ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2961/01

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Statements made by Louis Michel against the Italian Prime Minister

Is the Council aware of the statements made by Louis Michel, the Belgian Foreign Minister, (broadcast on the RTL-TV1 channel and reported by the Wall Street Journal Europe on 9 October 2001), in which he gave marks to the main world leaders?

Does the Council know that Mr Michel, incredibly, gave the same valuation for the Italian Prime Minister as for the Taleban regime and is it aware of the repeated attacks made by Mr Michel, the President-in-Office of the EU, against the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi?

What steps will the Council take with regard to Mr Michel, who is arbitrarily and wrongfully exploiting his official position to attack the leader of the government of one of the founding countries of the European Union, making statements which deeply offend not only the Prime Minister, but also the Italian State and its citizens?

Reply

(14 February 2002)

It is not for the Council to comment on the statements made by Mr Louis Michel. In any case, Mr Louis Michel was speaking in a personal capacity, and not as President of the Council of the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2957/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Water supply and drainage project in Khalkida

According to information which has come into my possession, the Khalkida public body for water supply and drainage made an application to the national authorities for funding from the Cohesion Fund for the project entitled Khalkida: water supply and drainage. This application satisfies all the requirements of the relevant regulations, as was confirmed in checks carried out by the authorities in the Central Greece region. In spite of this, the directorate responsible in the Ministry of Economic Affairs did not back the application for assistance.

Could the Commission:

1. say whether it is aware of this issue?

2. take steps to ensure that this project is funded, in view of Greece's delays in submitting proposals for the Cohesion Fund?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2957/01 and E-3044/01given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

In Chapter 4.9 Implementation Cohesion Fund, the Community support framework for Greece for the 2000-2006 programming period describes the principles which govern the submission to the Commission of projects for that Fund.

In the case referred to by the Honourable Members, it is the managing authority of the mainland Greece regional operational programme (OP) which, after having evaluated the technical feasibility of the projects submitted by the municipalities and other local operators, submits the selected proposals to the Greek Ministry for Economic Affairs (MEN) for the remainder of the procedure. MEN collects all the proposals from the various managing authorities, evaluates and prioritises them and sends the Commission those finally selected for its approval. In the case of projects in the Environment sector, such as the one mentioned in the question, the managing authorities and MEN must also carry out an evaluation according to the principles set out in Strategy of the Cohesion Fund Environment Sector, which forms part of the Environment OP for 2000-2006(1).

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and the agreements referred to above, the implementation of assistance, and therefore the selection of the projects, is a matter for the Member States, which are required to send their final proposals to the Commission.

At this stage, the Commission has not received a proposal concerning part-financing from the Cohesion Fund of water supply work and drainage in Khalkida.

(1) Commission Decision C(2001) 1357. 24.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2267/01

by Gordon Adam (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Foot-and-mouth disease Trading problems with EU applicant countries

Can the Commission confirm that, in accordance with the Europe Agreements and the Association Agreements, it will ensure that any veterinary or plant-protection measures taken by EU applicant countries with regards to their imports of animal or plant products from EU Member States are restricted to what is clearly scientifically justified and do not take the form of arbitrary discrimination or disguised restrictions on trade?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2266/01, E-2267/01, E-2268/01 and E-2269/01given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2001)

The decisions adopted by the Community to safeguard animal and plant health form an integral part of the body of Community law. The principle underlying the accession negotiations is that the applicant countries will adopt this body of law. As soon as they join the EU, these countries will be bound by Community legislation, including the requirements to provide safeguards for instance as regards foot-and-mouth disease and bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE). All the applicant countries have undertaken to abide by this principle. The Commission also insists that the applicant countries gradually incorporate Community provisions into their national law during the pre-accession period.

