidies for planting an olive grove at the Netherlands royal family's country estate at Porto Ercole in Italy.

1. Can the Commission confirm that the Netherlands royal house has received subsidies for planting an olive grove at Porto Ercole, Italy?

2. Does the Netherlands royal house receive other kinds of European subsidies, from the agricultural fund or from other funds (such as the European Social Fund)?

3. Is the subsidy to the Netherlands royal house granted under Article 33, paragraph 1(b) of the Treaty of Rome, which says that one of the objectives of the common agricultural policy is to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture? If not, on the basis of what objective was it paid?

4. Does the Commission agree that insofar as any financial aid is granted to the agriculture sector it should be restricted to small farms with low incomes, and that even the ceiling of 300 000 proposed by Commissioner Fischler is too high in some cases?

5. Does the Commission share the view that a decision to grant a subsidy should at least be based on an income and means test? Is it prepared to revise its plans accordingly?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0886/02

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 April 2002)

Subject: France and the internal energy market

Liberalisation of the internal energy market is a key component of the Lisbon strategy, which aims to make the EU the world's most competitive area by 2010. As far as the Member States are concerned, France has systematically opposed and impeded such liberalisation. Its behaviour is totally unacceptable, especially when the matter at issue, operation of the internal market in the energy sector, is of such vital importance.

Even under the directives now in force, the Member States should have liberalised a third of their electricity and gas markets. Why has the Commission not carried out its threats to institute proceedings against France before the Court of Justice, given that France has failed to implement the directives?

The Commission oversees competition in the EU area. Why has it not prevented the French energy monopoly EDF from buying energy companies in neighbouring countries, transactions which EDF has managed to finance because it makes profits on the scale of its monopoly status?

What steps will the Commission take to make France join the common endeavours?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Regular monitoring of the development of the energy market in the Union is one of the Commission's tasks.

France has transposed Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity(1).

France has not, on the other hand, transposed Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas(2) and the Commission has initiated proceedings before the Court of Justice for France's failure to transpose this Directive.

The Commission examines the purchasing of companies very carefully pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings(3). In order to maintain and foster competition, substantial conditions were imposed on Electricité de France (EDF) when it bought companies abroad.

In addition, the decision, taken at the Barcelona European Council (15 and 16 March 2002), that all non-household consumers should have freedom of choice of supplier as of 2004 will enable a more competitive environment to be created soon.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.

(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(3) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, republished in OJ L 257, 21.9.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1223/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation with Israel in respect of Framework Six

Regarding the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation with Israel in respect of Framework Six, can the Commission detail how this agreement could be suspended were that to be the wish of the Parliament if Israel continues to act in a manner that leads to the kind of carnage we have seen recently in the Jenin refugee camp?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2002)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that the existing scientific and technological cooperation agreement does in fact associate Israel to the ongoing 5th Framework Programme (FP).

Freezing the agreement associating Israel to this Framework Programme would require a Council decision based on a Commission proposal. It should be noted that either of the contracting parties of the Association Agreement to the FP may terminate at any time on a notification period stipulated in the agreement. Projects and activities in progress at the time of termination of this Agreement shall continue until their completion under the conditions led down in this Agreement.

Regarding the 6th Framework Programme, it has not yet entered into force. Israel therefore cannot be associated to it.