ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1547/01

by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 May 2001)

Subject: CN-101 (formerly GU-117) road improvement project in the Carrascosa de Henares area

On 8 March 2001 the Commission replied to Question E-3712/00(1) by Mr Paul Lannoye on the road improvement works between the GU-177 and the district of Jadraque (Guadalajara), confirming that the CN-101 (formerly GU-117) road improvement project received co-financing from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the 1994-1999 Castilla-La Mancha operational programme. However, this project is having a damaging effect on the Natura 2000 Ribera de río Henares site (LIC ES424003) and on the groundwater of the river Henares, and has not been sujbect to an environmental impact assessment.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to demand repayment of the European funding in question?

What measures will it take to ensure that the law on environmental impact assessment is complied with?

What does it intend to do to ensure that the environmental damage already perpetrated on the Ribera del río Henares site (destruction of groundwater and consequent reduction in water supply; deafforestation) is paid for and the original environmental conditions restored?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 30.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

As indicated in its reply to Written Question E-3712/00 by Mr Lannoye, the Commission contacted the Spanish authorities in the course of its examination of a complaint regarding the said road project.

The Commission asked the Spanish authorities to comment on the application in this particular instance of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2), so that it might determine whether the project is likely to have a significant effect on the site in question in respect of the objectives of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(3), in which case the procedure laid down in Article 6 thereof must be applied.

The Commission is currently examining the Spanish authorities' reply. It would clearly be premature, therefore, to express any opinion as to whether Community law has been improperly applied in this particular case.

Should Community law not have been observed, the Commission reserves the right to ask the Spanish authorities to repay the co-financing which was granted.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0120/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Wood preserving agents

In accordance with the biocides directive (98/8/EC)(1) pesticides for non-agricultural use have to be removed from the market, in line with the substitution principle, if a less harmful alternative is available. Wood preserving agents based on copper/chromium and copper/chromium/arsenic compounds impregnating acids have an effect on humans and the environment varying between harmful and highly toxic.

By treating wood from temperate zones with different processes such as platonising and acetylation it is possible to preserve them without using toxic substances. Boreal wood treated in this way is just as strong as tropical hardwood. These processes are becoming increasingly common on the European market.

Is the Commission prepared to give serious consideration to this substitution method and should it prove satisfactory to apply it and to ban impregnating salts from the European market?

(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the markets(1) envisages an authorisation procedure for all biocidal products including wood preservatives. Under Commission Regulation 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products(2) active substances of wood preservatives will be in the first group of substances to be evaluated in the framework of the Directive. Complete dossiers on supported active substances are to be submitted to the competent authorities by 28 March 2004 at the latest.

On this basis the risks arising from each active substance will be evaluated and only substances posing no unacceptable risks will be included in Annex I to the Directive and thereby allowed to be placed on the market and used for biocidal purposes.

Furthermore, an active substance not deemed unacceptable but which still gives rise to concern will be a candidate for comparative assessment as laid down in Article 10(5) of the Directive. Under this procedure such a substance might be denied entry into Annex I if another active substance presenting significantly less risk to health or the environment is included in Annex I.

The Directive also obliges Member States to prescribe that biocidal products shall be properly used, including the rational application of a combination of physical, biological, chemical or other measures as appropriate, whereby the use of biocidal products is limited to the minimum necessary.

The Commission will take its responsibilities under the Directive seriously and all its proposals including those based on wood preservatives, will be based fully on the requirements of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998.

