ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3920/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Alarm caused by flocks of birds in the centre of Rome

In the last few days road accidents have been caused yet again by the devastating presence of enormous flocks of birds in Rome.

When winter arrives the streets of Rome are invaded by groups of birds which, instead of continuing their migration southwards, stop in cities to take advantage of the absence of predators and the higher temperatures caused by pollution. Thousands of passerines colonise the treetops in Rome, causing considerable inconvenience to the inhabitants because of the noise and, above all, the large quantities of droppings on the ground.

The worst-hit areas are those where there are enough trees to attract an enormous number of birds, whose droppings make the asphalt dangerously slippery. This has disastrous consequences for city traffic since the authorities are forced to cut off the traffic and divert it elsewhere and the safety of motor cyclists and car-drivers, who through no fault of their own are involved in road accidents.

In view of this problematic situation Rome City Council has arranged for the trees to be pruned and is using decoys to send the flocks elsewhere, but these measures have proved inadequate.

Since the most effective solution in Sweden, where the flocks start their journey, seems to be contraception, can the Commission say:

1. whether there are existing projects for tackling similar crisis situations and whether Rome City Council has submitted any such project to remove the flocks, which are a danger to the safety of urban traffic;

2. whether there are examples of good practice in this sphere in other Union countries?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

The Commission is not aware of any projects directed at limiting the number of migratory birds that come into cities during their migrations. It therefore has no examples of good practice. The Commission also has no information on any projects by the city of Rome with this objective.

Any action taken to control the number of birds in Rome will have to be taken within the conditions set by Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1), including, if necessary, the use of derogations regulated by Article 9 of the Directive.

Although the problem might have an international dimension, the Member States have exclusive competencies for dealing with it. The Commission can only, and will if requested, act as a facilitator for the contacts between the Member States involved. For that purpose, however, more information would be needed, namely concerning the identification of the species that create problems, details on their occurrence and information on their origin.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2609/02

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Checking the identity of airline passengers

Airline passengers on French domestic routes are subject to repeated identity checks. Consequently, passengers travelling from Paris to Lyons, for example, are subject to controls both at check-in and on boarding the aircraft, whereas the identity of passengers travelling from Brussels, Berlin or Madrid is not checked either on departure or on arrival.

Are these checks imposed by the airlines for tariff-related purposes, or are they a security requirement imposed by the French authorities? In either event, does the Commission consider that they are compatible with European rules?

If exceptions to the Schengen rules are being made for security reasons, how does the Commission explain the fact that, paradoxically, these security requirements are stricter on domestic than on international routes?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2002)

As the flights concerned are within a Member State, the provisions of the Schengen acquis, which govern the crossing of internal borders between Member States, are not applicable.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2131/02

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

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Antenna in Akrotiri nature conservation area, Cyprus

On 1 July 2002, the British military authorities in Cyprus began to instal a new antenna in one of the ecologically most important parts of the island, the area around the Akrotiri salt lake south-west of Limassol. The new installation forms part of a network of antennas managed by the British Army.

This curtain array antenna will be 196 metres wide and will rear up 100 metres from the ground in the landscape of an area renowned for its unique birdlife and bird migration routes. The antenna will have a power rating of 500 kW and will operate continuously on a frequency of 3-30 mHz.

The area itself is in danger of being divided into two, which would appear to contravene the Ramsar Convention. Moreover, such European directives as the Habitats Directive and Wild Birds Directive are not being complied with. The area in question has been nominated for inclusion in the Natura 2000 Network.

Virtually nothing is known about the possible adverse impact of the continuous electromagnetic radiation on people or birds.

Is the Commission aware of the building of this installation, which is de facto taking place on British territory?

Is the Commission aware that no environmental impact assessment has been carried out and that neither the public nor NGOs have had the opportunity to state their views?

What view does the Commission take of the fact that British authorities are taking action in the territory of Cyprus which will have a drastic impact on a quite unique natural area, in disregard of European directives?

What action will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 August 2002)

The Commission is aware of reports concerning the construction of a new antenna in the Sovereign Base Area (SBA) of Akrotiri.

It should be recalled that according to Article 299(6)(b) of the EC Treaty, this Treaty does not apply to the United Kingdom's SBAs in Cyprus. Therefore, Community law does not apply in these territories.

As regards any possible impact of the antenna on the people or territory of the Republic of Cyprus, this would be primarily a bilateral issue to be dealt with between the Cypriot and SBA authorities.

