ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2789/00

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Tuberculosis

Nearly two million people throughout the world die from tuberculosis each year, despite the existence of an effective and cost-effective treatment programme known as the Directly Observed Treatment Strategy (DOTS) which could cure most TB cases in 6-9 months.

Does the European Union have any plans to finance any initiatives put in place in Africa and Asia to combat the spread of this major disease? If not, will the Council investigate the possibility of introducing such an initiative?

Reply

(16 November 2000)

As part of the cooperation agreements concluded with many developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America either bilaterally, or multilaterally as in the case of the Cotonou Agreement with the ACP countries the European Union is supplying significant assistance for public health projects, including projects designed to work towards the eradication of tuberculosis and other communicable diseases.

Furthermore, the Honourable Members' attention is drawn to the procedural conclusions approved by the Development Council on 18 May 2000 relating to the three major transmissible diseases, HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3310/00

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Subject: Illegal building works

The municipality of Villa Castelli (Brindisi, Italy) includes a gravina (natural canal that is a characteristic feature of the Apulian countryside), which is of outstanding natural beauty.

The whole area, including the gravina, is subject to environmental restrictions under the decree issued on 18 September 1996 by the Ministry for Environmental and Cultural Assets (within the meaning of the Galasso Law).

Law No 56/1980 enacted by the Apulia Region prohibits any building within 200 metres of a gravina.

In document 3347 of 14 May 1996, the Apulia Region (Environmental Directorate Ecology section Office for nature reserves and parks) stated that siting a new building with a surface area of 490 m2 within the natural environment of the gravina would have an immeasurable negative impact on the landscape, countryside, soil and surface water.

The municipality of Villa Castelli, using MOP Community funding (measures 7.3.9 and 7.3.10), has started building work on a 693 m2 multipurpose centre within the area of the gravina in violation of environmental regulations laid down by national and regional law.

Is it admissible to take advantage of MOP funding to carry out building works in violation of laws enacted to safeguard the countryside and natural heritage?

What action does the Commission intend to take once the facts have been verified through an on-the-spot inspection by its officials?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2792/00

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Re-importation of goods eligible for refunds

Further to my question E-0979/00 I would advise the Commission that, in the case of milk and beef, most products are defined as particularly sensitive to speculative trading.

In the light of the latest reductions in refunds, is the Commission contemplating a more restricted version of this list since it has to be assumed that the problem is a particularly topical one for products eligible for very high refunds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 2000)

For the moment the Commission does not intend to shorten the list of sensitive products in Annex V to Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products(1). Although refund rates have fallen for some products there is still a risk of reimportation if the goods attract a reduced or zero rate of import duty rather than the non-preferential rate. Nor can it be ruled out that refund rates in some sectors may increase in the future.

(1) OJ L 102, 17.4.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3029/00

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE), Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE), Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE), Marcello Dell'Utri (PPE-DE) and Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Price of petroleum

In view of the following facts:

- the cost of petroleum supplies has reached high levels and does not look likely to fall significantly;

- this trend will have inflationary repercussions on the cost of road transport, which covers 60 % of present-day demand, a percentage which is not likely to fall in the short term;

- the reactions of road hauliers will force governments to take measures to prevent protests;

- the provisions in force at European level do not permit tax reductions to be granted to the road transport sector alone;

- this situation makes it difficult to introduce measures to reduce taxation because of the high cost it generates;

- the introduction of a trade price for diesel oil might appear to be the best solution to reduce inflation and prevent distortions of competition;

does the Commission intend swiftly to adopt a directive introducing a trade price for diesel oil for the road transport sector?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2000)

In the context of defining coordinated action at Community level following the significant increase in petroleum prices, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its opinion on the selective reduction of excise duties, in particular on diesel for commercial vehicles.

The Commission considers that a reduction in excise duties and VAT for road transport must not go against the objectives of Community transport, energy and environmental policy. The medium-term priorities must instead be the redistribution of transport modes, the development of a real internal energy market and the promotion of energy saving. The much-needed economic restructuring of the road transport sector should not be postponed.

The Commission must determine whether specific excise derogations are in line with tax(1) and competition rules before Member States grant them.

(1) Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ L 316, 31.10.1992).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3469/00

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Subject: Revision of Directive 98/44/EC

Given the German Government's call for the revision of Directive 98/44/EC(1) on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions and the fact that, to date, no more than three Member States of the European Union have transposed that Directive, does not the Commission deem it necessary to review the substance thereof?

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the German government's call for the revision of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. In the Commission's view, this is not the line taken by the German government, which has stressed the importance of certain areas covered by Directive 98/44/EC and expressed its wish for these areas to be given special attention when the Directive is transposed into German law, a process which is already under way.

The Directive was due to be transposed into the national law of each Member State by 30 July 2000. As the Honourable Member rightly points out, only three Member States have so far transposed the Directive into their own legislation. However, it should be noted that the vast majority of the Member States have already begun a legislative process with the aim of implementing the Directive into their national law. Some of them are about to finalise this process and are due to notify the Commission of their national implementing measure or implementing regulation in the near future.

