ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0006/01

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Kerosine discharged at sea

Fishermen are aware that aircraft often discharge kerosine into the North Sea. Often tens of thousands of litres of fuel are involved. In recent years considerable progress has been achieved by imposing a ban on ships discharging at sea and on incineration at sea etc., but discharges of kerosine have not been tackled.

Is the magnitude of the problem for the ecosystem of the North Sea and the Mediterranean known, is it possible to restrict or ban such discharges or to permit them only as a last resort, and why have such measures not been used?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Discharging of fuel by aircraft during flight is a procedure used on long-haul flights in order to reduce weight in emergency situations to below the safe maximum weight for landing. This takes place only in the event of rescheduling of the flight in case of technical problems or serious passenger illness. The procedure emanates from an obligation imposed by international standards Joint Aviation Requirements/Operations (JAR-OPS), which provide that an operator has the obligation to ensure that the maximum allowable landing mass of the aeroplane is not exceeded. In this context fuel jettisoning is explicitly permitted if a safe procedure is used.

Usually for such cases of emergency special airspace is assigned to the aircraft, if possible above unpopulated areas. Given the altitude and aircraft speed at which discharges take place as well as the turbulence behind the aircraft which transforms the kerosene into a fine mist, only a very small percentage of the total volume of kerosene reaches the ground. The Commission is not aware of specific environmental impact studies in this field, but according to available information the concentration level per square kilometre of land or sea would be so low that an affect on ecosystems is unlikely.

Whilst discharging of kerosene is only used in emergency situations where the life of people is at risk and given the insignificant effect on ecosystems, banning kerosene discharges does not appear to be a realistic option.

Furthermore, as the discharging of kerosene represents a substantial financial loss for the air operator, it can be assumed that it will be used as a measure of last resort only.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0578/01

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

(1 March 2001)

Subject: European Union aid for a tunnel under the Straits of Gibraltar

The recent agreement between France and Italy to build a 52-kilometre tunnel under the Alps to provide a rail link between Turin and Lyon has once again highlighted the advantages of tunnels as an ideal means of connecting two points which it would otherwise be difficult to link.

This situation brings to mind the long-standing desire to build a tunnel under the Straits of Gibraltar to provide a permanent link between Africa and Europe and foster the economic flows which could stem from closer ties between the Maghreb region and the European Union's southern flank.

Does the Commission intend to propose carrying out studies to establish the potential of a project such as a tunnel under the Straits of Gibraltar, including the advantages inherent in bringing the Maghreb region closer to the European Union's southern flank?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The Commission adopted the 2000-2002 MEDA indicative programme for Morocco in December 2000 following consultations between the Moroccan government and the Member States.

As yet the Commission has received no request from the Moroccan government about the financing of cost and feasibility studies on the tunnel under the Straits of Gibraltar.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0361/01

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Directive 1999/94/EC relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars

The implementing provisions of Directive 1999/94/EC(1) on the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars should have been transposed into national law by 18 January 2001.

Is it true that by that date only four Member States had complied with their legal obligations and properly transposed the Directive into national law?

If it is, what does the Commission intend to do to ensure that the Directive is transposed and, pursuant to the CO2 reduction strategy, to ensure that all consumers in Europe have adequate information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions as soon as possible?

(1) OJ L 12, 18.1.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

The Commission, in its role of guardian of the EC Treaty, pursuant to Article 211 (ex Article 155) thereof, monitors the implementation of Community law by the Member States.

This applies to the communication to the Commission by the Member States of national implementing measures intended to transpose Community directives.

To this end, the Commission checks the communication of national implementing measures transmitted by the Member States as transposing legislation for Community Directives, and initiates the appropriate infringement procedures pursuant to Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty against those Member States, which fail to communicate national implementing measures for Community directives once the deadline for transposition has expired.

Directive 1999/94/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars should have been transposed by the Member States into their national law by 18 January 2001.

At present (12 February 2001), three Member States (the Netherlands, Finland and Denmark) have communicated national transposition measures to the Commission in respect of this Directive.

