ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2941/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 October 2001)

Subject: State aid for Ryanair at Charleroi airport

In answer to question P-1767/01(1), the Commission says that that in the light of recent press articles (author's note: concerning assistance from the Region of Wallonia for Ryanair's operations at Charleroi airport) it intends to check whether the information it obtained earlier is still valid.

However, other regional airports are querying the aid from the Region of Wallonia; according to them, there is a flagrant breach of Community competition rules. According to the newspaper the Echo (see De Standaard of 5 July 2001), the support granted to Ryanair by the Region of Wallonia amounts to EUR 3 million a year. In total, Ryanair has apparently received EUR 12 million in subsidies and concessions at Charleroi.

After checking whether the information obtained earlier is still valid (relating to state aid from the Region of Wallonia for the activities of Ryanair at Charleroi airport), does the Commission still consider that the assistance provided by the Region of Wallonia is compatible with Community competition rules? If so, on what arguments does the Commission base this view? If not, what steps will the Commission take to ensure that the Region of Wallonia and Ryanair comply with Community competition rules as soon as possible?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 222.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2877/01 and E-2941/01given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2001)

Acting on information published in the press at the beginning of the summer concerning possible advantages connected with the operation of air services allegedly enjoyed by Ryanair at Charleroi airport, in September 2001 the Commission requested information from the Belgian authorities in order to assess the nature of possible advantages enjoyed by Ryanair in relation to the rules of the EC Treaty on State aid. On the basis of the information that it receives, the Commission will decide what action to take in this connection.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3164/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2001)

Subject: Money laundering convictions

1. Does the Commission have any statistics on the number of convictions for money laundering in EU Member States?

2. If so, can the Commission please state how many convictions there have been in total across the EU and in each individual Member State, during the last 10 years?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The Commission does not have statistics on the number of convictions for money laundering pronounced in the Members States. Existing Community legal instruments do not oblige Member States to provide the Commission with this information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2788/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Death of migratory birds on the Øresund Bridge

During long flights migratory birds chiefly navigate by the stars. This map is lost when the weather is overcast or foggy, so that the birds are misled by the light of illuminated buildings, streets etc. They often collide with obstacles or choose the street itself as an emergency landing place. This phenomenon is of particular importance in such places as the Øresund Bridge (between Sweden and Denmark), which is brightly illuminated in foggy conditions, and on which approximately 1 000 birds, mostly rare, can die on one foggy day.

1. Has any research been carried out into this phenomenon?

2. Is it possible to divert the birds from buildings and streets etc. which are potentially lethal to them?

3. What efforts are being made by the Commission to protect the birds?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2001)

Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1) provides a legal framework for the protection of all wild bird species as well as their habitats within the Community. However, it is for the individual Member States to ensure appropriate protection of the different bird's species, in accordance with the requirements of the directive, taking the necessary preventive measures to avoid significant negative influences on bird populations.

The Commission is aware that the Öresund area between Sweden and Denmark is important for migratory birds and contains special protected areas. It is not aware that a significant number of migratory birds die following collision with the Öresund bridge as a result of poor orientation during unfavourable weather conditions.

There are a number of studies about birds and collisions with large structures, which deal particularly with the problems posed by high voltage transmission lines and glass walls on buildings. Solutions to minimise the problem of bird collisions need to be based on appropriate scientific studies and adapted to the particularities of the local conditions.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2649/01

by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Council

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Problems in Zimbabwe

At the recent Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, participants devoted much attention to the Western world's legacy of responsibility for crimes against Africa.

Today in Zimbabwe, thousands of white farmers are falling victim to President Mugabe's racist expropriation policy.

Did European Union representatives at the Durban conference discuss these problems, either formally or informally?

If so, what conclusions were drawn?

Irrespective of the Durban conference, the situation in Zimbabwe remains very much a burning issue. What pressure will the Council bring to bear and what means will it use to put a swift end to the ethnic cleansing which is taking place there?

Reply

(12 February 2002)

EU representatives were very fully occupied at Durban with the very difficult discussion in the Conference itself, as in any case, this Conference was not country specific. They did not discuss the problems related to white farmers in Zimbabwe at the Conference against racism in Durban, South Africa.

The Council on 25 June expressed its concern about recent developments in Zimbabwe and referred to the following areas where substantial progress should be noted over a period of two months: an end to political violence and official encouragement to such violence, an invitation

to the EU to support and observe coming elections, actions to protect the freedom of the media, independence of the judiciary and respect of its decisions and an end to the illegal occupation of properties. The Council undertook to take appropriate measures if no substantial progress had been made in this period.

The Council on 8 October 2001 reiterated its concern over the situation in Zimbabwe and in particular the lack of progress in the five areas identified by the Council. It agreed to return to the question after the ministerial meeting between the EU Troïka led by the Council President, Deputy Prime Minster and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium, Louis Michel, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Zimbabwe, I. S. G. Mudenge, which took place on 22 October 2001.

