ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0336/99

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Subject: Construction of a "Camper Service" in the Nature Reserve at Pian de Spagna (SO)

The nature reserve at Pian de Spagna - Lake Mezzola (SO) was created by Regional Decree No III/1913 of 6 February 1985 and is included in the list of wetlands of international importance (above all as a habitat for water birds) signed on 2 February 1971 in Ramsar and ratified by Italy by Decree of the President of the Republic No 448 of 13 July 1976. This reserve covers an area of 1 586 hectares in five communes (Dubino, Novate Mezzola, Verceia - in the province of Sondrio - Gera Lario and Sorico - in the province of Como) and is characterised by a system of lakes and rivers linked by cane thickets, water meadows and cultivated agricultural land.

The commune of Sorico has approved a "Camper Service" plan partly on agricultural land and partly in the nature reserve. The project consists of a building to be used as a tourist reception area, an area set aside for a windsurfing school, changing rooms, showers and lavatories, facilities for campers (refuse collection and water supply) and an area covering a total of approximately 20 000 m2 for camping vans and caravans. 50 % of the project is funded from the Plan for the Development of Rural Areas - Objective 5b - Measure 2.4 "Qualification for tourist activities and structures".

Does the Commission consider that a measure such as the one briefly described is compatible with the objectives of the abovementioned European Fund, the objectives of protection of the conservation areas covered by the Ramsar Convention and Directive 85/337/EEC(1) and the subsequent amendments thereto?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 1999)

The site of Lago di Mezzola e Pian di Spagna has been designated by the Italian authorities as a special protection area (code IT2040022) pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(2). Consequently the provisions of Article 6.2 to 6.4 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(3) apply.

The Commission confirms that the project "Camper Service" has been co-financed by the European regional development fund (ERDF). A letter has been addressed to the Italian authorities in order to obtain further information on the project.

The Commission will take the measures necessary to ensure the respect of Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0454/99

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Construction of the solid waste treatment plant at Meia Serra, Madeira

There are plans to build a new solid waste treatment plant in Meia Serra, in the parish of Camacha, municipality of Santa Cruz in the Autonomous Region of Madeira.

Approval of the project obviously depends on the submission of an independent and credible environmental impact study.

Can the Commission provide the following information:

1. Has the above project been the subject of an application for Community co-financing? When? If so, has the Commission already taken a decision on support for the project?

2. Assuming that an application has already been submitted by the Portuguese Government, what action will the Commission take to ensure that the environmental impact study which must be annexed to the project is genuinely independent and credible?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 1999)

The Portuguese authorities submitted to the Commission for part-financing under the Cohesion Fund a project involving solid waste treatment on the island of Madeira in May 1996.

The associated environmental impact assessment, forwarded by the Portuguese authorities in January 1999, will be examined once the Commission has received the opinion of the evaluation committee, duly approved by the environmental authorities, and the report on the public consultation process.

Since project appraisal is currently underway, the Commission is not in a position to give more details at this stage.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0409/99

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Draft trade agreement between the EU and South Africa

Information from various sources, including the Port Wine Business Association, indicates that a draft agreement has been drawn up between the South African Trade Minister and Commissioner Deus Pinheiro regulating future trade relations between the EU and South Africa.

Under the draft agreement, it appears that South Africa will be banned from using the designations "Port" and/or "Porto" and/or "Port Wine" for wines destined for export to third countries after a five-year transitional period.

1. Can the Commission confirm whether the draft agreement between the EU and South Africa provides for a ban on the export of South African wines designated as "Port" and/or "Porto" and/or "Port Wine" only at the end of a five-year period?

2. Can the Commission confirm whether this ban will include any of the above three designations of origin?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0491/99

by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Preventive measures at work

Everyone knows how much the application of preventive principles contributes to improving health and safety at work and this is recognised by the Commission in its Fourth Programme on health, hygiene and security at work.

In view of the fact that, in many cases, it is cheaper for a company to pay a fine than to adopt preventive measures (thus evading the spirit of the law), what action is to be taken to remedy this state of affairs?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 1999)

The Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member in attaching particular importance to ensuring that the provisions of Community legislation on health and safety at work are actually applied in all the Member States.