(2) OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1045/01

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

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Measures presented by the United Kingdom to reduce the flow of refugees and immigrants into the European Union

The measures presented by the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Council of Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs in February 2001 with a view to reducing the flow of refugees and immigrants into the European Union, including a proposal to reform the United Nations Charter on Refugees, contradict the Union's objective needs and political and economic capacity. What stage has been reached in the Council's handling of these proposals?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

In the area of asylum and migration the Council is pursuing the programme laid down in Title IV of the Treaty and more particularly in Article 63, which lists the measures to be adopted by the Council in the short term in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1410/01

by Rosemarie Müller (PSE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Natural-style bathing ponds

A growing number of artificial, natural-style bathing ponds have been created in recent years as an alternative to natural bathing areas and artificial swimming pools. These mostly consist of a bathing pond, with a purification pond some distance away in which the water is purified naturally by means of water plants and shore plants. As operators point out, this means not only that the water quality is easier to monitor than is the case with many natural bodies of water which are contaminated by industrial pollution, but also that there is no need for chlorination as with conventional swimming pools. Apart from the health advantages of not using chlorine, the purification process using plants is also cheaper.

However, there is apparently a great deal of legal uncertainty in this area, which is acting as a brake on investment in bathing ponds. In particular it is not clear whether such natural-style bathing ponds are covered by the current EU bathing water directive (76/160/EEC(1)), and to what extent the Member States are entitled to set higher hygiene standards for bathing ponds than for conventional chlorinated swimming pools.

In the light of the above, I should like to ask the Commission the following question: Are natural-style bathing ponds covered by the current bathing water directive, and if it is not clear whether this is the case, will the Commission specifically include such bathing ponds within the scope of the revised proposal for a bathing water directive shortly to be submitted?

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

The natural-style bathing ponds described are, as a rule, sealed artificially against groundwater or other waters and so there is no interchange with those waters. To that extent they can be compared with artificial swimming pools and thus, in general, are not covered by the existing bathing water Directive(1).

The rules applying to bathing water quality under Community law are based on Article 175 (former Article 130a) of the EC Treaty. The Member States are thus free to lay down further-reaching or more stringent protective measures at national level that also apply to bathing water quality, if such action is compatible with the Treaty (Article 176 (former Article 130t of the Treaty)).

The Commission will propose as exact a definition as possible of the term bathing waters in its forthcoming proposal concerning a new bathing water Directive. This is also one of the aims of the current consultation procedure in accordance with the Commission communication on bathing water policy(2), including the Conference on bathing water quality of 24-26 April 2001. A general inclusion into the Commission proposal of all natural-style bathing ponds, as described in the enquiry, is not foreseeable.

(1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8.12.1975 on the quality of bathing water (OJ L 31, 5.2.1976).

(2) Commission communication of 21.12.2000: A new policy for bathing water, COM(2000) 860 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1776/01

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: German packaging regulation - trade barrier for drinks importers

The current German packaging regulation provides for a compulsory deposit on containers for certain drinks (beer, soft drinks, mineral water, fruit and vegetable juices, wine), which becomes effective if the percentage of refillable containers used for a particular drink falls below 72 %.

It was only in January 2001 that the Commission decided - after years of deliberation - to bring an action against Germany in the European Court of Justice in response to the refillable container quota and the threat of a compulsory deposit. Those provisions represent a barrier to trade, particularly for foreign mineral waters. Neither is the compulsory deposit commensurate with the objective of environmental protection. The stated objective is to promote refillable containers, albeit at enormous and unreasonable cost which the consumer will ultimately have to bear. This objective, as numerous studies indicate is more hindered than helped by the proposed provisions. Despite the longstanding misgivings about the German provisions, which go back to 1991, Germany announced in March 2001 an amendment to the packaging regulation, definitively introducing the compulsory deposit, which had hitherto been a mere threat.

What measures does the Commission intend to take if the compulsory deposit is adopted?

What does the Commission intend to do to guarantee, promptly, efficiently and effectively, the free movement of goods in the light of the impending introduction of the new provisions?

What are the Commission's options in this respect?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1774/01, E-1775/01, E-1776/01, E-1777/01 and P-1823/01 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The draft second amendment to the German regulation on packaging - notification of which was given in connection with Directives 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste(1) and 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(2) - was examined by the Commission in the light of the relevant provisions of Community law.

The points mentioned by the honourable Member were also considered by the relevant departments of the Commission.

