ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0161/99

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Illegal practices of the Agricultural Bank of Greece

The Agricultural Bank of Greece (ATE) whose sole shareholder is the Greek state lends money to farmers at exorbitant interest rates of 16-17 %. As a result they become overindebted and are forced to abandon farming. It should also be pointed out that the ATE does not operate according to the principles of a private investor in a market economy, since its decisions are influenced by the policy of the Greek Government which even appoints its Board of Directors.

1. What view does the Commission take of the policy of exorbitant interest rates practised today by the ATE in the agricultural sector which practically prevents investments which are so important for the necessary restructuring of the Greek agricultural sector?

2. Are the operating methods of the ATE legal under the competition law and the secondary banking law practised in the Community, and what measures does the Commission intend to take if this law is being violated?

3. What view does the Commission take of the discriminatory behaviour of the ATE towards farmers in Greece, as mentioned in the communication(1), and what measures does it intend to take to put an end to the violation of the rules on equality of treatment?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 1999)

1. Excessive pricing - including high interest rates charged by a bank - can be an infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty, if the undertaking which practises such prices holds a dominant position on a particular market, and the excessive prices represent an abuse of that dominant position.

However, the Honourable Member does not give the necessary information for the Commission to form an opinion as to whether the Agricultural Bank of Greece holds a dominant position on any market or whether the interest rates in question represent an abuse of any possible dominant position.

2. The Commission does not have the information necessary to determine whether these operating practices represent an abuse of a dominant position, or violate any other Community legislation.

3. The Honourable Member refers to a communication concerning a Commission decision to start an Article 93(2) EC Treaty procedure in respect of certain state aids granted by the Greek state in the agricultural sector. However, the Commission was unable to identify any violation of equality of treatment on the part of the Agricultural Bank of Greece in the granting of state aids which is the subject of the communication.

(1) OJ C 376, 4.12.1998, p. 2.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1098/99

by Yvonne Sandberg-Fries (PSE) to the Commission

(15 April 1999)

Subject: Sewage treatment plant at village of Tolon, the Peloponnese, Greece

The EU has part-funded, through the Community Envireg programme, the construction of a sewage treatment plant on the outskirts of the village of Tolo on the Peloponnese in Greece. The total cost of the plant is Drs 420 million.

No work has apparently been carried out on the treatment plant since 1996. Sewage is still not treated and is at present transported to a valley and dumped. Last year, the area around the plant was used as an assembly point for various kinds of equipment which seemingly does not belong to the plant.

To allow a treatment plant to remain half-built at the same time as sewage from a densely built-up area is dumped in the mountains year after year is totally unacceptable. It is contrary not only to the new European limit values for sewage but it is also a downright squandering of taxpayers' money. It is high time that European citizens were given a clear indication whether the EU is capable of managing common resources better.

Can the Commission explain how it is possible for no work to have been carried out on the sewage treatment plant on the outskirts of the village of Tolo for at least three years? Will it say what percentage of the cost of the project the EU has contributed and clarify when the project management plans to complete the plant? Has the Commission carried out a detailed evaluation of this Community project and will it say how taxpayers' money will be reclaimed if the plant does not become operational within the foreseeable future?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

It is true that work on a plant to treat waste water from the village of Tolo in the Peloponnese in Greece was part-financed under the Envireg Community initiative. Considerable progress was made in constructing the plant, but then problems arose, in particular with Greek administrative procedures.

The Greek authorities informed the Commission that, despite their efforts, the problems persisted and were unlikely to be resolved within a reasonable time.

In order to wind up the initiative, the Greek authorities therefore decided to remove the project, along with four others experiencing difficulties, from the list of Envireg projects. The EUR 2,94 million initially allocated to the five projects were deducted from the Greek authorities' final statement of expenditure for the initiative.

