ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2827/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(6 September 2000)

Subject: Granting of political asylum to Turkish citizen Fehriye Erdal

According to press reports, the Belgian Government is refusing to grant political asylum to Fehriye Erdal, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, despite the ruling by the Belgium supreme court clearing her of all charges, and has agreed that she should be handed over to a third country. According to the same sources, Turkey is threatening to impose economic sanctions if Fehriye Erdal is not extradited.

Given that the conduct of the Belgian authorities amounts to a fresh violation of European Union legislation and international treaties on the protection of refugees and the granting of asylum and that this affair could once again blatantly undermine the Union's credibility as an area where human rights are respected, as happened in the Oçalan case, will the Council say:

1. whether the special principle referred to in Article 4 of the Council resolution of 20 June 1995 has been respected in the case of Fehriye Erdal's asylum request?

2. whether it can provide assurances that it will intervene to oppose any attempt by the Belgian authorities to expel Fehriye Erdal to a third country?

3. what specific measures it intends to take in the face of the blackmail attempts by Ankara, which, as it did with Italy in the Oçalan affair, is threatening a Member State with economic sanctions should it grant political asylum as it is required to do in this instance?

Reply

(16 November 2000)

The case of Ms Erdal is still under investigation by judicial authorities in Belgium. Under these circumstances, the Council considers it inappropriate to make statements about this case.

The Council is not aware of any economic sanctions or threats thereof by the Turkish government against the Community or any of its Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3325/00

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Subject: United States ban on Community exports of yellowfin tuna and by-products

The Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme, to which the Community is a signatory, requires the parties to the agreement to draw up a regulation on the statistical tracking of tuna. The failure by the Commission to adopt such a regulation has prompted the action taken by the United States Department of Trade, which has introduced a ban on Community exports of yellowfin tuna and by-products. This is seriously damaging a number of Community undertakings.

What progress has been made by the Commission in drawing up and adopting this regulation? What are the reasons for the delay? Is the Commission aware of the damage being done to certain Community undertakings, which are unable to export their products to the United States?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3205/00 and P-3325/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

The Commission, aware that the lack of legislation to implement the tuna tracking and verification system (TTVS) could result in an embargo, addressed this question with the United States, on the occasion of the Community/United States high-level consultations on fisheries (held in Washington in July 2000) with a view to avoid this type of situation. The American administration, on that occasion, showed the necessary flexibility to provide more time for the Community to implement this legal instrument. However, following a court settlement after the lawsuit presented by an American tuna importing company, the American government was forced to apply the embargo to all those countries not having yet obtained the so-called affirmative finding.

Subsequently, the Commission and the government of Spain have agreed that, in order to resolve this situation, the Commission will prepare a proposal that could be adopted in six months time for a regulation to implement the TTVS. In the meantime, and in order that Spain can obtain the affirmative finding necessary to lift the embargo, the Spanish administration will provisionally apply the TTVS through Spanish legislation.

These initiatives have been already communicated to the American authorities. The Commission believes that these initiatives will allow the resolution of this problem.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3154/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: SAVE/Altener

Following reports in the press that the Commission is set to abolish SAVE and Altener, will the Commission state its intentions as regards the future of these two programmes?

At a meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, External Trade and Research on Tuesday, 19 September, Commissioner de Palacio indicated that the SAVE and Altener programmes were threatened because of insufficient personnel and resources. What action does the Commission intend to take to rectify this situation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

In the white paper on reforming the Commission(1) of 1 March 2000, the Commission committed itself to a reform in order to respond to the challenges of globalisation and enlargement. In line with the commitments in the white paper, the Commission conducted a detailed evaluation of its activities and its human resources. On the basis of the results of the evaluation, the Commission published a communication on Matching the Commission's activities with its human resources(2) which outlines measures for securing the human resources needed to meet those objectives where staff has been found to be inadequate in terms of number and specific skills or qualifications.

