ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2185/00

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Possible fishing agreements with the Polisario Front

In view of Morocco's continuing delays with regard to the EU fishing agreements on Moroccan and Western Saharan waters and its obstruction of the UN referendum in Western Sahara, would the European Commission consider it a positive step to conclude fishing agreements with the Polisario Front as the legitimate and sovereign representative of the people of Western Sahara?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2000)

The Polisario Front is one of the parties involved in the plan for settling the Western Sahara conflict adopted and applied by the United Nations Security Council.

The Union, to date, has expressed its support for the implementation of this plan and for the efforts undertaken currently by Mr Baker, the United Nations Secretary-General's representative for this conflict.

The Commission, in the event of a future arrangement in the fisheries sector with Morocco, and consequently at the time of any possible negotiations, will refer to Morocco's fishing zone, this area being defined as the waters coming under the sovereignty and/or the jurisdiction of Morocco.

Consequently, currently the only interlocutor with a view to a possible arrangement in the fisheries sector remains Morocco.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2028/00

by Reino Paasilinna (PSE) to the Council

(22 June 2000)

Subject: Destruction of weapons-grade plutonium

The USA and Russia have agreed to destroy a total of 68 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium. Each country would have to dispose of 34 tonnes. The time set aside for this process is 20 years. The two countries will set up establishments in which weapons-grade plutonium will be converted for use in nuclear power stations. The USA will give Russia the economic support it needs to build the necessary establishments.

What measures will be taken to support Russia so as to permit it to destroy weapons-grade plutonium on schedule and in a proper manner?

What is the European Union's view of the above-mentioned agreement in the light of changes in Russia's management of the environment?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

Under the Common Strategy of the European Union on Russia, adopted by the European Council on 4 June 1999, the European Union committed itself inter alia to promoting disarmament and curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, supporting arms control, implementing existing agreements and strengthening export controls.

In order to implement the non-proliferation/disarmament aspect of the Common Strategy, the Council adopted, on 17 December 1999, a Joint Action establishing a European Union Cooperation Programme for Non-proliferation and Disarmament in the Russian Federation.

The objective of the programme is to:

- cooperate with the Russian Federation in the latter's pursuit of a safe, secure and environmentally-sound dismantlement and/or reconversion of infrastructure and equipment linked to its weapons of mass destruction;

- provide a legal and operational framework for an enhanced European Union role in cooperative risk-reduction activities in the Russian Federation through project-orientated cooperation;

- promote coordination as appropriate of programmes and projects in this field at Community, Member State and international level.

The financial reference amount intended to cover the costs related to the establishment of the programme is 8,9 million for 1999 and 2000. In the first phase the programme will contribute to a set of studies and experimental studies on plutonium transport, storage and disposition.

The proper management of weapons plutonium released by disarmament is of critical importance in the framework of the non-proliferation objective. The set of studies and experimental studies contained in the Joint Action are aimed at supporting Russia in proceeding on a timely basis with the disposition of its weapons-grade plutonium.

The studies provided for cover the following aspects:

- preparation of a short-term action plan for plutonium disposition;

- support for defined Russian organisations in building the tools and expertise required for the licensing of plutonium disposition in Russia;

- study of ways and means for transport and intermediate storage of weapons-grade plutonium;

- medium-term perspective for plutonium disposition.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1953/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Measures to address the problem of the overproduction of peaches in Greece

The peach market in Greece is facing a major crisis this year, since it is expected that over 300 000 tonnes of the total production of 1,1 million tonnes of peaches and nectarines will remain unsold, which will have unforeseeable consequences for producers' incomes.

1. What measures does the Commission intend to propose to address the imminent crisis in the peach market? Does it intend to examine the possibility of increasing the quantity of subsidised peaches exports to third countries and increasing Community aid for exports to third countries?

2. Will it examine the possibility of subsidising transport so as to facilitate exports, either by reintroducing provision of a former Community regulation implemented to address the problems caused by the war in Bosnia (Regulation 3438/92(1)) or through special aid measures?

(1) OJ L 350, 1.12.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Current estimates of peach production indicate a level about 10 % lower than the initial harvest estimates, and also one down on the harvest in 1999. Although producer prices were at comparable or even slightly higher levels than in 1999 at the beginning of the marketing year, they have firmed up since. Additionally, the very significant increase in exports to non-member countries in 1999 (in particular from Greece) suggests good results on the export front in 2000.

With regard to peach and nectarine exports to non-member countries, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1321/2000 of 22 June 2000 fixing export refunds in the fruit and vegetable sector(1) already provides for an increase of about 15 000 tonnes in subsidisable volume at the beginning of marketing year compared with what it is in normal times. In addition, the rate of refund for peaches and nectarines has been kept at the same level as before while for other fruit and vegetables it has been cut by 10 %-20 % to take account, in particular, of the strength of the US dollar.

As for possible transport aid, the Commission considers that an instrument of this type applied to Greek consignments to other Member States is not an appropriate response to the problems of overproduction.

