ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1257/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Delays in salvaging the cargo of the stranded tanker Erika because of secrecy surrounding the presence on board of special industrial waste

1. Is the Commission aware of press reports (Le Parisien of 31 March and Rotterdams Dagblad of 1 April 2000) which assume that the Erika, the tanker

lost off the West coast of France in February, was carrying not only heavy fuel oil but also, according to Ineris (the French institute for the environment and energy), a carcinogenic substance which is presumed to be special industrial waste which is so toxic that it may not be transported?

2. Is the Commission also aware of the assumption in these press reports that the French Prime Minister, Mr Jospin, had promised the oil company TotalFina which had chartered the Erika that he would keep secret any information on the tanker's cargo and that this is one of the reasons why Smit Tak, the Rotterdam salvage company, has still not been able to start the salvaging work?

3. Does the Commission believe it is acceptable for the likely consequences of the disaster to be kept secret from the public because of an undertaking by one of the governments concerned to an interested party, with the result that greater importance is attached to financial interests than to safety, the environment and public health?

4. Is the Commission prepared to work towards openness on the part of everyone concerned, in the immediate future, as to the impact on the living environment at sea and on the coast and on public health?

5. What does the Commission intend to do to speed up the salvage work so that further pollution caused by residues of cargo escaping from the ship can be stopped forthwith?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

1. The Commission has heard certain allegations, widely reported by the media, regarding the type of oil the Erika was carrying. In this connection it considered with interest the information the French authorities provided regarding the carcinogenic nature of the substance and the instructions to take precautions when carrying out cleaning operations. The Commission also took note of the French authorities' statement, repeated on several occasions, that the Erika was carrying a category 2 heavy fuel, according to the usual classification of commercial petroleum products.

2. to 4. The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the press release issued by the French authorities on 31 March 2000 with the heading: Pumping of the Erika: transparency and the protection of industrial secrets, available at:

http://www.equipement.gouv.fr/actualites.

5. The Commission believes that decisions relating to the pumping of the Erika are the responsibility of the French authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1684/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 May 2000)

Subject: Monitoring of the European Investment Bank's financial operations

Is the Council concerned about the allegations made recently by a former employee of the European Investment Bank (EIB). Carlo de Nicola, regarding losses of hundreds of millions of euros on the international bond markets and the policy of dealing only through certain brokers, at least one of whom was a former employee of the Bank, at exorbitant rates of commission? Does the Council believe that the Consolidated Treaty should be altered at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference so that the Court of Auditors is given full powers to monitor the activities of the EIB?

Reply

(10 October 2000)

In accordance with the Treaty, the Court of Auditors examines the accounts of all revenue and expenditure of the Community. Thus its audit of the accounts of the EIB is, in principle, limited to those items which involve such revenue and expenditure.

In accordance with Article 14 of the Protocol on the Statute of the EIB, a committee of three members, appointed on the grounds of their competence by the Board of Governors, shall annually verify that the operations of the Bank have been conducted and its books kept in a proper manner. The committee shall, furthermore, confirm that the balance sheet and profit and loss account are in agreement with the accounts and faithfully reflect the position of the Bank in respect of its assets and liabilities.

As the Honourable Member is probably aware, the Council has no role in the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States and is therefore unable to comment on work being undertaken by the Conference. The European Parliament, on the other hand, has two observers who are closely involved in the work of the Conference at the preparatory level.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1802/00

by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Ozgur case

The Turkish Cypriot politician Ozker Ozgur is to be committed to trial on 26 May by the authorities of the Cypriot territory under Turkish occupation, on the charge of incitement to rebellion. In fact, proceedings are being taken against Mr Ozgur, together with the editor and staff of the newspaper Avrupa, because in his articles he has repeatedly opposed the expulsion of citizens from their houses so that these may be used by Turkish soldiers. Mr Ozgur states that he refuses to be tried by an occupation court. This case forms one of a series of indirect interventions by the Turkish military establishment, designed to maintain Mr Denktash as leader of the Turkish Cypriot people. As well as the wider issue of the functioning of democracy, Mr Ozgur's case undoubtedly constitutes a flagrant violation of individual rights and, of course, freedom of expression.