The Commission does not have competence to take action in this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2375/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

Local authorities have responsibility for land-use planning and, in their role as planning authorities, place restrictions on the supply of services, including limitation of the scale and distribution of developments. Could the European Commission clarify what impact the current negotiations on GATS will have on local authorities' planning activities?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2002)

The Commission is committed to safeguarding local communities' possibilities for pursuing a variety of legitimate policy objectives through land-use planning, such as preserving community character and protecting the environment, throughout the course of the current trade round. Some Members have raised issues such as lack of transparency in town-planning regulation for further discussion with the aim of looking at possible ways to improve transparency of the planning process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2797/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: Low Frequency Active Sonar

Pursuant to the Commission's response to my previous question E-2442/01(1): Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS) is applied by the US Navy for scientific, commercial and military purposes in the Atlantic Ocean, including the area near the coast of the Azores, within the territorial seas of Portugal. Within or even outside the territorial seas of Portugal the use of LFAS may have significant adverse impact on whales and dolphins living in Portuguese territorial waters. Hence, Portugal is obliged to take the requisite measures to avoid the deliberate disturbance of cetacean species which are strictly protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC(2). Furthermore, there is evidence that similar LFAS systems are in development in France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and by NATO.

In light of the above, does the Commission now intend to raise the issue with the US Government?

Will the Commission alert the Portuguese Government to its obligation under Council Directive 92/43?

Is the Commission aware of the development of similar projects in the Member States or by NATO?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 177.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

Cetaceans are afforded strict protection by Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive)(1), which requires Member States to take measures to prevent inter alia deliberate disturbance of these species.

Low-frequency active sonar (LFAS) emits intense, low-frequency tone bursts. It is widely suspected that this type of noise has a disturbing effect on cetaceans, but the seriousness and degree of that effect still need to be studied more thoroughly.

The Commission believes that, given its potential impact on cetaceans, this type of technology needs to be used with caution. Moreover, those provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC which protect cetaceans apply fully both in territorial waters and in the waters of the exclusive economic zone, if the Member State concerned exercises sovereign rights there. The Commission has offered this opinion to the Member States on several occasions.

To date, most of the information the Commission has received on this type of sonar has been prompted by reports of activities of a military nature coinciding with the stranding of cetaceans.

Nonetheless, even though Community law does not require Member States to supply information on such activities except in specific cases, such as those relating to derogations or complaints, the Commission took the opportunity at the recent Habitats Committee meeting on 20 November to request further details from the national authorities of the Member States where these events are probably taking place.

The Commission does not intend, for the moment, to raise the matter in the context of relations with the United States.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden OJ L 1, 1.1.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3454/02

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

(27 November 2002)

Subject: The establishment of a European Public Prosecutor

How much money does the Commission estimate establishing a European Public Prosecutor will cost?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

The establishment of a European Financial Prosecutor has been recently addressed in the Green Paper on protection of the financial interests of the Community by criminal law and the establishment of a European Financial Prosecutor(1). This paper is only a consultative document to be used as a basis for an open discussion.

The Green Paper presents various options for the establishment of a European Financial Prosecutor, which can be combined in many ways. Each combination of choices would have a different financial impact. As a consequence and in the absence of a legal basis enshrined in the EC Treaty, full preparatory legislative work, including a financial impact assessment, is not possible at this stage.

One of the proposals made in the Green Paper is the organisation of the European Financial Prosecutor on a decentralised basis. In such a case, the European Financial Prosecutor's own resources would be small.

The Green Paper also proposes that the European Financial Prosecutor have his/her own budget, charged to the general budget of the Communities. This budget would be managed on a totally independent basis by the European Financial Prosecutor in accordance with the rules of the EC Treaty and the financial legislation implementing them.

Finally, the Commission underlines that the creation of the European Financial Prosecutor is in the interests of the European taxpayer, as the aim is to protect EU finances.

(1) COM(2001) 715 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2532/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Commission reports on Iranian opposition organisations

Can the Commission confirm that it drew up a report on 18 March this year entitled Commission report on the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq?

Did the Commission decide to invoke any of the exceptions mentioned in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001(1)?

If not, can it say why it did not distribute the report electronically?

Can the Commission supply a copy of the report or, if not, explain why it cannot?

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The Commission has not drawn up a written report on the subject of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MKO). The issue of invoking any of the exceptions mentioned in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has not arisen.

The Commission was asked by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, to make an intervention on the subject MKO at its meeting of 19 March 2002. At this meeting a representative of the Commission gave a brief oral presentation which provided a general background for the debate on the MKO.

It is worth recalling that under the Common Position adopted by the Council on 27 December 2001(1), the Council in its review of May 2002 decided to include the MKO on the list of organisations whose funds shall be frozen.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3884/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 January 2003)

Subject: Take-up of Community funding in Greece at the end of 2002

Can the Commission indicate the level of commitments and expenditure effected at the end of 2002 for each operational programme as a percentage of Community funds earmarked for Greece under the third CSF?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2003)

The information requested is set out in the table that is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. It should be noted that the amount committed and paid under the Community Interreg initiative cannot be compared with the amount earmarked for Greece (allocations column) since, for Community accounting purposes, commitments and payments are allocated to the country that coordinates the programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3902/02

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Commission funding of production of an unofficial draft treaty

On 4 December 2002 the contribution of three Commissioners to a future draft treaty was published under the title: Feasibility Study Contribution to a preliminary draft Constitution of the European Union. It is clear from the working document that it was drawn up at the request of Commission President Romano Prodi in agreement with Commissioners Barnier and Vitorino. It is also stated that the document does not necessarily represent the Commission's views. Nonetheless, the document is printed on the Commission's official headed paper with the Commission logo the EU flag on the front page.

