ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2766/99

by Jas Gawronski (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 January 2000)

Subject: Measures to resolve the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea

Can the Council indicate what measures it intends to take with regard to the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia?

At the Joint Assembly with representatives of the ACP countries last October in Nassau the Members of the European Parliament requested the Council to take all the necessary measures to ensure that Ethiopia accepts and implements the peace plan proposed by the OAU. Up to now, Ethiopia has still not committed itself to the agreement and is still violating the fundamental rights of the Eritrean citizens resident on its territory.

Article 5 of the Lomé Convention provides for the suspension of cooperation between the European Union and the ACP States in cases of violation of human rights. Can the Council indicate the reasons why it continues to cooperate with Ethiopia?

Reply

(16/17 May 2000)

Since fighting between Eritrea and Ethiopia first broke out in May 1998, the European Union has repeatedly urged both countries to cease hostilities immediately on all fronts, to refrain from any further use of violence and to cooperate with the OAU's efforts to mediate a peaceful negotiated solution to the conflict. The EU therefore welcomed on 21 July 1999 the decision by the Assembly of the Heads of State and Government of the OAU, meeting in Algiers from 12 to 14 July, to approve the arrangements for the implementation of the OAU framework agreement concerning the settlement of this conflict. In addition, technical arrangements were worked out in August which represent the third instrument of the OAU peacemaking effort with regard to this conflict.

Ethiopia requested that this instrument be modified, pointing out that it differed from its predecessors in a number of aspects. The Algerian OAU Presidency is in contact with both parties with a view to reaching an agreement. The European Union expects that the OAU peace package will be accepted unconditionally and implemented as soon as possible jointly by both Ethiopia and Eritrea, which has already accepted a first version of the technical provisions.

Last December, Italy's State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Senator Rino Serri, was appointed as the EU Presidency Special Representative for the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict. His mandate is focused on support for the OAU peacemaking effort. Senator Serri is continuously in contact with the mediating Algerian OAU Presidency, and he has already visited the two countries' capitals to help in settling the conflict.

With respect to the Honourable Member's question regarding the application of the Lomé Convention to Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Council proceeds on the assumption that the two countries concerned are aware of the provisions of Article 5 of the revised Lomé Convention. The Council reserves the right to review co-operation with these two countries as the situation develops, especially in relation to respect for human rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2486/99

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) and Maria Berger (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Enlargement to the East Günter Verheugen's announcement of an instrument to promote border regions

In an interview on 8 November 1999 (in the magazine Focus) the Commissioner Günter Verheugen called on the Commission to create an instrument to promote regions bordering the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, in order to compensate these regions for the disadvantages caused by enlargement to the East.

1. What stage has the Commission reached in the creation of such an instrument?

2. Can the Commission already supply further details of the structure, time-scale and scope of the instrument?

3. Should the promotion of the border regions be assisted with national funding in addition to EU funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

During the next programming period, 2000-06, the Interreg III Community Initiative will pay close attention to activities to assist the regions on the external borders of the Community, in preparation for enlargement. Assistance to these regions will be provided through strand A cross-border cooperation, the appropriations for which will account for at least 50 % of total funding for this Initiative.

The Commission laid down the conditions of implementation in its proposed guidelines for this Initiative(1), on which the Member States and the other Community institutions are currently being consulted. After Parliament has given its opinion, which is scheduled for February 2000, the guidelines will be adopted definitively by the Commission and communicated to the Member States, who will then have six months to submit their proposals for programmes.

As for all programmes part-financed under the Structural Funds, the Community aid under Interreg will be subject to a national contribution.

(1) COM(1999) 479 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2784/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Compensation for relatives of victims following air crash

Following the crash in northern Greece on 17 December 1997 of a Ukrainian Yakovlev belonging to Aerosweet Airlines, which caused huge loss of life, the committee of inquiry into air accidents concluded that responsibility lay with the airline, a fact that was not contested. To date no compensation or advance on compensation has been paid to the victims' relatives since the victims were identified, as required under Council Regulation 2027/97(1).