In accordance with Article 4 of framework Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work(1), the Member States must ensure, in particular, adequate controls and supervision of the national provisions transposing the Directive.

In this connection, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice, which indicates that the Member States are required, within the bounds of the freedom left to them by the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty, to choose the most appropriate forms and methods to ensure the effectiveness of directives. Where a directive does not specifically provide any penalty for an infringement or refers for that purpose to national laws, regulations and administrative provisions, Article 5 of the Treaty requires the Member States to take all measures necessary to guarantee the application and effectiveness of Community law. For that purpose, while the choice of penalties remains within their discretion, they must ensure in particular that infringements of Community law are penalised under conditions, both procedural and substantive, which are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and which, in any event, make the penalty effective, proportionate and dissuasive(2).

It is therefore up to the national authorities to find the right balance between the financial penalty provided for by the national regulations and the aim of promoting the prevention of occupational hazards.

(1) OJ L 189, 29.6.1989.

(2) Judgment of 12 September 1996, Sando Gallotti and others, Joined Cases C-58/95, C-75/95, C-112/95, C-119/95, C-123/95, C-135/95, C-140/95, C-141/95, C-154/95 and C-157/95, ECR, page I-4345, point 14.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0529/99

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(8 March 1999)

Subject: Fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union

At its June 1998 part-session the European Parliament debated and adopted the own-initiative report on the fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union (A4-0137/98)(1), in the conclusions to which, inter alia, it demanded "that inspections of products from third countries be stepped up, in accordance with Council Directive 91/493/EEC laying down the health conditions for the production and placing on the market of fishery products(2), so that products from such countries are not subject to less stringent health requirements than Community produce".

Can the Commission provide Parliament with information on the result of the measures taken to comply with the request made by the latter at its part-session?

(1) OJ C 210, 6.7.1998, p. 295.

(2) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 15.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0997/99

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(20 April 1999)

Subject: Measures taken by the EU to close Chernobyl nuclear power plant

Can the Commission explain why a third reactor is being opened at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine when measures are supposed to be underway to close the entire plant by the end of the year 2000?

The European Union has decided not to fund the closure of the nuclear plant and the European Parliament has approved this decision.

In the light of this decision will the Commission explain how it intends to ensure the full closure of the power plant by the end of 2000, and in doing so ensure the safety of its citizens and those of the Ukraine?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that unit 3 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) returned to operation on 6 March 1999 following a planned outage of three months for inspection and maintenance.

In the memorandum of understanding, signed in 1995 between the G7 countries, the Commission and Ukraine, the latter has taken the commitment to close the Chernobyl plant by the year 2000.

The Commission considers that the implementation of the 1995 memorandum of understanding is progressing and expects, in particular, that Ukraine will stick to its commitment to close the Chernobyl plant by 2000.
For the Commissions assistance, I attach an article from the newspaper Die Welt of 22 May 1999 entitled
Granting of contracts to foreigners made more difficult.
(2000/C 27 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1471/99
by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: New German tax legislation for the building sector
New tax legislation for the building sector came into force in Germany on 1 April 1999, including Article
50a (7) and (8) concerning the 25 % rule. The effect of this rule is that bodies using foreign companies (ascontractors or sub-contractors) to carry out work in Germany must withhold 25 % of the gross suminvolved and forward it to the tax authorities. A refund can only be made in the subsequent calendar yearwhen the foreign company has furnished proof that it is not liable to taxation in Germany.
1. Is the Commission familiar with Article 50a of the new German law?
2. Can the Commission examine whether the article in question is consistent with EEC legislation, in
particular with the provisions on the Internal Market?
3. If not, does the Commission take the view that this legislation puts foreign companies at a
disadvantage compared with German companies?
4. What action does the Commission intend to take to put a stop to this?
Joint answer
to Written Questions P-1385/99, E-1389/99 and E-1471/99
given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(14 September 1999)
The Commission is aware of the new German tax provision included in the Act of 24 March 1999, which
came into force on 1 April. An investigation has shown that this legislation could affect the freedom toprovide services, one of the four freedoms on which the single market is based. On 28 July theCommission decided to initiate an infringement procedure against Germany under Article 226 of the ECTreaty (formerly Article 169).
According to the latest information from the German Government, it has tabled a bill designed to abolish
the provision at issue.
(2000/C 27 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1387/99
by Carlos Costa Neves (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Production of refined sugar in the Azores Autonomous Region
Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 (known as the Poseima regulation) (1) lays down
the objective of establishing specific measures to remedy, in respect of certain agricultural products, the
difficulties caused by the remote and insular nature of the Azores and Madeira.
The Azores Autonomous Region has the clearly-established right to import sugar-cane, in such a way that
the total annual volume of sugar refined in the Azores does not exceed 10 000 tonnes. This limit shall beassessed taking account of the development of local sugar beet production  in other words, the amountof sugar produced from beet (see Poseima, Article 3(4)). This means that the limit of 10 000 tonnes onC 27 E/38 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0280/99