In the course of the pre-accession period, relations between the Community and the applicant countries are governed by the association agreements. In this context and in various international forums, the Commission has raised the subject of the sometimes excessive restrictions imposed by the applicant countries. The Commission is doing what it can to ensure that such restrictions do not exceed the precautionary measures adopted by the Community. The Commission confirms that the provisions to be adopted by the applicant countries must not constitute arbitrary discrimination or a covert restriction on trade. In this respect, the association agreements are a fundamental component of the pre-accession strategy. The Commission intends to continue its efforts in this area. Moreover, the Commission has frequent contact with the veterinary authorities in the applicant countries and regularly provides them with information on the latest developments in the Member States and on the measures which have been taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2516/01

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(14 September 2001)

Subject: Animal slaughter without the use of pithing rods

The EU has prohibited the practice of pithing on grounds of consumer protection. Captive-bolt guns, which should stun effectively, are frequently used incorrectly with the result that animals are not fully stunned during slaughter. It has been revealed, therefore, that partially stunned animals are hung on hooks and butchered while still alive.

Since the right of all living organisms to a dignified life and death should be respected, will the Commission say:

- whether the ban on pithing is absolutely essential to ensure that no part of the spinal cord enters the bloodstream? Are there any clear scientific findings concluding that a ban is the only logical solution?

- whether there are any effective alternative methods of stunning which would obviate the need for pithing and achieve the aim of protecting consumers in the same way as the ban?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

The prohibition of pithing in relation to animal slaughter is based on opinions from the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC). These opinions bring out the fact that certain slaughter techniques including pithing are recognised to release particles of brain-tissue, potentially containing transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) infectivity, into the blood stream and therefore should be banned. Further details, can be found in the opinion on the safety of ruminant blood with respect to TSE risks adopted by the SSC on 13-14 April 2000 and published on Internet at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/outcome_en.html.

The rules to ensure animal welfare at slaughter and killing, including appropriate methods for stunning, are laid down in Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing(1). Pithing is not a stunning method, but was used to stop post-stunning convulsions before the animal was shackled. Even before the entry into force of the prohibition, pithing was only used in a limited number of slaughterhouses in certain Member States.

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2384/01

by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 August 2001)

Subject: Information on the taxation of owners of houses and plots of land

The ownership of real property, including houses, gardens and plots of land, and related issues such as the taxation of the owners are, in principle, the preserve of the national regulatory authorities.

Will the Commission, therefore, say:

- what the tax situation is in regard to the owners of houses and plots of land in the individual Member States,

- what European rules there are concerning the taxation of owners of houses and plots of land,

- whether it monitors and verifies the individual Member States' tax arrangements, and

- where I can obtain more detailed information on the tax situation in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 2001)

When talking about taxation of land and real estate, we need to distinguish between direct taxes and indirect taxes.

Taking direct taxation of land and real estate first, there is no Community legislation in this field. National legislation in this regard nevertheless needs to be compatible with the principles of Community legislation on non-discrimination between, and free movement of, individuals and capital. Since this is not an area in which there is harmonisation, the Commission is not in a position to look at information provided directly by the Member States regarding their current legislation to monitor the situation routinely.

Moving on to indirect taxation, the common value-added tax (VAT) rules, based on the Sixth Directive (Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes(1)) give the Member States substantial discretion in defining the taxation arrangements for real-estate transactions.

The transitional options and provisions in this field for which the Sixth Directive provided have resulted in rules which vary widely between the Member States. In 1997, the Commission published an in-depth study on the application of VAT to the real-estate sector(2).

Two summary tables setting out the situation with regard to direct and indirect taxes on owner-occupied property, on new housing and buildings and on land are being forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The tables illustrate the differences in national legislation.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2) European Commission, Directorate General Taxation and Customs UnionStudy on the application of Value Added Tax to the property sector Arthur Andersen, 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2672/01

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Council

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Islamic terrorism in Europe

On Friday, 14 September 2001 a joint operation by the French and Italian security services and Interpol led to the capture of four terrorist suspects who in all probability have links with Osama Bin Laden. Two of them, an Afghan and an Iranian, were stopped in Nice and the other two, both Afghans, were stopped in Ventimiglia. The latter two had in their possession video tapes in which they both appeared with high-ranking Islamic figures, together with photographs of massacres and an extremely detailed plan of Brussels.