(1) OJ L 149, 23.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1745/00

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Transport

Now that the Rail Europ Card for pensioners which, hitherto, allowed them to travel at a reduced fare is being abolished, what system does the Commission intend to set up to replace it with a view to providing pensioners with the possibility of cheaper travel by rail in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

The Commission wishes to underline that the Rail Europ Card the Honourable Member mentions was not introduced by the Commission nor was the Commission involved in this scheme of reduced fares. The Rail Europ Card was a special fare offered by rail operators. If these operators feel that this type of fare is no longer commercially viable they are free to abolish it. The Commission wishes to recall in this context that Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways(1) obliges Member States to render their railway undertakings independent as regards, inter alia, fares. The Commission has no plans to introduce any scheme that would give pensioners an entitlement to rail travel at reduced fares.

Member States may offer travel at reduced fares to senior citizens as long as the rules on public services, where they apply, are respected. The Commission has no such powers.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1441/00

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Import of genetically modified cottonseed

On 29 March this year sources within the organisation Greenpeace stated that Spain was importing genetically modified cottonseed. It is suspected that Greece and Italy are doing the same.

What action does the Commission intend to take in this context? What control mechanisms does the European Community have to prevent the entry of seeds of this kind, which are not authorised by the EU?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Commission has been informed by the Greek authorities of import of seed of non genetically modified varieties of cotton carrying impurities of genetically modified cotton seed. The Commission has not received similar information from either Spain or Italy.

No genetically modified cotton varieties have as yet received authorisation for the placing on the market in the Community under Part C of Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms(1). Two applications, concerning the placing on the market of insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant cotton, have been submitted to the regulatory committee for consideration but did not receive a favourable opinion.

Under current Community law, the placing on the market, including the import, of seeds consisting of, or containing genetically modified material which has not been authorised in the Community under Council Directive 90/220/EEC or under equivalent product specific Community provisions is prohibited. This applies also to seed lots of conventional varieties, that contain impurities of unauthorized genetically modified material.

The Commission has the intention to adopt, under the existing Community seed legislation, standards for purity concerning the adventitious presence of genetically modified seeds as well as specific labelling requirements for seeds in respect of genetically modified material (Annex to the Commission's white paper on food safety(2), position 77). This would ensure that these standards and labelling requirements are integrated in the official seed certification procedure established for seeds produced in the Community. The same measures would also be included in the seed equivalence regime governing the requirements for seeds imported into the Community.

Until such time, the Member States under their general obligation to monitor compliance with Community law, have to assess the risk of the possible presence of unauthorized genetically modified material and, in case of suspicion, to carry out appropriate testing with the aim to intercept contaminated lots and prevent them from being marketed and used.

Member States can, in addition to the mandatory checks required under the relevant Community provisions, unilaterally include any other checks for compliance with Community law in the procedures applicable to imports from third countries and take the appropriate action in case of findings confirming non-compliance with Community law.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.

(2) COM(1999) 719 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1675/00

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Disabled air travellers

What steps has the Commission taken to ensure that disabled travellers do not suffer any discrimination when travelling with flight operators within the European Union? Specifically, what action has it taken to ensure the provision of disabled access and disabled facilities in airports and on commercial flights?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The Commission gives priority to protecting the rights of air passengers, including disabled people, to enable them to benefit fully from Community policy on air transport. It therefore adopted on 21 June 2000, a communication on the protection of air passengers(1). The Commission proposes legislation that, among other things, will guarantee special assistance for disabled people free of charge, such as assistance to and from the aircraft, and ensure that they are not denied boarding, if they have notified their disability when boarding the ticket and received confirmation. It strongly recommends the adoption of voluntary codes or service quality by airlines and airports to cover services for disabled people. After taking account of responses to the communication, the Commission will propose concrete measures.

(1) COM(2000) 365.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0896/00

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

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Contamination caused by a concrete factory in the municipality of O Corgo (Lugo, Galicia)

A concrete factory is currently being constructed in O Corgo (Lugo, Galicia) without a building and operating permit having been granted. This factory discharges 7 500 litres of contaminated water a day into the Chamoso and Da Lama rivers, on whose banks the authorities are building a beach.

Given that the river beach project is being implemented with the support of Community funds (Proder programme: Programme for rural development and diversification of rural areas, partially financed by EAGGF Guarantee Section funds and the ERDF for the period 1996-1999, this particular project being supervised by the Proder Minho of the Lugo local government), does the Commission not consider that the EU must intervene to ensure that environmental protection standards are respected?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2000)

Projects part-financed from Community funds must satisfy the rules on environmental protection and improvement in force, notably those of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions

on the Structural Funds(1). The Commission will notify the Spanish authorities of the situation reported by the Honourable Member. Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community(2) requires the elimination of 17 substances (List I) and the reduction of a large number of other substances and groups of substances (List II). Additional information is needed to decide whether the Directive is breached in this particular case.

Community legislation on bathing water quality on beaches (inland waters or coastal waters) (Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 on the quality of bathing water(3)) sets quality objectives for bathing waters, obliges Member States to achieve them, regularly monitor the quality of all bathing areas and report their findings annually to the Commission, and calls on the Commission to publish these (last report May 1999, next report May 2000). The report is also made available on the Internet.