In that framework a virtual exercise was carried out on the consequences of different staffing scenarios on the continuation or discontinuation of certain Commission activities. As part of this virtual exercise, annex 3 of the communication sets out a tentative list of activities to be discontinued or reduced, subject to agreement by other institutions, or requiring preparation with third parties affected by one of these staffing scenarios. Among others, the SAVE and Altener programmes (the financial support part) are listed in the tentative list. However in the text of the communication the Commission underlines clearly in chapter 3.2.1. The Commission has drawn up avirtuallist of this category of activities that could be discontinued, which covers very significant measures in areas such as the environment and agriculture. It wishes to emphasise the value it attaches to those areas and would regret withdrawing from them. It would only go ahead with such withdrawals if it were compelled to because it failed to obtain the personnel needed to perform its current tasks.

In conclusion, it needs to be said that this tentative list in annex 3 served as an analysis of a theoretical option. The Commission will continue implementing the two programmes with its present SAVE and Altener staff.

(1) COM(2000) 200 final.

(2) COM(2000) 200 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2599/00

by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Internal market for trotting horses

An internal market for race horses should mean that a Danish horse with a Danish owner should, without hindrance, be able to take part in races in France or Italy and be sold without hin drance by a Danish owner to a French or Italian buyer.

It seems however, that for protectionist reasons France and Italy are placing obstacles in the path of a free internal market by imposing quite extraordinary requirements regarding the horses. They have also both erected obstacles to the free movement of workers by, for example, denying Danish trotting-horse trainers the opportunity to establish themselves on a self-employed basis in those countries.

Does the Commission not agree that Italy and France's actions are in contravention of the EU's competition rules and the concept of free movement in the internal market?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2000)

The honourable Member has raised several questions concerning the operation of the internal market. On the basis of the information provided, however, the Commission cannot take a final position with regard to the difficulties mentioned nor determine whether they are infringements of the principles that govern the internal market.

The fact is that the difficulties encountered in connection with the cross-border movement of horses may primarily concern the application of veterinary regulations and animal welfare rules regarding their transport.

In addition, the difficulties encountered by Danish racehorse trainers in connection with freedom of establishment should be analysed on the basis of clarification of the reasons for the ban in France or Italy.

The Commission therefore asks the honourable Member to submit more detailed information on the national regulations referred to and the barriers encountered.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3438/00

by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Subject: Genetically modified organisms

Public opinion was very alarmed by the recent discovery of genetically modified maize in food which is freely available for sale in the USA (Kellogg's and Taco Bell products): it is banned for human consumption owing to the fact that it produces an insecticide substance to protect the crop. Moreover, the cultivation and marketing of such products are banned in many EU countries.

In view of this, will the Commission say whether the products in question are being imported into EU countries and, if so, which countries? Are spot checks being carried out on imported products and how effective are they? Does it intend to make the labelling of such products compulsory and to draw up a code of conduct to be respected by companies in the interests of consumers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

The question concerns the recent discovery of some food products in the United States containing traces of the genetically modified maize variety called Star Link. Star Link maize has been approved by the American Environmental protection agency (EPA) for industrial and feed use, but not for use in food for human consumption because of uncertainties regarding its potential allergenicity.

Star Link maize has not been approved for cultivation or food use in the Community and foodstuffs containing traces of Star Link maize can therefore not be legally imported into the Community. Member States are responsible for the control and inspection of foodstuffs, including imported food. The Commission has not received any information from Member States suggesting that traces of Star Link maize have been found in imported products.

Labelling requirements apply to genetically modified (GM) foodstuffs, which have been approved for marketing in accordance with the Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients(1). The Commission does not consider it appropriate to label products which have not obtained Community approval.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3043/00

by José Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Subject: Import of exotic birds

A recent report prepared by the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare and the Dutch Animal Welfare Society clearly shows that the EU is facing a potentially damaging major health risk from the import of exotic birds and mammals for the pet trade. This is based on facts provided by the Chief Veterinary Officers in 10 of the Member States.