In view of the fact that at its meeting of 13 July 2001 the Bundesrat accepted a proposal for a resolution put forward jointly by several Länder and did not vote in favour of the draft as notified to the Commission, the issue of the proposed draft's compatibility with Community law no longer arises.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0365/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2001)

Subject: Xerox restructuring aid from the Irish Government

Xerox is currently in the process of restructuring its European Manufacturing Operations at Venrey, in Holland, Mitcheldean in the UK and Dundalk in Ireland.

However, this restructuring is in danger of being distorted by the fact that Xerox will have to repay thousands of euros to the Irish Government, granted as an incentive to bring it to Dundalk two years ago, for each job lost in Ireland.

Does not the Commission feel that these barriers breach the spirit and, possibly, the letter of European legislation on the establishment of a single European market place?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2001)

The Xerox plant in Dundalk, which manufactures computers and other information processing equipment, was awarded initial investment aid in the form of capital and employment grants. Operations at the plant have started and some of the incentives have been paid.

The regional aid schemes concerned are approved by the Commission as falling under the derogation foreseen in Article 87(3) (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty.

The inclusion of requirements in grant agreements that grants paid in respect of specific investments be repayable if they are not maintained for a number of years is explicitly foreseen under paragraphs 4,10 and 4,14 of the relevant Commission's guidelines, namely the Guidelines on national regional aid(1). This provision is aimed at preventing misuse of public money, namely by transferring equipment bought through State aid to another region, which is not eligible to support. At the same time, the five-year clause stems from the necessity to ensure the investment aided has an impact on regional development in that specific region, which would be endangered, were the undertaking allowed to move somewhere else within a short time.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0748/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Council

(15 March 2001)

Subject: Launching a case under the WTO's dispute settlement procedures (133 Committee decision)

When a decision is taken in the 133 Committee to launch a case within the WTO's dispute settlement procedures, are the details of the decision recorded in writing? If not, why not? If such records to exist, are they made available to the public? If not, why not?

Reply

(13 July 2001)

1. The Council would give a reminder that decisions concerning the common commercial policy are adopted, in accordance with Article 133 of the Treaty, by the Council acting on the basis of Commission proposals or recommendations.

2. The Council would also point out to the Honourable Member that the results of the Article 133 Committee's proceedings are recorded in writing in documents of the Council General Secretariat and that public access to Council documents is covered by Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993, as amended by Council Decisions 96/705/EC of 6 December 1996 and 2000/527/EC of 14 August 2000, laying down the cases in which confidentiality must be maintained, especially in commercial and industrial matters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1566/01

by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2001)

Subject: Tax discrimination based on place of establishment

If a Member State's laws exempt bodies with scientific, humanitarian or technical objectives from succession duties, is refusal by the Member State's administration to grant such an exemption to an organisation of this type which pursues similar objectives in that Member State but is established in another Member State, compatible with the Treaty establishing the European Community?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

The situation described by the Honourable Member can be an infringement of the EC Treaty in that such a refusal can lead to a situation which is detrimental to some organisations with comparable activities, depending on their place of establishment.

Such a situation should be examined on the basis of more detailed information so that the Commission can assess whether it infringes the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1244/01

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE), Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Marcello Dell'Utri (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) and Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: RAI (Italian Radio and Television Company)

Would the Commission and its President answer the following questions:

- in the course of its existence, has the Italian Radio and Television Company ever received any kind of funding from the Commission?

- has such funding been used for the purpose of broadcasting programmes or information bulletins?

- have such programmes and bulletins been broadcast and, if so, when?

- did such programmes and bulletins observe the principles which govern RAI in its capacity as a company responsible for providing a major public service?

- if the principles which RAI is supposed to uphold have been contravened, should the Commission not suspend any funding which it may be supplying?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1123/01 and E-1244/01 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

The main Community programme in the audiovisual sector is the MEDIA Plus programme, which entered into force on 1 January 2001. This programme follows on from the MEDIA and MEDIA II programmes, which were implemented between 1991 and 2000.