Not only does the airline appear reluctant to compensate them, it is even holding them in contempt in various ways. In a letter to the Minister for Transport dated 23 April 1999, the Director-General of the airline and a Ukrainian Government spokesman stated that unless Aerosweet flights to Greece continued, its insurance company (Sedgewick Aviation Limited) would not pay out compensation to the victims' relatives.

In the light of this crude blackmailing of the victims' relatives, will the Commission say:

1. Whether Aerosweet runs scheduled flights or charter flights to other Member States of the Union?

2. What Aerosweet's obligations are under Council Regulation 2027?

3. In what way it may intervene, pursuant to Council Regulation 2027, to persuade the airline to compensate the victims' relatives, given that they are unable to meet the cost of a lengthy and expensive legal battle?

(1) OJ L 285, 17.10.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

1. According to available information, Aerosweet Airlines currently operates scheduled services from Ukraine to Athens several times each week using Boeing 737 aircraft. The Commission has no information about charter flights performed by Aerosweet Airlines.

2. Regulation (EC) 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents was published in the Official Journal on 17 October 1997, but did not enter into force until 17 October 1998. Moreover, the main provisions of the Regulation, including the requirements for advance payment of compensation and the application of unlimited liability for death and injury, are not obligatory for carriers from outside the Community. In this particular accident, therefore, the Regulation is not applicable and the Warsaw Convention of 1929 is likely to govern and will probably limit the amount of compensation for which the carrier is liable.

3. The Commission is not in a position to intervene in this case. Faced with a clear conclusion in the investigation of the accident, it would be usual for the airline to reach a settlement with the families of the victims, however, if it proves impossible to reach such a settlement, there may be no option other than to bring the matter before a court. It is understood that the families of some victims have taken this step.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2806/99

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Innovation and technology at ministry level

One of the great challenges for the European Union is to succeed in combining its development with technological innovation, which is essential in view of the advances being made in the sector by world powers such as the United States, Japan and south-east Asia.

More than ever, public opinion in general and businessmen in particular need to be made aware that innovation and technology are the most demanding issues to be tackled by society at national and regional level in the spheres of industry and research.

In view of this, does the Commission consider that it should encourage the Member States of the European Union to raise to ministerial level the various agencies dealing with innovation and technology, in order to emphasise publicly and officially the important role they have to play in all Member States' governmental activities?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2000)

The Commission agrees the innovation perspective deserves a more central role in public policies promoted at national and regional level. Since enterprises' ability to innovate is the first step towards competitiveness in advanced economies, the promotion of innovation is a challenge to public action. The complexity of the innovation process means that strategies and policies affecting innovation are often handled by several different government departments, some of which may have conflicting objectives. It is therefore essential to encourage dialogue and to organise the co-ordination of the policies which depend on it.

The policy debate on innovation launched by the Commission, (starting with the Green paper on innovation(1) and subsequently the Action plan on innovation(2)) already recommends that Member States take the necessary steps for effective co-ordination of the measures deriving from various policies to ensure their coherence in boosting innovation in our societies. These questions, naturally, are primarily matters for Member States. However, it is desirable to identify and promote good practices in this field.

The Commission intends to facilitate the design and implementation of initiatives in this area setting up a joint reference framework on innovation. That will help Member States in the exchange and adoption of good practices, including appropriate internal co-ordination mechanisms of innovation-oriented enterprise policies.

To this end the Commission has launched a benchmarking initiative of innovation performances and policies in the Community. Innovation will also be discussed at the informal meeting of industry ministers on 10 March 2000 in Nordwijk in the Netherlands. The Commission hopes the discussions will give a significant input into the Lisbon European Council of 23-24 March 2000.

(1) COM(95) 688 final.

(2) COM(96) 589 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2611/99

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Use of courier services in the Commission

Is it true that on 25 June 1999 the Commission's DG IX issued internal instructions that all express courier consignments should be despatched by UPS with effect from 1 July 1999?

Was there a call for tenders before this decision was taken?

Who provided these services for the Commission before the date in question?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

1. The Commission can confirm that UPS handles all express mail for Commission departments in Brussels (Lot 1) and Geel (Lot 2). The Commission departments in Luxembourg (Lot 3) use a different contractor, namely DHL.

