ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2103/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Democratic control over European trade policy

The fifteen Member States oppose any role for the European Parliament in the European Union's commercial and industrial policy. This is apparent from the joint answer to questions E-0619/01(1), E-4034/00, E-4036/00 and E-4037/00(2). According to the ministers, the relevant committee's proposals and working documents are confidential and are subject to the decisions on public access to Council documents.

However, the Council has not adopted an unambiguous position regarding the Commission's proposal to enhance the role of the European Parliament substantially in all aspects of trade policy(3) (P-3674/00). Yet Lamy says that this would not only increase the accountability of trade policy but also its efficiency because our trading partners would know that the Commission negotiates with the full backing of the democratically elected representatives of European citizens.

This gives rise to the following questions:

- does the Council endorse the Commission's view that parliamentary control at European level would not only increase the accountability of trade policy but also its efficiency because our trading partners would know that the Commission negotiates with the full backing of the democratically elected representatives of European citizens?

- If so, what will the Council do to develop full parliamentary control over European trade policy?

- If not, on what grounds does the Council not intend to develop full parliamentary control over European trade policy, despite the Commission's arguments?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 160.

(2) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 21.

(3) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 190.

Reply

(29 November 2001)

The Council attaches great importance to its regular contacts with the European Parliament in the area of commercial policy, in particular through the appearances of the Council Presidency before the Commission on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. These contacts enable the Council to maintain dialogue with the Parliament and to keep abreast of the Parliament's concerns regarding the Community commercial policy.

Moreover, the Council regularly briefs the European Parliament on the salient aspects of Community commercial policy and, under the 1973 Westerterp procedure, keeps the European Parliament informed of trade agreement negotiations with third countries before the negotiations begin, as they progress and when they are concluded.

However, the decision-making procedures relating to Community commercial policy are defined in Article 133 of the Treaty establishing the European Community; the Council is bound to comply with those provisions, which were examined by the Intergovernmental Conference concluded at the Nice European Council. The amendments made to the wording of this Article did not cover the issues raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2167/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Processing of plastics at the Poligás plant (Valencia region)

Poligás, a plant recently opened in the locality of Ribesalbes (Castellón province, Spain) and dedicated to obtaining electricity from incinerating plastics, has commenced test operations in the face of large-scale opposition from residents in the locality and the surrounding area and from ecological movements. Members of the public have complained about specific aspects concerning which the Commission was informed in an earlier question submitted by the author of the present question on 2 July 2001.

Special attention should be paid to the erroneous position promoted by the Valencian regional government in its impact statement concerning the plastics to be used for processing at this plant. These plastics (which consist of packaging from the chemical/ceramic industry) should, under Community and Spanish law, be considered dangerous waste on the grounds that they have contained other waste of that nature. Nonetheless, both the company and the regional government consider them to be non-dangerous waste, solely on the grounds that they are washed prior to incineration.

Does the Commission consider that the mere fact of washing plastics is sufficient for them no longer to be considered dangerous, despite having contained toxic substances?

Do any provisions exist in Community law which might permit determination of whether this system is compatible with the protection of health and the right to safety?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2001)

Under Community legislation in force, for a waste to be considered hazardous it has to have one or more of the properties listed in Annex III of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste(1). Packaging containing dangerous substances is considered hazardous if it continues to contain dangerous residues, or has dangerous substances in the composition of its matrix, in quantities that would render them hazardous by displaying one or more of the hazardous properties in Annex III.

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission cannot assess whether the washing method used in the plant Poligás, is sufficient to remove all residues of dangerous substances to the extent that none of the hazardous properties are displayed anymore. Neither can the Commission assess if the composition of the packaging in question makes it hazardous.

For the assessment of the compatibility of the system with health and safety Community legislation further information would be needed.

(1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2150/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 July 2001)

Subject: Case of BSE in Greece

The existence of a case of BSE in Greece has caused great concern among consumers and farmers alike as, hitherto, the country had been considered immune from the problem.

