ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0977/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Potential hazards of the military use of depleted uranium munitions

As part of the Commission review of the risks involved in the use of depleted uranium, what contact has the Commission established respectively with the Albert Schweitzer Institute in Berlin, the US Bureau of Land Management, and the Office of Environmental and Health Sciences at the US Department of Defense concerning the studies which they have conducted into the potential hazards of the military use of depleted uranium munitions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0885/01, E-0977/01, E-0978/01 and E-0982/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

The Commission invited international organisations (World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)) to a round-table discussion on the issue of depleted uranium on 31 January 2001. There has been no correspondence other than the letter of invitation. In addition, the Commission informed the other organisations on the release of the Opinion of the Group of Experts established under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty on 6 March 2001 and the Commission was informed of the release of the UNEP report on 14 March 2001.

The Commission had no contact with the other organisations referred to by the Honourable Member. Among the material provided by different organisations, NATO in particular, there are American documents referring to the Office of Environmental and Health Sciences of the Department of Defence.

The flow of information on depleted uranium is considerable (in the form of documents and internet-based material for example). The Group of Experts has looked into much of this material and has spent considerable effort in identifying which are original, validated sources of information. The main references to such sources are included in the published Opinion.

The Commission believes that it is in the interest of all organisations to exchange information to the largest possible extent, while preserving full independence in evaluating the information.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0037/01

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Council

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Effects on soldiers' health of shells tipped with depleted uranium

The deaths from leukaemia and other forms of cancer of soldiers who took part in the Nato bombing of the former Yugoslavia and the broader consequences for their health have caused widespread indignation among European public opinion and have dented the credibility of the national governments and the European institutions.

Does the Council intend to undertake comprehensive and systematic scientific studies concerning these consequences and to announce the findings? What other measures does it intend to take to establish who is responsible and to protect the citizens of Europe from these consequences?

Reply

(31 May 2001)

The Council acknowledges the great concern of the public opinion relating to the use of depleted uranium in munitions. During their discussions on the occasion of 22 January 2001 meeting of the Council, Ministers expressed their commitment to seek full clarity on this issue.

There was general agreement that in the first instance it was for NATO, as the institution organising crisis management in Balkans, to assemble the information from participants on the use of depleted uranium, on the locations of troops and on medical data. Ministers also called for full transparency and open exchange of information between the authorities of the Member States, as well as with other organisations investigating this matter.

Furthermore the Council noted that several bodies (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Health Organisation (WHO), NATO, the committee set up by the Commission) are currently examining this issue and the first reports are expected to be published shortly. Once these reports are available, the Council has agreed to re-examine this issue in order to assess whether any specific initiative or measures at EU level are warranted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0888/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Information society

According to the latest figures published by IDC (a US consultancy specialising in computing and the Internet), Nordic European countries such as Sweden or Finland are the most advanced where the information society is concerned, whereas Mediterranean countries rank much lower in the league table.

The scores calculated on the basis of each country's rating in terms of 19 indicators in all, for example the use of computers, telephone charges, or the number of people connected to the Internet, show once again that the information society varies from one Member State to the next. IDC's overall findings, moreover, tally with certain figures originating from other independent sources and the Commission itself.

How does the Commission view these fresh signs that the information society is not developing at the same pace in the different EU countries? What steps will it take to eliminate the inequalities?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

It is within the context of the e-Europe 2002 action plan that the Commission is measuring the uptake of the information society in Europe.

e-Europe was launched at the Feira European Council in June 2000. It sets out a detailed programme covering 64 actions to accelerate the development of the information society in Europe. To monitor these developments, the Commission in co-operation with the Council has agreed a list of indicators to benchmark eEurope.

The first results of this benchmarking suggest that, overall, uptake of the Information Society has been swift across Europe. For example, penetration rates of Internet at home increased by 55 % within last year according to Eurobarometer surveys. A recent survey found that 94 % of European schools are now connected to the Internet. Internet access costs have fallen by more than 40 % in some Member States.