2. All three lots were published as calls for tender in Official Journal S 248 of 23 December 1998. Advance notice and information was published in OJ S 33 of 17 February 1998.

3. Prior to 1 July 1999, the Commission's express mail was handled by three contractors: DHL, UPS and Chronopost. The same procedure involving publication in the OJ was applied in selecting them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2721/99

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Poisoning of protected birds in Spain

A total of 961 birds of various protected species have died in Spain through poisoning since 1990, according to figures produced by the Antidote programme, which coordinates the activities of eight environmental organisations, including WWF/Adena, working to combat the illegal use of poisoned feed on small-game reserves. The dead birds included 53 imperial Iberian eagles, of which there remain only 115 breeding pairs, and at least six bearded vultures, of which approximately 75 pairs remain. Both species are in danger of extinction. Among the species at risk of poisoning are two endangered carrion breeds, the black vulture and the Egyptian vulture, and many protected species, including Bonelli's eagle, the royal kite, the black kite, the Griffon vulture and the royal eagle. Poison is also transferred to other endangered species, such as the wild cat and the pardal lynx.

The use of poisoned feed has been illegal in Spain since 1983. Under the Spanish penal code of 1996 and laws in the autonomous communities, causing the death of endangered species is punishable by fines and imprisonment. However, this rarely happens.

To ensure effective implementation of Directive 79/409/EEC(1) on the conservation of wild birds and Directive 92/43/EEC(2) on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora, what measures does the Commission intend to take, together with the Spanish authorities, to step up the fight against the poisoning of protected birds of prey?

For example, could owners of game reserves be made responsible for ensuring that poisoned feed is not used on their land, following the example of the recent law on nature conservation approved by the regional parliament of Castilla-la-Mancha?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The Commission is aware that many bird species, in particular birds of prey, are adversely affected by poisoning. The Commission is also aware that this illegal practice, having ceased for a few years, has since the 1990's returned.

Both Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, have been transposed correctly into Spanish law.

Furthermore, the Spanish authorities have the powers to take the necessary and appropriate measures to avoid poisoning occurring.

However, the Commission would be interested in obtaining further information on the conclusions of the Antidote programme mentioned by the Honourable Member. If necessary, the Commission will conduct an investigation in order to assess whether the relevant Community environmental legislation has been complied with in this case. The Commission will not hesitate to take all the necessary steps, including recourse to the procedure set out in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, to ensure full compliance with this legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0116/00

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Compensation claims from undertakings hit by lorry blockades

Is the Commission aware that as a result of strikes in one European Union Member State, undertakings in other Member States are being prevented from realising their export potential, which can damage their economic prospects.

What options are open to affected undertakings to lodge claims for compensation, and with whom?

In the case under consideration, a sawmill in Germany regularly operates to the limits of its capacity. The undertaking was prevented by the latest lorry blockade between Germany and France from exporting to France. It consequently had to cut back on production, because its fully loaded lorries were left stranded at the border. Output from current production could not be loaded. Additional transport and storage capacity were exhausted.

The lost business cannot be made good because the undertaking is working to the limits of its capacity.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2000)

The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission's attention to the serious economic impact on Community businesses of the border blockades imposed by French lorry drivers from 9 to 12 January 2000.

The Commission would like to stress that it decided to implement the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States(1), in order to re-establish the free movement of goods as quickly as possible and hence limit the damage to Community operators.

On 10 January 2000, therefore, under Article 3 of this Regulation, the Commission requested the French authorities to provide information about the measures they had taken to re-establish the free movement of goods.

In their reply of 12 January 2000, the French authorities informed the Commission about the range of measures they had taken. They also stated that, in order to protect the interests of EU nationals who might suffer as a result of road blockades, the French Minister for the Interior had placed particular emphasis on the measures to be taken by the public-order authorities to allow subsequent processing of any claims for compensation.

On this point the Commission would like to repeat that, in accordance with Community law, it is in fact the responsibility of the Member States to compensate operators whose rights under Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty may have been infringed.

