ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1006/01

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Land-use planning around Community airports

With reference to its Communication on Air Transport and the Environment (1 December 1999) and the resolution adopted by the European Parliament on that Communication (7 September 2000), will the Commission state when, precisely, it intends to publish its report on guidelines for best practice in land-use planning around Community airports? Will it ensure broad consultation when conducting this investigation, and will it say which stakeholders will be approached?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1005/01 and E-1006/01 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission considers appropriate rules for the use of land around Community airports as an important element for a policy aimed at protecting people living in the vicinity of airports from the impact of aircraft noise without unduly affecting the economics of air transport operations.

At the same time, however, the Commission fully recognises the prerogatives of Member States and competent local authorities for rule making and concrete decisions in this field. It does not intend to interfere with the existing allocation of responsibilities.

However, given the importance decisions on the use of land around airports may have for meeting the objective of improving the noise situation in terms of reducing the number of people seriously impacted by aircraft noise, the Commission intends to create a group of experts involving members with direct responsibilities in this field in order to identify best practices in this field. The Commission hopes that the work of this group will be useful for establishing recommendations on land-use rules which will be oriented towards improving the balance between environmental, economic and social concerns whilst respecting the existing allocation of responsibilities.

The Commission is not in the position to indicate at this moment of time a precise time-table for publishing a report.

The Commission will ensure broad consultation and approach all stakeholders with a legitimate interest in this matter.

Information resulting from the implementation of other Community instruments, such as the proposed Directive relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise(1), may provide useful input to this group.

(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0040/01

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia

I am informed that the European Commission has addressed a number of issues involving the death penalty in Saudi Arabia and the execution of young people under the age of 18 years.

I understand that these matters have been raised with the Gulf Cooperation Council.

What representations has the European Commission made to the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Government of Saudi Arabia or any other bodies, when did it do so, and what was the outcome?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission is concerned about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia including the extensive use of the death penalty. However, there is no specific agreement with Saudi Arabia, which would allow a direct exchange of views and dialogue on these issues with the Saudi government.

A regular political dialogue has been established within the context of the Cooperation Agreement between the Community and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, which includes the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait.

In this dialogue, human rights is an important part of the agenda. In the last two years, the situation in Saudi Arabia and in the other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries has been discussed extensively at the yearly senior officials and Ministerial meetings between the Union and the GCC. This development follows the increased interest in the human rights situation in the region by the EU, which was also expressed at the last two annual meetings of the United Nations Commission on human rights, where the Union raised the situation in Saudi Arabia, including the issue of the death penalty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1674/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: ILO conference - June 2001

Will the Commission use the ILO conference in June 2001 to draw attention to the repeated failures of governments such as India, Nepal and Pakistan to take adequate measures to eradicate the use of bonded labour?

Will the Commission make efforts to focus the ILO's discussions on practical assistance to governments in order to ensure that a comprehensive assessment of the problem of bonded labour is made, that laws prohibiting the use of bonded labour are put into place and that monitoring systems are established to evaluate the impact of assistance offered to combat bonded labour?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission has studied the Global Report prepared by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) for discussion at the 2001 International Labour Conference with great care and believes the Report is a groundbreaking step for the international community in identifying areas where forced labour persists and in suggesting ways of tackling the problem.

With regard to India, Nepal and Pakistan, the Commission notes that the Report provides both indications as to the efforts that have already been undertaken by the countries concerned to eradicate bonded labour, and evidence of the extent to which different forms of bonded labour remain a widespread phenomenon. The Commission is hopeful that the clear identification of the problems through the follow-up to the ILO Declaration, coupled with ILO technical assistance, will contribute to eradicating the phenomenon.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1153/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Application of the common fisheries policy

What are the principal differences, if any, between the regimes applied under the common fisheries policy in the western waters of the EU and other areas (such as the Mediterranean)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

The principal difference between the regimes applied in the Common Fisheries Policy in Community waters of the Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic and those applied in the Mediterranean is that in the latter area, the system of Total Allowable Catches (TAC) and associated quotas does not apply, except with respect to bluefin tuna.

The reason for non-application of TACs is that most fisheries in the Mediterranean, in particular fisheries for bottom-living species, catch a mixture of many species of fish in which no one species or group of species is predominant. Under such conditions, the TAC system is very difficult to implement in an effective manner.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1870/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Belgium)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Belgium have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Belgium have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01, E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01, E-1882/01, E-1883/01 and E-1884/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0627/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Money laundering casinos

In drawing up its Directives to amend Council Directive 91/308/EEC(1) on money laundering casinos, what consultations did the Commission enter into with representatives of casinos in the EU?