Does the Commission intend to examine the question of the continued violation of individual and human rights in the sector of Cyprus occupied by Turkish troops, and how does it intend to intervene in order to ensure a fair trial?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2000)

The Commission is well aware of the recent committal to trial of the Turkish Cypriot politician Ozker Ozgur raised by the Honourable Member and will be following developments closely. The same is the case for the editor and staff of the newspaper Avrupa. Each year the Commission produces a regular report on each candidate country reviewing progress in the light of the Copenhagen criteria, including human rights. In the case of Cyprus there is a special section dealing with the situation in the northern part of the island(1). It is likely that the cases mentioned by the Honourable Member will be dealt with in this year's report due to be published in autumn 2000.

(1) COM(1999) 502 final, 13.10.99, page 11.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1486/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: EU-funded Gay and Lesbian Educational Equity Project Pilot Schools meeting in Oulu, Finland

The promotion of homosexuality in schools is currently a very politically sensitive subject in the UK, with the Labour Government's recent proposals to abolish Section 28 of the Local Government Act, which prohibits such promotion, facing overwhelming public resistance.

The first meeting of the Gay and Lesbian Educational Equity Project Pilot Schools, which is funded by the Commission, states that one of its aims is the creation of strategies such as curriculum development in the Member States. Can the Commission confirm that the GLEE Project will comply fully, with Article 149 of the Treaty and will fully respect the responsibility of Member States for teaching content?

Furthermore, can the Commission also confirm that the GLEE Project will not go beyond its main objective, which is to combat discrimination against homosexuality, and promote views that many parents across the EU may find unacceptable?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

Drawing up programmes is one of the main activities under Socrates, thus contributing to the achievement of objectives set in Article 149 of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 126), in particular developing the European dimension in education and promoting cooperation between educational establishments. It is explicitly provided for in Decision No 576/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 1998 amending Decision No 819/95/EC establishing the Community action programme Socrates(1) and must be achieved while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organization of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.

The objective of the Gay and Lesbian Education Equity project is to encourage the equal treatment of homosexuals and lesbians in educational establishments and to combat prejudices and discrimination in future generations. This project was submitted to the 1999 selection board under action 3.1 of the Comenius programme by a partnership of several well-known European universities. Combating all kinds of discrimination in education is one objective of this action. The proposed activities are eligible under this objective, and the application submitted was of a high quality in technical terms. The decision to fund the project was taken in accordance with the selection procedure for action 3.1 and was approved by the Comenius subcommittee.

Projects under action 3.1 are monitored to make sure that the proposed activities are implemented in accordance with the work schedule in the application and that the objectives of the project are achieved.

(1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2452/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Freedom of movement for notaries within the EU

Does the Commission regard the insistence by certain Member States that nationals of other EU States who wish to practise as notaries must first take up the nationality of the country where they wish to work as an infringement of the European Treaties and, if so, what steps have been taken to remedy the situation?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The nationality condition, which is required by some Member States for the profession of notary on the basis of Article 45 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 55), raises some doubts as to its compatibility with the article in question, even though there is little case law concerning the article(1). The Commission has therefore approached the Member States. Portugal has repealed this requirement, whereas Spain and Italy have indicated readiness to open the profession to nationals of other Member States. The lengthy and reasoned replies from seven other Member States Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are being thoroughly examined, with the aim of taking the necessary decisions without delay.

(1) See in particular the judgment in Case 2/74 (Reyners), concerning the profession of avocat. The judgments in Cases 42/92, C-114/97 and C-355/98 concern professions involving even greater differences than the profession of notary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2291/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: European production of mercury soap

Is the Commission aware that soap containing high levels of mercury is being produced in Europe, and is being smuggled to African countries where it is being used to bleach hair and skin? The soap is linked to serious medical disorders as well as environmental pollution.

Would the Commission support the introduction of a Europe-wide ban on the production of mercury soap?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products(1), annex II no. 221 b., states, as a general principle, that any cosmetic product sold on the European market may not contain mercury. In spite of this prohibition, recent inspections in Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway have found soaps containing mercury on their home market. These soaps were surprisingly produced in either Spain or the United Kingdom. The existence of these products has been notified to all Member States.

In addition, the Commission has asked both Spain and the United Kingdom to take action against the production of these soaps in their Member States. This will prevent any export of mercury soap from Europe into Africa. Colipa, the association for cosmetic producers, has also been asked to take action and to inform its members about the findings.