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Ponte Vecchio (Florence)

The Ponte Vecchio and surrounding areas in the historical centre of Florence have been designated a world heritage site by Unesco.

Over the years, the various heads of the Department of Culture and Environmental Assets have repeatedly drawn the attention of local and national bodies to the need to conserve and enhance this heritage, by protecting it from the danger of excessive tourist numbers and preventing the impoverishment of the site caused by the presence of hawkers and the growth in petty crime.

The measures so far taken have not proved satisfactory either in restricting vandalism or ensuring the protection of the artistic heritage and the craft shops and other businesses present. The Ponte Vecchio and surrounding areas are therefore at risk every day.

In the light of the above considerations, will the Commission urge the competent bodies in Florence and Italy to ensure the conservation and enhancement of this priceless artistic and historical heritage which Unesco has designated a world heritage site?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 1999)

Although fully understanding the worries expressed by the Honourable Member, the Commission would inform him that, on the basis of Article 128 and the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in the EC Treaty, any measures for the protection of cultural heritage are the exclusive responsibility of the national or regional authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0596/99

by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Growth hormone rBST

1. Will the Commission insist that the relevant committees study all evidence concerning the impact on both animal and human health of the growth hormone rBST when the company that owns this drug applies for a licence to sell it for use within the EU?

2. Will the Commission follow the precautionary principle when the issue of granting the licence to sell the bovine growth hormone rBST is brought up?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1999)

The Commission asked for an opinion from the specific veterinary committee on animal health and animal welfare, as well as from the scientific committee on public health, regarding the use of BST. Each of the two scientific committees has recently issued a scientific opinion relating to their specific tasks. The opinions are available on the Commission's Europa server. Based on these conclusions of the scientific opinions, the Commission, with a view to a decision being taken on this matter, will submit a report and a proposal on the future of the moratorium on bovine somatotrophin (Council Decision 94/936/EC)(1) to the Council and the Parliament.

(1) OJ L 366, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0651/99

by Johannes Blokland (I-EDN) to the Commission

(9 March 1999)

Subject: Problems concerning the Prins Maurits "Open Christianity" school in St Petersburg (Russia)

1. Is the Commission aware of the attempts by the authorities in St Petersburg to shut down the "Open Christianity" school?

2. Can the Commission confirm that the local authorities and the police are intimidating the staff and pupils of this school? What are the underlying reasons?

3. Is the EU in contact with the authorities in St Petersburg? Are there, or have there been, any contacts between the EU and the management of "Open Christianity"?

4. Is the Commission prepared to make known to the Russian government its concern at the action of the local authorities in St Petersburg? Will the Commission inform Parliament of the Russian government's response?

5. What can be done, in the Commission's opinion, to prevent the closure of the "Open Christianity" school?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 1999)

The Delegation of the Commission in Russia has followed the developments around the "Open Christianity" school in St. Petersburg. The school has just been vacated, apparently as a consequence of problems with the leasing of the premises. The status of the lease contract is somewhat vague.

