ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3564/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Transport of live animals for slaughter

The protection of animals during transport is governed by Directive 91/628(1), as amended by Directive 95/29(2), which lay down provisions improving the international carriage of goods by road in relation to loading density, rest periods during journeys, space allowances and a ban on the transport of injured or ill animals. However, this directive has not actually been transposed into national legislation by a large number of countries and, in addition, there are no checks to ensure that the rules laid down in Directive 95/29 are being complied with.

In view of the above, can the Commission state when it intends to revise the 1995 directive so as to put an end to the inhumane treatment to which animals are subjected during transport? How does it intend to ensure better monitoring of transport?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2001)

All Member States have now transposed Directive 91/628/EC of 19 November 1991, as amended by Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 concerning the protection of animals during transport, into their national legislation.

The Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carries out periodic inspection missions within the Member States in order to check actions taken by the authorities to ensure compliance with the Directives. Serious deficiencies in relation to the implementation of the national legislation transposing the Directives in a number of Member States have come to light as a result of FVO missions and complaints brought to the Commission's attention by animal welfare organisations. The Commission has already opened infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty against some Member States in this connection.

The Commission is also planning for the near future a number of important initiatives aimed at improving the situation.

The Commission has recently adopted a report(1) on experience acquired since the implementation of the Directive on the protection of animals during transport. The document is submitted to the Council and to the Parliament. This report sets out a number of ways in which the regulatory framework in this area can be improved.

(1) COM(2000) 809 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4146/00

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Council

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Financing of compulsory BSE tests for cattle aged over 30 months

On 19 December 2000, the Agriculture Council is reported to have decided that no European Union funds will be used to help pay for the compulsory tests for all cattle aged over 30 months which are allowed to enter the food chain in order to exclude BSE-contaminated meat from the food chain. The same applies to the cost of the ban on incorporating meat waste in animal feed.

Does not the Council fear that if arrangements for financing these measures are left entirely to Member States, discrepancies in the approaches adopted may distort competition and divert certain trade flows? Would it not be appropriate, therefore, to adopt rules on this subject which are applicable to all Member States?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

The Council is aware of the difficulties that the introduction of different financing systems in this area may cause.

The Council did not take any decision on the financing of the tests at its meeting on 19 December 2000. However, at its previous meeting, on 4 December, it took note of the Commission proposal requiring rapid BSE-detection testing for bovine animals aged over 30 months entering the food chain.

At that meeting the Council underlined the need for financial resources ensuring Community cofinancing for the implementation of these tests, on the understanding that all the decisions taken on BSE would have to comply with the financial perspective agreed on by the European Council in Berlin.

The Commission subsequently adopted Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000, which provides for cofinancing up to a maximum of 15 per test.

The Commission has also adapted two Decisions on testing (2000/764 and 2000/773) to apply from 1 July 2001. The Honourable Member is asked to apply directly to the Commission if she wishes to know their content in detail.

In the context of the proposal on the health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption which it sent to the Council on 19 October 2000, the Commission stated in Article 36 that it will prepare a report on the financial support in Member States for the processing and disposal of the animal by-products, accompanied by appropriate proposals. The Council will certainly give the highest priority to examining the Commission proposals when it receives them.

The Commission also undertook, at the Council meeting on 29 January 2001, to present a report to the next meeting of the Agriculture Council on national aids taken to finance BSE measures, with a view to ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market. That report was presented at the Council meeting on 12 February 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3555/00

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: ECB transparency

The ECB's decision not to publish minutes of meetings of its decision-making bodies has been the subject of strong criticism from various quarters. Though regrettable, this decision might be justified by the need to allow open discussion on monetary policy decisions. However, it is impossible to share the ECB's view on the confidentiality of such minutes regarding discussions which do not concern monetary policy decisions but the use of public finance, in particular the institution's budget, fraud prevention, management of reserves, the printing and introduction of the new bank notes and criteria for recruiting and promoting personnel.

Will the Commission state its position on the transparency of the ECB's decision-making procedures and provide Parliament with all the information available to it as an observer regarding decisions taken by ECB decision-making bodies in areas not strictly related to monetary policy?

