ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2410/99

by Cristina Gutiérrez Cortines (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: The Interreg II Community Initiative: Spanish-Moroccan cooperation

Within the Interreg Community Initiative there is a Spanish-Moroccan cooperation programme which covers four areas, namely socio-economic development measures, cultural heritage and environmental measures, improving cross-border communications and management and monitoring of the programme itself.

Will the Commission provide details of each and every subsidy paid out in each of these four areas, stating the respective value of the sums paid out and to whom they were paid?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The aid granted under the Community initiative programme Interreg Spain-Morocco for the period 1994-1999 amounts to 104,1 million.

The breakdown by subprogramme is as follows:

>TABLE>

Projects are managed by the following bodies: Administración Central; Junta de Andalucia; Ayuntamiento de Cádiz; Ayuntamiento de Málaga; Ciudad Autónoma de Ceuta; Ciudad Autónoma de Melilla; Mancomunidad de Municipios del Bajo Guadalquivir; Diputación Provincial de Málaga; Diputación Provincial de Cádiz; Red Eléctrica; Telefónica; Autoridad Portuaria de la Bahía de Cádiz; Autoridad Portuaria de la Bahía de Algeciras; Autoridad Portuaria de Ceuta; Autoridad Portuaria de Melilla.

Details of the projects part-financed by these four subprogrammes as well as the final recipients and the amounts which were granted to them can be obtained from the body responsible for chairing the monitoring committee, in this case the Spanish Ministry for Economic Affairs and Finance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2554/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Incinerators

Would the Commission please outline whether there are EU emission and other environmental standards for waste incinerators, and how these compare with those in force in the United States and Japan?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2000)

There are currently three pieces of Community legislation aimed at limiting emissions from incineration plants. These are Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous waste(1), Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants(2) and Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste-incineration plants(3). In future, all three pieces of legislation will be repealed and replaced by a single directive, which will set emission limit values for all relevant pollutants. The Council adopted a common position(4) on the future directive on incineration on 25 November 1999. The second reading will take place in March 2000 and the final adoption is expected for autumn 2000. The proposed emission limit values will become applicable to existing plants five years after the adoption of the directive, that is to say probably in autumn 2005.

It is difficult to compare the existing and future standards of the Community with those of the United States or Japan. Other countries apply a different definition of waste and a different scope of application. Moreover, settings such as standard oxygen contents of flue gas or different measurement intervals complicate a comparison.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989.

(3) OJ L 203, 15.7.1989.

(4) Press Release No 13293/99.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2869/99

by Frédérique Ries (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Cost of sending letters from and within Belgium

A few months ago, a person wishing to send a standard-format letter from Belgium to France paid 17 francs, the same as for a letter within Belgium.

Now, however, the cost of sending a standard-format letter from Belgium to France has increased to 19 francs for a second-class letter and to 21 francs for a first-class letter. The cost of sending a letter within Belgium is still 17 francs.

Does not the Commission feel that a competition issue is involved here, since it is more expensive to send a letter within the Union than within a Member State?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

Since 1 January 1999 the Belgian post office has in fact had different rates for domestic mail and for mail going to other Member States.

The postal services directive(1) requires prices to be geared to costs. This principle can thus prompt a postal authority to alter its rates in line with costs, especially when these differ between purely domestic handling and cross-border mail. When approached, the Belgian post office offered this reason to justify the rate alterations, especially in the light of its recent investments to improve the quality of cross-border mail services.

This transparency is intended to avoid subsidies, but it also reflects a definite feature of the single market. In ten or so Member States postal rates differ depending on whether the mail is to be delivered domestically or elsewhere in the Community.

The differing rates for domestic and intra-Community mail may be based on different types of service. If these are justified, they would not infringe Community rules on competition. Compliance with the cost accounting principles laid down in the postal services directive will allow such justifications to be examined, if need be.

(1) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 12.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2808/99

by Yasmine Boudjenah (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: European legislation on labelling of LPG vehicles

Professional fire-fighters in France have reported that, in a fire, LPG-fuelled vehicles present greater dangers. France is now aware of the need to inform the public of the particular dangers inherent in this type of fuel.

However, fire-fighters are now questioning the desirability of visible, external, permanent identification marks on LPG vehicles. Such labelling may have the unwanted effect of provoking acts of vandalism. Moreover identification marks, on licence plates for example, become invisible in a fire. Fire-fighters prefer a system of identification which is activated only in the event of fire and remains invisible until then.

Is there any European legislation on the need for these vehicles to be labelled?

If not, does the Commission consider that legislation should be introduced?

What is its view of this proposal for identification marks which are activated only in the event of fire?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to the importance of protecting fire-fighters against the dangers posed by vehicles fuelled with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the event of a fire.

The Commission can confirm that Regulation 67 of the United Nations' Economic Commission for Europe lays down conditions for the safety and installation of LPG equipment. Under the Regulation, a relief valve must be installed in the gas tank, which should remove the risk of explosion in the event of fire. The Community is considering whether to accede to the Regulation, which would mean its obligatory application by all the Member States. In that case, the Regulation would apply to the EC type-approval of new, LPG-fuelled vehicles. Certain Member States have anticipated this.