On 29 October 2001, the Council discussed developments in the Zimbabwean situation in the light of the principal concerns it had expressed at its meeting on 25 June and noted that no visible progress had been made. It reiterated the EU's readiness to assist Zimbabwe in preparing and holding the elections, by the sending of an exploratory mission. The Council also decided to launch the consultation procedure provided for in Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement with a view to strengthening the ongoing political dialogue. On this same occasion the European Union declared that it will give strong weight to ensuring coordination and complementarity with the efforts of SADC and the Abuja process vis à vis Zimbabwe.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2833/01

by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(12 October 2001)

Subject: French tax provisions for foreign life insurance

Referring to the answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission to Written Question E-1552/01(1) (French tax provisions for foreign life insurance) has the Commission decided whether or not to issue a reasoned opinion under Article 226 (ex 169) of the EC Treaty? If not, why not? If it has done so, what was the outcome?

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 144.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it did in fact decide to send a reasoned opinion under Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty. It was sent to the French authorities on 25 July 2001. A press release on the subject was issued on 26 July 2001(1).

The Commission asked the French authorities to amend the tax provisions concerned within two months of receiving the reasoned opinion.

To date, the Commission has not been informed of any action taken by the French authorities in response to the reasoned opinion. Consequently, the Commission will shortly decide on the follow-up to these proceedings.

(1) IP/01/1106.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2887/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(11 October 2001)

Subject: Luxembourg compromise

Does the Council agree with Anthony Teasdale's contribution to Martin Westlake's book on the Council of Ministers in which he states that the Luxembourg compromise has not been used since 1985, that it was not in fact upheld when Greece used it during the 1988 agriculture negotiations, and that it could not be invoked today?

Has the Luxembourg compromise been invoked since 1985 and, if so, when?

Which countries still subscribe to the Luxembourg compromise and do they constitute a blocking minority?

Reply

(12 February 2002)

Academic publications are not a basis for discussion in the Council, and the Council has never discussed the work referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Council, as it has stated on previous occasions(1), recalls that the conclusions of its extraordinary session in Luxembourg on 17, 18, 27 and 28 January 1966 which are commonly referred to as the Luxembourg compromise and which have not been amended or rescinded, do not prevent it from taking decisions in accordance with the Treaties. However, the fact that the Treaties in many instances provide for majority decisions does not prevent members of the Council from endeavouring in general to narrow differences and reconcile their views as far as possible before the Council acts. Moreover, the Council does not keep records of possible occasions on which the so-called Luxembourg compromise might have been invoked.

(1) See replies to written question E-317/96 and E-1109/01.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2813/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: Shipwreck in the Sicilian Channel

The Commission's answer to this Member's Written Question P-2079/01(1) dealing exclusively with the request for the recovery of the bodies of 238 illegal Indian, Pakistani and Tamil immigrants who were shipwrecked in the waters off the coast of Sicily during Christmas 1996, is totally unsatisfactory, as it does not explain why the request cannot be met.

Can the Commission say clearly and unequivocally:

1. what institution is competent to recover the bodies;

2. whether the recovery is still a matter of choice;

3. whether it considers it compatible with the declared principles of solidarity and religious feeling that the bodies of hundreds of people should be left to be eaten by fishes just because they are not European and are not entitled to a burial?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 181.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

The Commission certainly shares the Honourable Member's sentiments on the need to respect human dignity, particularly as regards victims of the tragic events to which he refers. It regrets that he considers the reply to his previous question to be unsatisfactory, but can only reiterate that it is up to the Italian authorities alone to recover the bodies. No Community instrument, either legal or financial, can be applied in this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3411/01

by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: Compatibility of compulsory pension schemes with Articles 39 and 43 of the EC Treaty

Is the compulsory membership (Pflichtmitgliedschaft) of the Schleswig-Holstein Dentists association (Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein) in respect of the Satzung für das Vorsorgungswerk der Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein and the associated pension scheme compatible with the rules on the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 43 and the free movement of workers laid down in Article 39 of the EC Treaty?

Freedom of establishment and the free movement of workers are two of the fundamental freedoms on which the European Union's legal system is based. Rules such as those mentioned above affect access to the labour market in Germany. Any arrangements which obstruct or restrict access must be removed and the Member States have undertaken to do so in Article 10 of the EC Treaty.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Nationals of a Member State who carry out their professional activities, either as employees or self-employed workers, in another Member State are obliged to comply with the rules governing the practice of the profession in question in that Member State. However, if the effect of an obligation such as that

described by the Honourable Member is to restrict the free movement of workers and the freedom of establishment within the European Union, this is only compatible with the rules of the EC Treaty if it applies equally to nationals of the host Member State and those from other Member States, satisfies overriding reasons relating to the public interest, is a suitable means of achieving the objective pursued, and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.

As such, the requirement for compulsory membership of a professional dentists' association and the associated pension scheme is not therefore contrary, in principle, to the free movement of workers laid down in Article 39 of the EC Treaty and the freedom of establishment set out in Article 43 of the EC Treaty.