The Commission will launch the regular monitoring exercise with regard to the lack of transposition of this Directive and letters of formal notice will be issued to any Member State which has not communicated its transposition at that time. In the absence of a positive response to the letter of formal notice, the Commission will address a reasoned opinion to any Member State which has not communicated the relevant national legislation at that stage.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0679/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Procedures for the European recognition of the Veneto language

The Veneto language is recognised as such in important documents on languages, such as the Unesco Red Book of Endangered Languages by Professor Tapani Salminen of the University of Helsinki (Finland) and The Ethnologue Languages of the World 13th edition Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas, Texas (United States).

A variant of Veneto is decreed as the official language one week a year in Serafina Correa, a state in Rio Grande do Sol in Brazil, in honour of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the Veneto living in Brazil, who still speak the language.

According to a study carried out by ISTAT (the Italian Statistical Institute) in 1998, 52 % of those living in the Veneto speak Veneto rather than Italian in inter-personal relations, in offices and at the workplace.

In March 1995 the Veneto regional government published a unified manual for the spelling of Veneto.

On 22 November 1999 the Veneto regional parliament adopted, by a large majority, a resolution (No 262) calling on the Italian State to recognise Veneto as a regional language.

Veneto was the mother tongue of various important figures, such as the explorer Marco Polo and the writer Carlo Goldoni.

Despite all this the Italian State and the European Office for Minority Languages have not yet recognised Veneto's status as a regional language.

Can the Commission say what procedures and measures are needed to ensure that Veneto is recognised as a regional language by the European Office for Minority Languages as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2001)

The recognition of regional and minority languages is a matter for the Member States, which take various approaches. As far as Italy is concerned, this Member State ratified the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages of the Council of Europe on 27 June 2000 and drew up the list of the languages recognised in this connection, without including Veneto.

The European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages (EBLUL) is co-financed by the Community and represents the regional and minority language communities of the Community. It is an independent body made up of national committees representing the various cultural associations and bodies that are active in the national language communities. Their composition is their own responsibility, and the Community does not intervene in this organisation.

In both cases, it is necessary to contact the competent authorities or persons directly: the Italian Government for recognition at the level of the Italian State, and the EBLUL for the question of its presence in this body.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0389/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Regulatory impact assessments

What regulatory impact assessment studies were carried out by the European Commission prior to the presentation of the Physical Agents Directive and the Electronic Waste Directive? Could the Commission make these impact assessments available? If they do exist, why were impact assessments not carried out?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

The proposals for Directives on electric and electronic waste (WEEE) and on restriction on hazardous substances in electric and electronic waste (RoHS), have been adopted on 13 June 2000(1). An accompanying 55-page explanatory memorandum has been made available to the public(2).

This explanatory memorandum contains a detailed assessment of the justification of the proposals and reference to all the studies on which these proposals are based. Information is also contained as regards the environmental problems addressed, the internal market and international aspects, subsidiarity and proportionality aspects, economic assessment (benefits and costs) and consultation aspects as well as data and the scientific basis. The Annex to the explanatory memorandum contains, inter alia, a specific assessment of the impact of the proposals on business, with special reference to small and medium-sized enterprises, and also a memorandum on scientific evaluation.

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.

(2) COM(2000) 347 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0255/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 February 2001)

Subject: Right of Resale

Does the Council envisage the establishment of a centralised European register of all qualifying artists and their heirs under the draft Directive? If not, how are the natural or legal persons referred to in Article 9 supposed to determine the rights to a work in the event of a claim from two or more persons from outside the jurisdiction of the Member State concerned?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0125/01 and E-0255/01

(14 May 2001)

1. The Council considers that Article 295 ECT which provides that the Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership, is an exception provision in the form of a genuine reservation of sovereignty. Like all exceptions in Community law, Article 295 is strictly interpreted. Thus the Court of Justice has held that Article 295 permits the Community to adopt rules about the disposal or use of property rights including the exercise of national intellectual property rights. In particular the Court of Justice has held that the Community rules on competition, which do not allow the improper use of rights under national trade-mark law in order to frustrate the Community law on cartels, are compatible with Article 295(1).