(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0667/00

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Set-aside premiums for RWE and Rheinbraun (Germany)

1. Is it true that the German undertakings RWE and Rheinbraun have received EU set-aside premiums for land on which brown coal is being mined?

2. If so, on what legal basis, for what period and in what amount have the premiums been paid?

3. If so, were the payments made once only, or are they continuing?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

1. As regards payments mentioned by the Honourable Member there is actually no knowledge that such payments have been made or are being made in relation to the companies RWE or Rheinbraun.

Set-aside payments for surfaces, which are currently subject to open-cast-mining would contravene the relevant Community legislation. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops(1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 762/94 laying down the detailed rules thereof(2) provide for the requirements in connection with the set-aside of land. Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the latter Regulation, among others, states clearly that such area must be cared for so as to maintain good cropping conditions. Moreover, such area must not be put to any lucrative use incompatible with the growing of an arable crop. Using an area for the open-cast-mining of brown coal would, in fact, lead to the disappearance of the land in question and would, therefore, obviously be incompatible with these conditions.

Given this legal framework the German authorities would therefore be barred from paying aid for set-aside for such land. It falls within the competence of the Member States' authorities to check whether an aid application for set-aside payments meets the conditions under the relevant Community legislation. Like the other Member States, Germany (in this case Northrhine-Westphalia) is bound under the regulations establishing an integrated administration and control system (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92(3) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92(4)) to submit all area aid applications to an administrative control. Moreover, at least 5 % of the applications have to be controlled

on the spot. Applications subjected to an on-the-spot check have to be selected by the relevant authorities on the basis of a risk analysis and an element of representativeness of the aid applications submitted.

The Commission has asked the German authorities to further look into this question and to report back their finding to the Commission. The Commission will, subsequently, inform the Parliament of the results.

2. and 3. It will be necessary to wait and see what the answer of the German authorities will be.

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 90, 7.4.1994.

(3) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992.

(4) OJ L 391, 31.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0147/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Operational problems affecting the TAXIS programme

Despite the assurances given by the Commission in reply to my previous questions (E-1802/98(1) and E-0044/99)(2) that the TAXIS programme being co-funded by the Community was proceeding smoothly evidently based similar assurances received from the Greek authorities, the TAXIS programme was in fact non-operational for a whole week because of serious problems with the Neilos central computer resulting in a breakdown of communications between taxpayers and the inland revenue authorities. In addition, the hardware being used is outdated, while softwear used by the workstations, Windows 3.11, is 3 generations behind the more modern systems now in general use.

The Commission:

1. Does it consider that the systems specifications are keeping pace with technological developments and are meeting the needs of such a major project?

2. Does it consider adequate the training procedures for users of the new TAXIS technology?

3. Is it still satisfied with the progress made by the project following unprecedented delays affecting the timetable for completion and the major technical shortcomings which have come to light regarding application?

4. Who bears final responsibility for the problems which have arisen with regard to the TAXIS system?

5. What view does the Commission take regarding the timetable for completion of the project?

(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 88.

(2) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 140.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2000)

The TAXIS project forms an important part of the operational programme for the modernisation of public administration co-financed by the European regional development fund ( ERDF), the European social fund (ESF) and the Greek authorities.

According to information provided by the Greek authorities, the systems specifications of this project were designed to meet the operational needs of a highly complex decentralised integrated taxation information system for a large number of financial services directorates (tax offices) in Greece. On the basis of the provisions foreseen in the existing contracts the specifications were up-dated to the latest technological developments, at the time of installation.

The Secretariat general for information systems of the ministry of Finance has ensured intensive training facilities at three levels geared to meet the operational needs of the TAXIS project. Firstly, the technological familiarisation of operators with the system as a whole. Then follows training on specific taxation applications and finally, practical training facilities are provided in real working conditions.

The significant delays in implementation witnessed in the preparatory phase were justified by the nature and complexity of the project as a whole. However, in the framework of the monitoring committee meetings the new timetable established and the milestones set for effective conclusion of the project in 2001 have so far been respected.