ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0793/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Electricity generation from peat public service obligations

With reference to the new framework for further restructuring and liberalising the electricity market in Ireland, including the construction of two new peat plants, would the Commission outline the arrangements for public service obligations in relation to future electricity generation from peat?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

The Irish authorities have recently confirmed that they intend to notify to the Commission the setting up of a new support mechanism for peat in Ireland. Upon receipt of this notification, the Commission will examine the compatibility of the proposed support mechanism with Community rules on state aids.

In the framework of such examination, the Commission will study the Irish arrangements for public service obligations and security of supply in relation to future electricity generation by peat. This analysis will take into account the recent legal developments for the liberalisation of the European electricity market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1590/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: European City of Culture

What criteria are applied in the selection of the European City of Culture for 2008? Is the Commission aware that a number of cities are joining together to form regional bids? Is this permissible under current criteria? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question P-1581/00(1)

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 169.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0042/00

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

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of bans on night flights

1. The Belgian transport minister, Mrs Isabelle Durant, recently announced that, as from the middle of 2003, night flights will no longer be permitted at Zaventem national airport between the hours of 1 and 5 a.m.

2. Could the Commission give an overview of the current situation regarding bans on commercial flights (both passenger and freight flights) at the main airports in the 15 EU Member States?

3. Would the Commission be willing to propose a directive with a view to harmonising bans on night flights, in order to create a level playing field and to improve the situation with regard to the effects of noise pollution at night and in the morning on the health of citizens?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The information currently available to the Commission indicates that there is a total ban on night flights at Paris Orly, and a ban on night flights with an exemption for postal cargo flights at Munich and Berlin Tegel. There is a limitation on the number of movements during the night at Munich (outside curfew hours), London Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted, Manchester, and Stockholm. In addition, noisy aircraft are banned during the night at a significant number of airports including Frankfurt, Düsseldorf, London Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted, Manchester, Madrid-Barajas, Paris Charles de Gaulle, and Amsterdam.

In its recently adopted communication on air transport and environment Towards meeting the challenges of sustainable development(1) the Commission launched a debate on the appropriateness of establishing a Community framework for decision-making procedures in the field of environmental operating restrictions at Community airports.

As set out in this communication, the Commission is not convinced that uniform and binding rules on operating restrictions, such as a ban on night flights, applicable at all Community airports would provide the best-balanced solution for the noise problems at a particular airport. Such decisions should continue to be taken at local level. However, the Commission is of the opinion that there should be a common framework for the procedures leading to these decisions. Such a framework could include obligatory consultation of all concerned including people living around airports, sufficient time for operators to adapt to new restrictions, and a common basis for assessing the environmental effectiveness of the operational restrictions.

(1) COM(1999) 640 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0642/00

by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Commission's position regarding the arrest of Kurdish mayors in Turkey

At the European Parliament part-session on 1 December 1999, Commissioner Günter Verheugen, on behalf of the Commission, gave a positive assessment of political developments within Turkey with regard to the country's status as an applicant for accession.

In the light of the arrest of the Kurdish mayors of Diyarbakir, Siirt and Bingöl, Feridun Celik, Selim Özalp and Feyzullah Kararslan, by the Turkish police and paramilitary special units on 19 February 2000:

1. does the Commission stand by its positive assessment?

2. does the Commission regard the intensified action by the Turkish authorities against democratically elected Kurdish representatives and the Kurdish party Hadep as part of these positive developments?

3. or does the Commission assess these measures by the Turkish authorities differently? If that is the case, namely if the Commission agrees that a critical, negative assessment is to be given of the Turkish action against Kurdish politicians, what does it consider to be the implications for relations between the EU and Turkey, in particular with regard to implementing the regulations on the implementation of measures to promote economic and social development in Turkey and on the implementation of measures to intensify the EC-Turkey customs union, as well as to Turkey's proposed accession to the European Union? What steps does the Commission intend to take in practice?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

Having learned of the arrest on 19 February 2000 of three mayors belonging to the HADEP party, the Commission, in close co-ordination with the Presidency and the Member States, informed the Turkish authorities of its concern at the situation of the three elected representatives.