The Commission naturally remains at the disposal of any Member State requiring assistance with the transposition process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1954/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Failure to maintain current job levels at a subsidised plant owned by pasta-producer MISKO

I have already addressed two question to the Commission (E-2778/99 and 2779/99)(1) requesting clarification about matters relating to aid for MISKO and the employment of workers at this plant. Mrs Diamantopoulou, the Commissioner responsible, answered on behalf of the Commission that it was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and that it would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

In view of the difficult predicament facing MISKO employees, will the Commission say what progress it has made in collecting information? When will it provide an answer to my question?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 206.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

The Honourable Member will very shortly receive a complementary reply to his written questions E-2778/99 and E-2779/99.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2662/00

by Christos Zacharakis (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(3 August 2000)

Subject: Arrest of representatives of the press by Turkish forces in the occupied territory of Cyprus

The editor-in-chief of the newspaper Avrupa, Sener Levent, and the journalists Ali Osman and Harun Denizkan, along with other members of the newspaper's staff, were arrested on charges of espionage on 7 July 2000 and subsequently interrogated by the authorities of the Turkish Cypriot pseudo-state and the Turkish forces occupying northern Cyprus. These spurious and defamatory accusations, which have also been made against the Cyprus Writers' Union and in particular against its chairman, Andreas Kannaouros, constitute a flagrant violation of fundamental freedoms with the aim of intimidating journalists, curbing freedom of expression in the occupied part of Cyprus and, more specifically, compelling Mr Kannaouros to abandon his fight for press freedom and silencing the newspaper Avrupa and its journalists.

1. What steps has the Council taken and what measures will it adopt in the face of this flagrant violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms?

2. On the basis of the conclusions of the Helsinki Summit and the strict application of the Copenhagen criteria with regard to respect for human rights in the applicant countries, is it possible for Turkey to open pre-accession negotiations with the EU while it commits such acts?

3. Given that relations between the EU and Turkey are governed by the basic principles of respect for democratic principles, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and that their progress has been made subject to the fulfilment of these conditions, can the EU continue to deepen relations with Turkey if Turkey does not comply with these principles?

Reply

(20 November 2000)

The specific case referred to by the Honourable Members has not been brought before the Council and it has therefore not adopted any concrete measures. The Council reiterates that the Union is concerned by information reporting human rights violations and that it will continue to monitor closely the human rights situation in Turkey and, if necessary, take up individual cases with the Turkish authorities. The statement by the Helsinki European Council that compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria is a prerequisite for the opening of accession negotiations is still valid. Developments in Turkey have not yet reached a stage which would allow further deepening of EU-Turkey relations through the initiation of accession negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3225/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: European School in Alicante

There are a large number of Community officials working in Alicante, which is the seat of the OHIM, and their educational requirements could best be met by opening a European School there. The Alicante city authorities recently put forward a proposal on this matter.

Does the Commission intend to set up a European School in Alicante? What are its views on the offer made by the Alicante city authorities?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2000)

At its meeting of 24/25 October 2000, the board of governors of the European schools the intergovernmental body responsible for those schools decided, at the request of the delegation of the Spanish government, to create a European school in Alicante with a view to meeting the educational needs of the children of parents who are officials working in the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM).

The Commission supported this decision.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3079/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 September 2000)

Subject: Legal basis for Commission action

When roads in France and Belgium were blocked in the period around 10-15 September this year, the Commission sent faxes to the French and Belgian authorities requesting information on the situation regarding the movement of goods on their territory. In the case of Belgium the Commission was concerned at the situation at the borders with France and Germany and on the main roads. If they were to be blocked the Belgian authorities would be regarded as obliged to provide alternative routes and inform economic operators in neighbouring countries.

What is the Commission's legal basis for its actions, and would it do the same in the event of a normal legal trade union dispute which produced a similar effect on freedom of movement?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2000)

The legal basis for the Commission action to which the honourable Member refers is Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States(1).

The Commission does and will invoke this legal basis when any obstacle as defined by Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 occurs or is likely to occur. It concerns obstacles to the free movement of goods among Member States which are attributable to a Member State, whether it involves action or inaction on its part, which may constitute a breach of Articles 28-30 (ex Articles 30-36) of the EC Treaty and which lead to serious disruption of the free movement of goods by physically or otherwise preventing, delaying or diverting their import into, export from or transport across a Member State, thereby causing serious loss to the individuals affected and requiring immediate action in order to prevent any continuation, increase or intensification of the disruption or loss in question.

In its action, the Commission in compliance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 is not challenging the exercise of fundamental rights as recognised in Member States, including the right or freedom to strike. It is dealing solely with obstacles as defined by Article 1 of the Regulation, regardless of whether or not they occur in connection with a trade union dispute.

