ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1202/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Threat to cultural monument from building project

Plans for the 2004 Olympic Games include the construction of a table-tennis arena covering a total area of 32 000 m2 on the boundary of the districts of Galatsi and Nea Ionia very close to the Evmorfi Ekklisia, a 12th century church classified as a rare cultural monument with exceptional frescos.

The agency responsible for Byzantine monuments has protested against the plan, describing it as uncivilised and fearing that, apart from the aesthetic damage caused by the building attracting some 6 000 spectators and thousands of cars, the impact in terms of the safety, stability and pollution of the monument will also be disastrous.

1. What steps will the Commission take to save the monument and the surrounding area, which has been earmarked for reafforestation?

2. Did the environmental impact assessment take account of the adverse effects of the project on this cultural monument? Were alternative proposals considered?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Article 151 (ex 128) of the EC Treaty gives the Community competence to encourage cultural cooperation between Member States and to support and supplement their action (financially if necessary) in the following areas:

- improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples;

- conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance;

- non-commercial cultural exchanges;

- artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector.

Accordingly, the issue raised by the Honourable Member does not fall within the competence of the Community, but is a matter solely for the Member State.

As for the environmental aspects, Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC(1), contains no precise reference to this type of installation. However, taking the view that this project could be considered an urban development project (point 10(b) of Annex II to the Directive) the Commission sent the Greek authorities a letter on 15 February 2001 asking for details of the environmental assessment under way for the project.

The Greek authorities have yet to reply.

(1) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 73, 14.3.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1631/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: White Paper on European Governance

Would the Commission clarify what steps it has taken to ensure that civil society is consulted in full about the preparation of the White Paper on European Governance?

In this context, would the Commission clarify the role of the Working Group on Civil Society Participation?

How does the Commission intend to ensure that earlier recommendations from civil society on how to improve relations between the EU and NGOs will be fed into the discussions on the White Paper on European Governance?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

External consultation, involving civil society, formed an important part of the preparatory work for the White Paper on governance. In the spirit of good governance, a report on the consultations carried out by all the working groups during the preparatory process will very shortly be available via the Europa website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/index_en.htm.

The members of the working group on the consultation and participation of civil society and regional and local players have conducted hearings collectively and taken part individually in events organised by civil society players in connection with the preparation of the White Paper.

The main feedback from non-governmental organisations is set out in the report on the consultation process and was duly taken into account in drawing up the recommendations in the governance White Paper.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0369/01

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 February 2001)

Subject: Reducing burdens on business

Could the Presidency please outline clear examples, from each Member State, of specific progress achieved on Recital 14 of the Lisbon Summit conclusions regarding a reduction in the costs of doing business and removing unnecessary red tape?

Reply

(31 May 2001)

1. The Honourable Member's question refers to conclusions drawn by the Presidency at the close of the Lisbon European Council on 23 and 24 March 2000, and specifically to the following:

The competitiveness and dynamism of businesses are directly dependent on a regulatory climate conducive to investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Further efforts are required to lower the costs of doing business and remove unnecessary red tape, both of which are particularly burdensome for SMEs. The European institutions, national governments and regional and local authorities must continue to pay particular attention to the impact and compliance costs of proposed regulations, and should pursue their dialogue with business and citizens with this aim in mind. Specific action is also needed to encourage the key interfaces in innovation networks, i.e. interfaces between companies and financial markets, R&D and training institutions, advisory services and technological markets.

2. The conclusions list a whole series of measures for achieving this objective:

- a benchmarking exercise, the first results of which were presented in December 2000;

- a Commission communication on an entrepreneurial, innovative and open Europe;

- a multiannual programme in favour of enterprise and entrepreneurship;

- a European Charter for small companies;

- a review of EIB and EIF financial instruments.

All these measures have been implemented within the time limits specified by the Lisbon European Council, and the European Parliament was duly involved in the process, especially in the adoption of the multiannual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship, and in particular for the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (2001-2005).

3. Regarding the outcome of these measures at Member State level, the Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that the Commission will evaluate the implementation of the multiannual programme and will submit to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions:

- every two years, an evaluation report on progress made in taking account, in a coordinated manner, of enterprise policy in Community policies and programmes as a whole, and of the implementation of the European Charter for Small Enterprises, and

- an external evaluation report by the end of December 2004.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1264/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Additives in organic food

Will the Commission explain why it wishes to ruin organic food production by authorising a long list of additives?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2001)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs(1) established the production rules, labelling provisions and inspection rules and precautionary measures for products of agricultural origin where such products bear or are intended to bear indications referring to the organic production method. Specific requirements have been laid down for ingredients of non-agricultural origin contained in food bearing indications referring to the organic production methods. In particular a limited list of additives for food composed essentially of one or more ingredients of plant origin has been established and very strict conditions preside to the amendment of this list according to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91.