However, under Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment(1), the Greek authorities still have an obligation to provide Tolo with a waste-water treatment plant. The Commission has therefore carried out an independent evaluation of the current state of advancement of the project and is ready to examine any constructive proposal from the competent Greek authorities which would guarantee its completion.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0462/99

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Subject: Export of hazardous waste in the form of obsolete ships

Does the Commission agree that dangerous waste in the form of obsolete ships, containing substances such as asbestos, should not be exported to countries with less stringent safeguards in order to avoid costs?

Would the Commission consider it appropriate to use such controls or legislation as exist to curtail this trade to other countries by companies which operate inside the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 1999)

The export of wastes outside the Community is governed by Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community, as amended(1). The export of obsolete ships for breaking up is governed by the Regulation to the extent that the ship in question constitutes waste. Generally speaking, a ship constitutes waste from the moment that the intention of the owner is not to use it as a ship anymore, but to export it to another country for breaking up.

The Regulation, which transposes the provisions of the Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their safe disposal, prohibits the export to non-Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) countries of hazardous wastes listed in an Annex to the Regulation. Ships for breaking up are not explicitly listed in this Annex, but according to the terms of this Annex, the fact that a waste is not listed in the Annex, does not preclude, in exceptional cases, its characterisation as hazardous and therefore subject to the export ban.

All ships destined for demolition are subject to notification and control requirements established under the Regulation with regard to any cargo residues and other hazardous substances resulting from the operation of the ship such as oily slops. In such cases, under the Regulation, the export has to be notified and authorised by the authorities of the countries of dispatch, transit and destination before it can take place. In that context, it should also be noted that the underlying condition for export of waste is that the treatment in the country of destination must be environmentally sound. This principle is recognised in the Basel Convention.

To summarise, therefore, there is a binding legal framework in place in the Community which subjects these cases to tight control and supervision procedures.

The Commission is fully aware of the environmental and health problems occurring in third countries where ships are scrapped. There is also a real need for an efficient ship-scrapping industry in order to remove sub-standard ships from the oceans, which in themselves pose a serious environmental threat.

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0764/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Failure by Greece to incorporate Court judgments on water pollution into national law

The Commission has decided to take measures against Greece for its non-compliance with Article 7 of Directive 76/464(1) on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment and its failure to incorporate into national law Court judgments C-232/95 and C-233/95 on the pollution of Lake Vegoritis.

Will the Commission say:

1. which paragraph(s) of Article 7 was/were infringed, and

2. whether it is aware of the reasons for the delay by Greece in incorporating the directive and the Court judgments into national law?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 1999)

Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community requires Member States to establish emission reduction programmes for the substances of list II as defined in the annex of this Directive. This requires Member States to identify all discharges into waters which are liable to contain list II substances (Article 7, paragraph 1); establish quality objectives for list II substances which are discharged (Article 7, paragraph 3); introduce an authorisation system for these discharges which sets emission limit values based on the quality objectives (Article 7, paragraph 1); include, where necessary, specific provisions governing the composition and use of substances and products (Article 7, paragraph 4); and set deadlines for the implementation of the programmes (Article 7, paragraph 5)

Directive 76/464/EEC must be implemented by all Member States. As Greece has not established the programmes under the Directive, the Commission, responsible for the implementation of the Community legislation in all Member States, brought the matter before the Court of justice, on the basis of Article 226 EC Treaty (ex Article 169). The Commission does not know the reasons why Greece failed to fulfil the obligations under Directive 76/464/EEC.

By a decision dated 11 June 1998, the Court of justice declared that, by failing to establish programmes including quality objectives and setting deadlines for their implementation in order to reduce the pollution of the waters of Lake Vegoritis and its tributary, the River Soulos, and of the waters of the Gulf of Pagasitikos, by the dangerous substances within List II of Directive 76/464/EEC, Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, in particular Article 7. A letter of formal notice on the basis of Article 171 EC Treaty was sent to Greece on 18 December 1998.

The Greek authorities notified to the Commission on 11 January 1999 measures taken in order to implement the above mentioned decision of the Court of justice. The analysis of these measures is underway.

