ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0511/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Disrespect for EU law by Member States

In the light of the answer to Written Question E-2230/99(1) (3 December 1999) and to the picture of sustained and increasing disrespect for European Union law, particularly by France, how does the Commission propose to improve matters? Does the Commission recognise that its existing efforts to curb infringements are inadequate? Does it believe that the system of penalties should be reinforced against persistent law-breakers, and will it bring forward proposals to that effect in the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 153.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

The Commission considers that the existing infringement procedure in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty has proved its efficiency for years. Therefore the Commission does not intend to propose a reform of this procedure.

The largest proportion of infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission is solved before any action is taken in the Court of justice, the Member State having brought the infringement to an end. As an illustration of this efficiency, in 1999 only 16,5 % of infringement cases having been subject to a prior letter of formal notice had to be submitted to the Court by the Commission.

The possibility of a second action in the Court of justice with financial penalties (Article 228 ex Article 171 EC Treaty) introduced by the Treaty on European Union has again reinforced the efficiency of this procedure.

Moreover, in order to ensure a more and more systematic review of the implementation of Community law by the Member States, the Commission constantly improves its operational procedures in that field. The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the forthcoming 17th report for an outline of these new operational measures. This will be made available to the Parliament in the coming weeks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0661/00

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

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Galicia and the Transeuropean Rail Networks

The President of Galicia, Mr Manuel Fraga, along with the President of Castille and Leon, Mr Lucas, has announced in the Galician press that he intends to hold talks with the Commission to secure pesetas 600 000 million (EUR 3 610 million) worth of the Cohesion Fund monies earmarked for Spain, for the purpose of incorporating Galicia, via Castille and Leon, into the transeuropean high speed rail network.

Since Mrs Loyola de Palacio, the transport Commissioner, has repeatedly said that the decision on the high speed links for the period 2000-2006 under the Cohesion Fund would be taken by the Spanish Government, with which President Fraga should have considerable direct influence, particularly as regards preventing Galicia from being disciminated against in the full scale Europe-wide modernisation of the railways, will the Commission please tell me the purpose of its possibly being approached by Mr Fraga in this way?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

The Commission is not in a position to comment on the meaning of or intention behind the statements of presidents of the Autonomous Communities.

The Commissioner responsible for transport was referring to one of the criteria which projects must meet to receive part-funding from the Cohesion Fund under Article 10(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94(1) instituting the Cohesion Fund. This lays down that the priority assigned by a Member State to a given project is one of the qualitative criteria which must be contained in any project proposal put to the Commission. In the case of transport projects, and more particularly those relating to the development of trans-European transport networks, the central government authorities are responsible for setting these national priorities.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1435/00

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Dual discrimination on grounds of gender and disability

The Commission has recently submitted a package of measures, including three directives, pursuant to the anti-discrimination provisions of Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which cites gender and disability as two of the areas in which the Union intends to take action to combat discrimination. This being so, disabled women face dual discrimination which the Commission should be monitoring.

With this in mind, has the Commission included a proposal of any kind within its package of anti-discrimination measures to combat dual discrimination affecting disabled women?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Structural inequalities linked to male and female roles often have far more serious repercussions in the event of dual, triple or multiple discrimination on grounds other

than sex within the meaning of Article 13 of the EC Treaty. This is certainly the case as regards disabled women. Although equal treatment of the sexes as such is not covered by the package of measures adopted by the Commission in November 1999(1), the need for an approach integrating this principle in implementing all the measures contained in this package explicitly follows from Articles 2 and 3 of the EC Treaty.

Hence the Commission will see to it that the situation of disabled women is duly addressed in the context of measures implementing the various instruments which will be adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 13 of the EC Treaty.