Would the Council not agree that this shows that Brussels and the international institutions based there are targets for possible terrorist attacks?

What urgent measures does it intend to take in response to the above events?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2650/01, E-2662/01 and E-2672/01

(12 February 2002)

The Council invites the Honourable Member of the European Parliament to refer to the conclusions/action plan as adopted on the occasion of its extraordinary meeting (Justice and Home Affairs) on 20 September 2001 and the conclusions of the European Council (21 September 2001) in which numerous practical measures for combating and preventing terrorism are listed.

Coordination of the intelligence services of the Member States of the European Union to combat terrorism is mentioned in the following recently adopted texts:

Paragraph 2(3) of the plan of action approved by the extraordinary European Council meeting on 21 September 2001 states that: Member States will share with Europol, systematically and without delay, all useful data regarding terrorism. A specialist anti-terrorist team will be set up within Europol as soon as possible .

Paragraph 2 of the Declaration adopted by the Heads of State or Government at the informal meeting of the European Council in Ghent on 19 October 2001 lists amongst immediate priorities increased cooperation between the operational services responsible for combating terrorism: Europol, Eurojust, the intelligence services, police forces and judicial authorities. Referring to the threat of biological or chemical terrorist attacks, paragraph 5 of the Ghent Declaration stresses that the authorities will maintain increased vigilance and cooperation between the intelligence, police, civil protection and health services will be stepped up.

The Council also informs the Honourable Member of the European Parliament that the European Commission has recently introduced a proposal for a draft Framework Decision which aims, inter alia, to provide for a uniform definition and offence of terrorism in the Member States.

The aforementioned draft Framework Decision has been transmitted to the European Parliament for its Opinion and its adoption by the Council is highly urgent in the light of the conclusions of the 21 September 2001 Extraordinary European Council.

On a practical level, it is for each of the Union's institutions to take measures to ensure that its own security services adapt to meet current threats.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2919/01

by Heide Rühle (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(19 October 2001)

Subject: Appointment of a Member of the Court of Auditors

By letter of 28 June 2001, the Council consulted Parliament on the appointment of Mr Lars Tobisson.

Pursuant to Article 247 of the EC Treaty, Members of the Court of Auditors shall be chosen from among persons who belong or have belonged in their respective countries to external audit bodies or who are especially qualified for this office. According to his curriculum vitae and what he said when he was heard, Mr Tobisson has no relevant experience in the external audit field. Why does the Council consider Mr Tobisson to be especially qualified for this office?

Pursuant to Article 247 of the EC Treaty, Members of the Court of Auditors are to be appointed for a term of six years by the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament. The six-year term is intended to ensure the continuity of the Court's work and the independence of its Members.

When heard by the Committee on Budgetary Control on 9 October 2001, Mr Tobisson said he intended to take up office for only four years, referring to agreements whereby he would serve only for the remainder of the current ECA President's term of office, after the latter announced that he was to step down.

Does the Council consider such agreements to be compatible with the EC Treaty, in particular the requirement for Members of the Court of Auditors to be independent?

Will it proceed with Mr Tobisson's appointment, even though he has made it known from the outset that he does not intend to serve for the term of office laid down in the EC Treaty?

Reply

(12 February 2002)

Pursuant to Article 247(3) of the EC Treaty, in June 2001 the Council consulted the European Parliament on the appointment of nine Members of the Court of Auditors. Seven of the Members concerned are to be appointed in the context of a part replacement, in accordance with Article 247(3) of the EC Treaty, whilst two others including Mr Tobisson are to replace Members who have resigned, in pursuance of Article 247(6) of the Treaty.

In a secret ballot the European Parliament delivered its Opinions, after the nine candidates had been heard by its Committee on Budgetary Control, at the meeting on 23 October 2001. The European Parliament's Opinions on each individual candidate were all positive by a very large majority.

The EC Treaty stipulates that the term of office is to be six years in the context of a part replacement (Article 247(3) of the EC Treaty). However, in the event of a replacement following a resignation as is Mr Tobisson case the replacement runs, as stipulated in Article 247(6) of the EC Treaty, for the remainder of the Member's term of office. In the instance referred to by the Honourable Member that term of office, which runs from 1 January 2002, expires on 28 February 2006.