For the Lugo area on the River Miño in Galicia there are at present five places identified as bathing areas and regularly monitored. The latest report published in 1999 shows for all five a water quality complying with the Directive. An industrial activity does not exempt a Member State from taking all measures to comply with the quality requirements. The bathing water Directive provides two options: either the water quality is maintained under the new conditions or the beach is closed, i.e. bathing is banned.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.

(3) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1099/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Funding for Kosovo

Does the Commission feel that the allocation of funds for the rehabilitation and development of Kosovo might affect the EU's capability to provide essential funds for the world's poorest countries?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 2000)

The Commission believes that the level of funding it is proposing for the rehabilitation of Kosovo will not affect the Community's ability to provide essential funds for the world's poorest countries.

The proposed allocations for Kosovo take into account the following three considerations:

- the priority which the Community gives to countries near Europe;

- the poverty focus of the programmes; for example increases for the programmes in Asia have been maintained as they have a high poverty focus;

- past and present performance of the different programmes in terms of absorption capacity and evolution.

The proposed total for Heading 4 represents an increase for 2000-2006 as compared to the previous period 1993-1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2242/00

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) and Maria Martens (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 July 2000)

Subject: Member States' legislation on the loan of museum exhibits

Is the Commission aware that it is particularly difficult for museums in some Member States to organise joint exhibitions because Member States have very restrictive legislation on the loan of exhibits?

For example, the Friesian Museum in Leeuwarden needed two years ago to organise its Koningin van de Noordzee (Queen of the North Sea) exhibition because of this restrictive legislation.

Is the Commission prepared to investigate whether the legislation in question could be harmonised in order to facilitate the loan of exhibits and the holding of joint exhibitions within the Union?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The Commission would like to point out to the honourable Member that transfers of works of art between museums located in the Member States may be hampered by the application of national laws designed to protect national treasures. Indeed, in accordance with Article 30 (ex Article 36) of the EC Treaty, prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit are allowed if justified on grounds of the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value, provided such measures are proportionate to the stated objective. The Commission would emphasise that since 1 January 1993 these measures cannot involve any check at the internal borders of the Community. It is for this reason that the Community adopted Council Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 of 9 December 1992 on the export of cultural goods(1) and Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State(2).

The Commission informs the honourable Member that, in connection with the establishment and operation of the internal market, it is ready to accord special attention to the difficulties of transfers between museums, although it has not yet begun to consider possible harmonisation of laws relating to loans of works between museums.

The Commission would also like to point out that the organisation of joint exhibitions by museums can be supported by Community actions in the cultural field. However, in accordance with Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty, such actions cannot include any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 395, 31.12.1992.

(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2180/00

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Shipbuilding

On 18 May 2000 the Commissioner responsible for competition, Mario Monti, stated once again that shipbuilding aid will not extend beyond the year 2000.

In view of the unfair competition which is being practised by countries such as Korea (a fact which has been mentioned in each and every one of the reports drawn up by the Commission on the subject of shipbuilding and, in particular, its report of 14 April 2000), what action is to be taken in order to increase the production and the competitiveness of the EU's shipyards?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The Commission would point out that remarks of the member of the Commission in charge of competition about aid at the Industry Council on 18 May 2000 related only to operating aid for Community shipyards. In accordance with Council Regulation 1540/98 establishing new rules on state aids for shipbuilding(1), this sort of aid will be abolished at the end of the year 2000. However the Regulation also provides for a range of other aids that may be granted to shipbuilding subject to certain conditions up until 2003, including closure and restructuring aids, aids for research and development, aids for innovation, and regional investment aids for upgrading or modernising existing yards.

The Commission fully shares the concerns about the unfair competition from Korea. The Council welcomed the recent bilateral agreement with Korea as a first step towards restoring fair and competitive conditions and considered that this and, if necessary, other appropriate bilateral and trade actions and measures should be vigorously pursued to this end. The Commission has already initiated the consultation procedures under the agreement and will report to the Council on the results by the end of September.

As for measures to improve the productivity and competitiveness of Community yards, the Commission considers that the aids mentioned above are better geared towards helping Community yards to improve their competitiveness than continued operating aid.

(1) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1612/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Objective 2 areas

A few days ago it was stated that, in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union, structural aid will no longer be payable to 62 % of the Spanish state.

Is the Commission aware of the actual impact that enlargement will have in this sense and, concretely, how it will affect the present Objective 2 areas in the Spanish state?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2000)

The list of the areas of Spain eligible under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for the programming period 2000-2006 was established by Commission Decision 2000/264/EC of 14 March 2000(1). Under Article 4(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(2), this list is valid until 31 December 2006. It can, however, be amended during 2003 on a proposal from the Member State where there is a serious crisis in a region, without increasing the proportion of the population within each region.

It follows from these provisions that the total population eligible under Objective 2 in Spain will not be affected, between now and the end of 2006, by the accession of new Member States. With regard to the period after 2006, the second report on cohesion that the Commission will adopt at the end of this year, pursuant to Article 159 of the EC Treaty (ex-Article 130b), will analyse the situation of the regions in the context of an enlarged Union and will propose a number of guidelines for the future of cohesion policy.

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.2000.

(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.