ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1889/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Accession of new countries to the Union

According to Facts about Turkey, a sleek publication produced by the Turkish News Agency and distributed for some time to all MEPs, 97 % of Turkish territory is in Asia and 3 % in Europe (Eastern Thrace). Russia is in a similar situation, albeit that its European part accounts for much more than 3 % of its territory and stretches as far as the Urals. Since December 1999, Turkey has been a candidate State for accession, despite the fact that a very small part of its territory is in Europe. Russia, a country with a vast market and inexhaustible natural resources, has not yet acquired that status as it has not submitted an application for membership.

Would a possible Russian application for accession in the distant future mean that the Union would extend its geographical frontiers to the shores of the Far East and border on countries such as China and Japan? Would it be possible (provided the Copenhagen criteria are met) to consider a pilot accession to the Union for regions such as European Russia or Eastern Thrace (European Turkey), which clearly are in Europe and have a significantly higher level of economic development than the other regions of the countries to which they belong?

To what extent does the Commission consider it appropriate to draw up a study on such a possible development, which might result in the incorporation of some areas of those countries into the structure of Europe, and the avoidance of an adverse situation in which the EU would shoulder the burden of the economic convergence of underdeveloped, remote areas which, furthermore, belong to geographical regions which are not in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Turkey's eligibility as a European state which could become a member of the Community is established in Article 28 of the Association Agreement between the Community and Turkey, which was signed on 12 September 1963 and entered into force on 1 December 1964 after ratification by all the signatories in keeping with their respective constitutional procedures.

The Russian Federation has given no indication that it wishes to apply for EU membership. EU-Russia relations are based on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement which entered into force on 1 December 1997. One of its objectives is to provide an appropriate framework for the gradual integration of Russia and a wider area of cooperation in Europe.

The Treaties do not envisage the possibility of EU membership for regions forming part of sovereign third countries. For that reason, the Commission does not intend carrying out a study into this possibility.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1533/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: The Commission's attitude towards nuclear power

Does the Commission share Loyola de Palacio's positive attitude towards nuclear power, and does it regret the decisions by Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany to decommission their nuclear power stations?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Nuclear power contributes significantly (about 35 %) to electricity production within the Community and, accordingly, mitigates the Community's dependency on imported fossil fuels and the Community's green house gas emissions. On the other hand, its public acceptability is hampered due to public concern regarding waste disposal and safety.

These aspects are discussed in the Commission's Green Paper Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply(1). The purpose of the Green Paper is to provide the necessary transparency to political decision makers and the public regarding today's supply security issues and to launch a debate with a view to developing the necessary strategy for the three to four decades to come. The Green Paper has been adopted by the Commission and therefore reflects the views of the College on this question.

The various moratoria on nuclear power adopted by some of the Member States have also been considered. Member States have a sovereign right to decide for themselves whether to rely on nuclear energy for electricity production or to phase it out. The Commission respects this right, while at the same time considering that security of supply and environmental protection concerns make it necessary to examine the present situation of nuclear energy and its potential for the future with an open mind and on the basis of objective facts. The Green Paper shows that the absence of nuclear energy would make it even more difficult to tackle climate change in the long term.

In the meantime, it is necessary to progress towards the development and implementation of a sustainable approach to the disposal of nuclear wastes and to ensure adequate research in this sector.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0553/01

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

(20 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Assurance for each Directorate-General

During the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control on 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commission President provide a similar figure for financial transactions within each Directorate-General, plus the overall average figure for 1999, and if not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission's financial management on the basis of this single indicator.

Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.

Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1015/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Planned construction of an Airbus plant on Mühlenberger Loch

1. Is the Commission aware of plans by Airbus Industrie to build a new plant for Airbus manufacture on the site of Mühlenberger Loch near Hamburg?

2. Will the Commission confirm that the Mühlenberger Loch wetlands are classified as a Special Protected Area under the Birds Directive, as a protected habitat under the Habitats Directive, and as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention?

3. If so, does the Commission believe that the construction of such a plant would be in contravention of European law? If not, why not?

4. What assurances can the Commission provide that the Mühlenberger Loch habitat and similar sites will, in future, be protected under the Union's own directives?

5. What measures will it now take to ensure compliance with those directives?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 June 2001)

The issue of the planned Airbus plant in a part of the Natura 2000 site Mühlenberger Loch was already addressed in detail by the Commission's answer to Written Question P-0839/01 by Mr Wijkman(1).

Furthermore it was discussed on 21 March 2001 in the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy.

The Honourable Member is kindly invited to take note of the respective answer and the minutes of the Commission meeting as far as questions 1, 3, 4 and 5 are concerned.

With regards to question 2, the Commission confirms that the site in question is a Ramsar site (two duck species not threatened on European level meet the Ramsar criteria) and a Natura 2000 site under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(2) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(3).