1. Is the Commission satisfied that the tests carried out on cattle are sufficiently systematic and adequate in scope and number to safeguard public health? Can the existing laboratories and specialised personnel cope with the required tests?

2. Does Greece comply with its obligations under Community legislation to pass on data relating to BSE screening in respect of domestic produce, imports of live animals and slaughtered animals?

3. Does the Commission know how the animal concerned became infected, given that the initial official statements maintain that the farm in question did not use dangerous meat and bonemeal?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The tests currently available are only capable of detecting bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) shortly before the appearance of clinical signs, but not early in the incubation period. For that reason, removal of specified BSE risk materials remains the most important measure to protect public health from BSE. The Greek authorities have not indicated specific problems in providing adequate laboratory capacity for BSE testing. The Commission intends to make a mission to Greece in September 2001 with a view to monitoring the implementation of the testing requirements.

Greece is reporting regularly on BSE testing, in accordance with its legal obligations.

The Greek authorities have submitted extensive reports on the outcome of the investigations carried out to clarify the source of infection. So far, it has not been possible to identify the source of infection and the investigations are continuing. As the average period between infection and detection of BSE is four to six years, the identification of the source of infection, once the disease has been detected, has often proved difficult.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1747/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) and Dimitrios Koulourianos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Turkish research in the Aegean

On 4 June 2001, the Turkish Government dispatched the vessel Piri Reis to the Aegean to carry out seismological research.

The navigation charts reveal that the vessel was also to survey both the Greek and Cypriot continental shelves which, were it to happen, would give rise to a major crisis in the region, for which Turkey, a country eligible for accession to the European Union, would be solely responsible.

What immediate measures will the Council take to call Turkey to order given that Turkey undertook through the Helsinki decision to seek a peaceful settlement of disputes as a condition of accession to the European Union?

Reply

(27 November 2001)

The case of the vessel Piri Reis, being dispatched to the Aegean for the purpose referred to in the question, has not been raised in the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1265/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(27 April 2001)

Subject: Audit

Is it not, in the Council's view, a problem that the Court of Auditors has refused for the sixth consecutive year to state that the transactions on which the accounts are based are legal and formally correct?

Reply

(20 November 2001)

The Council would point out that since introduction of the statement of assurance (SOA) in 1995, it has always deeply regretted the fact that the Commission has been unable to obtain this statement of assurance on the legality and regularity of transactions underlying the financial statements. It considers it unacceptable that the incidence of error affecting transactions underlying payments has not been substantially reduced to date.

However, the Council is aware that the reform of departments and procedures already initiated by the Commission in the area of financial management should gradually have a positive effect on the SOA. With this in view, it invited the Commission in March 2001, in its recommendation for a discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 1999, to speed up implementation of the measures provided for in the action plan which it had established with a view to obtaining a positive SOA from the Court of Auditors and to supplement that plan with specific targets that enable progress to be measured and with a timetable containing dates by which the impact on the SOA should be observable.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2207/01

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 July 2001)

Subject: Unlawful aid to Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH

It is reported in issue No 9 of the German magazine EUWID Laubholz, of 26 April 2001, that the EU competition authorities are to investigate whether Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH's sawmill in Malchow has received unlawful aid.

Will the Commission therefore state:

- If it has reached any conclusion as regards its investigation into the aid granted and how much aid has been granted to date?

- How it intends to ensure that Pollmeier Massivholz does not use subsidies in future to undercut its competitors in either the raw wood or the finished goods markets?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission has opened the formal investigation proceedings of Article 88 (2) of the EC Treaty on 13 March 2001 against aid granted to Pollmeier GmbH, Malchow and Pollmeier GmbH & Co. KG, Kässlitz. Both companies are related to Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH through their sole shareholder.

The authorities of the Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern granted investment aid for the creation of a sawmill in Malchow amounting to an aid intensity of 48,8 % gross of eligible investment costs of 27,7 million.

The Land Thuringen granted investment aid for the setting up of a new sawmill and wood-processing capacities in Kässlitz. The total aid intensity amounts to 43,4 % gross of eligible investment costs of 44,93 million.