The three men in question were released on bail on 28 February 2000, and were reinstated in their posts on 29 February 2000.

It is not the role of the Commission to pronounce judgment on the character of the legal proceedings taken against these three elected politicians. However, the Commission was concerned that these events might further complicate the vital dialogue between the Turkish authorities and HADEP, a political party which has come to represent a large part of that section of the population which is of Kurdish origin. The Commission was also concerned for the consequences these events might have on Turkey's preparations for accession to the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0343/00

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Ageism in the aviation industry

Would the Commission indicate the action it proposes to take to ensure a level playing field for pilots over 60 in the Community, given the refusal of the French authorities to allow pilots between 60 and 65 to fly over their territory?

Would the Commission confirm that this directly contravenes Article 39 of the Treaty on European Union, which reads:

Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.

Would the Commission indicate how it has encouraged coordination of employment policy in this field under Article 140 of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

The Commission considers that, in the case referred to by the Honourable Member, there is no discrimination based on nationality which is prohibited under Article 39 (ex Article 48) of the EC Treaty.

Measures by the Member States to promote employment are coordinated in accordance with Article 128 (ex Article 109 Q) of the EC Treaty. The employment guidelines adopted by the Council on 13 March 2000 pursuant to this Article do not make any reference to the matter raised by the Honourable Member.

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's answer to written question P-1797/99 submitted by Ms Sanders-Ten Holte(1).

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 50.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0194/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Community funds

Vincenzo Apicella, Chief Prosecutor of the Italian Court of Auditors, announced on 17 January 2000 in his annual report that owing to delays, neglect and complex bureaucratic procedures, ITL 4,5 billion of European funds were not used in Italy in 1999.

Would the Commission state whether:

1. The above figures are accurate;

2. It intends to take any action on the matter;

3. It intends to make a move to solve the bureaucratic problems currently hampering access to the funds;

4. A comparative study of the situation in all the Member States has been carried out?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The Commission has been unable to find, in the statements made by the Public Prosecutor of the Italian Court of Auditors, either the source or the explanation for the figures presented by the Honourable Member. With regard to the Community Structural Funds, and in particular the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Commission has recorded no budget losses in terms of commitments and it would point out that outstanding commitments, which appear to be the subject of the question, are inherent in both the programming and the management of the Structural Funds.

With regard to Italy, the Commission can provide the Honourable Member with the following information relating to budgetary commitments and payments. The outstanding commitments for the Structural Funds' operations in Italy as per 31 December 1999 amounted to (provisional figures):

>TABLE>

The Commission will proceed with the commitments as soon as the appropriations are available in the 2000 budget, mainly deriving from a carryover from 1999, due to late reprogramming by Member States.

The outstanding commitments (RAL) for the Structural Funds' operations in Italy add up to 9 604 million (provisional figures) as at 31 December 1999. These relate to various programming periods. The Commission will proceed with payments in line with Italy's request for eligible amounts. At the end of 1999 the amounts requested but unpaid totalled 356 million, partly as a result of late reprogramming. All eligible amounts have been paid or will be paid from appropriations carried over (from 1999 to 2000) as well as from the 2000 budget.

The Commission is awaiting information from the Italian authorities relating to the level of their commitments on the ground at 31 December 1999. It should be remembered that Italy has two years (up to 31 December 2001) to complete expenditure on the basis of commitments made before that deadline.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0772/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Lesser Developed Countries in the WTO

The Commission has recently announced a package of trade concessions to the Lesser Developed Countries in the WTO. This package consists of a tariff-free access to essentially all products from LDCs.

Could the Commission specify exactly which products are not covered by these concessions.

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0772/00 and E-0778/00 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the Community initiative granting free access to industrialised countries' markets for essentially all products from the least developed countries (LDCs), and greater access to developing countries' markets. His question follows on from Oral Question H-206/00 made by Mr Howitt at Parliament's plenary part-session in March(1).