The nine Members of the Court of Auditors were accordingly appointed by the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament, on 8 November 2001(1).

(1) Decision of 12 November 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2508/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 September 2001)

Subject: Imposition of levies on Greek citizens in respect of land registry

Greek press reports claim that the Ministry for Regional Planning, the Environment and Public Works has applied for a loan of Drs 100 billion from the European Investment Bank (EIB) to continue drawing up the National Land Registry after the EU discontinued its funding under the third Community Support Framework. Property owners will be charged with repaying the loan as they will be required to pay between Drs 10 000 and Drs 30 000 to obtain their title deeds from the Registry.

The new schedule drawn up by the Ministry sets the completion date for the project at no more or less than 2014, i. e. more than twenty years after the first registrations.

What is the Commission's view of the Ministry's intention to impose levies on Greek citizens in order to carry out a project which could have been completed with Community funds given to the Greek authorities who spent them without even managing to complete 25 % of the work.

What measures will it take to identify those responsible for such unprecedented squandering of funds and the overrunning of costs, which the Greek press estimates at almost 700 %?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2001)

The Commission is aware of the press articles referred to by the Honourable Member.

Since the beginning of the year, the Commission has undertaken a full-scale examination of the project under the procedure provided for in Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments(1). Once that procedure has been completed, the Commission will decide on any reduction in the Community assistance. It will be up to the Greek authorities to apportion any responsibility in accordance with the national laws and administrative provisions in force.

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2754/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Reduction of the fine on Fléchard

At a meeting of Mr Delors' cabinet on 7 January 1994 the fine on Fléchard was reduced from 17,6 million to 3 million.

This reduction in the fine allowed Fléchard to survive and, according to enquiries carried out by the judicial authorities in Italy, it is said since then to have been involved in large-scale fraudulent transactions in adulterated butter up to mid-2000.

Can the Commission state the grounds for the decision of 7 January 1994 referred to above?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

The so-called Fléchard case has been the subject of thorough examination by the Parliament as well as the European Court of Auditors. The Commission has, upon requests of these two institutions on numerous occasions, supplied comprehensive documentation on the case.

The Honourable Member is invited to consult this material, for example the Commission reply of March 2001 to the questionnaire of the Committee on Budgetary Control (document PE 294.418) or the Court of Auditors presidential letter of 11 May 2000, including the Commission reply, on the Fléchard case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2433/01 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Membership of Parliament under the Treaty of Nice.



Official Journal 134 E , 06/06/2002 P. 0033 - 0034



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2433/01 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (7 September 2001) Subject: Membership of Parliament under the Treaty of Nice Replying to my Written Question P-1558/01(1), the Commission interpreted the provisions of the Treaty of Nice regarding the membership of Parliament to mean that the number of representatives of Member States to be elected in 2004 could exceed the figures laid down in the Treaty. This might happen if accession treaties had not been concluded with all the applicant countries. If new Member States were to join during the 2004-2009 parliamentary term, they would certainly be entitled to send their full complement of representatives to Parliament immediately thereafter. According to the Commission's interpretation, would some representatives of old Member States elected in 2004 be required in that event to resign before completing their term of office in order to make room for representatives of new Member States? (1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 189. Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (1 October 2001) Article 2(4) of the Protocol on the enlargement of European Union annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities by the Treaty of Nice stipulates that, in the event of new Member States acceding to the Union during the parliamentary term 2004-2009, the total number of Members of Parliament may temporarily, i. e. for the remainder of the 2004-2009 term, exceed 732 representatives(1). It is therefore out of the question that representatives would have to resign in the course of the parliamentary term. The Commission would also draw the Honourable Member's attention to the explanatory statement in the Méndez de Vigo-Seguro Report on the Treaty of Nice and the future of the European Union(2). (1) OJ C 80, 10.3.2001. (2) Report A5-0168/2001 (PE 294 755).