(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3032/00

by Carlos Lage (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Consequences of building a harbour on the Vila Praia de Âncora coast

Quercus, a nationwide Portuguese association for the protection of the environment, has written to the Commission to ask it to intervene in the scheme to build a new, small harbour at Âncora, near the town of Viana do Castelo, in northern Portugal, protesting that the construction work (which is receiving Community funding) threatens areas which form part of the Nature 2000 network and the Corine Biotope, over and above damaging the shoreline in question.

Is the Commission going to investigate the problem and take appropriate measures, or does it believe that the environmental impact assessment already carried out provides adequate guarantees?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

The Honourable Member is referring to a letter sent by the Portuguese non-government organisation (NGO) Quercus to the Commission objecting to the projected building of the new port of Vila Praia de Âncora. That project, which would receive Community funding, would be a threat to a beach and a Natura 2000 site. The Honourable Member is asking, in this connection, whether the Commission intends to analyse the problem and take any action needed or whether, conversely, it feels that the environmental impact study conducted offers sufficient guarantees.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC(1) states that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon should be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation aims. It has emerged that the letter in question does not provide sufficiently precise information to enable the likelihood of the sites in question being affected by the project to be analysed. For that reason the Commission has written to the plaintiff in order to request further information which might show that the project is likely to affect habitats and species whose protection has prompted the proposal concerning the site in question. Moreover, the Commission is in the process of drafting a letter to be sent to the Portuguese authorities in order to draw their attention to this matter and obtain their comments on the subject. Finally, it should be pointed out, as regards the possibility of Community funding, that the Commission will not fail to take account of this and to take any action considered to be the most appropriate.

The Commission will not fail to keep the plaintiff informed of any further action that might be taken in this instance.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2103/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Parliamentary dependants

Further to the Commission answer to my Written Question E-1215/00(1), will the Commission identify those persons who sit in the United Kingdom Parliament and receive (a) pensions and (b) grants from the European Union, for instance peers who receive a pension after retirement from the civil service in Brussels or MPs who are directors of companies which receive financial support from the EU budget?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Commission's answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-1215/00(1) contains the relevant information as far as ex-Members of the Commission of British nationality who currently benefit from a Community pension are concerned.

As far as Commission officials are concerned, the payment of a pension after retirement does not prevent them (while respecting Articles 16 and 17 of the Staff Regulations) taking up another position.

Grade A1 and A2 officials who were retired in the interests of the service by decision of the appointing authority (Article 50 of the Staff Regulations) receive a monthly indemnity for a fixed period. Article 50 provides that income received from any new employment, during the period in which the former official benefits from that allowance, shall be deducted from that allowance, if the income and the allowance together exceed the total remuneration last received by the official.

At 10 July 2000 eight such former Commission officials of British nationality are receiving this allowance, The information relating to income from professional sources supplied to the Commission does not, at present, necessitate a review of any of these indemnities.

No persons in the UK Parliament receive grants from the European Union. To the best of the Commission's knowledge, Lord Williamson the former Secretary General of the Commission, is the only former Commission official in either House of Parliament and, naturally, he receives the retirement pension to which he is entitled.

The Commission does not compile any record of directors of companies that receive financial support from the Community budget as a result of the work that they do, or the functions that they fulfil, and is therefore not in a position to say whether any such persons are MPs or Peers.

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2933/00

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

(11 September 2000)

Subject: European energy tax involving 13 or 14 Member States?

At Parliament's hearing of Commissioner-designate Bolkestein, I asked him on behalf of the Environment Committee whether in view of Spain's veto of the introduction of an energy/CO2 tax throughout the EU he was prepared to use the enhanced cooperation clause in the Treaty. I said that a simple yes or no would suffice.

Mr Bolkestein replied that he needed a year to give an answer. The year has now elapsed.

On the eve of the major climate conference in The Hague it is essential for the Commission to take the initiative in introducing a proper energy/CO2 tax with the 12 to 14 Member States that are in favour. This will mean less disruption of the internal market, because a number of Member States are currently introducing their own modest national energy/CO2 taxes. With the exception of Denmark, major consumers come away unscathed. If the tax were to be introduced EU-wide in 12 to 14 Member States the major consumers will also make efforts to save energy and to use more renewable sources of energy.

Spain and two other Member States currently behaving obstructively will soon change their mind, because they, too, will have to satisfy the Kyoto climate obligations; and an energy/CO2 tax is an indispensable means of doing so.

Is the Commission prepared to take an initiative in proposing a European energy/CO2 tax on the basis of the enhanced cooperation clause? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2000)

The adoption by the Council of the proposal for a directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products(1) is still a priority for the Commission, and at its meetings on economic and financial affairs and the environment the Council has on a number of occasions expressed its support.

The general problem of enhanced cooperation is the subject of detailed discussions as part of the intergovernmental conference and the Commission has made ambitious proposals. The French Presidency presented a memo at the end of August stressing the need to make enhanced cooperation a means of integration and pointing also to the question of the exclusion of a number of areas from the scope of enhanced cooperation. Consequently, the Honourable Member can be given a precise answer to his question only in the light of the conclusions of the intergovernmental conference (IGC).

(1) OJ C 139, 6.5.1997.