With the entering into force of the provisions concerning livestock products Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production(2), the Commission has to consider the possibility of having a harmonised list also for additives to be used in foodstuffs composed of livestock ingredients. Presently in this sector only national rules apply. As a first step, the Commission has tried to establish a compilation of all the substances authorised in the 15 Member States in order to evaluate the actual situation in this field. As a second step the Commission will propose a list of substances for specific use in food of livestock origin and discuss this list with the Member States in the working group of the Standing Committee on Organic Farming. The Commission's objective is to get a list of substances as short as possible but respecting the particularities existing for traditional processing and preserving of organic meat or milk products in the various Member States.

(1) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.

(2) OJ L 222, 24.8.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1249/01

by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Competition

A major threat to competition and diversity currently exists in the field of goods transport. Many large, state-owned firms such as Deutsche Bahn and the SNCF compete on deregulated markets in other countries, with the aid of state funds. This results in a distortion of competition because other firms cannot compete under the same conditions. What does the Commission plan to do to prevent this distortion?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2001)

The recently adopted Directive 2001/12/EC(1) is aimed at developing competition in the rail sector, in particular for goods transport. This Directive, which is still to be implemented by the Member States, requires amongst others that railway undertakings shall keep separate accounts for rail freight and passenger services. I also makes it clear that public funds paid for public service activities may not be transferred to activities relating to any other transport service or any other activity. In addition to legislative measures the Commission is also making use of the competition law, in particular state aid rules as a mean to enhance competition in the rail sector.

As regards the application of European competition law (e.g. rules on antitrust and state aid) the Commission is actively pursuing a number of cases based on either complaints or ex-officio procedures. Although the Commission is not challenging the legal and factual possibilities for publicly owned enterprises

to invest and expand commercially it will, under these rules, have to satisfy itself that when such an undertaking engages in further economic activities, state funds earmarked for, inter alia, public services, restructuring or infrastructure investments is not used to unfairly fund aggresive commercial activities on markets open to competition.

Accordingly, the Commission is further certainly ready to look with the necessary diligence into issues like the one the Honourable Member mentions provided that substantiated information on potential infringements of competition rules is put at its disposal.

(1) Directive 2001/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways (OJ L 75, 15.3.2001).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0291/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Subject: Religious think tanks and the EU

The Catholic European Study and Information Centre (OCIPE) and COMECE (Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community) both contribute to the debate on the development of the EU.

Do they receive EC monies?

What is their mandate?

What activities do they undertake with EC grants?

Who runs them?

What is the policy of the Commission in encouraging church participation, or the participation of other religious groups, in the development of ever-closer union?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

A great variety of religious organisations, including the ones mentioned by the Honourable Member, may be eligible for small grants from Community funds, managed directly by the Commission. These are of two types: firstly there are subsidies to help cover the running costs of coordination and representation activities, at European level, of not-for-profit organisations; and secondly there are specific grants for individual projects.

In the case of the first type, the so-called coordinating Committee of A Soul for Europe which regroups organisations like the ones mentioned by the Honourable Member, has regularly applied for and received a small subsidy to help with the running costs of its secretariat in the Ecumenical Centre in Brussels. In the case of the second type, many small grants are also made each year to organisations which propose projects and activities which contribute to the debate on the development of the Community, such as the organisation of conferences and seminars bringing together participants from several member state and candidate countries. Both the organisations mentioned have received grants for activities of this type.

As the Commission is concerned specifically with the activities to be supported, rather than the mandates and management of the organisations as such, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member directly to organisations themselves for precise information on these.

The policy of the Commission as regards the involvement of Churches in the development of ever-closer union is to recognise their importance both in their own right, and as conveyors of opinion about it. For these reasons the Commission maintains a permanent dialogue with them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0871/01

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN), Sergio Berlato (UEN), Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), Francesco Turchi (UEN), Roberta Angelilli (UEN), Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN), José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Niall Andrews (UEN) and William Abitbol (EDD) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Bringing forward revision of CAP for oil seed sector

The increase in the demand for vegetable proteins (and the consequent steep rise in prices) caused by the ban on the use of animal proteins in animal feed suggests that the specific characteristics of the oil seed sector should be re-examined.

Does the Commission not consider, therefore, that the EU should become more self-sufficient in the supply of proteins, in view of the need to ensure that products are free of GMOs (genetically modified organisms), so as not to give consumers any further grounds for concern?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2001)

In response to the Council's request at its special meeting on 4 December 2000, the Commission has carried out an analysis of supply and demand for protein-rich plants(1).

One of the conclusions of the analysis is that replacing protein from meat-and-bone meal with plant protein poses no major problems.

The availability of soya cake, the best source of replacement protein, at reasonable prices means that the shortfall can easily be made up with additional imports of products complying with Community law in force, including the provisions on genetically modified organisms.

With the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC(2), which replaces Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms(3), the Community has legislation providing both a guarantee of food and environmental safety and the possibility of marketing products utilising GMOs, subject in particular to conditions covering labelling, traceability, risk management and monitoring.

Within the limits of what consumers are willing to pay, Community producers of non-GMO products will also be able to benefit from special prices that stimulate the market for such niche products.

(1) COM(2001) 148 final.