On 11 February 1999, the St. Petersburg arbitration court stripped the school of its right to use the premises. An appeal has been lodged, however. The Delegation of the Commission is following the results of the legal procedure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0869/99

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Subject: Loss of income by fishermen in Madeira

The very low level of tuna stocks which have been affecting Madeira since August 1998 have had a very serious effect on local fishing communities.

The shortage of tuna stocks has serious repercussions on the economies and the households in many parts of Madeira, such as Caniçal and Machico, which are already greatly weakened as communities and have no alternative forms of employment.

The seriousness of the situation is such that it deserves the Commission's full attention.

In view of the above, would the Commission provide the following information:

1. Has the Commission been informed of this alarming state of affairs by the Portuguese Government or the Madeira Regional Government?

2. Is there any budgetary provision or specific programme within the common fisheries policy which could be used to compensate for the drastic loss of income by the fishing communities in question and alleviate the serious situation effecting entire families in Caniçal and Machico? If so, has the Madeira Regional Government and/or the Portuguese Government already asked the Commission to implement such provisions or programmes?

3. Is there any possibility outside the common fisheries policy of making funding available in order to remedy the situation promptly and, if so, what is it?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 1999)

The available data on the general state of tuna stocks in the Atlantic do not indicate a collapse in stocks. However, the Commission is seeking more precise data on the stock situation in the Madeira zone.

1. Without checking with the Portuguese authorities, the Commission is not aware that they informed it of this state of affairs.

2. The common fisheries policy does not have a specific programme or budget facility to compensate for possible losses of income resulting from the situation described.

3. The Commission does not know of any way that funding could be provided outside the CFP to compensate promptly for possible losses of income.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0172/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Building work in Piazza Cavallotti in Livorno

Work on the refurbishment of Piazza Felice Cavallotti in Livorno has caused considerable inconvenience to residents and shopkeepers, resulting in street traders' stalls being moved. The citizens of Livorno were only given notice of the planned building work on 10 January 1999. The building work has caused serious inconvenience and a substantial decline in the turnover of the shopkeepers in the area. The building work is planned to last one year.

1. Can the Commission say: whether, in its view, the building work referred to above can be regarded as contravening the principle of free competition as regards the shopkeepers in the city of Livorno;

2. whether any economic aid and/or projects exist that may help the shopkeepers who have been adversely affected by what has happened;

3. whether it is able to give its overall view of the matter?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 1999)

After having examined the question submitted by the Honourable Member, the Commission has reached the conclusion that the work in question did not infringe Community provisions concerning public contracts. Indeed, the situation described cannot be said to have contravened the principles of non-discrimination, transparency and equal treatment which form the basis of the above-mentioned legislation. This legislation does not, moreover, make any provisions for specific compensation to shopkeepers adversely affected by public works being carried out.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0626/99

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Restoration of the Tower of Pisa

Could the Commission state whether European funds have been used for the various programmes of restoration work on the Tower of Pisa?

If they have, could it provide details of the amounts involved, the type of funds used and the schedule of payments?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1999)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the tower of Pisa has received two financial contributions in the framework of the Commission's action and programme in favour of the preservation of architectural heritage of exceptional importance.

A financial contribution of [fmxeuro] 50 000 was granted in December 1997 for the realisation of methodological research on the most appropriate restoration method to preserve the stones, which have suffered by the eight centuries long and anomalous conditions of the monument due to its inclination. This financial contribution was not in any way linked with the works concerning the static problems of the tower.

The good results achieved through this research are applicable to intervention methodologies for other monuments throughout Europe. This first experimental step convinced the Central restoration institute of Rome and the University of Pisa, through the committee for the safeguard of the Tower, to put forward a proposal for a European restoration laboratory in the framework of the Raphael programme. The proposal was approved at the end of 1998 in the amount of [fmxeuro] 271 327 (a first instalment has been paid, and the second and final instalment will be paid on completion of the project by the middle of the year 2000).