(1) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991, p. 77.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2001)

The Commission's proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering(1) envisaged the extension of the anti-money laundering obligations to a number of non-financial professions and activities, namely external accountants and auditors, real estate agents, notaries and lawyers, certain dealers in high-value items, transporters of funds and casinos.

This extension was a response to the wishes expressed by the Member States and the Parliament for urgent action to reinforce the Community anti-money laundering defences.

Given the priority attached to this new initiative, the Commission did not issue any green paper or other consultative document prior to launching its proposal. However, following the publication of its proposal, the Commission received and held discussions with representatives of any of the above-mentioned professions and activities that sought a meeting.

As far as the casino sector is concerned, the Commission has in recent months been in contact with the European Casino Forum, representatives of casinos from one Member State and trade union officials representing casino workers.

(1) OJ C 177 E, 27.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0579/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Water which is unfit to drink in Andalusia

The regional government of Andalusia (Spain) has itself admitted that the water supplied to more than two hundred thousand people is either constantly or sporadically unfit to drink. A total of 166 communities, most of them in the provinces of Almería and Granada, suffered problems of this nature in 1999.

This surprising and alarming admission on the part of the Andalusian Government highlights the stark reality that even today the Community can be faced with situations such as this, in which a large number of people find themselves without access to drinking water.

Will the Commission say how, given the Community provisions in this regard, a situation can possibly arise in which a large number of people find themselves without access to drinking water? What urgent measures would it be prepared to endorse with a view to ridding the Community of this vestige of underdevelopment as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2001)

The Commission was not aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member.

The piece of Community environment legislation which might be applicable in this case is Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption.(1)

It should be pointed out that Directive 80/778/EEC is to be replaced by Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998,(2) the deadline for the transposition of which expired on 25 December 2000. The Member States must apply the provisions of the new Directive by 25 December 2003 at the latest.

The two Directives referred to above lay down requirements regarding the quality of water intended for human consumption, and require the Member States to take steps to ensure they are met.

The information provided by the Honourable Member does not enable the Commission to deliver an opinion as to whether Community law is being complied with. The Commission is willing to receive additional information on the matter, such as the names of the municipalities concerned, in order to determine whether the Community environment law applicable in this case is being fully complied with.

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.

(2) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0388/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Homeworkers

What analysis, if any, has been carried out by the European Commission of the way in which the Working Time Directive has been implemented to cover homeworkers?

What are the findings of the analysis?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2001)

On 1 December 2000, the Commission adopted a report on the state of implementation by Member States(1) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time(2).

The Commission however has not carried out any specific analysis of the way in which this Directive has been implemented to cover homeworkers and this report does not deal specifically with this issue.

(1) COM(2000) 787 final.

(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1805/01

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(13 June 2001)

Subject: Delay in carrying out the pilot project to combat child exploitation and paedophilia

The horryfing phenomenon of paedophilia is still a burning issue, as shown by the recent discovery of a huge paedophile organisation in Rome (Italy).

In the 2001 Budget the European Parliament voted in favour of an appropriation of 3 million intended to finance, in the first year, a pilot project to combat child exploitation (budget line B5-804), specifically by funding an information campaign to combat child exploitation, and in particular paedophilia, within the 15 Member States.

In the 2002 Preliminary Draft Budget the Commission considered it appropriate to delete the funding from that line by making a token entry.

I have not yet received any reply to the question on this subject which I tabled on 30 March 2001.

In view of the foregoing, can the Commission say what action has been taken up to now and what action will be taken in future to carry out this project, what the timetable for this action will be and the reason whysix months of the financial year have elapsed without any action having been taken?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

The Commission refers to its answer to Question E-1245/01. In addition, it underlines that on 14 March 2001, the Commission has published the Daphne call for proposals, of which the profile was raised and adapted by including a priority on the topics: paedophilia and child sexual abuses and exploitation.

The receipt of the proposals is now achieved. Around 65 proposals concerning the above mentioned topics have been received. The result of the evaluation process will be known in September and the accepted projects should be able to start around November-December 2001.

Concerning the remark of the Honourable Member about the absence of a similar budget line in the APB 2002, the same considerations about duplication of activities with the Daphne programme guided the Commission in drafting the preliminary budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1755/01

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) and Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Mussel beds in the German part of the Waddenzee

The German Fisheries Department has granted a German company a licence to harvest mussels from a young mussel bed near Delfzijl in the Netherlands. The area in question has been designated a special conservation area under the Directives on Wild Birds and Habitats. In recent years a number of mussel beds in the Waddenzee have disappeared. The current policy of the Netherlands Government is geared to restoring the mussel beds. The oystercatcher and eiderduck populations have recently declined substantially. Both oystercatchers and eiderduck feed on cockles and mussels.

