ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1080/00

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Cigarette smuggling in European ports

1. Is the Commission aware of the successful use of the new container scanner in the port of Rotterdam, resulting last year in the discovery of many million contraband cigarettes along with other smuggled goods, including drugs and alcohol?

2. Is the Commission prepared to encourage use of similar methods in other ports in the EU in order to counteract smuggling in cigarettes and other goods, and also to prevent ships going to ports where there are less effective checks?

3. What action can the Commission take in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

The Commission is aware of the success of the new container scanner in Rotterdam, as well as scanners used in other Member States, and is working with Member States on a number of projects to improve customs controls. Such work promotes not only the use of modern equipment such as container scanners but also overall improvements in customs activities. One area of particular importance, and where an action plan is in the process of being implemented, relates to the use of risk analysis to ensure that containers selected for examination are those of greatest interest.

Ongoing work also aims at increasing co-operation between major ports in order to ensure customs treatment is equivalent and, most particularly, to prevent traffic being diverted to avoid controls. One pilot project, in which the customs authorities of Rotterdam are heavily involved, will focus on the exchange of expertise between major ports on the use of container scanners and on the rapid exchange of information relating to main risk analysis areas.

The results of these actions, which are financed under the Customs 2002(1) modernisation programme, will be examined with Member States' customs administrations. The Commission will report on their outcome to Parliament in accordance with the terms of the Customs 2002 Decision.

(1) Decision No 105/2000/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 1999 amending Decision No 210/97/EC adopting an action programme for customs in the Community (Customs 2000) and repealing Council Decision 91/341/EEC (OJ L 13, 19.1.2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1783/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Compulsory use of typewriters

Is the Commission aware that its departments are insisting that applications for the Exploratory Award and CRAFT must be typewritten?

Is this a considered policy?

If typewriters are now required of small businesses, will the Commission please state how many typewriters it uses itself?

Will it make rooms available, possibly in the Commission offices in national capitals, in which business people will be able to find typewriters with which to fill in their Commission application forms, should they have unfortunately decided to retire their old typewriters?

Is the Commission of the opinion that typewriters are likely to make a comeback at the expense of the word processor? If so, why?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

The information package related to exploratory awards and CRAFT says that the application forms must be completed by typewriter or computer. Since the application forms are interactive in the sense that they are available on the Cordis web site, they can be downloaded and filled out by computer. This option, which does not necessitate the use of a typewriter, is used by most applicants.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2324/00

by Gerard Collins (UEN) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: URBAN Community Initiative

The URBAN Community Initiative as agreed under the Agenda 2000 package in March 1999 is intended to aid social and economic regeneration in declining towns and run-down urban districts. Continuity of funding is vital for the survival of many small community groups involved in projects of this nature. While the Commission has already adopted its final version of the guidelines for the URBAN II Initiative, providing for 700 million in funding from 2000-2006, local groups are still waiting to draw down such funds. Can the Commission say whether it is prepared to speed up the process of releasing the URBAN II funds so as to allow key socio-economic projects to proceed?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The Commission adopted guidelines on 28 April 2000 for the Community initiative URBAN II concerning economic and social regeneration in urban areas(1). Member States wishing to benefit from URBAN II are invited to present programme proposals within six months after the publication of this notice, by 19 November 2000.

Programme proposals are drawn up and submitted to the Commission by the authorities designated by the Member States concerned. Project costs are eligible for support from the day the operational programme arrives at the Commission and is declared admissible (if it contains all the necessary information for assessment). The sooner the Member States present their proposals for eligible areas, complying with the criteria as mentioned in the URBAN II guidelines, and subsequently the different operational programmes, the faster the Commission can start the adoption procedures. The Commission will decide on the contribution from the funds not later than five months after receiving the relevant plans.

The Commission is aware of the need for support for certain small community groups involved in social and economic regeneration projects, and will ensure rapid adoption of the various operational programmes.