However, despite these successes, considerable discrepancies can indeed be observed between Member States.

e-Europe was conceived as a tool to ensure that Information Society in Europe is for all. Member States committed themselves to the targets set out in the action plan. Continuous efforts are needed to meet these targets in order to prevent the development of a growing disparity between regions which could lead to a true digital divide.

To address this issue, the Commission recommended that every regional development plan should include activities to encourage access to the information society. For the Objective 1 regions alone, it is estimated that 6 billion of Community funds will be mobilised during the 2000-2006 programming period.

The Member States themselves confirmed at the European Council of Stockholm their willingness to proceed with the implementation of the eEurope action plan and thus to accelerate the shift to a knowledge-based society.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1117/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Renovation of the Berlaymont building

The Commission's headquarters in the Berlaymont building has been out of use for several years. Its renovation was in view of future use. How much has the Commission committed itself to paying for the renovations and how will this amount be taken into account in the rents charged on the building?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

The Berlaymont Building was vacated by the European Commission in 1991 when proof was provided that the condition of the asbestos used in its construction had deteriorated to the point where it breached safety requirements.

As already pointed out in the reply to Written Question E-936/01 by Mr Sjöstedt(1), the Commission has not signed any contract relating to the Berlaymont building. In July 1997 the Commission signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Belgian State and the not-for-profit development company S.A. Berlaymont 2000 (70 % owned by the Belgian State and 30 % owned by two banks). That Memorandum included the provision that the Commission would only return to the building and bear relevant costs of renovation works if renovation was completed satisfactorily and according to best practice. The costs of renovating the building after removal of the asbestos were estimated to be 324 million.

The provision mentioned above retains its validity. Meanwhile, the Commission and the Belgian Government are currently re-examining the Memorandum of Understanding with a view to establishing a contract which fixes the final cost of the building, precisely describes the work covered by the contract, and sets down a firm delivery date.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 155.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0432/01

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: EU participation in new Indian Ocean multilateral fisheries organisation

From 5 to 10 February 2001 the FAO held a meeting on the island of Réunion to set up a multilateral regional fisheries organisation covering the south-west Indian Ocean. The objective is to regulate the exploitation of the region's fishing-grounds. Can the Commission state whether it intends to participate in the process of creating this new regional fisheries organisation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

The Commission is fully involved in the work on the establishment of the new Regional Fisheries Organisation for the South of the Indian Ocean and took an active part at the meeting organised by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in Réunion on 5-10 February 2001.

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that on 2 February 2001 the Council adopted a negotiating mandate authorising the Commission to negotiate the setting up of this new Regional Fisheries Organisation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1762/01

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Meat imports

Can the Commission confirm whether there are any EU regulations that prohibit the importation of meat from Australia and/or New Zealand into the UK, or any other EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

In brief, meat from Australia and New Zealand can be imported into the Community provided it complies with the relevant veterinary health requirements.

In relation to animal and public health conditions, import rules have been laid down by the Commission in conformity with Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh meat from third countries(1). As both countries fulfil certain animal health requirements, Australia and New Zealand are listed in Council Decision 79/542/EEC of 21 December 1976 drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorize imports of bovine animals, swine and fresh meat(2) as countries authorised to export fresh meat to the Community. Harmonised animal health certification has been laid down in Commission Decisions 80/801/EEC of 25 July 1980 concerning animal health conditions and veterinary certification for the importation of fresh meat from Australia(3) and 80/805/EEC of 25 July 1980 concerning animal health conditions and veterinary certification for the importation of fresh meat from New Zealand(4).

In relation to public health, requirements have to be certified according to Annex A of Directive 72/462/EEC which includes guarantees that the meat originates from animals that have not been treated with substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action nor with beta-agonists (in conformity with Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of ß-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC(5)). In addition in order to export food of animal origin to the Community a third country must be included in the list of countries for which residue plans have been provisionally approved under Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC(6).

