ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2582/00

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: European Parliament and Council Directive on energy requirements for ballasts for fluorescent lighting generation of waste

Following Parliament's approval of the Council's common position without amendment on 5 July 2000, the directive on energy requirements for ballasts for fluorescent lighting will shortly enter into force.

Has the Commission investigated how much waste is expected to be generated in future if magnetic ballasts may no longer be used?

Does the Commission have any information concerning how electronic ballasts are to be disposed of and how environmentally acceptable they are compared with magnetic ballasts?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

The Commission does not expect a perceptible increase of the generation of waste due to the requirements set out in the draft directive on energy efficiency requirements for ballasts for fluorescent lighting(1).

The main environmental problem related to the disposal of magnetic ballasts are the capacitors containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). Contrary to the magnetic ballasts, electronic ballasts do not contain such capacitors. This absence of PCB-containing capacitors in electronic ballasts constitutes a clear environmental advantage compared to the magnetic ballasts. However, detailed assessments of all environmental impacts from the waste management of electronic ballasts have not been undertaken so far. This is in particular true for the most common recovery route of these components the smelting together with other metal scrap.

(1) OJ C 274 E, 28.9.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2484/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Meetings with third countries during the French Presidency

1. Could the Council please list all the meetings planned with third countries during the French Presidency and provide an estimate of the total cost of those meetings?

2. Could it also provide details of the total costs of meetings with third countries under the Portuguese Presidency in 2000 and under the German and Finnish Presidencies in 1999?

Reply

(22 December 2000)

1. The meetings planned with third countries during the French Presidency are as follows:

Heads of State or Government

- EU/Japan Summit, Tokyo, 19 July;

- EU/Ukraine Summit, Paris, 15 September;

- ASEM III Summit, Seoul, 21 October;

- EU/China Summit, Beijing, 23 October;

- EU/Russia Summit, Paris, 30 October;

- Euro-Mediterranean Summit, Marseilles, 15 and 16 November;

- European Conference, Nice, 7 December;

- EU/United States Summit, Washington, 18 December;

- EU/Canada Summit, Ottawa, 19 December;

- EU/Western Balkans Summit (proposal).

Ministerial meetings

- ASEAN Regional Forum, Bangkok, 27 July;

- ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conferences, Bangkok 28 and 29 July;

- EU/South Korea Ministerial meeting, Bangkok, 29 July;

- EU/United States Ministerial meeting, Paris, 2 October;

- ASEM, Seoul, 20 October;

- EU/Japan Ministerial meeting, Seoul, 21 October;

- EU/ASEAN Ministerial meeting, Vientiane, 12 December;

- EU/Canada Ministerial meeting, Paris, 3 November;

- Barcelona IV, Marseilles, 16 November;

- European Conference, Sochaux, 23 November.

- EU/SADC Ministerial Conference, Gaborone (Botswana), 29 and 30 November;

Ministerial meetings held alongside meetings of the General Affairs Council in Brussels

- 11 July: Cooperation Councils with Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan;

- 19 September: EEA Ministerial Council;

- 19 September: Association Councils with Hungary and the Czech Republic;

- 9 and 10 October: Association Councils with Bulgaria and Poland;

- Association Council with Morocco, 9 October;

- Cooperation Councils with Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, 10 October;

The Council is unable to provide details of the total cost of these meetings, for several reasons:

- when the meetings take place in the country of the Presidency, it bears the costs;

- when they take place in a third country, the host country covers the costs;

- Cooperation and Association Councils are held alongside meetings of the General Affairs Council. Apart from interpreting costs, no expense is borne by the Union's budget.

2. The total cost of meetings with third countries held during the Portuguese Presidency in 2000 and the German and Finnish Presidencies in 1999 was borne either by the respective Presidencies or by the host countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2846/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(8 September 2000)

Subject: Access to EU documents

During the summer months a working party of senior Coreper officials drew up a proposal for a drastic reduction in the accessibility of EU documents. Yet the Treaty of Amsterdam expressly provides for the right of access to such documents.

The working party wants to use the written procedure to enshrine this proposal in a binding text. This will exclude the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council from September.