The mandate given to the Commission in 1997 and confirmed in 1999 covers essentially all products exported by the LDCs. At present 99 % of LDC exports enter the Community market freely. All non-agricultural LDC exports have free access to the Community. An initial measure in December 1998 introduced arrangements equivalent to the Lomé Convention for all LDCs(2). The Commission is drawing up additional proposals which will be put before the Council when they are ready. Only then can a quantitative evaluation be made.

These proposals will concern additional unilateral concessions for agricultural exports from the LDCs to the Community market. It should be noted that under the current mandate which covers virtually all or essentially all agricultural exports the LDCs will have greater quota and tariff free access for agricultural products.

The few agricultural products which will not be fully liberalised under the Commission proposal to the Council will be covered by preferential access arrangements.

As the Member of the Commission responsible for trade told Parliament in March, other developed partners do not provide anything like the same access, although their markets are much more attractive to LDCs primarily because the rate of penetration of their products on these markets is extremely small.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (March 2000).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 of 21 December 1998, OJ L 357, 30.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0658/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Pollution of the Danube

The entry of highly toxic substances into the waters of the Danube via a tributary, causing damage to flora and fauna in all the countries through which the river flows and presenting an uncontrollable public health hazard, has highlighted yet again the problem of safety controls for sites and factories using dangerous substances.

Leaving aside the financial aid offered by the EU for the decontamination operations, can the Commission say whether:

1. it does not consider it expedient to monitor the industries at risk, some of them using obsolete technologies, operating in the countries which have applied for accession;

2. it does not consider it essential to promote periodic checks, with the agreement of the countries concerned, in order to prevent environmental disasters which are irreparable in the long term;

3. it does not consider that the accession negotiations should include the obligation to clean up potentially polluting industries by a certain date and to install proven safety systems for production processes using toxic substances;

4. it does not consider it appropriate to make any aid to tackle environmental disasters conditional upon measures to clean up polluting industries and the installation of safety systems?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

1. and 2. The accidental cyanide spill from a gold mine in Romania reinforces the need to give environmental issues high priority during the pre-accession phase. The Commission therefore supported the setting up of an international task force to assess this accident and its impact. It will assess what should be done to alleviate the negative impacts, to prevent other similar accidents from occurring at the Baia Mare gold mine, and to inform the public of all the above-mentioned issues. Equally, it will identify any potential similar hot spots in the Danube river basin but also elsewhere in the candidate countries.

3. Environment has already a high priority in the accession negotiations. The general Community position for the accession conference explicitly underlines the need to ensure a high level of protection. The negotiating positions of the Community lay down a clear strategy to achieve this objective. This includes in particular giving priority to industry-related legislation and trans-boundary pollution. In addition to the position taken during the negotiations, the Community has called for all new investments in the candidate countries to comply with the environmental acquis already during the pre-accession period.

4. In granting financial assistance to avoid ecological disasters, the conditionality will have to be defined on a case by case basis and according to the financial instrument used. In this context, it is also important to recall that the polluter pays principle is one of the main cornerstones of the environmental policy of the Community that should be fully applied.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0638/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Aid for farmers

Does the Commission intend to involve Parliament in the process of granting direct aids to producers and agricultural export subsidies for the period 2000 to 2006? The

agricultural sector is continually penalised by the fact that massive funds are being diverted from it to pay for the reconstruction of Kosovo. It appears that the Commission once again intends to fly in the face of Parliament's wishes and give preference to industry over agriculture, which, against the depressing backdrop of rising unemployment, is a sector deserving of support.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The amount of direct income payments for those sectors concerned by Agenda 2000 reforms has been fixed within the Agenda 2000 package. The Parliament participated in Agenda 2000 legislation according to the relevant rules. Detailed rules for determining export subsidies, have been established for each sector. The refund amounts are normally fixed after consultation of the relevant management committee. The Commission has currently no intention to propose any change of these rules.