With regard to vehicles fuelled with LPG already in service, the Commission can only encourage the French authorities to look for a solution which would provide specific identification to protect fire-fighters in the event of an accident involving an LPG-fuelled vehicle. Moreover, the Commission would be prepared to support such initiative in the framework of Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999 establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection(1).

(1) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2386/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 December 1999)

Subject: German assistance in constructing a laboratory for chemical weapons

The German Ministry of Defence has recently admitted that it intends to help Turkey build a laboratory for chemical weapons. The project is allegedly purely defensive in nature. However, the Kennzeichen D programme on the ZDF television channel recently quoted military sources as claiming that on 11 May 1999 the Turkish army was using chemical weapons against the Kurdish PKK movement. Apparently twenty Kurds were killed. Research carried out by the University of Munich also shows that the heads on the Turkish chemical shells were supplied by the German firms Buck and Depyfag.

1. Is the Council aware of German help in building a laboratory for chemical weapons in Turkey?

2. Is this German-Turkish cooperation in line with international and European obligations and undertakings on disarmament and arms control, with particular regard to chemical weapons?

3. Will the Council oppose German help in building a new laboratory for chemical weapons in Turkey now that it is aware of the facts? If so, in what way will it make its opposition known to the German government? If not, why not?

4. Is the Council aware that on 11 May 1999 the Turkish army used chemical weapons against the PKK movement? If not, why is the Council not aware of this violation of the UN convention on chemical weapons by a candidate Member State?

5. Has the Council made known to Turkey its displeasure at this violation? If so, what was the Turkish government's response? If not, will the Council do so, now that it has been informed of this fact? If not, why not?

6. Will the Council conduct an inquiry into the use of German warheads for an assault using chemical weapons in Turkey, given that the equipment was supplied by an EU Member State and that this involves an act by a candidate Member State in violation of the UN convention on chemical weapons? If not, why not?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

All EU Member States are States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their destruction (CWC).

Among the general obligations contained in Article I of that convention is the undertaking by each State Party never under any circumstances to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone nor to assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) ensures the implementation of the provisions of the Convention, including those for international verification of compliance with it. All States Parties to the CWC are members of the OPCW.

The sources referred to by the Honourable Member have not been brought to the attention of the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2728/99

by Thierry La Perriere (UEN) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Subsidies for the publication of two brochures entitled Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men and Égaux en droit

In 1998 the Commission provided funding for the publication of two brochures by ILGA (International Lesbian and Gay Association) Europe, one entitled Equality for Lesbians and Gay Men, which was published in June 1998, and the other, Égaux en droit, published in November 1998.

- To which budget line was the cost of publishing these brochures charged?

- Does the Commission intend to provide similar funding for publications on all other sexual habits?

- How much funding did it provide over the same period for the publication of documents seeking to uphold and promote the family?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

In 1997 the Commission co-financed a project submitted by the International lesbian and gay association (ILGA) in the framework of a call for projects under budget line B3-4101 dealing with civil dialogue. The amount of the Commission subsidy was 35 635. The project also received co-financing from the Austrian Federal ministry for labour, health and social affairs and the Austrian Federal ministry for women's affairs and consumer protection.

As part of the project, ILGA researched and produced a report on the legal and social situation concerning homosexuality in all Member States, including data on legislation and social policy aimed at protecting lesbians and gay men from discrimination. In order to strengthen links and develop the civil dialogue between ILGA-Europe and other non-governmental organisations (NGO) working with social and human rights issues, the findings were also presented and discussed with other NGOs working at European level.

The information contained in the report also provided a contribution to the preparations for Community action to implement Article 13 (ex Article 6a) of the EC Treaty which prohibits discrimination on six different grounds, including sexual orientation.

Under the same call for projects, the Commission also contributed 34 294 to a project presented by the Confederation of family organisations in the Community (Coface), for a series of seminars between organisations working in the family sector and other experts to focus on a range of social protection issues, including childcare, family benefits, health care, long-term care and help at home, as well as other themes to be addressed at the 1998 European social policy forum. This lead to the formulation of proposals on the part of Coface and the publication of a report.

In the same period, the Commission supported other activities related to the issues of family and children through budget line B3-4108 Measures in favour of the family and children. The amount dedicated to these activities was, for 1997, 2,38 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2532/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: European Year of languages and classical studies

On 19 October 1999 the Commission accepted the proposal from Commissioner Reding to designate 2001 European Year of Languages. According to the Commissioner, the purpose of this proposal is to protect Europe's languages, promote foreign language acquisition and to raise public awareness of the issues involved. The programme of European Year of Languages covers the 11 official languages of the European Union, Irish, Luxembourgish, languages which are recognised in Member States such as Catalan and Basque and any languages which may be proposed by a Member State of the EU.

Does the Commission agree that this programme should also include the classical languages ancient Greek and Latin, which constitute the cornerstone of European literary culture and civilisation? Does it not agree that such a move would send a positive message in the face of the decline of the teaching of these languages in the Member States? Will it support such a proposal if it is made by the government of a Member State?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

On 13 October 1999 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Decision of the Parliament and of the Council(1) to establish a European Year of Languages in 2001.