For these programmes, Community funding is awarded solely to independent producers and distributors, and the concept of independence is assessed in view of the tendering or receiving company's possible links with a public or private broadcasting company.

Broadcasting companies, whether public or private, are not eligible for Community support under the MEDIA programmes. RAI has not, therefore, received any Community funding in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/01

by Alexandros Baltas (PSE) to the Council

(2 March 2001)

Subject: Duties imposed by Brazil on canned peaches

The Brazilian authorities have imposed duty of 55 % on canned peaches. This duty is a discriminatory levy on canned peaches exported from Greece to Brazil and was imposed by the Brazilian authorities some five years ago.

It was to be reduced, however, each year until:

- by December 2000 it would stand at 23 %, and

- from 1 January 2001, it would be limited to 17 %.

I am informed, however, that in October 2000, the Brazilian authorities increased the duty to 55 % once again. At the same time, they launched an anti-dumping inquiry, though without imposing an interim duty. According to the Brazilian authorities, the duty was of a temporary nature and would be abolished on 31 December 2000 when the original arrangements would be reintroduced and the applicable duty reduced (on 1 January 2001) to 17 %. On 2 January 2001, however, the Brazilian authorities extended the validity of the 55 % duty until 30 June 2001 with a view to discussing the rate within Mercosur.

As a result Brazil's action, producers and exporters of canned peaches lost the holiday period business and suffered a serious setback. In general, the pressure exerted on EU canned peaches from third countries is growing, threatening an important sector of European industry with disaster, which may snowball into negative repercussions for society as a whole (higher unemployment), the farming community and, by extension, the common agricultural policy, the environment, etc.

In the light of the above, will the Council say:

- What measures it has taken to protect the canned peach sector and with what results?

- What measures does the Council propose to take next?

- To what extent are the practices adopted by Brazil taken into account and to what extent do they influence the policy pursued by the Council in talks and negotiations with Mercosur, of which Brazil is a member?

Reply

(10 July 2001)

The Council is aware of the difficulties faced by the Community's canned peaches industry in some South American countries, including Brazil.

As far as Brazil is concerned, it must be noted that the 55 % duty referred to by the honourable parliamentarian is within the tariff level and, as a result, is consistent with Brazil's WTO obligations. Consequently, any measures aiming at a reduction of this duty level will have to be addressed in other fora than the WTO - for instance in the current bilateral negotiations between the EU and Mercosur, which are also mentioned in Mr Baltas' question. In this context, the Council wishes to underline that it included in the mandate given to the Commission for these negotiations, an explicit call for trade liberalisation and for the dismantling of duties and charges on substantially all trade.

Regarding the Brazilian anti-dumping investigation launched on 25 October 2000, the Council will as a matter of course study very carefully its eventual outcome and, if necessary, react forcefully to any Brazilian action which would be in breach of Brazil's WTO obligations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1623/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Recognition as medical treatment centres of mineshafts used for therapeutic purposes

In Germany and Austria, as well as in several applicant countries (such as Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary), mineshafts used for therapeutic purposes are recognised, for example, as medical treatment centres. Accordingly, sickness insurance schemes bear the cost of the treatment which they offer.

Can the European Commission indicate:

- what it thinks of mineshafts used for therapeutic purposes as medical treatment centres;

- whether the operation of such therapeutic centres will, in future, also receive increased financial aid from the European Union through Community programmes and be encouraged?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The competences of the Community in the health field are limited. The recognition of the use of mineshafts for medical treatment and the decisions of health insurance whether to reimburse treatment costs in this area form part of the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and financing of health systems (Article 152 (ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty).

The new public health programme which is currently being discussed by the Parliament and the Council contains actions pertaining to the exchange of best practice and on the cost effectiveness of specific health interventions. It could therefore provide a framework to discuss the costs and benefits of treatments and procedures, while of course the final decision on their use and application remains with Member States.

Moreover, research into the effectiveness of these therapies could be undertaken within the Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources programme in the context of the Fifth Reasearch and Technological Development framework programme.