Both investments are located in less-favoured regions in virtue of Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. The intensities of the above aid awards imply that the beneficiary in each case is a small and medium sized enterprise (SME) in order for the aid to comply with the relevant rules, notably those on regional aid. The Commission is therefore investigating whether the beneficiary of the aid meets the SME criteria laid down by Community rules and, consequently, whether the whole of the aid is compatible with the common market. Should this not be the case, the Commission will request the incompatible part of the aid to be recovered in order to redress the distortion of competition.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1637/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Council

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Decision of the Ecofin Council in Versailles

The Commission, the Council and the European Central Bank are still using the Ecofin decision banning the circulation of banknotes before 1 January 2002 as the pretext for their refusal to supply the public with euros in advance. Since the Ecofin in Versailles was an informal meeting of Economic and Finance Ministers and the Treaty does not grant any decision-making power to Councils meeting informally, how lawful is the decision which the Commission, the Council and the ECB are using as the basis for opposing the advance distribution of a reasonable amount of small denominations to the general public before 1 January 2002?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1637/01 and E-1639/01

(26 November 2001)

The Ministers, meeting informally, are not empowered to take decisions instead of the Council. However, at such a meeting they may comment publicly on subjects of common interest.

At an informal meeting in Versailles in September 2000, the Ministers and Central Banks Governors did discuss problems concerning the introduction of the euro, especially the suggestions regarding frontloading, although they did not consider it advisable that the ECB should amend the frontloading procedures provided for in its Guideline of 10 January 2001 on the 2002 cash changeover.

It should be pointed out that, under Article 106 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the ECB has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of banknotes within the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2454/01

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

(11 September 2001)

Subject: The Berlusconi Government and Italian police behaviour in Genoa at the G-7 Summit

Silvio Berlusconi's electoral campaign rested on the mendacious idea that he was defending liberty against Communism, which he claimed was the defining ideology of the electoral lists headed by the Presidential candidate, Francesco Rutelli, a member of the Liberal Group within the EP. Amongst other legislative decisions precipitous to protecting his own private interests and preventing any legal action against himself, Berlusconi began his term of office as Italian Prime Minister by describing those demonstrating against ultraliberal capitalist globalisation as Communists, and allowing and exonerating violent anti-democratic action by the Italian police, which left the young Carlo Giuliani dead and the arrest, while peacefully meeting on private property, of hundreds of people, of various European nationalities, who were then jailed and subjected to ill treatment. Several European governments, including some of those represented within the G-8, protested to the Italian Government. What collective attitude is the Council going to take towards the violent and anti-democratic behaviour of Berlusconi's police and government? Is the Presidency of the Council at least going to encourage the taking of a collective decision on the part of the other 14 Member State governments condemning this behaviour?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2379/01 and E-2454/01

(6 December 2001)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the responsibility for maintaining law and order and safeguarding the internal security of the Member States of the Union rests with the authorities of each Member State. It is not for the Council to comment on an issue which does not fall within its sphere of competence.

The Council does not envisage any discussion of the other matters raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2546/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 September 2001)

Subject: The dangers posed by plastic toys inside chocolate eggs

Is the Commission aware that in spite of rules governing the safety of toys throughout the Member States, the sale of some brands of chocolate eggs concealing small plastic toys in kit form continues unchecked? Many children have required medical attention as a result of choking on these small parts and some have even died.

Does the Commission have any plans to rectify this hazardous situation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2001)

The Commissioner would refer the Honourable Member to the Commission replies to Written Questions E-2479/97 by Mr Whitehead(1), E-3085/97 by Mr Apolinario(2), E-3813/97 by Mrs Graenitz(3), E-2630/00 by Mr Moreira da Silva(4), E-2631/00 by Mrs Damião(7), E-2632/00 by Mr Lage(8) to the reply to oral question H-654-01 by Mrs Malliori during question time at Parliament's September 2001 part-session(5) and to the result of Petition No 280/99 on the subject of toys contained in foodstuff.