Establishments (slaughterhouses, cutting plants, etc.) are also listed in Community legislation.

For information, each of these countries benefit from a number of import tariff quotas covering certain quantities and types of meat to be imported at reduced or zero customs duties.

(1) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972.

(2) OJ L 146, 14.6.1979.

(3) OJ L 234, 5.9.1980.

(4) OJ L 236, 9.9.1980.

(5) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(6) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0437/01

by Martin Callanan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: The BP Trent tragedy in June 1993

In June 1993, nine British sailors were killed when the Panamanian registered vessel the Western Winner collided with the British fuel tanker the BP British Trent near the Belgian port of Ostend.

Maritime investigations into the accident have shown that the Korean captain and crew of the Western Winner were to blame, having failed to comply with essential maritime safety laws. In spite of this, neither the captain and crew of the ship nor its owners, Alpha Beta Investments, have been prosecuted for malpractice.

What measures is the Commission taking to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2001)

The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction to prosecute the captain, the crew or the owner of the ship. Nevertheless, the Commission asked the Belgian authorities for information regarding the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. From the information received it appears that the case is still pending before the Criminal Court of Bruges and that the Belgian authorities thus cannot interfere with the judicial process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0334/01

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Lloyd's Insurance

1. Further to the answer to Question E-3473/00(1) given by Commissioner Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission on 21 December 2000, will the Commission say under which UK law and in which year the first Council Directive 73/239(2) was correctly implemented in the UK and what steps have been taken by the Commission since that date to ensure that this law was properly implemented?

2. With regard to complaint number 99/5049 will the Commission explain:

(a) the continuing delays in reaching a decision as to the lack of solvency certification as directed by Directive 73/239 and implemented in the UK Insurance Co. Act 1982?

(b) whether they have received any response to their letter to the British Government of 16 October 2000?

(c) what deadlines were defined in the letter of 16 October?

(d) whether the UK Government has complied with the stated deadlines?

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 132.

(2) OJ L 228, 16.8.1973, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

1. The operation and regulation of Lloyd's is extremely complex. The Commission's understanding is that the primary requirements of Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance as regards Lloyd's were first implemented into British national law by means of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and amending legislation. The form of the audit certificates was determined by The Insurance (Lloyd's) Regulations 1983.

In view of the substantial number of complaints received by the Commission from disaffected Lloyd's Names, the Commission is re-examining the proper application of the Community requirements for Lloyd's under the Directive.

2. With regard to complaint 99/5049:

a) the administrative examination has taken longer than usual because of the file complexity. The allegations made are extremely grave and are being carefully examined by the Commission. With regard to the required solvency certificates, the British authorities have confirmed that these have been provided in accordance with the requirements of Council Directive 73/239/EEC. The Commission is currently examining the nature of the solvency certificate provided. The British authorities are fully co-operating with the Commission in this examination.

b) The Commission has received an extensive response to its letter to the British authorities dated 16 October 2000.

c) The letter of 16 October gave a deadline of six weeks. In view of the comprehensive and detailed nature of the questions raised by the Commission's letter which related to events going back over almost 20 years, the Commission granted an extension of this deadline to the British authorities by letter dated 5 December 2000.

d) The British authorities submitted an extensive response dated 25 January 2001. This letter is currently being examined by the Commission as described above.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1470/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Delays in the administration of justice

Despite the promises made last year by the Minister responsible that there would be an IT revolution in the law courts by January 2001, even now the office responsible for registering cases at the Milan court is behind and is still dealing with the judges appointed in December 2000. A new four inch-thick file, like those produced a decade ago, was compiled only a month ago to help judges find their cases, with the names of the parties and the registration numbers of the cases.

Instead of the promised use of information technology the office is bogged down in paper, leading to delays which have an impact on the administration of justice and hence the right of citizens to obtain justice.