We have also been informed that some of the ECB's key decisions are not taken within the Executive Board but at informal meetings held the day before the relevant Executive Board meeting, at which all the Board members are present, but not the Commission representative.

Is the Commission aware of this practice? Does it consider that this is in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Treaty? If not, what steps does it intend to take to ensure that the ECB complies with the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

Article 10.4 of the Statute of the European system of central banks (ESCB) states that The proceedings of the meetings [of the Governing Council] shall be confidential. The Governing Council may decide to make the outcome of its deliberations public. Therefore, any decision on the publication of minutes of the Governing Council meetings is unequivocally in the exclusive responsibility of the Governing Council itself and does not involve the Commission. It should also be noted that the EC Treaty does not make a distinction between decisions related to monetary policy and other decisions.

According to Article 12.1 of the Statute of the ESCB, the Governing Council, in whose meetings the President of the Council and a Member of the Commission may participate, is the sole decision-making body to ensure the performance of the tasks entrusted to the ESCB under the EC Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB. There is no other body which could take such decisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3521/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: New charges against Mr Marzouki in Tunisia

On 23 October 2000, Mr Moncef Marzouki was ordered to appear before Mr Armor Ben Mansour, the most senior examining judge, on charges of being a member of an unrecognised association (National Council for Liberties in Tunisia), spreading false reports, discrediting the administration of public order, discrediting the administration of justice, distributing leaflets likely to disturb public order, and inciting citizens to rebel against the laws of the country. Mr Marzouki had just returned from Morocco, where he had taken part in meetings of the Euro-mediterranean human rights network in preparation for the EuroMed Civil Forum on the subject of the right of association, as well as in a congress of Arab defenders of human rights. He was due to take part in a colloquium in Barcelona organised by the EuroMed Greens network. These very serious charges could mean a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Furthermore, Mr Marzouki has again been refused the right to travel.

Does the Commission not consider that this legal case on the basis of the expression of opinions, the fourth such case brought against Mr Marzouki, is one of many instances of the consolidation in Tunisia of a police state founded on the systematic violation of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right of association?

Does the Commission not consider that the time has come to initiate steps with regard to compliance with the human rights clause as laid down in the association agreement between Tunisia and the EU?

If that is not the case, what measures does the Commission intend to take to persuade the Tunisian authorities to put an end to the antidemocratic, police-state-oriented trend in the country and finally to pursue a path of democratic reform and establishment of the rule of law?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2000)

The Commission has noted the measures reportedly taken by the Tunisian authorities against Mr Marzouki and has asked its delegate in Tunisia to monitor the affair carefully, in close coordination with the Member State heads of mission in Tunis.

Broadly speaking the Commission continues to subscribe to the approach set out by the member responsible for external relations at the plenary session on 14 June, which calls for the enhancement of the EU's dialogue with the Tunisian authorities at all levels and the development of positive measures to promote human rights, including freedom of expression and association.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4134/00

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Directive on cableway installations

The serious accident involving the Kaprun glacier railway at Kitzsteinhorn claimed 155 lives on 11 November 2000.

This prompts me to ask the Commission:

1. Are there grounds for supposing that the accident could have been avoided had the provisions of European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/9/EC of 20 March 2000 relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons already been in force at the time when the Kaprun funicular railway was built?

2. If not, does it intend to tighten up the existing directive in the foreseeable future?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

1. Directive 2000/9/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons(1) aims to ensure the safety of cableway installations by defining the essential health and safety requirements which must be observed by all new installations, including funicular railways, cable cars and drag lifts designed to carry persons. It was adopted on 20 March 2000. It will however only fully apply at the end of a 4-year transitional period (from the date of publication) on 3 May 2004. In the meantime these installations are primarily covered by national regulations.

Pending the findings of the investigations into the Kitzsteinhorn Glacier tragedy no assumptions can be made in relation to whether the tragedy could have been avoided had the Directive been in application.

2. Directive 2000/9/EC requires the lessons from past experience to be taken into account in the safety analysis accompanying all planned installations and safeguard measures to be taken if any approved installations or components are liable to endanger health or safety.