The Commission is monitoring closely the implementation of the ban on the production of these soaps.

(1) OJ L 269, 27.9.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1771/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Rail services in Ireland

Bearing in mind the EU's responsibility in developing a common transport policy incorporating rail and road and other modes of transport, what are the Commission's powers in ensuring that Member States invest sufficiently in rail services, and what are its views on Iarnrod Eireann's decision not to reopen Monasterevin railway station in Co. Kildare, Ireland, despite the fact that a demand for one exists amongst car commuters driving to Dublin on a daily basis?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Through the dedicated budget for Trans-European networks and through the structural funds, the Commission is able to co-finance studies and investments in rail infrastructure for projects defined in the guidelines for the development of the Trans-European transport network (TEN-T). In Ireland, the main railway line between Dublin and Portarlington (Galway/Limerich/Cork/Tralee) is defined as part of the outline map of the TEN rail network. In principle upgrading and construction projects on this route could be eligible for Community financial support, subject to meeting the criteria and priorities established in the TEN guidelines.

The choice of investment priorities, whether or not Community financial assistance is requested, is the responsibility of the national authorities alone.

In general terms, the Commission pursues the policy objective of promoting rail to become an efficient transport mode and to tackle current transport related problems such as congestion and environmental externalities. In order to implement these objectives the Commission has made proposals to adapt the regulatory framework appropriately, for instance in the area of market opening and infrastructure charging principles. As to the question of reopening Monasterevin railway station the Commission takes the view that the investment decisions relating to rail commuter infrastructure should be left to the appropriate authorities at the local or regional level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2459/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Seizure of passports of suspected football hooligans by the German authorities

Does the Commission believe that the seizing of the passports of approximately five hundred suspected football hooligans by the German authorities immediately prior to the Euro 2000 football tournament was compatible with the European Treaties?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2000)

Public policy measures taken by the Member States must be appraised in the light of Directive 64/221/EEC(1) and the case law of the Court of Justice, which guarantee the rights of persons subject to measures restricting their freedom of movement or their right of residence.

Limitations, on grounds of public policy and public security requirements, to rights guaranteed by the EC Treaty should not be in excess of what is necessary to safeguard these requirements(2).

It is primarily for the national authorities to appraise the specific situation and subsequently to take the appropriate measures in compliance with Community law. On the basis of the information available to it and given the circumstances, the Commission feels that the measures referred to by the Honourable Member, appear to be proportionate to the end sought, are based on the hooligan's personal conduct, and are detailed and limited in time.

(1) Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (OJ 56, 4.4.1964).

(2) See Case 36/75 Rutili v. Minister for the Interior ECR [1975] II-1219.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1369/00

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Tobacco Community Fund for Research and Information

1. Can the Commission confirm that, each year, 2 % of the amount earmarked for tobacco premiums (Chapter B1-17 of the budget), i.e. some 20 million, is placed in the Community Fund for Research and Information relating to tobacco (B1-175), as announced by the Council?

2. Have any projects been announced since 1997 which are to be paid for by this Fund?

3. On what tobacco research and information projects was this money spent in 1997-1999, and how much was spent on them?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1369/00 and P-1370/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

1. The Community Tobacco Fund (Research and Information) was set up under Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco(1). This Article was amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1636/98 of 20 July 1998(2), which widened the purposes of the Fund and raised the deduction to 2 % of the premium paid to growers for each crop. At the moment this corresponds to about 19 million.

In practice the Commission launches projects financed from the ad hoc heading Community fund for research and information (B1-185). The appropriations for this correspond to the estimate of actual costs incurred for the financial year in question. The Commission ensures that appropriations/expenditure under this heading do not exceed the product of the deduction.

2. The Fund has not financed any new projects since 1997 but the appropriations available have permitted financing of the projects in progress selected following two calls for proposals, in 1994 and in 1996. These multiannual projects are in effect financed in annual instalments.

The Commission plans to launch new projects in the coming months.

3. The projects in progress and the appropriations allotted to them for 1997-1999 are:

Research:

- 1997: 2 747 666, for projects 94/T/12, 94/T/19-24, 94/T/22, 96/T/18, 96/T/66 and 96/T/67.