Likewise the Council considers that the proposed Directive on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art is compatible with Article 295 of the EC Treaty inasmuch as its purpose is to approximate national provisions in order to eliminate inter alia distortions of competition within the internal market and in order to allow the artist's resale right to be exercised without discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

2. With regard to the question of the establishment of a centralised European register the Council would point out that the Commission has not included in its proposal for a Directive on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art any proposal concerning a register of the nature mentioned by the Honourable Member, nor has the European Parliament proposed any amendment to this effect at either first or second reading.

Finally the Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is not the role of a Community Directive to lay down the details of how its provisions are to be implemented.

(1) Judgment of 13 July 1966, Consten and Grundig v. Commission, Joined Cases 56 and 58/64, ECR p. 299.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0035/01

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Discrimination against male pensioners as regards child allowances

France's implementation of legislation governing child allowances is discriminatory and unfair to male pensioners, since the national civilian and military retirement pension scheme makes provision for the payment of child allowances only to women or to men under discriminatory conditions. In Germany, on the other hand, child allowances are paid without distinction and in equal amounts to either men or women.

Since this discrimination against men is an infringement of the EU Treaties and does not respect the principle of equality between men and women in the field of social security, nor the principle of equal pay, and since the Commission should ensure compliance with the principle of equality between the sexes and enable European men to benefit from the policies on equality, does it not consider that it should remedy this form of discrimination?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Concerning the question raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission can inform her that it has already lodged a complaint with the French authorities, on 5 April 2000, for failure to implement Article 141 (ex Article 119) of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice, particularly in cases C-7/93 (Bestuur van het Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioenfonds v. G. A. Beune)(1) and C-147/95 (Dimossia Epicheirissi Ilektrismou (DEI) v. Efthimios Evrenopoulos)(2), and for failure to implement Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996, amending Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes(3), reflecting the Court's decisions. It should be noted that France has already been censured by the Court of Justice in its ruling of 8 July 1999 on case C-354/98 (Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic)(4) for failure to notify the transposal measures for Directive 96/97/EC.

Moreover, regarding the specific question of civilian and military pensions, two matters have already been referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling by the French national courts (C-366/99 Criesmar and C-206/00 Moufflin).

(1) ECR 1994 I-4471.

(2) ECR 1997 I-2057.

(3) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997.

(4) ECR 1999 I-4927.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1031/01

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Pet crematoria

What information does the Commission have on the number of pet crematoria in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

The Commission does not have the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0357/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: UEFA rules in contravention of European Treaties

The European football federation (UEFA) bans clubs with financial links from playing each other in UEFA competitions (the cup and the champions league). Ajax and Germinal Beerschot of Antwerp are probably the first victims of this ban. On Tuesday, 16 May 2000 the Dutch club acquired a 51 % majority stake in the Antwerp club.

Is the UEFA ban on clubs with financial links playing each other in contravention of the European Treaties? If so, what action will the Commission take to put a stop to any contravention of the Treaties by the UEFA ban?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2001)

The Honourable Member refers to the 1998 UEFA rule on integrity of the UEFA club competitions; independence of clubs. According to UEFA, the rule is designed to protect the sporting integrity of its club competitions by not allowing clubs controlled by one and the same entity to take part in the same UEFA competition.

The rule was notified to the Commission and was the subject of a notice issued under Article 19(3) of Regulation 17/62(1). The Commission's preliminary position as set out in the notice is that the notified rule can be considered to be a decision of an association of undertakings or an agreement between associations of undertakings within UEFA as defined in Article 81 (formerly Article 85) of the EC Treaty. Taking into account what the Court of Justice recognised in the Bosman case as legitimate objectives(2) in view of the considerable social importance of football in the Community, the Commission considers that the restrictions imposed by the rule might escape the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1).

However, in order to determine whether or not this provisional conclusion can be confirmed, the Commission must know whether those restrictions are limited to what is necessary to safeguard the integrity of UEFA competitions and the uncertainty of results. In other words, it must ascertain whether or not less restrictive means exist for achieving the objective of safeguarding the integrity and uncertainty of results of club competitions organised by UEFA.