If the findings of the Kitzsteinhorn accident investigation demonstrate the need to amend relevant Community legislation, including Directive 2000/9/EC, the necessary proposals will be brought forward as soon as possible.

(1) OJ L 106, 3.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3790/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Value Added Tax rates for the repair of buildings

Does the Commission believe it is desirable that pressure for new housing should be met, wherever possible, through modification or renovation of existing housing stock rather than through the construction of new housing on virgin greenfield sites, and is it prepared to accede to Gordon Brown's request to reduce VAT to 5 per cent on converting properties into multiple dwellings and to allow any EU government which so desires to introduce a zero rate of VAT on renovation of existing building stock in order to encourage conservation and protection of the countryside?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

The situation under current Community VAT legislation is that category 9 of Annex H of the 6th VAT Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment(1) covers the supply, construction, renovation and alteration of housing provided as part of social policy. Member States may therefore apply a reduced VAT rate of not less than 5 % to these services. Any repairs or modifications to housing stock which does not fall within this definition attracts the standard rate of VAT.

As far as zero rating is concerned, only those Member States which applied a zero rate of VAT on 1 January 1991 are permitted to maintain this rate for a transitional period. It is therefore not possible, under current Community law, to introduce a new zero rate.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. Directive as last amended by Council Directive 2000/65/CE of 17 October 2000 (OJ L 269, 21.10.2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3350/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Petrola's application for expansion

In May 1998, Petrola Ellas submitted its new investment programme to the Ministry of the Environment, Public Works and Regional Planning, together with other ministries responsible, requesting authorisation to set up a large number of new plants which will occupy an area of some 13 hectares (according to company executives) in the safety zone between the existing installations of the Petrola and Pyrkal corporations. This expansion is allegedly in breach of many aspects of Greek law (Presidential Decree 791/81) and Community legislation, in particular Directives 85/337/EEC(1), 82/501/EEC(2) (the Seveso directive) and 84/360/EEC(3).

Petrola is in fact situated in the immediate vicinity of the densely populated areas of Elefsina, Aspropirgos, Magoula and Mandra, and the expansion will both increase the risk of an accident, since by expanding into the safety zone, Petrola will also adjoin Pyrkal, as well as more than triple pollution levels in an already environmentally spoiled area as fuel consumption will increase 3,4 times and the volume of gas emissions will increase three-fold at least.

In the light of this information, will the Commission look into the above situation and ask Greece for clarification? Instead of granting Petrola further authorisation to expand, would it not be better for the Commission to contribute towards immediate measures to combat the pollution, discharges and stench emanating from this refinery?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 230, 5.8.1982, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

In the light of various press articles, the Commission wrote to the Greek authorities on 7 June 2000 requesting information on the expansion of Petrola's installations. No reply has been forthcoming.

Following the question from the Honourable Member, the Commission will contact the Greek authorities again to ask whether they have approved the expansion of Petrola's installations and what environmental terms have been laid down.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3740/00

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2000)

Subject: Everything But Arms proposal

In light of the Everything But Arms proposal concerning the unilateral abolition of tariffs for the 48 least developed countries in the world, the Member States requested information on the impact of this proposal on European agriculture in terms of cost. This study is currently being carried out by the European Commission.

I understand that this impact assessment is to be completed in advance of a Council decision on the proposal.

In my capacity as a Member of the European Parliament, I hereby request that this document and any supporting documentation be made available by the Commission to myself and the other members of the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture as soon as the report has been completed and forwarded to the Council.

Will the European Commission agree to this request?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The Honourable Member is referring to the recent Commission proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001(1) so as to extend duty-free access without any quantitative restrictions to products originating in the least-developed countries(2).

The Commission will be happy to send the Honourable Member, and the relevant committees of the Parliament, an impact assessment on the above proposal when it is sent to the Council.

Although the Commission is certainly proposing an autonomous measure under the Community's generalized system of preferences, this should not be seen as unilateral tariff eradication as the Commission proposal responds to multilateral commitments, and is being followed by initiatives from other developed countries.

