ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0583/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

Will the Commission state to what extent it believes the EU should consciously strive towards the harmonisation of transport policies in Europe, i.e. through common traffic rules, taxation regimes, maximum speed, safety requirements, and vehicle standards and deregulation policies?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission believes that transport policies should be harmonised to the extent necessary for the efficient functioning of the internal market, to avoid distortions of competition, and to promote environmental protection and transport safety.

On the question of common traffic rules for international traffic, these and certain internal rules, such as the size, shape and colour of road signs, are carried out within the Vienna Convention on international road transport which is administered by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

Regarding maximum speed, speed limits are set nationally by Member States. The Commission does not intend to intervene in this matter, unless it receives clear signals that this would stand a chance of success, but believes more could be achieved by developing speed management devices.

Concerning safety requirements and vehicle standards, a whole range of vehicle standards are already harmonised both for commercial and private vehicles.

In the road sector, the Commission recently published(1) a follow-up communication to its road safety communication of 1997 detailing progress made in the action programme for road safety 1997-2001 and setting priorities for future action.

The Commission has also just made another fundamental step forwards towards the enhancement of maritime safety in the Community waters through the adoption on 21 March 2000 of a communication on the safety of the seaborne oil-trade(2) in which it proposes to strengthen the existing legislation on port state controls and classification societies, but also to phase out oil tankers with a single hull in Community waters.

In the air transport, Commission is also acting in particular as regards safety through the creation of a European aviation safety authority, which would ensure through the integration of national systems a high and harmonised level of security.

(1) COM(2000) 125 final.

(2) COM(2000) 142.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0578/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Taxing aviation kerosene

I refer to my Question E-2169/99(1) and the answer in which the Commission supports the principle of taxing aviation kerosene but ascribes the absence of taxation today to the

international legal situation. Should we not be seeking to have the Chicago Convention, which dates back to the first half of the last century, revised in this respect? In the meantime, flights within Europe should be classified as internal flights and the proceeds of a kerosene tax used to fund environmental projects.

Is the Commission contemplating bold action along these lines?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 63.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The conclusions of the Commission in respect of a comprehensive study on the impact of the imposition of excise duties on kerosene have recently been presented in the communication on air transport and the environment(1) and the communication on taxation of aircraft fuel(2). The Commission will include the views of the Parliament on these two documents when developing further policies in this field.

There may well be a need for modernising the basic international law on aviation (Chicago convention) but this is a much broader issue and taxation is not really an issue in this context.

It is important to recognise that the Chicago convention itself does not pose the major concern regarding taxation of fuel used in international aviation. Current legal constraints stem from standard clauses in bilateral air services agreements concluded between signatory states of the Chicago conventions which are based on a decision by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) that fuel for use in international air transport shall be exempted from taxation.

The communication on air transport and environment as well as the communication on taxation of aircraft fuel contain a detailed assessment of the impact of imposition of excise duties on aviation fuel for intra-Community flights operated by Community air carriers.

(1) COM(1999) 640 final.

(2) COM(2000) 110 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0618/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Property speculation at Is Arenas

In reply to my Question No E-2177/99 (20 January 2000)(1), the Commission stated that the Is Arenas construction project would not be co-financed by the Community under the Structural Funds.

On 16 and 17 February 2000, the local press and television reported the declarations of a Sardinian politician whereby Community funding of ITL 4 billion under the Oristano Territorial Pact would be at risk if the Is Arenas construction project were to be blocked.

Can the Commission check whether this is true? What has the Oristano Territorial Pact got to do with the Is Arenas company's project? Are the 4 billion lire perhaps intended to fund this project?

If not, can the Commission confirm that the Oristano Territorial Pact would not be compromised if the Is Arenas company's project were to be blocked? If the funds are indeed intended for the project, does the Commission plan to freeze them, given that the project concerns an area which has been included in the proposed Natura 2000-Italy network and that no environmental impact assessment has been conducted?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 66.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

Since the Commission replied to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2177/99(1), it has been informed that the project in question was actually selected for inclusion in the Oristano Territorial Pact, which is part-financed by the Community Structural Funds under the Territorial Employment Pacts multiregional operational programme for the Objective 1 regions in Italy.

The Is Arenas company's project, which involves accommodation structures, was definitively approved by the Italian authorities in December 1999 and received part-financing from the European Regional Development Fund amounting to ITL 2 900 million (EUR 1,5 million) on a total investment of ITL 6 500 million (EUR 3,4 million).

The Commission is currently taking all the necessary steps to ascertain whether Community law on the environment has been violated. If so, the Commission would suspend Community assistance to the project in question.

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 66.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1203/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 April 2000)

Subject: Use of German shell bodies in a chemical attack carried out by the Turkish army

In reply to Written Question E-2386/99(1), the Council says that the sources referred to by the Honourable Member have not been brought to the attention of the Council.