In the case of a national who is already established as a dentist in a Member State and who wishes to open a second practice in another Member State, the host Member State should, of course, take into account the obligations he/she has already fulfilled in the country in which he/she was first established, including affiliation to a pension scheme in that Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2407/01

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 August 2001)

Subject: Pulsed radio transmissions

For the last 10 years, and possibly much longer, the inhabitants of the United Kingdom and other European countries have, it is claimed, been subject to and suffered from adverse health effects caused by pulsed radio transmissions emitted from transmitters in France, Germany, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Ireland. The transmissions belong to the Long Range Navigational System (LORAN-C) acquired from the US Government and now known as the North West European LORAN-C System (NELS). There is a possibility that such pulsed transmissions are conveyed and concentrated into people's homes via the public electricity supply system where they may then act upon the brain and nervous system of those who are affected. The adverse health effects are apparently now well-documented as are the locations affected.

In the light of this, is the Commission prepared to address the problem through research and/or legislation to relieve the suffering of those European citizens who may be affected?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2001)

On 12 July 1999, with a view to protecting the health of European citizens against the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields, the Council adopted Recommendation 1999/519/EC on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz)(1). This frequency range includes the LORAN-C system referred to by the Honourable Member.

This Recommendation provides a European framework for the protection of the public against exposure to electromagnetic fields. The technical annex stipulates basic restrictions and reference levels which should not be exceeded if public health is to be safeguarded.

The Recommendation calls on Member States to adopt this framework and implement the practical measures needed to protect the public. Member States must inform the Commission of the action taken in this direction within three years following the adoption of this Recommendation. The Commission will continue to support research programmes on the health consequences of long-term exposure to non-ionising radiation and to promote the achievement of an international consensus concerning guidelines and advice on protective and preventive measures based on the text of the Recommendation.

In this connection, there is no scientific evidence of any risks linked to the use of pulsed fields below the limits laid down by the Recommendation.

Nevertheless, the Commission has referred the matter to the Scientific Committee on Toxicology, Ecotoxicology and the Environment and has requested it to issue a new opinion in October 2001 on the risks related to the development of technologies using electromagnetic radiation.

The Commission will react to any new scientific evidence not currently taken into account.

(1) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2678/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2001)

Subject: Regional grants in Italy

What view does the Commission take of the huge amounts of regional aid which special status regions and autonomous provinces pay out to the various types of businesses and cooperatives?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, Member States are required to notify the Commission of any plans to grant or alter aid. This requirement holds for both aid granted by national authorities and aid granted by regional bodies. The Commission vets the aid for compatibility with the common market

on the basis of Article 87 (former Article 92) of the EC Treaty and the rules contained in regulations, frameworks or guidelines. With regard in particular to regional aid, the Commission applies the criteria set out in the guidelines published in the Official Journal(1). In the case of Italy, the maximum aid intensities are specified in the Italian regional aid map, which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

Certain categories of state aid have been declared compatible with the common market under Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to certain categories of horizontal State aid(2) and need not be notified under Article 88 (former Article 93) of the EC Treaty. This aid is currently governed by Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 68/2001(3), 69/2001(4) and 70/2001(5) of 12 January 2001

Part of the aid notified by Italy concerns special-status regions and the autonomous provinces of Trentino and Bolzano. The Honourable Member will find the decisions taken by the Commission in the authentic language or languages, with any confidential data removed, on the Internet site http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids. The state aid register gives information broken down by region on the Internet site http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/register/ii/by_region_8.html.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

(2) OJ L 142, 14.5.1998.

(3) Regulation on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001).

(4) Regulation on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001).

(5) Regulation on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2193/01

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

(23 July 2001)

Subject: Setting up, within Spain, of a public company to buy weapons for lease to the country's central government, thereby ensuring that such investment expenditure does not appear in the accounts

The Spanish Government is devising such a system for financing the purchase of tanks and ships with the intention that the public company would lease the weapons to the army, so as to prevent the full cost thereof from appearing in the accounts for the year in which the weapons are purchased. Irrespective of the implications which such a system has for the concept of the powers and the authority of the state, does the Commission consider the system to be compatible with the budget-stability rules which the Member States are required to observe?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2001)

In accordance with the Stability and Growth Pact all Member States have committed themselves to respect a medium-term objective for the general government budgetary position of close to balance or in surplus(1). This budget-stability objective is based on general government accounts according to the European system of accounts (ESA-95). This system includes a detailed regulation for the treatment of leasing operations (Annex II: Leasing and hire purchase of durable goods).

On the one hand, it remains to be seen in which sector is the public corporation classified. On the other hand, as described by the Honourable Member the operation described seems to fall under the definition of financial leasing. According to which, the lessor provides the lessee with a loan enabling the lessee to purchase a durable good, of which the lessee becomes the de facto owner. The durable good is treated as if owned by the lessee from the beginning of the leasing period. As a consequence, the full amount of the principal of the loan is registered as a non-financial expenditure at the time of the contract, while interest payments are registered annually. Naturally, a thorough assessment of the operation will not be possible until the details of the transactions involved are known.

(1) OJ C 236, 2.8.1997.