ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0662/02

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(1 March 2002)

Subject: Montefibre (Acerra, Italy)

Is the Commission aware of the environmental impact problems which have existed for decades in relation to the industrial activities of the enterprise Montefibre s.p.a., located in Acerra (Naples province, Italy)?

Environmental groups of all political colours have voiced their deep concern over the potential polluting impact of this company, which has applied for and, several months ago, obtained authorisation for an extension from the Acerra municipal authorities.

Have the competent authorities commissioned any study or carried out any inquiry in order to alleviate the concerns of the public and the environmental groups? Has an environmental impact assessment been carried out concerning the authorisation of extension granted by the Acerra municipal authorities?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2002)

The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law, in the light of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty. As the guardian of the EC Treaty, it does not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

However, the Commission cannot be aware of all situations which are likely to be considered as a bad application of environmental Community law by the Member States. Such situations are normally drawn to the attention of the Commission by letters of complaint, Parliamentary Written Questions and Petitions to the Petitions Committee of the Parliament. Situations claimed to be inconsistent with the relevant Community law need to be precisely described so as to enable the Commission to assess them in relation to applicable Community environmental law.

In the specific situations pointed out by the Honourable Member, the Community Directive on environmental impact assessment (EIA) (Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) whether before or after being amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2)) constitutes the possibly relevant Community law.

However, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, due to a lack of specific grounds on the complaint on the application of the EIA Directive, no breach of it can be identified at present. Should the Honourable Member provide detailed information enabling the Commission to assess the issues in relation to the above-mentioned Directive, the Commission would be able to investigate this matter.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0014/02 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council. Events in Genoa.



Official Journal 205 E , 29/08/2002 P. 0058 - 0058



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0014/02 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council (22 January 2002) Subject: Events in Genoa Further to the Council's reply to Written Questions E-2379/01 and E-2454/01(1), why does the Council deny responsibility for the application of Article 6(1) and (2) TEU? (1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 165. Reply (13 May 2002) Article 6 TEU refers to a number of principles on which the Union is founded. Responsibility for the application of these principles lies primarily with the Member States, without prejudice to the role attributed to the Council under the procedures set out in Article 7 TEU.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0324/02

by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Transparency as regards meetings, decisions and documents

Comprehensive transparency is increasingly becoming a central concern to the citizens of Europe, with particular regard to the transparency of the EU institutions, where they seek access to as many documents as possible and want as many meetings as possible to be open to the public.

Why, in the Council's view, cannot all the Council's activities, from meetings through to votes, be totally transparent and open to the public?

Both the Swedish and the Belgian Council Presidencies again and again ascribed great importance to increased transparency; however, in decisive transparency issues, there has, in practice, been little change. What conclusions have been drawn from these experiences?

In the future, in which areas of its own activities can the Council imagine that a greater degree of transparency as regards access to documents and meetings might be introduced, and how will the current Spanish Presidency tackle this issue?

Reply

(21 May 2002)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that it has taken the necessary steps to implement Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

More specifically, it has adopted Decision No 2001/840/EC amending the Council's Rules of Procedure, which recasts some of the existing provisions on document access and lays down certain new provisions arising from implementation of Regulation No 1049/2001.

The Council attaches particular importance to the proper application of these instruments, which represent decisive progress in ensuring public access to the institution's documents.

The Council would also draw attention to the existing instruments which cover publication of the results of votes, minutes statements and agendas for certain types of meetings and the holding of open debates on important legislative proposals.

The Council is convinced of the benefits of genuine transparency, providing that this can be squared with the need to safeguard the efficiency and effectiveness of decision-taking.

It should be pointed out in this connection that greater Council transparency, in particular when the Council is acting in its legislative capacity, was one of the questions raised by the European Council in the Laeken Declaration and due to be discussed by the Convention tasked with preparing the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference on the reform of the Treaties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0887/02

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 April 2002)

Subject: Official language in Italy

The Italian Parliament is currently considering a proposal to amend the constitution by declaring Italian the official language of the Republic. This would end a tradition of protecting and safeguarding other official languages in part of the territory of the Italian republic and runs counter to the country's linguistic riches.

A similar constitutional amendment in France has made it legally impossible to recognise what are known as minority or regional languages in the French Republic. In a recent judgment the Constitutional Council considered that, under Article 2, subparagraph 1 of the constitution the language of the Republic shall be French the use of French is required for relations with public administration and public services. Or again the use of a language other than French may not be imposed on pupils in public educational establishments, either in the activities of that establishment or in the teaching of subjects other than those of the language concerned.