(2) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

(3) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0574/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Greece's failure to comply with the Court of Justice's decision on used cars

In Greece, the provisions of Law 2682/99 abolished the special consumer tax and the flat-rate added special duty on motor vehicles, which had been imposed on passenger cars, and instituted a single duty described as a special registration duty. The coefficients of this duty vary according to the car's cylinder capacity and its anti-pollution technology, with new and used cars being treated in the same way.

In other words, Greece does not tax used cars on the basis of the value of an equivalent new car, but continues to impose unreasonably high taxes, which for non-catalytic cars range from 80 % to 400 % of the car's value and for catalytic cars from 15 % to 128 %. This violates the principles and the operative part of the Court of Justice's judgment of 23 October 1997 in Case C-375/95, in which Greece was condemned for discriminatory customs treatment of used cars from the EEC.

What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that the Court of Justice's decisions are fully respected and that Community law is applied?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2001)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that it has already addressed a reasoned opinion to the Greek administration under Article 228 (ex-Article 171) of the EC Treaty for incomplete application of the Court of Justice judgment in Case C-375/95, Commission v. Hellenic Republic, concerning the taxation of motor vehicles.

Since the reasoned opinion was notified there have been two new developments:

(a) publication of a Court of Justice judgment in a similar case, C-393/98, Gomes Valente. This judgment, delivered as part of a preliminary ruling, reflects the observations made to the Court of Justice by the Commission and entails a review of the current system for calculating the tax base for used cars by several Member States. The review in question is more favourable to European citizens and economic operators;

(b) a fresh complaint by Greek economic operators, received by the Commission on 12 March 2001, about a deterioration in the tax rates for used cars, applied since 1 January 2001, which, in their opinion, is contrary to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-375/95.

The Commission reserves the right, after the necessary review and in accordance with the rules in force and the principle of the right to a fair hearing, to incorporate these new elements in the infringement procedure currently under way.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0991/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Dangerous protein in maize

Research carried out into maize seeds in the USA this year found that they contained the genetically modified protein Starlink called Cry9c. This causes dangerous allergic reactions in humans. Will the Commission say whether any similar research has been carried out in Europe in order to to protect the EU's food supply?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

According to the american authorities, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided not to licence the genetically modified maize variety StarLink for food use because of uncertainties regarding its potential allergenicity. It took this decision based on the findings of two scientific panels, which concluded that there was no evidence of an allergen, but that there was nonetheless insufficient information to rule out potential allergenicity.

In the Community, genetically modified foods have to undergo a safety assessment under Regulation (EC) 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Counicl of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients(1) before being placed on the market. Under this Regulation, authorisation will not be granted if the food present a danger for the consumer, mislead the consumer or differ from foods or food ingredients which they are intended to replace to such an extent that their normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer.

No application for the approval of the placing on the market of the Star Link maize in the Community has been forwarded to the Commission. StarLink maize has not been approved for cultivation or food use in the Community, and foodstuffs containing or derived from StarLink maize may therefore not be placed on the market in the Community.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2112/01

by Gordon Adam (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 2001)

Subject: Temelin nuclear power plant environmental impact assessment

In light of the report on the above assessment, preparation of which was agreed in Melk in December 2000 and concluded with a public hearing in Vienna in June 2001, does the Commission agree that the Czech Republic has fulfilled the commitments made at Melk? Does the Commission also agree that there are no safety reasons why the commissioning of number one reactor should not proceed?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Under the provisions of Chapter V of the Melk Protocol, the voluntary environmental impact assessment procedure undertaken by the Czech authorities is to be guided by the Community's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)-Directive, Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1). The public hearings held in Ceske Budejovice on 25 April 2001 and in Vienna on 26 June 2001 represent key steps in this procedure, in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of the said Directive. The same is to be said of the public consultations conducted in Germany by providing the German public with the opportunity to express their opinion by means of written depositions.

Following this phase of the EIA procedure, the Czech authorities are to take the results of the public participation into consideration in the further procedure for the Temelin Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). In addition to the public participation procedure under the provisions of Article 7 paragraph 4 of the EIA Directive, a Member State is to enter into consultations with the concerned neighbouring States regarding, inter alia, the potential trans-boundary effects of the project and the measures envisaged to reduce or eliminate such effects. The results of such consultations have to be taken into account in the development consent procedure as well.

At this juncture, therefore, the Commission cannot yet state that the Czech Republic has fulfilled all commitments made at Melk. In the procedure, so far, the Czech Republic has, however, made a commendable effort to fulfil its voluntary undertaking that is part of the Melk process.

It remains entirely at the discretion and within the responsibility of the Czech nuclear safety regulatory authority to take the decision to license the commissioning of Unit 1 of the Temelin NPP. The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Melk Protocol. This chapter does not foresee an external safety assessment of the Temelin NPP, but established an expert mission with trilateral participation with the aim to facilitate the dialogue between the Governments of Austria and the Czech Republic on the issue of nuclear safety and to find solutions to identified problems. This so-called trialogue has widely achieved its aims.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.