(1) COM(1999) 564 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1196/00

by William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Religious persecution in India

Attacks are being reported in several states of India on Christian communities in the shape of murder, gang-rapes, beatings, threats, and destruction and desecration of churches. Meanwhile legislative initiatives have been undertaken in a number of Indian states which seek to restrict religious freedom. In Orissa state, for example, the state government passed an order at the end of 1999 prohibiting conversion without the prior permission of the local police and the district magistrate. In Gujurat state, a freedom of religion bill was introduced last year which established stiff penalties for the crime of converting individuals from one religion to another. Although the bill was shelved this February, it is thought likely that attempts might be made to revive it at a later date. Christians there believe that the bill is open to subjective interpretation and may be used to halt their humanitarian efforts amongst the poor as well as curtailing any public expression of their faith.

In the light of these events, does the Commission intend to address the question of religious tolerance and freedom at the upcoming EU-India summit?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member and would like to emphasise that the Commission Delegation in New Delhi continues to monitor closely and report on the situation regarding the situation of religious minorities in India, including the Christian community. It does so in close consultation with the Community missions in New Delhi.

Ever since the surge in 1998 in the number of attacks on Christian families and facilities, ambassadors have consistently expressed their concern in this regard to the Indian government.

The Government of India has since set up a National Commission for Minorities. This is charged in particular with the protection of religious minorities in India, and following-up complaints received. Although the National Commission for Minorities has no judicial powers, it is hoped that it will continue to exert a restraining influence on extremist groups and thus contribute to upholding the principle of secular government and free religious practice enshrined in the Indian constitution.

Regarding the reported legislative initiatives by a number of Indian states, the Commission will request its delegation in New Delhi to work closely with its colleagues from Community sister missions, with a view to analysing the factual background and implications of any discriminatory legislative measures taken that may affect the freedom of faith of Christian and other religious groups in India. Based on their findings the Commission will consult its partners and decide on the extent, form and appropriate forum of possible representation to be made to the Indian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0179/00

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

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Exploratory drilling in the Biesbosch

The Dutch Minister for Economic Affairs, A. Jorritsma, has given approval to NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij) to carry out exploratory drilling in the Biesbosch, where the company is expecting to find gas.

The Biesbosch is a national park covered by the European directive on birds. Moreover, the Dutch Government is proposing that it should be made a Special Protection Area under Community law. The Dutch Parliament will be taking a decision on this in the middle of February.

1. Does the Commission agree that a nature reserve covered by the European directive on birds should be spared industrial activity of this kind?

2. Does the Commission agree that, in this case, ecological concerns should prevail over (short-term) economic interests?

3. Does the Commission intend to get the Dutch Government and Minister Jorritsma not to go ahead with this exploratory drilling?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the issue that is raised by the Honourable Member.

De Biesbosch is one of the most important sites designated under national legislation (Natuurbeschermingswet).

De Biesbosch also merits designation as a special protection area (SPA) as specified in Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1). The Dutch authorities intend to designate the site but have not yet done so.

According to caselaw of the Court of justice a site that has to be designated as a SPA must be protected in conformity with Articles 6(3), 6(4) and 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna(2).

Article 6(3) implies that an assessment is required in the case of a plan or project that is likely to have a significant effect on a SPA. The authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications and in the absence of alternative solutions, the plan or project must nevertheless be carried out, the Member State has to comply with all the specific requirements that are mentioned in Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

The Commission is taking the necessary steps to ensure that the environmental legislation of the Community is fully complied with in this case.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0503/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(25 February 2000)

Subject: Reassignment of Council staff

What procedures does the Council have available, and how often are they implemented, for the reassignment of staff from one directorate-general which may need fewer staff to another directorate-general which may need more staff? How effective have these measures been in terms of the number of posts transferred each year between directorates-general as a percentage of total numbers in post? Can the Council give any other information about its reassignment of staff?