The matter is still being looked into and no definitive position has been adopted.

(1) OJ C 363, 17.12.1999.

(2) Case C-415/93 [1995] ECR I-4921, point 106.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/01

by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Commission position on the European capital

A French newspaper article, headed MEPs unhappy with Strasbourg, has claimed that Mr Romano Prodi, President of the Commission, stated in Strasbourg that Brussels would inevitably become Europe's capital city.

Will the Commission confirm whether this reflects its position on the seat of the institutions and whether it discussed the issue before allowing its President to review its point of view in Strasbourg?

Is the Commission prepared to recognise that decisions regarding the seats of the European Union's bodies and agencies do not fall within its sphere of competence and that it is therefore required to show discretion and restraint on this matter and to respect the letter, if not the spirit, of the decisions taken by the Council in Edinburgh?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

The seats of Union institutions and bodies were laid down in the Decision on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities as well as of Europol, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaties establishing the three Communities. The Decision was adopted when the Amsterdam Treaty was concluded. An annex to the Treaty recently signed at Nice includes a declaration on the proceedings of the European Councils. Statements by the President of the Commission represent his assessment of the scope of the latter decision and cannot therefore be interpreted differently and taken out of context.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0536/01

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: EU assistance to Hungary

1. Is the European Union subsidising gastronomic projects in Hungary, particularly the building of a thermal spa hotel (in Sopron county), the amount to be invested in which is estimated at 3 billion forint?

2. If so, who is the contact for applications for such assistance?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

The Commission can confirm that PHARE has not supported any project similar to what is described, either in Györ-Moson-Sopron county or elsewhere in Hungary. Indeed, no individual investment projects of this size (3 billion forints = 11,2 million) have been supported under PHARE. Certain projects have supported thermal bath infrastructure, mostly through supply of therapeutic equipment and on a far smaller scale, not as part of a hotel, nor in the country mentioned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0134/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Secrecy of legislative proceedings

Will the Commission seek the advice of its Legal Service so as to determine whether the continued practice of the Council of Ministers meeting in secret, even when discussing legislation, is consistent with:

(a) the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and

(b) the constitutional traditions common to the Member States?

Does the Commission consider that this practice complies with Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2001)

The Council's decision-making arrangements are set out in its rules of procedure, adopted pursuant to the EC Treaty. These rules were amended in order to take into account transparency requirements. On the basis of the rules, the Council can meet in camera or hold open meetings. Under these circumstances, the Commission does not wish to comment on Council practices.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0284/01

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Subject: Purchase of agricultural land by farmers in Germany

The German Federal Government considers that land purchases by Swiss farmers are not compatible with German measures to improve the structure of German agriculture. On the contrary, owing to significant differences in the underlying conditions of agricultural policy on the two sides of the border in the Upper Rhine area, Swiss farmers are said to have been treated so much more favourably, even taking into account the effects of the Swiss Agriculture Act which entered into force on 1 January 1999, that their purchases of German agricultural land led to an unhealthy distribution of land within the meaning of Section 9(2) of the Land Transactions Act.

1. Does the Commission consider that the purchase of land by third country farmers can still help European agriculture?

2. What is the Commission's assessment of the German government's view as portrayed above?

3. What is the Commission's view of the above state of affairs when Austrian rather than Swiss farmers are concerned?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2001)

1. and 2. The Commission does not consider the Federal authorities' introduction of measures to improve agricultural structures under the common agricultural policy as being incompatible with the right of third country farmers to purchase agricultural land in Germany, provided that the land so bought is cultivated in accordance with the rules laid down in this regard. The Member State is responsible for property laws and for adopting the measures it considers necessary to manage and cultivate land.

3. The free movement of people and recognition of the right of establishment and of the right to carry on activity in another country are rights enshrined in the EC Treaty to which every citizen of a Member State is entitled. It is obvious that citizens of third countries cannot avail themselves of this protection in quite the same way.