- 1998: 2 690 916, for projects 94/T/12, 94/T/19-24, 94/T/22, 96/T/18, 96/T/24, 96/T/35, 96/T/55, 96/T/66 and 96/T/67.

- 1999: 2 385 727, for projects 94/T/12, 94/T/19-24, 94/T/22, 96/T/18, 96/T/24, 96/T/35, 96/T/55, 96/T/66 and 96/T/67.

Information:

- 1997: 610 719,16, for projects 96/I.T./13, 96/I.T./26, 96/I.T./28, 96/I.T./33, 96/I.T./37, 96/I.T./57 and 96/I.T./73.

- 1998: 1 311 027,30, for projects 96/I.T./13, 96/I.T./26, 96/I.T./33, 96/I.T./36, 96/I.T./44, 96/I.T./55, 96/I.T./57, 97/I.T./12 and 97/I.T./33.

- 1999: 210 748,61, for projects 96/I.T./28, 96/I.T./37, 97/I.T./3 and 97/I.T./33.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1878/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Compensation for the ban on cod fishing in the northern part of the Irish Sea

Is the European Commission able to provide funds for payments to fishermen as compensation for damage to their business caused by the imposition of the ban on cod fishing in the northern part of the Irish Sea?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1878/00 and E-1879/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member of the terms of Article 16(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999(1). This stipulates that Member States may grant compensation to fishermen and fishing-vessel owners, to be part-financed by the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), in the context of a plan for the recovery of a resource threatened with exhaustion. The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that it is up to the authority managing the relevant structural programme to decide whether or not to grant such compensation, subject to detailed compliance with the above provisions.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999, 17 December 1999 laying down the procedures and conditions of the structural measures of the Community in the fisheries sector (OJ L 337, 30.12.1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1243/00

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

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Contract awarded by the municipality of Messina for the construction of a tramway funded by the European Union

The municipality of Messina (Italy) has contracted out the construction of a tramway to be financed with European funding worth Lit 148 billion.

There has already been a considerable delay in the envisaged timetable for the work and substantial environmental damage has been and is continuing to be done. For example, more than 3000 trees have been uprooted.

The project was drawn up and financed without an environmental impact assessment and phases of the project have allegedly been paid for without the prescribed checks being carried out.

Can the Commission give details of the whole process of granting funding for this project, in particular the checks carried out when phases of the project are paid for, and specify what amounts are involved?

Answer by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

The multifund operational programme for Sicily for the 1994-1999 programme period includes (measure 3,5) aid for urban rail transport projects. The Region of Sicily applied for proposed part-financing of a tramway at Messina (Gazzi-Annunziata route).

The project is at present under examination by the Commission, which recently asked the regional authorities for additional information covering the aspects of the environmental impact assessment to which the Honourable Member refers.

Following its examination the Commission will decide on financing of the project.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1587/00

by Jürgen Zimmerling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Effects of the resolutions on Cyprus

On 16 November 1995, and again on 27 March 1996, the European Parliament adopted resolutions on the situation in Cyprus (B4-1387/95(1) and B4-0034/96(2)):

- What effect have these resolutions had?

- What was the Turkish reaction to them?

(1) OJ C 323, 4.12.1995, p. 117.

(2) OJ C 117, 22.4.1996, p. 15.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Honourable Member's question refers to incidents and tensions along the buffer zone between the two communities in Cyprus.

The Commission firmly believes that, following the positive developments at the Helsinki European Council in December 1999 and in the light of the greatly improved relations between Greece and Turkey, along with the designation by the Member States of Turkey as a candidate country, a start has been made towards decreasing political tensions in Cyprus. This summer will see the resumption in Geneva of the proximity talks between the two communities lead by the United Nations. The Commission hopes that further progress towards a lasting settlement of the political problem will be made. Meanwhile, the enlargement negotiations with the Republic of Cyprus are progressing well with 15 of the negotiating chapters provisionally closed. Further initiatives are being taken to set up bi-communal projects following the visit of the member responsible for Enlargement to Cyprus in March 2000. The Commission is of the opinion that the proximity talks and accession process can mutually reinforce each other thereby reducing tensions and incidents as noted in the resolutions of the Parliament cited by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is not aware of any precise reaction from the Turkish authorities to these resolutions.