However, the information sources on:

- German help in building a chemical weapons laboratory in Turkey,

- the use of chemical weapons by the Turkish army against the Kurdish PKK movement, and

- the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of chemical shell bodies used by the Turkish army

were mentioned in the introduction to the question

The sources are:

- the German Ministry of Defence,

- the Kennzeichen D programme on the ZDF television channel and

- research carried out by the University of Munich.

Furthermore, Points 3 and 5 of Written Question E-2386/99 literally stated that the Council had been made aware or had been informed of the facts (i.e. construction of a laboratory for chemical weapons and the use of chemical weapons).

Will the Council now seek information from the University of Munich on the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of the shell bodies used by the Turkish army in a chemical attack on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999?

If not, why does the Council refuse to seek information on the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of the shell bodies used by the Turkish army in a chemical attack on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999, given that it is a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?

If so, will the Council convey to the German and Turkish governments its displeasure at this violation of the CWC?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 38.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1203/00, E-1204/00 and E-1205/00

(10 July 2000)

All EU Member States are States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their destruction (CWC).

Article VIII of the Convention established the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to ensure the implementation of its provisions, including those for international verification of compliance with it. All States Parties to the CWC are members of the OPCW. This is the organisation entrusted with the verification of compliance by States Parties with the provisions of the Convention.

The specific questions referred to by the Honourable Member have not been raised within the Council or the Council bodies.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1265/00

by Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Clarification regarding the admissibility of special export aid under Community law

The storms which struck the western part of Europe in December 1999 have wreaked unprecedented havoc for forest industry. In spite of the debates in Parliament, the Union institutions have apparently failed to gauge the economic, social, and cultural impact of the devastation not to mention the increased fire risks as summer draws nearer.

To deal with the emergency, the French Government has decided, among other things, to grant the sum of FF 50 per tonne for the transport of timber intended for export to Union Member States and non-member countries.

Community rules on competition, and in particular the Community preference obligation, rightly prohibit aid of the above type unless its purpose is to bring relief to an exceptional situation. Article 87(2)(b) of the EC Treaty accordingly stipulates that [The following shall be compatible with the common market: mldr] aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences.

Will the Commission treat the present emergency as a special case of the same kind as, for example, the severe drought in Portugal in 1993 and 1994, and approve the aid that France has undertaken to provide?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

The aid proposal notified by the French authorities is under examination by the Commission with reference to paragraph 2(b) of Article 87 (formerly 92) of the EC Treaty. The Commission is doing all it can to reach a decision rapidly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0567/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: EU budgetary contribution

Will the Commission publish details of the net contribution to the EU budget of each Member State for each of the last available five years (a) on the basis of UK rebate budgetary balances (after reallocation of Customs duty revenue) and (b) on a gross basis before reallocation of Customs revenue? Will it say which basis it prefers, and why?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

The Honourable Member will find the answers to his questions in the documents called Allocation of 1998 EU operating expenditure by Member States for the period 1992-1998. Table 6 of the statistical annex answers question a) and the arithmetic difference between Table 3f and 4f answers question b). This report is also available on the web at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg19/pdf/agenda2000/statdepenses98.pdf.

The Commission believes that there is no optimal way to measure net contributions. The Commission has consistently argued in this sense. For a thorough discussion, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission report on own resources of October 1998 and in particular to Annex 3 and related references. This report is also available on the web at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg19/en/agenda2000/ownresources/index.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0342/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Reform of the WTO

What is the Commission doing to contribute to the essential work to be done on the root and branch reform of the WTO?

Will the Commission set a deadline of one year in order to ensure that urgent attention is given to the need to build credibility for the organisation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0207/00 and E-0342/00 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission made extensive proposals before the Seattle Ministerial Conference for more transparent procedures in the World trade organisation (WTO). Following the Seattle Ministerial Conference, the member responsable for trade outlined the Commission's views on this subject to the committee for industry, external trade, research and technology during his intervention on 25 January 2000. Whilst acknowledging that clear deficiencies of processes became visible during the Seattle Conference, the Commission nonetheless also believes that it would be counterproductive to launch a complete overhaul of the WTO at least until we have launched a new Round. Many of the problems that surfaced in Seattle were clearly attributable to differences on substance and punctual problems such as insufficient preparation of the Conference.

The Commission therefore favours a two-stage approach, in which a first step could lead to improvements in the preparation and organisation of ministerial conferences, improved participation particularly of developing countries, and increased transparency for the broader public interest.

More in-depth reforms, such as for instance the reform of structures and decision-making systems would need to be explored in a second stage (perhaps by a group of eminent people entrusted with this task by the General Affairs Council) to examine what might be feasible before launching any concrete proposals.

It should need no mention that all short term and long term reform measures will have to be discussed and agreed with the partners in the WTO.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0314/00

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Olive oil imports from third countries

A document on the development of the EAGGF Guarantee Section for the 1988-2000 period published by the European Parliament's Directorate-General for Committees and Delegations states clearly (p. 11) that

the European Union is self-sufficient as regards the production of olive oil. Despite this, the same document draws attention to the fact that the European Union is importing olive oil on preferential terms, mainly from Tunisia, Morocco and Turkey.