Does the Commission agree that there is a risk of a major outbreak of (for example) Newcastle Disease and will it therefore give urgent consideration to the sensible recommendations set out in the report?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3043/00 and E-3052/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2000)

The Commission is well aware of the possible risk of introducting poultry diseases by imports of exotic birds, especially as these birds may originate from many different countries in the world.

Since the completion of the internal market, imports of poultry are harmonised by Community legislation. Furthermore in order to prevent the risk of introduction of poultry diseases by the import of exotic birds the Commission has recently proposed a draft decision(1) laying down the animal health requirements and the veterinary certification for the import of birds, other than poultry, and the conditions for quarantine.

All commercially traded birds other than poultry will have to be placed for at least 30 days in an officially approved quarantine facility or centre in Member States. During quarantine, clinical inspections and laboratory examinations for Newcastle disease and avian influenza will have to be carried out and birds may only be released by official authorisation on condition that all tests have given favourable results. This observation period will also provide for the detection of other diseases.

The Commission believes that the introduction of these harmonised rules caters for the disease concerns expressed in the report The veterinary control in the European Union of imported pet birds and mammals of Cites and non-Cites species prepared by the Eurogroup for animal welfare.

The import of birds accompanying their owners is subject to national rules and it is not the intention of the Commission to introduce harmonised rules in this area at the present time as according to information from Member States no outbreaks of disease in poultry have been attributed to such imports.

(1) SANCO/1295/2000 rev. 6.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2453/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Northern Ireland peace programme

Is the Commission aware that the Northern Ireland Peace Initiative which expired at the end of 1999 has still not been renewed and can the Commission inform Parliament when the next programme will be available for new applications?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 2000)

The Community special support programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland (PEACE I) ran from 1995 to 1999 in the form of a Community Initiative.

In March 1999, the European Council in Berlin decided that in recognition of the special efforts for the peace process in Northern Ireland, the PEACE programme will be continued for five years with an amount of 500 million, of which 100 million will be allocated to Ireland. This programme will be implemented in full respect of additionality of structural fund interventions(1).

For the period running from 2000 to 2004, the PEACE programme has been renewed in the form of an operational programme under objective 1 of the structural funds(2).

In application of the structural funds regulations, the British and Irish authorities jointly presented to the Commission a draft PEACE II programme in April 2000. This text is now being discussed in the light of the Community support frameworks for Ireland and Northern Ireland.

The joint PEACE II programme is expected to be adopted in the autumn. This should enable projects to be financed on the ground by the end of 2000.

(1) Point 44 (b) of Presidency Conclusions Berlin 24/25 March 1999.

(2) Article 7 (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ L 161, 26.6.1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1876/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Waste management in Greece

During 1999 264 571 tonnes of hazardous waste were produced in Greece. 76,1 % of this waste was stored temporarily, 22,73 % was recycled, 1,01 % was processed and a mere 0,12 % was destroyed at special plants abroad in the absence of a special waste disposal unit in Greece itself. According to allegations made in the press, a large area of the Gulf of Elefsina has been polluted by discharges into the sea of unprocessed waste, much of which is toxic; this has far-reaching consequences for the pollution of the marine environment.

Will the Commission say:

1. Is it aware of any cases of environmental pollution due to faulty waste management in Greece?

2. Has Greece complied with Community legislation on the management of both solid and liquid waste? If not, what steps does the Commission intend to take to rectify this state of affairs?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2000)

1. The Commission only has limited information on the overall situation of waste management in Greece. Greece did not report on the implementation of waste management directives between 1989 and

1997(1). However, at the end of 1999, Greece answered four questionnaires regarding the implementation of four Community waste directives. The answers are rather succinct and do not give a general picture of waste management practice in Greece.

According to those answers, 280 000 tons of hazardous waste were generated in Greece (the year is not indicated), out of which 95 760 tons were recycled, though Greece indicated that it has no installation for the processing or disposal of hazardous waste. The hazardous wastes are reported to be either temporarily stored or exported for final disposal in other countries.