With regard to continuity of funding the Commission would point out that URBAN II especially targets formulation and implementation of innovative strategies for sustainable economic and social regeneration. The number of URBAN community initiative programmes will decrease compared to the previous programming period 1994-1999 when URBAN funded programmes in a total of 118 urban areas. For the 2000-2006 programming period the number of urban areas to be covered under the new initiative will be limited to around 50. However, some community groups previously eligible under URBAN I might now be located in an objective 1 or objective 2 urban strand. Therefore the various programming documents of these should integrate urban development measures for the main urban areas in the region.

(1) OJ C 141, 19.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1994/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Urban waste water treatment systems in Greece

Under Council Directive 91/271/EEC(1), Greece is required to install urban waste water treatment systems in all agglomerations with a population exceeding 2000 throughout its territory by the year 2005.

Can the Commission provide the following information:

1. How many agglomerations with a population exceeding 2000 have been linked up to urban waste water treatment systems?

2. How many Greek agglomerations will have been linked up to urban waste water systems by the year 2005?

3. What are the dangers for Greece arising from failure to comply with Council Directive 91/271/EEC?

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

As stated by the Honourable Member, Directive 91/271/EEC on the treatment of urban waste water requires Member States to ensure that all settlements having more than 2000 inhabitant equivalents. are provided with urban waste water collection and treatment systems. An inhabitant equivalent is a unit for measuring the organic pollution

representing the average pollution produced per person per day. The deadlines for that provision are 31 December 1998, 31 December 2000 and 31 December 2005, depending upon the size of the settlement and the sensitivity of the recipient water.

It should be noted that the size of the settlement to be taken into account when designing systems must include not only the corresponding load from the residents in the settlement concerned, but also that corresponding to the seasonal population and to the industrial waste water load fed into the urban waste-water system.

The Commission is currently examining the situation in built-up areas in the Member States in terms of the Directive's first deadline 31 December 1998 which concerns settlements of more than 10 000 IEs which discharge into sensitive areas and their catchment areas. In early 2001 it will publish a report on the current situation as regards the collection and treatment of waste waters in all the of the settlements concerned. According to the information received from the Greek authorities there are 29 settlements with more than 10 000 IE in Greece which discharge their waste water into sensitive recipients and their catchment areas.

The Greek authorities have also stated that the 797 Greek settlements with more than 2000 IEs covered by the Directive will comply with that Directive's requirements on 31 December 2005. The Commission will subsequently check that the 31 December 2000 and 31 December 2005 deadlines are met.

If the obligations under the directive were not met the Commission could bring an infringement action against the Member State (concerned).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1856/00

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) and Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Languages used for Commission press releases

What is the Commission's linguistic policy and usage with regard to the media?

Is it true that press releases issued after Commission meetings are in French and English only?

In the last five years, have there been any protests from any Member State government in this connection, or any proposals that this policy should be changed?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

The majority of Commission press releases are available in all eleven Community languages. However, for practical reasons connected with the time taken for translation and in agreement with the accredited press represented in the International Press Association (IPA), most press releases are issued only in French and English (and/or German) at the regular midday press conference. In the case of press releases about Commission meetings, the other languages are available electronically on the Internet within a very short time (the Rapid database).

Certain press releases are not translated into all eleven languages, namely those relating to company mergers (FR/EN/DE + language of the Member State concerned), state aid and infringement proceedings (FR/EN + language of the Member State concerned) and to the weekly timetable of Commission activities.

The Commission is not aware of any official government complaint about the languages used for press releases.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1678/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Relay Europe

Relay Europe is responsible for distributing information on the EU within the UK.

It also sells a range of products, including clothing, umbrellas, watches, badges, flags and balloons, all emblazoned with the EU flag. In the context of the UK political debate, this is patently for consumption by supporters of ever closer union and constitutes a political statement.

What subsidies does Relay Europe receive?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Relay Europe does not receive any subsidy from the Commission.