It would therefore be of great interest to the general public to be informed of the following: what did it cost for Commission President, Romano Prodi, to have a working party set up to draw up an unofficial draft treaty on his own behalf and on behalf of a couple of other Commissioners, who carried out this work and where is it entered in the Commission's accounts?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3860/02, E-3902/02 and E-0034/03given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2003)

At the request of Mr Prodi, President, in agreement with Mr Barnier and Mr Vitorino, a working party of Commission officials prepared a feasibility study entitled Contribution to a preliminary draft of a European Constitution. Mr Prodi informed the other members of the Commission of the existence of this working document but it was not discussed by the full Commission and it does not commit the Commission.

It is for each Member of the Commission who has responsibility for a specific area, and for the President where action by the Union is concerned, to ask Commission departments to draft preparatory documents, study papers, feasibility studies, etc. A Commission decision is not needed to launch such work, which is part of the normal activities of Commission departments, i.e. the preparation of decisions and the position to be adopted subsequently by the Commission. Mr Prodi in agreement with Mr Barnier and Mr Vitorino felt that a feasibility study on the European Constitution would help the Commission to adopt its position with regard to the Convention.

The names of the officials who prepared the feasibility study are listed on the first page of the study, which did not give rise to any costs other than Commission overheads.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2870/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 October 2002)

Subject: Economic assumptions

1. Is the Commission satisfied that the economic assumptions used in the preparation of Member State budgets and stability programmes are of a uniformly realistic nature?

2. What measures might be taken to improve the realism of official forecasting assumptions?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2002)

Each year Member States provide new or updated Stability and Convergence programmes. These programmes are drawn up under the full responsibility of the Member State concerned. The programme is examined by the Council based on assessments of the Commission and the Economic and Financial Committee.

In its assessment the Commission judges the realism of the economic assumptions on which the programme is based, predominantly against its own forecast. To the extent that biases in the economic scenarios are identified, the Commission draws attention to the implications for the budgetary strategy.

Several measures have been taken to induce Member States to base their programmes on as realistic and transparent assumptions as possible. In particular the Code of conduct on the content and format of stability and convergence programmes specifies the information that Member States are expected to provide to facilitate the assessment of the programme. To make the projections more uniform, the Code also proscribes the use of commonly agreed assumptions for the extra-Union variables. These should be used by Member States when drafting their central scenario or for sensitivity analysis. In any case, Member States should stand ready to explain and justify the chosen scenario should the Commission draw attention to divergences from the Commission forecast. In addition, a further step has been taken by agreeing at Union level on a new production function method to calculate potential output. This will serve as another, commonly agreed reference, against which country specific growth assumptions can be judged effectively and which will serve to calculate cyclically adjusted budget balances.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2641/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Subject: EU sanctions damaging EU businesses

In my constituency there is a company which imports apples from America outside the English season. These are now subject to 100 % import duty. The result is that the company fears for its own viability and for the futures of its 70 employees.

This seems wholly unjust, as well as illogical. EU business interests, EU jobs and EU consumer choice are being damaged by these sanctions.

Will the Commission reconsider this question and remove apples from the list of sanctioned goods?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2002)

The Honourable Member is misinformed. Apples are not currently subject to 100 per cent import duty.

In response to the protectionist and World Trade Organisation (WTO) incompatible American steel safeguards, the Commission acted to preserve all the Community's rights under the WTO agreements. This included putting forward the proposal that was adopted by the Council on 13 June 2002(1).

The purpose of this Regulation was to encourage the United States not to apply additional tariffs to steel products of interest to European exporters and to withdraw its safeguard measure as soon as it is condemned by the WTO. Failing to act in this way to limit the damage the American measures will cause to the European steel industry would indeed have threatened Union business interests and Union jobs.

The Regulation has two annexes. Annex II lists products originating in the United States on which additional duties ranging from 8 to 30 % would be imposed unless the United States withdraws its safeguard measures when they are condemned by the WTO (sometime next year).

Annex I lists of products on which a 100 % additional duty could be imposed before that date. However, the effective application of this additional duty would require a new Council Decision, as specified in Article 3 of the Regulation. This issue will be considered at the Council's September 2002 session. As a result, although red apples are indeed listed in Annex I, no additional duty has yet been imposed on these or any other products.

Finally, to take account of the exclusion of some steel products from the American safeguard measures, the Commission will re-examine all the products included on the lists before any additional duties are levied on imports from the United States.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1031/2002 of 13 June 2002 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America OJ L 157, 15.6.2002.