Only the representatives of the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland have opposed the curtailing of the right of access. The other Coreper representatives appear to believe that the Commission proposal a code of conduct via the codecision procedure does not reflect their personal views on access to EU documents.

1. Does the Council subscribe to the proposal concerning access to EU documents as drawn up by a working party of senior Coreper officials? If not, will the Council appeal against the proposal in question?

2. Does the Council believe that the proposal concerning access to EU documents as drawn up by a working party of senior Coreper officials undermines the Commission proposal, i.e. a code of conduct via the codecision procedure? If so, what action will the Council take to ensure that the Commission proposal is the official guideline for access to EU documents?

3. Does the Council think the proposal by the Coreper officials is an infringement of the provision in the Treaty of Amsterdam on access to EU documents? If so, in what way will the Council challenge this infringement of the provisions of the Treaty?

Reply

(30 November 2000)

1. Decision 2000/527/EC, to which the Honourable Member refers, was adopted by the Council on 14 August 2000 and published in the Official Journal on 23 August 2000(1).

2. On the basis of Article 207 alone, the Council may adopt conditions for access to its documents. Having said that, it is clear that Council rules on the subject will have to comply with the Regulation based on Article 255, once that has been adopted.

3. The Council considers that it was within its powers to take Decision 2000/527/EC, without there being any contradiction or incompatibility with the provisions of the Treaty.

(1) OJ L 212, 23.8.2000, p. 9.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2138/00

by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Garlic import arrangements

On 14 May 2000 the Spanish press reported that negotiations were under way with a view to setting a final quota and a tariff for garlic imports.

Can the Commission confirm that those negotiations are based on a tariff of 770 per tonne?

What stage has been reached in the negotiations?

What is being done to safeguard against triangular operations in which garlic is exported to the European Union from non-producing countries?

How will the recent agreement on China's accession to the WTO affect the Community's production sector, given that China is the world's largest garlic producer?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2000)

The Commission has a Council mandate to negotiate changes to its undertakings on garlic imports in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

The mandate stipulates that the Commission should negotiate compensation for the increase in the import tariff and that it should offer in exchange a new tariff quota at the current duty as laid down in the procedures implementing Article XXVIII of the GATT.

Formal negotiations have not yet started. The Commission is awaiting official confirmation from the main supplier country that it intends to participate.

Under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1859/93 of 12 July 1993 on the application of the system of import licences for garlic imported from third countries(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1662/94 of 8 July 1994(2), the release for free circulation in the Community of imported garlic from third countries is subject to the presentation of an import licence. The customs service of the Member States concerned are responsible for ensuring that the licences are authentic and that the procedures laid down in the regulations have been complied with. The Commission has also adopted measures on several occasions making a specific certificate of origin a requirement for the import of garlic originating in certain third countries.

The planned changes to our undertakings on garlic imports will take account of China's accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the new environment this creates, so avoiding any upsets to Community garlic production.

(1) OJ L 170, 13.7.1993.

(2) OJ L 176, 9.7.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2297/00

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: The electoral process in Zimbabwe

The Forum for the Defence of Human Rights in Zimbabwe, consisting of nine NGOs, has reported that the government is funding bands of young people and teaching them torture techniques in order to use them for coercion and torture against supporters of the parties opposing President Robert Mugabe.

These allegations constitute evidence of not only the human rights abuses committed by Mugabe and his party, but also the intimidation and lack of freedom characterising the electoral process in Zimbabwe. Does the Council not consider that it should condemn Robert Mugabe for the violations of human rights and the lack of guarantees during the electoral process, which in themselves invalidate the election results?

Reply

(30 November 2000)

At its meeting on 10 July 2000, the Council reviewed the situation in Zimbabwe on the basis of the report of the European observation mission. It noted that, while the election campaign was marked by violence, large-scale intimidation and procedural irregularities, voting itself was generally calm on 24/25 June. The heavy presence of international observers, led by representatives of the European Union, contributed greatly to that outcome. The Council considers that the Government of Zimbabwe should prevent a repetition of the acts of violence witnessed by the European mission prior to the elections, investigate such incidents and take every possible legal step against those responsible for political violence, human rights abuses and fraudulent practices prior to the elections.