Will the Commission give the precise amounts of olive oil imported from the above three countries and indeed from any other Mediterranean countries and state why olive oil is being imported from outside the EU, and notably on preferential terms, given that the Union not only covers its needs through domestic production of olive oil, but actually produces a surplus of 107,2 %, according to 1996 data which are quoted by the above document?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Overall, the Community appears self-sufficient as regards production of olive oil. However, in many years the Community has to import to meet the demand for olive oil both at home and on the world market. Moreover, operators use olive oils from non-member countries for certain types of cutting of olive oils.

Concerning preferential imports, the Community has committed itself to importing certain quantities of olive oil from the Mediterranean countries. The principal concession concerns Tunisia with 46 000 tonnes of olive oil at reduced duties (EUR 7,81/100 kg instead of the normal customs duty of about EUR 140/100 kg), while Morocco, Lebanon and Algeria were allotted concessions in the form of a reduction of the rate of EUR 0,7245/100 kg.

In the case of Turkey, the reduction in the customs duty on virgin olive oil is 10 % and on refined olive oil 5 %.

In the marketing years 1996/97 to 1998/99, total imports in tonnes from these countries were(1):

>TABLE>

(1) Imports do not include quantities imported and re-exported under the inward processing arrangement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0891/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium

The dioxin crisis in Belgium once again demonstrated how vulnerable the food chain, and checks on it, are. An assessment such as that made by the Dioxin Committee of the Chamber of Representatives can help to eliminate problems. Both the European Union and the fifteen Member States have an important role to play in this.

The Members of Parliament observe, inter alia, that the Union's rules on sludge differ in substance between language versions and that at all events they ought to be supplemented and better defined.

Is it true that the rules on sludge differ in substance between language versions, as the Dioxin Committee claims?

(a) If so, how will the Commission ensure that these differences are eliminated?

(b) If not, is the Dioxin Committee wrong to state that the rules on sludge in the European Union differ in substance between language versions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

In order to ensure a high level of public health and consumer protection, point 5 of the Annex to Commission Decision 91/516/EEC of 9 September 1991, establishing a list of ingredients the use of which is prohibited in compound feedingstuffs(1), specifically prohibits the use of sludge from sewage plants treating waste waters.

This rule does not differ in substance between language versions. However, in order to leave no doubt as to the scope of the prohibition, a draft Commission decision amending Decision 91/516/EEC was submitted to the opinion of the standing committee for feedingstuffs on 29th February 2000. This draft decision, which secured a favourable opinion of this committee, states that all wastes obtained from the various phases of the urban, domestic and industrial waste water treatment process, irrespective of any further processing of these wastes and irrespective also of the origin of the waste waters, shall be prohibited in compound feedingstuffs.

(1) OJ L 281, 9.10.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0483/00

by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Funding under the EQUAL Community initiative

Could the Commission indicate the amount of funding the Spanish region of Estremedura is likely to receive under the EQUAL Community initiative?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Commission cannot, at this stage, make any forecast of the amount of funding to be attributed to the Region of Extremadura following the implementation of the EQUAL initiative in Spain. In the EQUAL proposal, only an indicative amount is declared for each Member State. In the case of Spain, it must await the presentation of the Spanish operational programme and the selection of projects to know what amount will be received by Extremadura.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0294/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Czech Republic's progress on the way to accession

Is the Commission aware that Czech citizens of German nationality continue to this day to have difficulty in recovering property lost to them on the basis of the 1945 and 1946 laws and decrees, and is the Commission prepared to make approaches to the government of the Czech Republic in that connection in the context of accession negotiations?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0293/00, E-0294/00, E-0295/00, E-0296/00, E-0297/00, E-0298/00, E-0299/00, E-0300/00, E-0301/00, E-0302/00, E-0303/00 and E-0398/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The accession negotiations with the Czech Republic concern principally its acceptance of and alignment with the acquis of the European Union and its ability to satisfy the conditions for membership established by the European Council. As a Member State, the Czech Republic will have to adopt and implement all areas of Community legislation and policy, including the principles of free movement of people and freedom of establishment. The issue raised by the Honourable Member has to be seen foremost in that context, but obviously also the political criteria of Copenhagen play a role given the fact that they contain the protection of the human rights and the protection of the rights of minorities. The Commission is closely monitoring developments on these matters in all the candidate countries.

It is, however, important to notice that the issue put forward in these questions relates to events which took place before the entry into force of the EC Treaty. The so-called Benesch decrees will therefore play no role in the accession negotiations. Moreover, Article 295 (ex-Article 222) EC Treaty states that the Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership. The Commission is thus not in a position to intervene in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

However, the Czech Republic has been a party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) since 1992. The implementation of the ECHR is the responsibility of the Council of Europe. Questions concerning issues arising under this convention should therefore be best addressed to the Council of Europe.

The Commission would furthermore refer the Honourable Member to the relevant provisions of the Czech-German declaration adopted on 21 January 1997 on mutual relations.

It is for the several reasons mentioned above, that the Commission finds it difficult to take a position on the specific cases raised by the Honourable Member.