Does the Commission consider that this proposal is compatible with the recognition of cultural and linguistic diversity guaranteed by the Treaties? Does it not agree that the Europe of the citizen includes effective protection of all languages? Will it be asking the Italian Parliament and government for information?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

The Commission is aware of the legislative proposal currently before the Italian Senate to amend article 12 of the Italian constitution. Each Member State has sole competence to determine the provisions of its own constitution as regards the definition of its own official language(s).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0288/02

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 February 2002)

Subject: Environmental impact of the high-speed railway in Tuscany: drying up of streams on site of Community importance 37 (Moscheta)

Written question P-2368/01(1) pointed out the danger that the work involved in building the high-speed railway line would intercept the Moscheta and Felciaione springs (SCI 37) and cause them to dry up. This actually happened on 20 December 2001. On 8 January 2002 the Regional Council of Tuscany officially announced that the Moscheta spring had been reduced to nothing as of 20 December 2001 and that two new sources of water had been found during the excavation work at the Rovigo tunnel opening along the route to Florence.

1. Can the Commission ascertain whether Directive 97/11/EC(2) on environmental impact assessment was respected when the project in question was examined, in view of the fact that the hydrogeological impact has not been sufficiently taken into account?

2. Can the Commission take steps to ensure restoration of the environmental conditions obtaining prior to the start of work on the high-speed railway in the area of SCI 37, in particular as regards water resources?

3. Can the Commission say what steps have been taken to safeguard other SCIs threatened by the project in question (Monte Morello, Sasso di Castro and Gioga-Colla di Casaglia)?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 161.

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2002)

As regards the application to the specific case of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) whether before or after being amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 and of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2), the Honourable Member is kindly requested to refer to the reply to her written question P-2368/01(3).

Further to written question P-2368/01, the Commission opened an own initiative case on the issue raised by the Honourable Member and a letter was sent to the Italian authorities to request information on the issue. This letter expressly requested whether the hydrogeological impact of the project was correctly taken into account under the environmental impact assessment procedure carried out and whether the project is likely to seriously jeopardise the conservation of the habitats and species, and in particular of priority habitats and species, within the concerned sites. No written reply has been received yet.

The Commission will not hesitate to take the appropriate steps in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(3) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 161.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0342/02

by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Subsidies and open-cast mines in the district of Alto Carrión, Palencia (Spain)

With reference to question E-2270/01(1) (operation of open-cast mines in the Alto Carrión district, province of Palencia), would the Commission answer the following questions:

- How much Community funding has been granted by way of coal aid to the Spanish Government?

- Under what heading was such funding allocated?

- Who acted as intermediary in the funding procedure?

- Has Unión Minera del Norte SA (Uminsa) the company responsible for operating the open-cast mines in the Alto Carrión district received any EU funding, or has it been allocated any state aid?

- If it has, how much aid or funding has it received, under what heading and in what connection?

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 48.

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2002)

The Commission has approved, under Article 56 of the ECSC Treaty, the granting of aid for the retraining of miners amounting to 18 517 million in 1998, 11 828 million in 1999, 7 220 million in 2000 and 19 165 million in 2001. This aid was granted for miners affected by the restructuring of the Spanish coal industry.

The company Unión Minera del Norte S.A. (Uminsa) received EUR 1 851 461 in 1998, EUR 469 000 in 1999, EUR 906 708 in 2000 and EUR 832 500 in 2001 from the Spanish authorities as repayment for the ECSC aid mentioned above which the company had advanced to the miners concerned.

Spain has also granted state aid to Uminsa to cover its operating losses. This aid has to be approved by the Commission, which it did for 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001, the years during which the 1998-2002 Coal Plan was in force and approved by the Commission in Decisions No 98/637/ECSC(1) of 3 June 1998, 1999/451/ECSC(2) of 4 May 1999, 2001/162/EC(3) of 13 December 2000, and its Decision of 11 December, which has not yet been published but a copy of which is being sent to the Honourable Member and to Secretariat-General of the Parliament.

The aid authorised by the Commission for Uminsa is as follows:

- operating aid of ESP 5 370 million for 1999, ESP 6 453 million for 2000 and ESP 6 786 million for 2001, under Article 3 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC;(4)

- aid for the reduction of activity of ESP 600 million for 2000, under Article 4 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC;

- aid to cover exceptional restructuring costs of ESP 2 762 million for 2000, under Article 5 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC. Spain also gives financial support to workers affected by restructuring measures, but it still has to provide detailed information on what proportion of this support was used for compensation payments to Uminsa workers.

The above information should be examined bearing in mind that Uminsa was created by a series of mergers of some 17 companies during 1998 and 1999, and that consequently the size of the company has changed over the whole of the period under consideration.

(1) OJ L 303, 13.11.1998.

(2) OJ L 177, 13.7.1999.

(3) OJ L 58, 28.2.2001.

(4) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0871/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 April 2002)

Subject: Cyclamate a health hazard?

Cyclamate is a sweetener which the Swedish Food Administration claims can cause some people to produce a substance (CHA), which in large doses in animal experiments affected the testicles. The earlier Swedish ban on cyclamate (E 952) as a sweetener in food was lifted in 1999. In Sweden, cyclamate has been available only in tablet or powder form whereas, in the EU, it is permitted in a number of low-calorie products such as soft drinks, cakes, ice-cream, deserts and tinned fruit. The Swedish Government instructed the Food Administration to make a study of cyclamate, the results of which show that children with diabetes have in some cases already ingested too much cyclamate. If it is now also to be used as a sweetener in fruit juices and soft drinks, there is a risk that substantially increased number of diabetics will exceed the acceptable daily intake.