Reply

(2 May 2000)

At the start of the 1980s the General Secretariat of the Council introduced a policy on in-house mobility guided by the principle, recognised in the Staff Regulations, that any official should be able to apply for a transfer within his institution (Article 7 (1)). This policy is based on the premise that it is not only in the interest of the person applying for the transfer but also in the interest of the institution to give a person who wants to be reassigned opportunities for mobility.

However, in response to the question put by the Honourable Member, the General Secretariat has not yet established any particular internal procedures or rules for the reassignment or redeployment of staff within its services and directorates-general. In practice, though, over the last few years there have been several isolated instances where staff have been reassigned so as to bolster existing teams or set up new ones, depending on the urgency and the importance of certain dossiers. This redeployment has been carried out in compliance with the mobility procedure. In particular, these were officials who were assigned to the Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit (PPEWU) and to the co-decision legislative procedure unit.

Moreover, the Secretary-General has also set up a Task Force, which offers temporary back-up from officials who are provisionally seconded away from their regular duties in order to cope with any non-routine and exceptional needs of the Institution, such as IGCs or negotiations on successive enlargements.

The General Secretariat of the Council sets great store by there being a degree of flexibility with regard to redeployment in order to be able to be able to deal with new and urgent matters whenever necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0993/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(30 March 2000)

Subject: Procedures for implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)

The recent adoption by the European Parliament of the Swoboda Report(1) on the negotiation of a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia establishes a suitable framework guaranteeing the security and development of the country so as to allow FYROM gradually to come into the European fold.

Will the Council say what steps it intends to take next to implement in the near future all the measures announced and promised in the Swoboda report for FYROM?

(1) Verbatim Report of Proceedings of 17 February 2000, p. 81.

Reply

(26 June 2000)

The Stabilisation and Association process is the centrepiece of the European Union's policy in the Balkans. The overall objective of the Union is the fullest possible integration of the countries in the Region into the political and economic mainstream of Europe.

The Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) is a new type of bilateral Agreement which the European Union offers to the countries of the Region, in return for compliance with certain political and economic conditions.

A negotiating directive for an SAA with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was adopted by the Council on 24 January 2000. This was the first negotiating directive for an Agreement of this kind in Region and represents a significant step forward in the development of EU's Stabilisation and Association process.

Negotiations under the responsibility of the European Commission have opened in March, and the two sides have expressed their wish to aim at finishing negotiations by the end of the year. The Council is confident that the European Commission is fully aware of the recommendations in the Report by Mr Swoboda. Upon completion of negotiations, the signature and conclusion of the Agreement will take place according to the procedures foreseen by the relevant provisions of the Treaties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0479/00

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Objective 2 for the Balearic Islands

The municipality of Consell (on Majorca, Balearic Islands) submitted to the Balearic Islands regional government a project for an extension to the town's school to promote adult education and vocational training, under Objective 2.

Mr Rechach, departmental secretary-general for documentation in the Ministry for Economic Affairs of the government of the autonomous community of the Balearic Islands, informed the mayor that the European Commission had rejected the project because it was located at the school.

Has any proposal under Objective 2 been received from Consell in connection with the above project?

Has the European Commission taken a formal decision to reject the project?

If so, on what grounds was the decision based?

Has the Commission held any meetings with the government of the autonomous community of the Balearic Islands?

If so, what information was given to the Balearic Islands regional government on Objective 2?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

At the technical meetings prior to the meeting of the Monitoring Committee on 10 December 1999 concerning the Objective 2 operational programme for the Balearic Islands for the 1997-1999 programming period, the representatives of the regional administration submitted to the Commission a first provisional list of projects for possible part-financing under measure 5.2 Training and vocational development centres of that programme. That list included a project for the municipality of Consell.

At those technical meetings, all the proposed projects, including that concerning Consell, were analysed from all points of view (objectives, estimated costs and monitoring indicators, content and eligibility of expenditure, financial and physical identification of the projects not directly subject to local government administrations, completion of national commitments before 31 December 1999, compliance with procedures for the award of contracts). The final list of projects to be submitted by the regional administration had to be available no later than the day of the meeting of the Monitoring Committee.