Concerned at the human rights situation in the country, the Union strongly urged the Zimbabwean authorities to work with the opposition and civil society to establish a constructive dialogue. The Council pointed to the vital need to restore respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. The Union declared its readiness to work with all Zimbabweans who accept those principles.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2985/00

by Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE) and Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Obstacles to the free movement of persons

Regulation 1247/92(1) prevents citizens of the Member States from receiving non-contributory old-age or disability pensions if they move away from the countries of which they are nationals.

This often constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to a person's taking advantage of the right, enshrined in Article 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

Does the Commission intend to propose changes to Regulation 1247/92 to ensure that the provisions of Article 18 are fully and effectively implemented in relation to citizens receiving the allowances and benefits in question?

(1) OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

At Community level, Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and its implementing Regulation (EEC) No 574/72(1) coordinate the different national social security schemes which, inter alia, enshrine the right to export social security benefits throughout the European Union.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, to which the Honourable Members refer, introduced new rules which apply to special non-contributory benefits intended either to provide supplementary, substitute or ancillary cover for the risks in question or to ensure exclusive protection for the disabled (see Article 4(2a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71).

These benefits come under the heading of both social security and social assistance by virtue of their personal character, their purpose and their implementing arrangements and because they depend to a large extent on the economic and social environment of the granting Member State and, consequently, on the residence of the beneficiary.

Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 therefore subjects such benefits, insofar as they are listed in Annex IIa thereto, to special arrangements which derogate from the principle of exportability and allow payment only in the Member State of residence.

As early as 4 November 1997, in its judgment in Case C-20/96 (Snares v. Adjudication Officer)(2), the Court of Justice acknowledged the validity of the specific coordinating rules applicable to special non-contributory benefits, particularly their non-exportability, in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty.

At present, the Commission has no plans to amend Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92.

(1) Most recent consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).

(2) ECR 1997, I-6057.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2219/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Child soldiers in Africa

Given that many African conflicts involve child soldiers, the majority of whom are abducted, that this practice has grave psychological, emotional, social and physical consequences for its victims and society and that reintegration of these children into society after their escape or release is extremely difficult, would the Council outline what the European Union's strategy is to resolve the situation in general, what the EU is doing specifically to prevent the abduction of children for military purposes and what assistance the EU is providing to facilitate these children's reintegration into society?

Reply

(20 November 2000)

The European Union's strategy to ensure the protection of children in armed conflicts, in Africa and in other parts of the world, is consistent with the efforts deployed by the entire international community under the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1261(1999) and 1314(2000) concerning children in situations of armed conflict. In this context, the EU is particularly encouraging the signing and ratification of the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, one of which is concerned with the involvement of children in armed conflict.

The Council also believes that the factors contributing to the wrongs inflicted on children should be dealt with. One of these factors is access to weapons, particularly small arms and low-calibre weapons. In the light of this situation, the Council has adopted a code of conduct on arms exports and a joint action on small arms. The European Union is actively supporting all aspects of the preparation and the convening in 2001 of a United Nations Conference on trafficking in small arms and low-calibre weapons.

In the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, the Council systematically and regularly urges all the parties involved in armed conflicts to respect the rights of children and to allow humanitarian organisations full access, in safety and unhindered, to all children affected by armed conflicts.

As regards the humanitarian assistance provided by the European Community to reintegrate child soldiers into society, the Honourable Member should address the European Commission, which is responsible, under Council Regulation No 975/1999(1), for the implementation of projects in this area.

(1) OJ L 120, 8.5.1999, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3183/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Enforcement of the Directive on the protection of wild birds in France

In 1997 the European Court of Justice ruled against France in case C166/97 (Commission v. France). The Court found France guilty of failure to comply, within the prescribed period, with the requirements of the Directive on the protection of wild birds (79/409/EEC)(1), as far as the Seine Estuary is concerned. Since then, more than three years have passed and the area still remains unsatisfactorily protected, under the EU Birds Directive. The European Commission, under Article 171, opened a new infringement procedure against France in 1997. However, since then only a letter of formal notice has been sent to France for not complying with the sentence of the Court of Justice. Recalling that the normal deadline of two months

for Member States to reply to letters of formal notice has not been respected in this case and considering that Greece from July 2000 was condemned by the Court of Justice to pay a daily penalty of 20 000 under a previous judgement on a similar case, the Commission is asked to specify why it has not taken any further legal actions against France, and what causes all these delays.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2000)