The products in question (non-food products accompanying food products in a separate packaging) are not specifically covered by Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988, on the safety of toys(6), although Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety is applicable in relation to possible risks. The Emergencies Committee set up under Article 8 of Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety concluded among others on 16 May 2000 that In the light of the information available to date, the risk associated with non-food products accompanying food products in a separate packaging seem to be no different to those presented by small toys in general or by toys containing small parts in general. The current available data provide no evidence of a specific risk factor linked to the association, when the packaging is distinct. The risk seems to depend on the characteristics of the non-food product itself, notably those associated with small size or the size of its parts, or its packaging.

The Commission has requested Member States to report any new or additional data concerning any accidents, whether fatal or not, caused by toys associated with food. None of the 11 Members States that has replied has provided any new data in relation to toys in food, in addition to that submitted already to the Emergencies Committee. The Commission will continue to keep this question under review.

(1) OJ C 82, 17.3.1998.

(2) OJ C 102, 3.4.1998.

(3) OJ C 196, 22.6.1998.

(4) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

(5) Written reply, 4.9.2001.

(6) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.

(7) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

(8) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1477/01

by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Racism in the Netherlands

1. Is the Council aware that De Buddy's a Dutch church choir which is as well known in the Netherlands as the Vienna's Boys' Choir in German-speaking countries, have recently produced a CD entitled Do not buy from Austrians?

2. Is the Council aware of the historic significance of this title in the light of the last hundred years of German history?

3. Does the Council know whether the Dutch Government is taking any action against this and other xenophobic manifestations?

Reply

(26 November 2001)

The Council is very active in combating racism, as borne out by the establishment of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and by the recent adoption, under the new Article 13 of the Treaty, of a Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.

The Council is not aware of the specific case referred to by the Honourable Member and would in any event be unable to comment on such matters, which come within the purview of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2578/01

by Mario Borghezio (TDI) to the Council

(27 September 2001)

Subject: Immigration from Morocco

The Spanish Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has complained (Le Figaro 6.9.2001) that illegal immigrants are coming from the Moroccan coastline. That is where action needs to be taken.

Illegal immigration networks which enable immigrants to travel via Gibraltar to Spain, and from there to other parts of Europe, are the same networks which smuggle in hashish, with the collusion of Moroccan customs officers. The Moroccan authorities themselves complain that they do not have the means to control illegal immigration flows.

What urgent preventive measures does the Council intend to take with respect to this dangerous situation, which is becoming worse every year owing to the Moroccan Government's inability (which the government itself has acknowledged) to control the flow of illegal immigrants to Europe?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2458/01 and E-2578/01

(6 December 2001)

The Council has already replied several times to questions from members of the European Parliament concerning the disappearance of immigrants trying to reach the Union via the Straits of Gibraltar.

Far from burying its head in the sand, the Council, which deplores this continuing human drama, has entered into active dialogue with the Moroccan authorities on migration issues. The Council would point to the existence, since the end of 1998, of a High-Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration, set up to draft action plans for the countries and regions of origin of illegal immigrants and/or asylum seekers, in accordance with an integrated, cross-pillar approach. These action plans aim to analyse the root causes of migration from selected countries, of which Morocco, as a country of origin and transit of immigrants, is one. Contacts have been made with the Moroccan authorities with a view to establishing a partnership to implement the measures in the action plan.

That partnership is taking shape under the Association Agreement between the Community and Morocco, with a Working Party on Social Affairs and Migration having been set up in April 2001. The Working Party met for the first time in June 2001. Although the Moroccan authorities voiced certain criticisms of the action plan, they declared themselves ready to work with the Union bodies to devise a programme of joint measures to combat illegal immigration through or from Morocco.

At a meeting on migration issues in July 2001 it was agreed to give priority to socio-economic measures (for micro-businesses/SMEs), training measures, measures concerning legal migration to the Union and measures to combat illegal immigration networks, including migration via sub-Saharan Africa. Work on identifying projects to be implemented will continue in the autumn of 2001.