The objective of the European Year of Languages is to raise public awareness of linguistic diversity, to encourage lifelong language learning and to disseminate information on learning opportunities.

Knowledge of languages is important particularly in terms of the personal and professional development of the individual, intercultural understanding and the competitiveness of European companies. In addition, it allows us to benefit fully from free movement in the Community.

While the principal message of the European Year should not be directed at specific languages, the target languages are in fact defined in the Decision as the official languages of the Community, Irish, Luxembourgish and the other languages recognised by the Member States.

(1) COM(1999) 485 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2701/99

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Legal action on British beef in the French market

Will the Commission expedite an action in the European Court of Justice in order to obtain an interlocutory ruling which will enable British beef to re-enter the French market from which it has been unlawfully excluded?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2000)

The Commission has already opened the infringement procedure under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty against France and on 4 January 2000 brought the case before the Court of justice (case reference No C-1/00).

The Commission decided not to lodge an application for interim measures with the Court. A number of very stringent conditions have to be fulfilled for the successful pursuit of such an application. Taking account, in particular, of the caselaw of Court of justice in past cases involving the issue of interim measures, especially in relation to public health, the Commission reached the conclusion that there was little likelihood of the Court ordering such measures in the present case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2344/99

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco

Although tomato imports from Morocco are subject to a quota of 150 676 tonnes, that country exported a total of 181 542 tonnes to the EU between October 1998 and March 1999, thereby infringing Article 2(4) of the Protocol on the arrangements applying to imports into the Community of agricultural products originating in Morocco, which states that Morocco hereby undertakes to ensure that total exports to the Community during the periods and under the conditions specified in this Protocol do not exceed the amounts agreed in Articles 3 and 4.

What action does the Commission intend to take in order to ensure that the protocol is complied with in future? How does it intend to compensate Community producers for the financial losses incurred as a result of Morocco's infringement of the protocol?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2344/99, E-2345/99, E-2346/99, E-2347/99, E-2348/99 and P-2483/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission is closely monitoring developments in fresh tomato imports from Morocco.

Having noted that the quantities agreed on for the 1998/1999 marketing year were being exceeded, the Commission drew the Moroccan authorities' attention to the importance of respecting those quantities if the Community market was to remain in equilibrium.

During the current marketing year, developments in imports in October 1999 prompted the Commission to request urgent talks with the Moroccan authorities. Those talks were held in Rabat on 22 December 1999 but did not lead to a solution guaranteeing that the granted quota would not be exceeded. Accordingly, and without prejudice to future talks, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 2767/1999, introduced an import licence system, in accordance with the exchange of letters between the Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on 22 December 1994.

The Commission would remind the Member States that they are responsible for the correct application of the rules in force concerning imports, including the setting of customs duties due.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1819/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Europe against Cancer programme

Can the Commission state to what extent funding or subsidies have been awarded (with payments already disbursed, or not), and to what bodies (public or private), institutions, undertakings, cooperatives or individuals, in connection with the European against Cancer programme Action plans 1987-1989, 1990-1994 and 1996-2000?

Have the actual deployment of the funds and the successful outcome of the initiatives been verified?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the evaluation and implementation reports on the three action plans against cancer, details of which are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat.

Controls on the correct use of Community funds in the context of these action plans are carried out by means of evaluation of the scientific and budgetary reports provided by contractors, and by audits carried out in particular cases by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2666/99

by Francis Decourrière (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Directive 92/43/EEC

With regard to the application of Annex III of Council Directive 92/43/EEC(1) of 21 May 1992, Stage 2, paragraph 2(b) provides that the assessment of the Community importance of a site shall take account of the geographical situation of the site in relation to migration routes of species in Annex II and whether it belongs to a continuous ecosystem situated on both sides of one or more internal Community frontiers.

Socio-economic activities on either side of a frontier are sometimes completely different, since frontiers are governed by national law. For example, hunting and fishing are lawful and traditional activities in France in publicly-owned coastal land, whereas they do not exist on the other side of the frontier, in Belgium.

1. Since economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics have to be taken into account (Article 2 of the directive), how does the Commission intend to reconcile managing these border sites of great ecological value (classified as nature reserves or biogenetic reserves), linked with an Annex II species (Phoca vitulina), with such variations in activity?

2. Should these sites be managed by a single body?

3. Will these cross-border sites benefit from special conditions, particularly financial conditions, in the introductory phase of Directive 92/43/EEC and in the context of its main application in 2004?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Site management is the responsibility of the Member States, under the terms of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. It is for each country to establish the conservation measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the Annex II species present on the sites. The Commission is involved in the selection of sites but not their management.

The Directive does not provide that cross-border sites should be managed by a single body. Each Member State and its neighbours must assess the degree of cooperation necessary to ensure that the Directive's objective is achieved.

Under Article 8 on the cofinancing of conservation measures for sites hosting priority habitats or species, the Directive does not give priority to cross-border sites. However, several Community instruments enable special attention to be given to these sites. The Commission encourages the Member States to use these instruments for Natura 2000 cross-border site management.