(1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0744/99

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Maríne resources

In the Agenda 2000 regulations, is the Commission seeking to shift resources away from investment in increased fisheries capacity towards locally appropriate management of marine resources?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1999)

The Commission would point out that Community assistance can only be granted to investments aiming at the renewal of the fishing fleet if conditions are met ensuring that fishing capacity is not increased. In particular, Member States must comply with the objectives of the multiannual guidance programmes for their fishing fleets.

Under the current structural programming period 1994-1999 the overall size of the Community fishing fleet has decreased by approximately 13 % in tonnage and 11 % in power as can be seen in the yearly reports from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council on the multiannual guidance programmes.

In its proposal for structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1), which is currently being discussed in the Council and the Parliament, the Commission is proposing a continuation of the permanent cessation scheme and additional conditions for granting assistance to the renewal of the fleet. Furthermore, the Commission proposes that Member States must demonstrate that public aid is necessary with regard to the objectives pursued and in particular that without public aid the fishing fleet concerned could not be renewed or modernised and that the planned measures will not jeopardise the long-term equilibrium of fishery resources. In addition, permanent arrangements for controlling fleet renewal must be established in all Member States.

Community assistance is granted in the framework of national structural programmes, which are presented by Member States and approved by the Commission. Moreover, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity these programmes can contain additional provisions in favour of locally appropriate management of marine resources.

(1) OJ C 16, 21.1.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0305/99

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Eco-Label Regulation

Can the Commission give an explanation as to why the criteria for white pigments produced using the sulphate process by the titanium dioxide industry has been changed by the Regulatory Committee responsible for the implementation of the Eco-label Regulation for paints and varnishes?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-1202/98 by Mrs Hardstaff during question time at Parliament's January 1999 part-session(1).

(1) Debates of the Parliament (January 1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0241/99

by Ulf Holm (V) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Aid to Bangladesh following the floods

The very widespread flooding which hit Bangladesh in late July 1998 claimed nearly 1 400 lives and left more than 30 million people homeless, as two thirds of the country was under water.

How much aid has the EU given to Bangladesh following the floods?

In what areas and to whom has such aid been given?

Has an evaluation of the EU aid been carried out? If so, what were the results?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 1999)

The total response of the Commission to the floods that affected Bangladesh during 1998 amounted to [fmxeuro] 40,2 million, the details of which are set out below.

As an immediate response to the crisis, the Commission cleared a package of humanitarian aid worth [fmxeuro] 1 million in September 1998 and a further [fmxeuro] 2 million in October 1998, focusing on food, medical support, purification of water supplies and the provision of sanitation services. In December 1998, the Commission provided an additional [fmxeuro] 5,45 million, which provided further immediate relief for 50 000 families in the most affected districts and mainly concentrated upon reducing dependence on emergency aid through crop recovery; low cost housing for those whose property had been completely destroyed; occupational rehabilitation promoting income generation; and the supply of clean water and latrines. The Commission's total contribution for the assistance of victims of the flood in 1998 was [fmxeuro] 8,45 million.

The provision of this humanitarian aid was country wide with the identification of beneficiaries and the allocation per district identified by the implementing partners of the Commission based upon need in co-ordination with the local authorities. These partners report regularly upon the progress and effect of each action and are monitored by a Commission correspondent. However no formal evaluation has been undertaken.

Further financing of over [fmxeuro] 31,75 million of food security and food aid was provided by the Commission for some 175 000 metric tons of cereals and associated financial inputs. This food aid has been targeted at vulnerable groups as well as for food for work in rehabilitation programmes. It was in addition to the [fmxeuro] 21 million provided in October 1998 for development food security programmes. A joint evaluation by the Department of international development and the Community of the "Vulnerable group feeding" relief programme, to which the Community contributes is expected in April 1999.

Finally, Member States humanitarian contributions declared to the Commission for the period August-December 1998 amounted to some [fmxeuro] 10,4 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0841/99

by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Subject: Fluoridation of Water

What is the attitude of the Commission towards the fluoridation of water supplies?