As the Commission has no means to inspect Greek waste management facilities or otherwise to verify the above-mentioned figures, it has no general information on cases of environmental pollution which are due to faulty waste management. It cannot confirm the number of some 3 000 unauthorised landfills operating in Greece which is sometimes quoted in scientific publications. There are some complaints on environmental impairment by waste, which the Commission examines. It is however not possible to verify to what extent such cases are representative.

2. The Commission is of the opinion that a number of Community requirements are not being met by Greece and has taken action under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. The most important aspects concern the absence of a management plan for hazardous waste, the absence of legislation to comply fully with the Directive on packaging and packaging waste and the absence of programmes for the management of batteries and for the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) waste.

(1) COM(97) 23 and COM(1999) 752.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2709/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Introduction of the euro

1. Will the Commission please state the average period in each Member State in which bank notes are expected to remain in circulation before replacement?

2. Will it state the amount of notes and coin estimated to be required in each Member State, and the ratio of such notes and coin to money GDP in each case?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

In accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Council in November 1999, the period of dual circulation varies between four and eight weeks, depending on the Member State. National banknotes will cease to be legal tender on 28 January 2002 in the Netherlands, on 9 February 2002 in Ireland and on 28 February 2002 in the other Member States. The exact date for France is not known as yet, but will probably be in the second fortnight of February 2002. Although the German mark will cease to be legal tender as from midnight on 31 December 2001, businesses have agreed to continue accepting it until the end of February 2002.

A total of 50 300 million coins and 14 500 million banknotes will be needed for the euro zone as a whole. Detailed figures can be found in the table which has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The notes and coins represent 10,6 % of euro-zone GDP. No breakdown of this figure by Member State is available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2989/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Council

(25 September 2000)

Subject: Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC

1. Since the expiry of the deadline for its transposition into national law, is Directive 92/43/EEC(1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora directly applicable where it has not been properly transposed?

2. Is the protection scheme pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive already applicable to the areas referred to in the national lists?

3. How many sets of proceedings for treaty violations have been initiated against Austria in connection with this Directive, and how many have already been dropped?

4. To which projects and areas did these relate?

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

Reply

(30 November 2000)

It is up to the judicial authorities of the Member States and ultimately to the Court of Justice of the EC to determine the so-called direct effects of the provisions of a Directive such as those referred to in points 1 and 2 of the Honourable MEP's Question.

In relation to points 3 and 4 of the Question, it is recalled that pursuant to Article 211 TEC it is up to the Commission to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied. Therefore these points might be better answered by the Commission, as guardian of the Treaty. In this context the report on monitoring the application of Community law, prepared annually by the Commission, might also be of use.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2661/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Persecution in the Moluccas

The European Parliament has already adopted two resolutions on human rights violations in the Moluccas (Indonesia), the first in January 2000 and the second in July 2000, in order to protest against the persecution of Christians and the devastation of villages inhabited by Indonesians practising the Christian religion, violations which have now been going on for months.

Can the Commission indicate what it has done on the basis of those two resolutions to bring about a genuine improvement in the situation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

The Commission closely follows events in the archipelago and shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member, in particular with regard to the apparent incapacity of the Indonesian security forces to control the violence.

Together with the majority of the international community, the Commission considers that the conflict in the Moluccas is primarily an internal matter for Indonesia. Up until now, the Indonesian government has refused foreign assistance to help solve the crisis, as only humanitarian assistance has been accepted.

Against this background, the Commission through its European Community's Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has intervened in the Moluccas, as far as the security situation has permitted, in order to ease the humanitarian tragedy. Since 1999, assistance has been provided through non governmental organizations (NGOs) to the victims of the conflict, including displaced people. However, the precarious security situation and a deliberate government policy to restrict access to the island has temporarily halted operations of partner NGOs.

The Commission is in contact with the highest authorities and church leaders, and uses every appropriate occasion to convey its concern to the Indonesian authorities. Consultations continue with Member States on the issue.