Supporting democracy, peace and stability in the Kosovo region represents a major challenge for the Community. For 2001 and 2002 the Commission will propose a decrease of 300 million in the existing annual financial perspective ceiling for sub-heading 1a of the Community budget concerning the common agricultural policy (CAP) excluding rural development, with a corresponding increase in heading four concerning external relations. It is important to distinguish between the level of the financial perspective ceiling and the real funding requirements of the CAP. The reduction of the level of the ceiling for sub-heading 1a does not imply decreased support to farmers nor questioning of the CAP reform decisions taken in Berlin. In the Commission's view, the real budgetary needs of the CAP in 2001, based on the common market organisations as reformed in Berlin, are below the existing ceiling by an amount which is sufficient to accommodate the reduction of 300 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0684/00

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Daytime running lights

Could the Commission please give an indication of the current state of play in terms of the Commission High Level Group for Road Safety's deliberations on the issue of daytime running lights and the possible introduction of EU legislation on this matter? Is the Commission in a position to apply further pressure in order to resolve the current apparent stalemate between Member States on this issue?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission has been reviewing the available research evidence concerning the effectiveness of daytime running lights as an accident reduction measure. The results of the considerable amount of research in this field are not conclusive, but they do indicate that for all road users daytime running lights would be a positive road safety measure and that the effects are directly proportional to ambient daylight levels. Estimates of the accident reduction effect vary widely and are still the subject of unresolved academic debate.

The Commission concludes that while daytime running lights are likely to be a cost-effective road safety measure they will not be as significant, for example, as the benefits to be obtained from speed reduction, less drinking and driving or increased seat belt wearing. The Commission view on the significance of these measures is described in greater detail in the road safety communication which it adopted on 18 March 2000(1).

The Commission has also estimated that the maximum additional fuel consumption, and consequent carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, arising from daytime running lights is between 1,5 % and 2,0 % although this depends to some extent upon the technical specification for daytime running lights.

At the last meeting of the high level group for road safety it was clear that Member States still had different views about the effectiveness of daytime running lights. In particular, there were different views about whether the consequent additional fuel consumption and CO2 emissions were a significant social cost which counteracted the estimated benefits of the measure. Consequently the Commission reported to the group that it would consider developing Community legislation for daytime running lights when there was broader support from Member States.

(1) COM(2000) 125.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0841/00

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Community legislation on the internal market and its transposition into national legislation

The Commission has correctly pointed out that the transposition of the rules governing the internal market into the legislation of the Member States is essential if the common market is to function properly.

Will the Commission say what it considers to be the chief impediments to the smooth functioning of the internal market in all fifteen Member States, what is the main problem encountered by undertakings in the Union, whether these undertakings face any additional costs or have marketing difficulties due to the incompatibility of Community goods and services and national standards which may vary from country to country and what progress Greece has made in transposing Community legislation on the internal market into its national law, compared with other EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2000)

Over the past 15 years enormous progress has been made in removing barriers to the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons in the internal market. This is confirmed by the business survey conducted in September 1999 among 4000 businesses, which was published in the single market scoreboard(1).

The majority of interviewees perceived a reduction in barriers to doing business in other Member States. In answer to the question, In the last two years, how have obstacles developed in the Internal Market? the results were as follows:

>TABLE>

In the Commission's view, it is difficult to reduce the remaining problems to a single main one. Although business confidence in the internal market remains high, firms still perceive a wide range of problems.

The Honourable Member will find in the following table the most frequent obstacles in the internal market cited in the business survey:

>TABLE>

As most of the rules for the internal market are now in place, the focus is on ensuring that the rules function optimally and that they are adjusted to take account of new market and technological developments. This emerges strongly from the communication which the Commission adopted on 24 November 1999 setting out a new strategy for the internal market over the next five years(2). The strategy establishes an annual cycle of evaluation and priority-fixing, taking into account the actual functioning of product and capital markets and feedback received from citizens and business on their experiences with the internal market.

Greece's relative position in relation to the transposition of internal market rules has deteriorated in the last two years. According to the December 1999 Scoreboard statistics, 90 directives that should have been implemented by Greece by 15 November 1999 had not been transposed, compared to 19 directives overdue for Denmark, the best performing Member State and compared to an average of 52 directives taking all Member States together.

(1) SEC(1999) 2043.

(2) COM(1999) 624 final.