1. Could the harvesting of mussels result in irreparable damage or damage which can only be remedied with difficulty (significant damage) to the mussel beds?

2. Could the harvesting of mussels be a threat to oystercatchers and eiderduck?

3. Are there strong reasons of public interest in favour of granting a licence despite the possibility of significant damage?

4. Does the licence contravene the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives?

5. How compatible is the licence with the principles of the biodiversity policy laid down in the action plan for biodiversity for fisheries?

6. What will the Commission do in the near future to protect mussel beds?

7. What is the Commission's assessment of the German Government's plans to quarry sand close to a number of islands used by birds and to construct a container port in the Ems-Dollard area?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission has already launched an investigation in order to assess the compatibility of the shellfish fisheries in the Wadden Sea and in the wide mouth of the river Ems with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1). The granting of a licence to harvest mussels close to Delfzijl in the Netherlands is one of the subjects of that investigation.

As far as the German Government's plans to quarry sand and to construct a port in the Ems-Dollard area are concerned, the Commission so far has no detailed knowledge of this matter and has no indications that an infringement of Community law is at issue.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1058/01

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Town-twinning grants

Can the Commission state whether, in the 2002 programme for the promotion of town-twinning, it will be prepared to change the rules so that twin towns situated within the 250 kilometres limit but separated by a sea crossing are eligible to receive town-twinning grants? This change would take account of the fact that sea crossings cost considerably more than the equivalent overland journey.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

The subject raised by the Honourable Member has been discussed with the partner organisations involved in town twinning (in principle the Council of European Municipalities and Regions and the Fédération Mondiale des Cités Unies) on several occasions, most recently during the consultations of October 2000 concerning introduction of the new procedure for calls for proposals.

There are two reasons for the Commission's decision to introduce the 250 km limit for the eligibility of projects involving exchanges between citizens of twin towns. The first is that the Commission wishes to encourage the creation of links between towns and cities which are further apart, as it feels that distance constitutes a major obstacle to closer links between European citizens. The second reason is that below a certain threshold the administration costs involved in processing a grant application exceed the amount of the grant itself, which the Commission feels runs contrary to the principles of sound management.

Nevertheless, the Commission acknowledges the relevance of the Honourable Member's question and is willing to examine the possibility of changing current practice at the meeting which will be organised in autumn 2001 to take stock of how the new procedure for awarding town-twinning grants is functioning.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1878/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Luxembourg)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Luxembourg have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Luxembourg have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01, E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01, E-1882/01, E-1883/01 and E-1884/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0447/01

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Tomato aids in 1999/2000

In June 1999 the Commission agreed that the price and aid levels to apply for the 2000 marketing year would include, in the calculation formula, the figures for tomato exports from the People's Republic of China.

All the producer Member States voted against in the Management Committee when it debated the price and aid proposal submitted by the Commission.

Within the Commission, Commissioner Franz Fischler appears to have expressed his willingness to review the regulation under which aid was cut by 20,54 % for the 2000 marketing year, should the decision-making background significantly change.

Should the data for China be included for purposes of calculating the aid, the result would be a level of aid significantly different from that which has hitherto applied.

There is a legal precedent from 1987, in a case relating to sultanas brought by Greece.

The level of aid 34,5 per tonne set by the COM for the 2001 marketing year confirms the unfairness of the abnormally low and penalising level established for the 2000 marketing year. By accepting the former level higher than that initially proposed in the process of reform of the COM the Commission tacitly recognised that an injustice had been done.

In view of the above, it may be concluded that the most elementary principles of fairness and ethics, as well as technical considerations, dictate that the aid level for the 2000 marketing year should be set at the same level as that which will apply for the 2001 marketing year.

Can the Commission state how it intends to compensate industrial units in respect of the difference between the two levels of aid?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The processing aid for tomatoes for the 2000/01 marketing year was calculated in strict compliance with Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products(1).

No official information on the price charged in China for the purchase of tomatoes delivered to the processing industry is available. Moreover the Chinese authorities have provided no information on their exports of processed tomato products.

The Commission does not intend to amend Commission Regulation (EC) No 1519/2000 of 12 July 2000 setting for the 2000-2001 marketing year the minimum price and the amount of production aid for processed tomato products(2).

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(2) OJ L 174, 13.7.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0846/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: The serving of shark products in Commission restaurants

In view of concerns about the depletion of shark stocks, will the Commission make a commitment to ensure that shark-fin soup and other shark products are not served in any of the Commission's restaurants or at official functions?

A commitment has been made by the Quaestors of the European Parliament to ban shark from the Parliament's restaurants.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

The Commission can confirm that it will not serve shark fin soup or other shark products in any of its restaurants or at any official functions.