Although the organisation of the courts and the modernisation of their bureaucratic machinery is under the jurisdiction of national governments, can the Commission say:

1. whether it considers that the delays caused not least by failure to modernise procedures is having an adverse impact on citizens who have to wait an inordinately long time to see the conclusion of cases concerning them;

2. in view of the unequal treatment and the failure to respect human rights to which citizens are subjected because of delays in the organisational and technological changes in bureaucracy, does it not consider it would be appropriate to call on governments, in the context of the co-operation envisaged to achieve the objectives of the third pillar, to make the necessary efforts to modernise legal offices and make up for the delays which lead to the aforementioned unequal treatment?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member concerning the adverse impact on citizens of delays in the administration of justice.

That being so, the Commission is aware that slow procedures and slow registration of cases is a major impediment to access to justice, as are the complexity and cost of procedures.

Greater use of new information and communication technologies could at least partly remedy that problem. In this context, for example, the recent Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001(1) to set up a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters refers to the use of such new technologies in order to facilitate its activities.

The Commission is also managing several research programmes in the field of new technologies. One of them, the programme concerning information society technologies (IST programme), includes applications relating to administration, which could be suitable for the submission of proposals dealing with justice. A project known as E-Court has been under way since 1 June 2001 and is aimed at using emerging information and communication technologies to improve the output and efficiency of law courts throughout Europe.

(1) OJ L 174, 27.6.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1526/01

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Transport of animals by sea

According to a report from a Dutch national sailing as a passenger on a cargo boat, large numbers of animals are being transported by sea from the United Kingdom and Ireland, frequently in closed containers with wire mesh on one side only, in pitiable conditions.

Can the European Commission indicate the extent of such transport and the European Union legislation which is applicable to the transport of animals by sea?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Transport by sea is mainly used by the United Kingdom to export sheep to the continent. Export of live cattle from the United Kingdom has been forbidden since 1996 because of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. Exports of live sheep are now also banned because of foot-and-mouth disease.

Transport by sea is largely used by Ireland to export cattle to other Member States and third countries. However it should be mentioned that Ireland has adopted specific rules for the transport of animals by sea that go further than Community legislation in this field.

Transport by sea is also used regularly to export cattle to some third countries (mainly Middle East and North Africa).

Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC(1), as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995(2), lays down Community standards for the protection of animals during transport. General principles of the Directive as well as special provisions of that same Directive apply to the transport of animals by sea.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1123/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: RAI and political pluralism

It is a well-known fact that RAI (Radio Televisione Italiana, the Italian radio and television channel) is an undertaking which has been granted a concession to operate a national public utility. In order to receive its broadcasts, citizens have to pay a subscription fee. This is not RAI's only source of funds; it also receives a substantial sum in advertising receipts. However, no distinction is made, as required by the Community rules, between the advertising revenue and that derived from the subscription fee, which is a state tax.

In view of RAI's position as a public utility, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Has this undertaking ever, in the course of its history, received Community funds for any reason?

2. If so, for what purposes were those funds utilised?

3. If the funds were for the purpose of making programmes, when were those programmes broadcast? Are programmes still being broadcast?

4. Did these programmes comply, or are they complying, with the principles of political pluralism and equal rights which RAI must observe?

5. If not, since these principles have not been observed, and in view of RAI's role as a public utility, does the Commission not believe that it should take appropriate action?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1123/01 and E-1244/01 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

The main Community programme in the audiovisual sector is the MEDIA Plus programme, which entered into force on 1 January 2001. This programme follows on from the MEDIA and MEDIA II programmes, which were implemented between 1991 and 2000.

For these programmes, Community funding is awarded solely to independent producers and distributors, and the concept of independence is assessed in view of the tendering or receiving company's possible links with a public or private broadcasting company.

Broadcasting companies, whether public or private, are not eligible for Community support under the MEDIA programmes. RAI has not, therefore, received any Community funding in this area.