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1630/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: White Paper on European Governance

Would the Commission provide a timetable, and explain the unacceptable delay, for the publication of a Communication on future consultation with civil society, as referred to in the Plan of Action on the implementation of the EU's development co-operation policy?

How does the Commission intend to ensure that civil society will be consulted in full about this Communication?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The Commission has chosen the White Paper on governance to reinforce, and provide a political framework for, its commitments to raising the quality of consultation with civil society and non-governmental organisations. This approach is designed to enhance the impact of specific actions advocated in the White Paper.

The preparatory work for the White Paper drew on the consultations held at the beginning of 2000 on the discussion paper entitled The Commission and non-governmental organisations: building a stronger partnership and, in general, on the experience acquired by the Commission's Secretariat-General with regard to existing practice in consulting civil society.

The preparatory work for the White Paper also benefited from specific contributions from all the major players in organised civil society, provided either spontaneously or in response to a request.

The White Paper will be accompanied by a detailed timetable setting out the various stages of implementation. It will be the subject of wide-ranging discussions with all the parties concerned, including representatives of civil society.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1354/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Human rights in Malaysia

Is the Commission aware of the arrest on 10 April of Mr Tian Chang Chua, Mr Hishamudin Rais, Mr Sarri Sungip and Mr Abdul Malekhusin by the Malaysian police, for the most part under the Internal Security Act?

Is the Commission aware that these (and possibly other) arrests have taken place just ahead of the presentation of a memorandum by human rights groups to the National Human Rights Commission set up two years ago by the Malaysian Government?

What is the Commission's assessment of these events, and what measures does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2001)

The Commission is aware of the detention by the Malaysian police on 10 April and in the days that followed, of ten pro-reform activists under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

As stated by The Honourable Member, the detentions took place just days ahead of a rally called by human rights groups to present a memorandum to the National Human Rights Commission on the state of human rights in Malaysia.

This rally coincided with the second anniversary (14 April) of the conviction of Mr Anwar Ibrahim, former Deputy Prime Minister and prisoner of conscience on Amnesty International's records.

The Commission is deeply concerned by these arrests, which it considers contrary to established democratic practice and which further deeper its previous concerns regarding the general human rights situation in Malaysia. In this respect it welcomes the fact that the Malaysian National Human Rights Commission has questioned the basis of the arrests.

The Commission has proposed that this subject be addressed with Member States in the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0927/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Recovery of EU contributions in the event of irregularities

Media reports have revealed that 90 % of the money claimed back by the Community when fraud is discovered is in fact never repaid.

What percentage is repaid of the funds the Commission claims back? Can the Commission account for these repayments in percentages for each Member State? What is the Commission doing to ensure that 100 % is recovered?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

A distinction should be made between irregularities in indirect expenditure by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF-Guarantee structural operations), where the recovery of amounts unduly paid is the responsibility of the Member States, and irregularities in direct expenditure, where it is for the Commission to recover amounts unduly paid.

Statistics and analyses of the financial monitoring of indirect expenditure are available in:

- the most recent annual Commission reports (1999(1) and 2000(2)) on the protection of the Communities' financial interests and the fight against fraud and attached tables; and

- the first OLAF report on operational activities (1 June 1999 to 31 May 2000)(3).

With regard to indirect expenditure, the Member States are responsible for starting the appropriate proceedings in accordance with the applicable national procedures in compliance with Community rules.

At present the Commission does not have the percentages for the amounts recovered in connection with irregularities in direct expenditure.

It should be noted that where fraud is suspected in a direct expenditure context, the Commission refers the matter to OLAF, which investigates it and, where necessary, starts criminal proceedings; in appropriate cases the Commission joins a civil claim.

Matters relating to the recovery of debts are dealt with in Action 96 of the Reform White Paper(4) relating to more effective management of recovery of unduly paid funds.

(1) COM(2000) 718 final.

(2) COM(2001) 255 final.

(3) http://europa.eu.int/comm/anti_fraud/documents/rapport_en.pdf.

(4) SEC(2000) 2204/3.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1672/01

by Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Defibrillators on short haul flights

Could the Commission confirm whether there is any EU initiative currently in progress relating to the carrying of life saving equipment (with particular reference to the availability of defibrillators on short-haul flights) on civil aircraft carrying passengers?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

The obligation to carry defibrillators on commercial aircraft is among the operational requirements which may be imposed on aircraft operators.

The Commission has placed a proposal before Parliament and the Council for the adoption of operational requirements for the commercial exploitation of aircraft(1) but it does not include such an obligation.

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission has based its proposal on the work of the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) and has emphasised that it does not wish to call the experts' conclusions with regard to safety into question. A large number of Members of Parliament supported this viewpoint during the debates on the above proposal.

Now that the US Administration has adopted a regulation requiring defibrillators to be carried on some commercial aircraft, the subject will be coming up for discussion within the JAA. The Commission will take account of the conclusions with a view to possibly amending its proposal.