Relay Europe is a private organisation, part of the Charlemagne group, and is under contract with the Commission representation in the United Kingdom. It provides logistics and organisational services for conferences and training sessions organised on behalf of the Commission. The contract was concluded on the basis of a call for tender won by Relay Europe in 1997. Relay Europe is not responsible for distributing information on the Union.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the Charlemagne group has another subsidiary called Euro-Style, which sells products carrying the Union flag on a purely commercial basis. It is up to consumers to decide whether or not to buy these products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2166/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Funding of the Turkish armed forces by the European Union

According to recent press reports, a Turkish general recently proposed that the new plan for the Turkish armed forces deployed in south-eastern Turkey should be funded from EU aid to Turkey. However, the aid granted to Turkey by the EU is intended to develop the country to make it a viable candidate for future membership of the EU and not to help tackle Turkey's long-term security problems in its south-eastern provinces caused by its refusal to resolve the Kurdish problem.

How confident is the Commission that the appropriations allocated to Turkey with a view to promoting its bid for accession to the European Union will not end up in the budgets of the Turkish armed forces to be used to strengthen Turkey's military machine in violation of all the relevant EU legislation?

What means and procedures is the Commission employing to ensure and monitor the proper use of EU funds in Turkey and to frustrate the wishes of the Turkish military?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that its partner for the implementation of financial cooperation with Turkey is a department of the Treasury, and that, from the time of the Helsinki Council meeting, all funds allocated to Turkey have been directed to operations connected with the pre-accession strategy. The Commission and the Turkish authorities are in complete agreement on this approach.

The funds available for Turkey are committed in accordance with the Council regulations governing the implementation of such cooperation, which expressly forbid all cooperation in military matters. The Commission can confirm, moreover, that it has at no stage financed an operation connected to any activity of the Turkish army, and that it has not the least intention of considering any project that comes within the domain of military affairs.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that every project financed by the Commission is submitted for an opinion to the Med Committee, composed of representatives of Member States, and that a report on the use of funds is presented each year to Parliament.

During the implementation of operations which it is financing, the Commission monitors closely the unfolding of events, in collaboration with its representatives in Ankara, checks that the results correspond to the original objectives, and inspects the accounts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2016/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: EU shipbuilding industry

In his reply to my question E-2795/99(1), Commissioner Monti said that while under Council Regulation 1540/98(2) establishing new rules on aid for shipbuilding operating aid is to be abolished at the end of 2000, the same 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.

Can the Commission state whether this is a closed list of the types of aid that may be authorised up to 2003, or whether other forms of aid to protect the EU shipbuilding industry may in fact be permitted, particularly in the event of South Korea continuing with its practices of unfair competition in shipbuilding after September 2000?

Can the Commission state whether it has adopted or intends to adopt special aid measures for shipyards located in Objective 1 maritime regions in the outlying parts of the Union?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 132.

(2) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The first paragraph of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 on establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding makes it clear that the only aids to shipbuilding that may be considered compatible with the common market are those complying with the Regulation. No other types of aid are allowed.

As regards special aid measures for shipyards based in objective 1 maritime regions, regional considerations are taken into account as regards certain categories of aid covered by the Regulation. In the case of aids for research and development and aids for environmental protection, there is the possibility of top-ups above the normally applicable ceiling for yards in disadvantaged regions. In addition, the Regulation also allows investment aids for upgrading or modernising existing yards in regions eligible for regional aids under Article 87.3 (ex Article 92)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2136/00

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Ban on horse riding on designated roads

Can the Commission confirm that it has no intention of introducing legislation leading to a ban on horse riding on designated roads within the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission can confirm that it currently has no intention to introduce legislation that would seek to ban horse riding on designated roads within the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2496/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Means of sidestepping legislation governing companies selling time-share properties

Every law has its loophole, as the experience with time-share properties shows. Companies selling time-share properties have been reinventing themselves as holiday clubs as a means of sidestepping Community legislation on the use of immovable holiday property on a time-share basis.

In the view of many experts, companies previously involved in marketing holiday property are now selling holiday club vouchers and are thus avoiding falling within the scope of Community legislation, despite engaging in the same activity.