At the meeting of the Monitoring Committee on 10 December, the regional administration submitted a list of eleven projects, which the Committee approved. It includes assistance to the municipalities of Alaró, Binissalem, Búger, Campanet (2), Inca (3), Lloseta, Santa Maria and Selva. The total cost envisaged amounts to 6,24 million, for which the European Regional Development Fund will provide part-finance of 50 %.

Within the framework of the partnership, the Commission wishes to stress the clarity of the procedure and the level of transparency adopted by the regional administration in drawing up this programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0543/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Draft new Community framework on State aid for environmental protection

The Commission is currently discussing with the Member States an important document on a Community framework for State aid for environmental protection. This is to come into force in July 2000. The Community framework is essential for the management of State environmental aid, for example with regard to Member States' promotion of renewable energy sources.

1. What are the main criteria by which the Council judges State aid for environmental protection?

2. More precisely, what approach to support for renewable energy sources underlies the Community framework?

3. How will the Council ensure the transparency and cooperation with Parliament promised by the Commission President, Romano Prodi?

Reply

(18 May 2000)

The Council has, on many occasions, emphasised the importance of promoting renewable sources of energy as a means of achieving the goals of both energy policy and environment policy. In this context, the Commission is to submit a proposal for a Directive on access for electricity from renewables to the internal electricity market in the very near future.

With respect to state aid, the Council recalls its Resolution on renewable sources of energy(1), adopted on 8 June 1998 in which it noted that Member States choose the most appropriate means of promoting use of renewables mldr which are best suited to their national circumstances and are in conformity with Treaty obligations and comply with Community state aid guidelines for environmental protection. Moreover, the Council welcomed the intention of the Commission to consider appropriate modifications in favour of renewable energy sources during the revision of the guidelines for Community state aid.

(1) OJ C 198, 8.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0332/00

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Financing arrangements for combating veterinary disease in the EU

Under the new financial framework, agricultural expenditure is subject to even more restrictions than hitherto. The EU has, in recent years, experienced widespread outbreaks of veterinary disease (in particular BSE and swine fever) that have placed a heavy burden of expenditure on the EU budget.

In the different Member States the costs of combating veterinary sickness are met from the national budget by constituting special funds, the better to be prepared for possible outbreaks, or by developing particular insurance schemes.

Can the Commission:

1. Provide a summary outline of the arrangements for financing the response to outbreaks of veterinary disease, the combating of which is required pursuant to European regulations or directives in Member States?

2. Look into options for financing the costs of any future outbreaks of such infectious diseases of farm animals from funds specially set up for that purpose or by developing special insurance schemes?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

The cost of veterinary diseases is generally made up of two elements: compensation paid to farmers for the slaughter of their animals, and operating costs for measures to combat these diseases.

The method of calculating and rules on meeting these costs are governed by national law. As regards compensation for farmers, the Member States have generally opted for one of the following arrangements: the cost of veterinary diseases is either funded by means of a special budget earmarked for animal health, or a State fund for veterinary diseases steps in to meet the costs incurred. This is financed through compulsory contributions from farmers, which are usually supplemented by a balancing subsidy from the public authorities. The contributions payable by farmers and the compensation to which they are entitled sometimes depend on the size of the farm concerned.

The Commission is not aware of the existence of any private insurance schemes currently operating on the market and providing farmers with cover against the risks arising from veterinary diseases. However, as the Commission already indicated in the Report on the situation in the pigmeat sector in the European Union with a view to possible changes to structural support measures(1), it would welcome the creation of an insurance scheme for emergencies funded by farm producers' contributions.

On the other hand, the financial support from the public authorities should be conditional upon the disease being notified without delay, and upon the provisions of Community legislation on the eradication of diseases including Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field(2) being implemented effectively.

(1) COM(98) 434 final.

(2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.