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that, contrary to what was stated in the written question, the Court of Justice's ruling in case C-166/97, Commission v. France, was handed down in 1999 and not 1997, that the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to France in accordance with Article 228 (formerly Article 171) of the EC Treaty in 1999, and not in 1997, and that the deadline for replying to said letter of formal notice was met by the French authorities.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the ruling is in the process of implementation by the French Government.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2793/00

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Blackmailing of Community exporters

It is possible that Community exporters are open to blackmail by importers in third countries because of the stringent rules governing the approval of import documents; in certain cases, a customs document that may possibly be missing has been (mis)used by importers to pressurise exporters into granting unlawful discounts, etc as a condition for returning the original customs document properly signed and stamped.

Exporters may in such cases use secondary documentation, but national intervention bodies are in practice extremely restrictive about approving such documents.

Will the Commission look at the advantages and drawbacks of taking the principles set out in Decision No 1999/2497/EC of 28 July 1999 (on alternative primary documentation destined for Russia) as a basis for new primary documentation applicable to countries other than Russia, i.e. ranking equally with the customs document?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Proof of completion of customs formalities for importation into third countries is given at the exporter's choice by production of the customs import document or an attestation of unloading and importation made out by a supervisory agency. The latter option is provided to facilitate matters for exporters, who may indeed be subjected to pressure by importers in connection with the transmission of the customs document.

The Decision(1) of 28 July 1999 on proof of arrival at destination of agricultural products exported to Russia was adopted in the very specific context of persistent malfunctioning of local administration in that country. This was a temporary decision, recently extended to 30 June 2001 owing to continuation of the problem.

The Decision states that it is planned to create a system of mutual information transmission between the Commission and the Russian authorities that would obviate the need for application of the Decision in the future.

In July an administrative agreement was signed by the Anti-Fraud Office and the State Customs Committee of the Russian Federation that will permit creation of the system, which ought to give a boost to correct application of customs procedures in Russia and lead to greater certainty concerning refund payments in the Community.

The Commission does not at the moment intend to extend provisions of the type contained in the Decision to exports to other countries.

(1) COM(1999) 2497.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2346/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Connivance between traffickers and anti-drugs authorities

In May 2000, the US Congress committee for the secret services published the conclusions of the parliamentary inquiry into the role of the CIA in the support given to the Nicaraguan Contras in the early 1980s.

During the hearings, which were held in camera, former CIA agents confirmed that the Contras were allowed to benefit from a policy of active tolerance with the blessing of the US secret services, which enabled them to self-finance their armed campaign, thanks to the profits of an extensive cocaine-trafficking network.

Was the Council aware of these circumstances? Does the Council consider these dubious practices to be a purely exceptional phenomenon in terms of anti-drugs-trafficking policy, or is it, on the contrary, in possession of similar information for other regions of the world, for recent years or for today? Does the Council not consider that, in view of the seriousness of this case, it should raise the matter in the relevant international forums, beginning with the UN's anti-drugs authority (the UNDCP)? Does the Council not also consider that, in view of the seriousness of the matter, it should propose, as a matter of urgency, the revision of the international conventions on narcotics with a view to creating a single legal framework to cover all activities related to the production of marketing of substances forbidden under present law?

Reply

(7 November 2000)

The facts raised by the Honourable Member have not been discussed by the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2920/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Sporting and leisure activities in Andalusia

Does the Commission accept that the kind of leisure activities which took place at Ramon Romero's Seventh Heaven School of Riding in Chivirel, Andalusia made it an entirely unsuitable recipient of Community funds, and what steps have been taken to ensure that in future proper inspection procedures are put in place so that all projects receiving Community funds are bona fide?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2000)

The case of the project mentioned by the Honourable Member was indeed one of deflection of funds to purposes other than those specified in the application for part-financing.

This was rapidly detected through the Andalusian Regional Government's policing arrangements. Action was immediately initiated to recover the funds in question.

The Spanish authorities' payments were not included in the certified expenditure notified to the Commission. Thus their advancing of sums did not give rise to any payment from the European Regional Development Fund.