Does the Commission rate the sweetener cyclamate as a health hazard and is a ban on cyclamate in the Community a possibility?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

The Commission would like to refer to its reply to written question E-0051/02 by Alexander de Roo(1).

In addition, the Commission wishes to point out that the study on sweetener intake and exposure among Swedish diabetics commissioned by the Swedish Food Administration is based on the use levels of cyclamate as laid down in the Community legislation. The results, although based on the former Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), do therefore already reflect the situation after 1999, when the ban on the use of cyclamate in Sweden was withdrawn, and include thus its use in fruit juices and soft drinks.

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0647/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Subject: Television Without Frontiers

Could the Commission please indicate whether or not it is likely that it will issue a new Television Without Frontiers Directive within the life of this Commission?

What is the expected schedule for the Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2002)

The Honourable Member has raised the issue of the review of the Television Without Frontiers Directive (Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities(1) as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997(2)). In particular, the Honourable Member would like to know if it is likely that the Commission will issue a new Directive within the life of this Commission and the expected schedule for such a proposal.

Pursuant to article 26 of the Television Without Frontiers Directive, not later than 31 December 2000, and every two years thereafter, the Commission must submit to the Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of this Directive as amended and, if necessary, make further proposals to adapt it to developments in the field of television broadcasting, in particular in the light of recent technological developments.

In order to prepare the 2002 report (and, if necessary, to make further proposals to adapt the Directive), the Commission has launched a comprehensive review of the Television Without Frontiers Directive. The Commission has commissioned three major independent studies in the field covered by the Directive (recent technological and market developments in the sector, new advertising techniques, impact of measures to promote the distribution and the production of European works). These studies, and further consultations, will constitute an important input to the review.

At this point in time, the Commission cannot prejudice the results of the review. The Commission will publish in due time i.e. by the end of 2002 the report on the implementation of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.

(2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0737/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: The Comoros

With reference to the Comoros, can the Commission provide a list of the projects approved for funding from the European Union's budget for 2001 and give the total amount for investment in that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0732/02, E-0733/02, E-0734/02, E-0735/02, E-0736/02,E-0737/02, E-0738/02, E-0739/02, E-0740/02 and E-0741/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2002)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0424/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Compensation from Israel for the destruction of EU projects.



Official Journal 205 E , 29/08/2002 P. 0137 - 0137



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0424/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council (22 February 2002) Subject: Compensation from Israel for the destruction of EU projects How does the Council intend to exert pressure on Israel to pay for the damage it has caused to EU-funded Palestinian projects? Would international sanctions and trade embargoes be a way of making Israel pay compensation for the damage it has caused? Reply (21 May 2002) The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply to Written Question 0112/02 put by Emilio Menéndez del Valle on the same subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0205/02

by Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Creation of anti-globalisation units and a database of demonstrators

It is reported by a number of information networks that the Spanish Ministry of the Interior has set up anti-globalisation units that will be brought in during events that take place during the Spanish Presidency of the EU, during first half of 2002, in particular to prevent any disturbances during anti-globalisation demonstrations.

The Ministry is apparently also updating a database which contains the personal details of a large number of people who took part in demonstrations during the Göteborg, Genoa and Barcelona summits. The database is said to contain information provided by different European police forces concerning the protests that took place in these three cities. In the same context, the Spanish intelligence services have stated that they have been monitoring the Internet sites of anti-globalisation movements since December 2001.

Has the Spanish Government informed the Council of these measures?

Does the Council consider that setting up a database as described above is consistent with European standards of protection of privacy?

Can the Council guarantee that the demonstrators who appear in the database will be able to gain access to their personal data?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-0142/02, P-0152/02, P-0157/02, P-0180/02,P-0191/02 and P-0205/02

(21 May 2002)

1. The Council draws the attention to Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union, which says that:

This Title (Title VI: Provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters) shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

2. As concerns data protection, the Council of Europe Convention of 1981 for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data has been ratified by all 15 Member States.

3. In the conclusions adopted by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, on 13 July 2001, concerning security at meetings of the European Council and other comparable events the objective of the European Union was recalled to maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice. In such an area, citizens must enjoy the right freely to express their opinions and to assemble in a peaceful manner, rights reflected in the European Convention on Human Rights, and the right to do so in conditions where there is not a threat to their own security or to that of other citizens or properties.

In the same conclusions the importance was underlined of a constructive dialogue between the organisers of public demonstrations and the authorities of the host country and the importance of close international contacts, particularly among the Member States' law enforcement authorities, to ensure that legitimate demonstrations are not exploited or abused for the purpose of committing acts of collective or individual violence.