(1) OJ L 357, 30.12.1998.

(2) COM(2000) 561 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3761/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: European urban renewal and the Bologna 2 case (Calderara di Reno)

In the commune of Calderara di Reno (Bologna), Emilia-Romagna region (Italy), there is a huge housing estate, known in local news and gossip as Bologna 2, which is in unremitting structural and social decline. Bologna 2 and the surrounding area are in the hands of criminal gangs who run prostitution rackets, push drugs, traffic in arms, and the like.

Residents and members of the business community are fighting to reclaim the area at constant risk of their lives. Action by the police and the courts is failing to produce lasting results.

Because it is a small commune of about 10 000 inhabitants, Calderara di Reno does not have sufficient resources to regenerate the area in question on its own.

Can the Commission say:

- what steps are being taken at European level to revitalise decayed urban areas, especially those in medium-sized towns and cities and/or small communes, possibly working in partnership, as the case may be;

- are there any Community measures to finance urban renewal plans and activities aimed at unifying the social fabric of the most decayed urban neighbourhoods and areas?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

The European Union can give financial assistance to urban areas facing socio-economic problems through the URBAN II Community initiative programme. Areas undergoing restructuring are also eligible under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds.

As regards URBAN II, on 28 April 2000 the European Commission adopted the communication laying down guidelines for this initiative concerning economic and social regeneration of cities and of neighbourhoods in crisis in order to promote sustainable urban development(1). The total contribution from the European Regional Development Fund over the 2000-2006 programming period for this new initiative will be 700 million.

The urban areas to be covered under this initiative should have a population of at least 20 000, however, this figure can be lowered to 10 000 in duly substantiated cases. In this case, areas will have to meet at least three of the characteristic conditions of precariousness mentioned in item II-11 of the communication such as, for example, a high rate of long-term unemployment, crime or delinquency or a particularly rundown environment.

The Commission points out that under the terms of the provisions laid down in the communication, it is the responsibility of the Member State concerned to submit proposals for programmes under the URBAN initiative.

As the commune of Calderara di Reno not itself located in an area covered by Objective 2, it is not entitled to receive appropriations available under this objective.

(1) OJ C 141, 19.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4087/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Variant CJD the human form of BSE

Does the Commission agree that variant CJD should be renamed Human Spongiform Encepalopathy?

What is the European Union doing to encourage the exchange of medical experience in treating this condition?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

1. In 1996, a team from the United Kingdom Creutzfeldt Jakob disease (CJD) Surveillance Unit at Edinburgh, published a paper(1) in which the authors reported findings which strongly implied a causal link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and a variant of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease (vCJD).

Although showing some significant neurological differences from the classical sporadic form, vCJD is classified as a human neurodegenerative disease. It is named, indeed, after the person who investigated the classical form of disease and therefore is firmly consolidated and accepted by the scientific and medical world as vCJD.

2. The Commission launched a European Action Plan for TSE(2) research in 1996 which has mobilised 50 million to promote understanding, detection and combating of TSEs, such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) in man and BSE in cows. About 150 laboratories are presently involved in 54 Community-funded research projects on TSE diseases, which are addressing issues such as human prion diseases, the infectious agent, risk assessment, treatment and prevention.

In particular, it is worth mentioning a project on the development of TSE treatment based on prion protein-binding sugars, which includes research teams from Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Israel which aims primarily at identifying the mechanisms of inhibition of prion multiplication in cultured cells.

Furthermore the Commission, on 15 December 2000, organised a meeting of national experts in TSE research in order to analyse ongoing research activities, encourage exchange of information between research teams and identify ongoing research topics which need strengthening as well as new research areas. This group will present an interim report shortly.

Article 152.5 (ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty States that Community action in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care mldr. The Commission will however consider possibilities for promoting exchange of information on the best treatment for vCJD, which could be addressed within the framework of the new public health programme(3) currently under discussion in Parliament and Council.

(1) R. G. Will et al., The Lancet 1996: 347;921-25, also available on www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/lancet.htm).

(2) Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE).

(3) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000 and COM(2000) 285 final.