(1) OJ C 311, 31.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2335/01

by Gerard Collins (UEN) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Dissolution of the Advisory Council on Medical Training (ACMT)

The ACMT, which is the body responsible for ensuring that equivalent standards of undergraduate education and postgraduate training obtain throughout the EU, has not met for three year. How does the Commission propose to ensure acceptable standards in these areas among healthcare professionals and training institutions in the applicant states, given the free movement of workers after enlargement?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

According to the Council Decision 75/364/EEC setting up the Advisory Committee on Medical Training(1), the Committee was established to contribute to the objective of ensuring a comparably demanding standard of training, particularly through giving advice to the Commission. The Commission has already proposed replacing this Committee, as well as the other Committees working under the other directives providing for recognition of specific professions in the health sector, by more flexible procedures for the gathering and exchange of information and advice. In this context, and as the Committee agreed at its last meeting, informal procedures have been used in the meantime to ensure the completion of its on-going work.

The Commission also continues to consult the Committee of Senior Officials on Public Health on all Questions relevant to the operation of the Doctors' Directive as well as other specific directives in the health sector. This Committee was created with the task of identifying and analysing any difficulties which might arise from the implementation of the Directives relating to the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services of doctors, collecting all relevant information on the conditions under which medical care is given in Member States and delivering opinions which could guide the Commission's work on possible amendments to those directives (Council Decision 75/365/EEC(3) as amended by Council Decision 77/455/EEC(2) and later decisions).

Concerning the process of enlargement of the Union, an initiative for expert mobilisation is currently being organised with the Technical Assistance Information Exchange Office (TAIEX) to facilitate the exchange of information with candidate countries. The Commission has also recently issued a consultation document on the future of the regime for professional recognition. This document is accessible on the Europa website at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/qualifications/consult.htm. It is partly in view of

enlargement that this consultation includes the Question of how existing procedures can be simplified. The Commission will take account of the responses sent in by the deadline set of 28 September 2001.

(1) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975.

(2) OJ L 176, 15.7.1977.

(3) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1447/01

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Cross-border banking charges after implementation of the euro

Can the Commission tell us how it intends to deal with the problem that cross-border banking charges are likely to remain high even when euros have fully replaced national currencies? How does it intend to avoid banks substituting transaction charges for lost currency conversion revenue?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

On 3 April 2001 the Commission adopted a communication on the preparations for the introduction of euro notes and coins(1). This report includes a description of the measures currently being taken to establish a euro payments area(2).

The Commission's conclusion regarding this matter is quite unambiguous:

An urgent effort is needed to bring about the establishment of a euro payments area. The Commission will consider using all the instruments at its disposal and will take all the steps necessary to ensure that the costs of cross-border transactions are brought more closely into line with the costs of domestic transactions on 1 January 2002.

The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member. It takes the view that all payments within the euro zone should receive similar treatment, be they domestic or cross-border payments. That is why it is examining the measures which could be taken to bring the charges for cross-border transactions closer into line with those of strictly domestic transactions.

(1) COM(2001) 190 final.

(2) Page 43 of the report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1424/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Freedom to engage in sports professions

As the Commission knows, Italians qualified as sports technicians cannot work as such unless they are registered with CONI(1), since their profession is not regulated. Since Italy has not transposed Directive 92/51/EEC(2) of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training, the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings. In view of CONI's monopoly and until the legal and social implications of the situation are clarified, tens of thousands of sports technicians are working unofficially, i.e. illegally, but openly. Outside CONI there is no legal recognition of sport as a profession.

Is this situation compatible with the smooth functioning of the internal market in the sports sector? In other words, is there any justification for the existence on this market of a no man's land as far as the exercise of certain professions is concerned? Even though recognition is up to the national authorities, does not the impossibility of exercising the profession interfere with the functioning of the market?

If a sports technician from outside the Community can be authorised to work as such in Italy, what justification is there for preventing an Italian national from doing the same?

Sport, especially in certain sectors such as football, is now a great economic investment. If the activity is legally recognised by only one body, does this not constitute a monopoly?

If it does, is the existence of monopolies in the Union acceptable, even if only in the sector of sport, which incidentally has a turnover of thousands of billions of lire each year?

(1) CONI: Italian National Olympic Committee.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 25.

Answer given by M. Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

As the Commission stated in its answer to Written Question E-3976/00(1), in accordance with Article 149 (ex-Article 126) of the EC Treaty, the Member States are responsible for the content of teaching and the organisation of their education systems. Each Member State is thus free to choose whether to regulate a profession on its territory, to set out the arrangements for this and to determine the level and type of diploma required to exercise it. The Commission cannot intervene in this area, which is the sole responsibility of the Member States. Consequently, the fact that a profession such as sports technician in Italy is not regulated and the fact that professional sport is placed under the aegis of CONI are not in themselves incompatible with the proper functioning of the internal market.

As regards the situation of sports technicians from non-Member countries and Italian sports technicians, I would refer the Honourable Member of Parliament to the answer given to Written Question E-3976/00.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 205.