To what extent, if any, has fluoridation been introduced in the various Member States?

Do any Member States ban this process? If so, on what grounds?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 1999)

Drinking water quality is regulated in the Community by Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption(1), which will be replaced by 25 December 2003 by the recently adopted new Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998(2). In both Directives there is a limit concerning the maximum admissible concentration of fluoride in drinking water, regardless of its origin, i.e. naturally present or artificially added. The fluoridation of water supplies lies within the Member States' responsibility and the Commission is not concerned as long as the limit set out in the Directive is respected. Unquestionably, fluoridation is a controversial issue because of the positive or negative effects fluoride might have, depending on its concentration in the drinking water.

The limit set out in the Drinking Water Directive is 1,5 milligrammes per liter (mg/l), which, according to the view of the World health organisation (WHO) as expressed in its drinking water quality guidelines, represents a good balance between the positive and negative effects of fluoride. Positive effects start around 0,5mg/l up to 2 mg/l. The more the concentration exceeds 2mg/l the more the risk of negative effects is increased.

As far as fluoridation in the Member States is concerned, the Commission has launched an investigation into the matter in order to provide as complete a reply as possible to the Honourable Member. At present, on the basis of the information gathered, the situation is that in Belgium fluoridation is not allowed (fluoride is not included in the positive list of substances that can be added to drinking water); in Denmark it is banned; in Germany it is permitted but decision is left to local regional government; in Greece an old law (1974) required fluoridation for cities with population of more than 10 000 people however this law has never been activated because of the controversy of the issue; in Spain it is permitted but the decision is left to each autonomous region; in France it is banned for ethical reasons; in Italy there is no specific law banning or authorising fluoridation; in Luxembourg there is no specific ban, but as fluoride is not in the positive list of substances legislation should be amended if a company considered artificial fluoridation (fluoridation is not an issue of concern for this Member State); in the Netherlands it is not allowed (similar situation as in Belgium); and in the United Kingdom it is permitted but decision is left to local health authorities.

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.

(2) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0041/99

by Philippe De Coene (PSE) to the Commission

(22 January 1999)

Subject: Availability of pharmaceuticals for horses

In accordance with EU legislation now in force, horses are classified as animals for human consumption. This has important implications for the lawful administration of pharmaceuticals to sick horses.

Does the Commission not consider that a distinction ought to be made, in the interests of these animals' welfare, between horses intended for human consumption and horses bred for other purposes?

How does the Commission view the proposal to amend all relevant legislation accordingly? Only then will it be possible for veterinarians to administer pharmaceutical products authorized for use with domestic animals and humans to horses.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 1999)

The Commission is well aware of this very complex problem and makes all efforts to find solutions for the availability of veterinary pharmaceuticals. However, the Commission must take into account aspects of consumer health protection as well as aspects of animal health and welfare. To this extent problems do not only exist for the treatment of horses but also concern "minor species" such as fish, rabbits, sheep and goats, farmed game etc. and "minor uses" for rare clinical indications.

In accordance with the EC Treaty, horses are agricultural animals. Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health conditions for intra-Community trade in fresh meat(1) applies to horsemeat.

While in the Community the majority of horses are bred primarily for uses other than food production, slaughter of horses at a certain stage of their lives and trade in horses for slaughter is neither excluded by Community law nor national regulations of Member States. Taking account of the longevity of horses, the frequent change of owner or nationality and the different purposes for which a horse may be used during its career, the enforcement of a general distinction between horses as companion animals and food producing animals is difficult.

Slaughter for human consumption of individual horses could be excluded or delayed when they had received treatment with medicinal products containing substances for which the maximum residue limits (MRL) have not been established in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin(2). However, such horses should be specifically identified and the received treatment must be recorded. Commission Decision 93/623/EEC(3) established the identification document (passport) for horses when travelling all over the world. The passport, together with proper certification, has proven its validity in preventing the introduction into the Community of major equine diseases.

(1) OJ L 121, 29.7.1964.

(2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(3) OJ L 298, 3.12.1993.