How does the Commission believe it could combat this particular means of sidestepping Community legislation, with a view to upholding the legitimate rights of users who are routinely cheated by those offering this type of holiday accommodation, which is a constant source of irregularities and deceit?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2000)

The Commission is aware of the marketing in some Member States of new products which in principle fall outside the scope of many national legislations implementing Directive 94/47/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis(1).

The Commission mentioned them in the report of 4 November 1999 on the application of Directive 94/47/EC(2). This report provides a comparative picture of the various approaches adopted by Member States in implementing Directive 94/47/EC and identifies the problems (such as described by the Honourable Member) still faced by private parties in their dealings with timeshare developers and vendors draws.

The Commission invited interested parties to submit, by 30 April 2000, any comments they may have on this report and any answers to its conclusions.

The Commission has received some 25 reactions coming from consumer organisations, the timeshare industry, lawyers, universities as well as public agencies from eight Member States.

The Commission is now examining each reply and will in due time make it possible to reopen the debate on possible adaptations or amendments to Directive 94/47/EC.

(1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994.

(2) SEC(1999) 1795.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0371/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Presence of the alga caulerpa taxifolia in the Mediterranean

In view of the fact that the alga caulerpa taxifolia is spreading in the Mediterranean Sea and causing serious damage to coastal fishing and marine flora and fauna,

Can the Commission say:

1. what steps it has taken or intends to take to combat the harmful effects of this alga?

2. what measures it envisages to provide compensation to fishermen operating in the areas affected by the alga?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the problem mentioned by the Honourable Member. Demonstration projects have been funded by the LIFE instrument in 1992 and 1995 in the

Mediterranean countries concerned by the expansion of Caulerpa taxifolia. These projects aimed to raise the awareness of public bodies, private interested parties and the general public, to map the areas covered by the algae, to carry out experiments on means of controlling this expansion and to design a possible strategy of control or containment.

The project results confirmed that the spread of Caulerpa taxifolia in the Mediterranean Basin constitutes a potential threat for biodiversity, mainly at the cost of other algae or at cost of marine plants (e.g. posidonia oceanica, cymodocea nodosa), and for some human activities, in widely affected areas. Moreover such studies have mapped the areas covered by Caulerpa taxifolia, at least those known at present, and monitored the rate of expansion of such colonisation. There is some scientific evidence of effects on fish but mainly not on species targeted by commercial fisheries.

With regard to a possible impact on artisanal fisheries, at present no scientific documentation reports negative effects on fisheries.

Fishermen can play an important role in preventing dissemination and slowing down the spread of the algae, by inspecting their anchors and fishing gear and not throwing the fragments of the seaweed back into the sea.

Concerning the issue of compensation measures for fishermen operating on fishing grounds affected by this algae, the Commission is of the opinion that the problem of caulerpa taxifolia does not meet the criteria for compensation measures envisaged within Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1).

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2307/00

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Information centres

The Commission now has a number of information centres for the general public (Info-Points and Rural Information Centres), whose job it is to acquaint the population with the European Union's policies and programmes. These centres currently receive a Community subsidy under budget heading B3-301.

In the context of the new information policy resulting from the current reform of the Commission there is no clear picture of the future role of these centres. Does the Commission intend to continue granting subsidies to these information and documentation networks or, instead, does it envisage these subsidies being provided by the Member States? If so, to what measures does the Commission intend to allocate the aid in order to continue to keep European citizens informed about the EU institutions' policies?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

It is particularly important to the Commission that the information networks, which it helped to develop and which it supports and encourages, should work well, as they have a key role to play in the decentralisation of information for the citizen.

The Commission does intend to continue granting subsidies to these information networks, within the limits laid down by the budgetary authority.

At the meeting on 26 July 2000, furthermore, the Commission asked the President and Ms Reding to submit proposals for the development of an integrated information and communication strategy, by the end of the year 2000. The importance of the role of the information centres will, of course, be taken into account in this context.