ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0850/03

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Council

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Disasters and the European civil protection force

In view of past experience of disasters in Europe and the shortcomings and deficiencies affecting Galicia, the Cantabrian coast, Portugal and France in connection with the oil slick caused by the sinking of the Prestige, and taking into account the fact that the Convention's working group on defence, chaired by Commissioner Michel Barnier, has proposed the creation of a European civil protection force to work

both in the context of protection against terrorism and in the civil sphere to tackle disasters, what action will the Greek presidency take in this field? Will it actually promote the creation of this much-needed European civil protection force? What tangible measures does it envisage in the immediate future and the medium term?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council recalls that the subsidiarity principle is the basis of all EU civil protection measures and policies, which primarily aim at complementing and strengthening Member States' policies in this field.

It should be noted that the results of the discussion and reflection within the Convention are not binding and that, in conformity with the Laeken Declaration, an IGC will be convened to decide on the necessary Treaty amendments.

The Council would point out that, in the framework of the civil protection mechanism established by Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom, the Member States have already identified civil protection capabilities that may be made available on a case-by-case basis. These capabilities include intervention teams and assessment and/or coordination teams that are trained jointly.

The Council can inform the Honourable Member that the mechanism has already been activated successfully in the context of the Prestige disaster on 13 November 2002, the summer floods in Central Europe and the rescue of speleologists in Greece.

In addition, on 20 December 2002, the Council and Commission adopted a joint programme to improve cooperation in the European Union for preventing and limiting the consequences of chemical, radiological or nuclear terrorist threats to health, the food chain, the environment, and vulnerable industries and transport. It provides for a common assessment of terrorist threats, preventive measures to reduce vulnerabilities, a monitoring for a prompt detection of attacks and mutual assistance in the event of a terrorist threat. The civil protection mechanism is central to the programme.

Taking into account past experience of disasters in Europe and the recent Prestige case, the Greek Presidency included the following in its priorities in the field of civil protection:

- the acceleration of procedures for establishing the mechanism operated by the Commission for civil protection interventions, both inside and outside the EU, so that it can be fully operational;

- the adoption of European measures and legislation on the prevention of disasters, an EC initiative currently under discussion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1711/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Protection of a Greek island threatened with disappearance

The island of Zourafa is located in the north-east Aegean, approximately six nautical miles from the Greek island of Samothrace. Zourafa (or Ladoxera (oil island) as it is known by the fishermen) is the most north-easterly point of Greek territory, and of the European Union.

Many significant archaeological finds have been located in Zourafa, such as marble columns, capitals, remains of ancient dwellings etc., and the island is in need of urgent protection, since erosion by the sea is likely to make it disappear completely within five to six years, according to reports in the Greek press. It is worth noting that islets that appear in maps from 1955 (not far from Zourafa) have today completely vanished beneath the sea. The last 40 years have seen a dramatic reduction in the size of Zourafa itself.

Has the island of Zourafa been included in any Community initiative to protect vulnerable areas (e.g. Natura 2000 or another initiative)? Have the Greek authorities informed the Commission that this small island (which is the furthermost border of Greek and Community territory) is threatened with complete disappearance caused by sea erosion, although it has some very important archaeological remains? Could there even now be some kind of initiative by the EU to save the island of Zourafa, and if so, what form could it take?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2003)

The Commission has not been informed by the Greek authorities in relation to the problems of coastal erosion on the island of Zourafa. The island is not included in the Natura 2000 network nor is it proposed as a Special Protection Area under the Birds Directive(1).

However, the Recommendation 2002/413/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2002, concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe(2) invites Member States to draw up national strategies for ICZM. Among strategic elements to take into account in these strategies, the Recommendation includes in its Chapter I, point c, appropriate and ecologically responsible coastal protection measures, including protection of coastal settlements and their cultural heritage.

Moreover, the Commission is currently implementing a pan-European project on coastal erosion. This project, EUrosion(3), should deliver an assessment of coastal erosion through a Europe wide database and an evaluation of coastal defence methods and identification of best practices. The conclusions and recommendations from this project are due in 2004.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 148, 6.6.2002.

(3) www.eurosion.org
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1378/03

by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject: Problems with tanker vessels in waters close to Denmark

The Commission is endeavouring with its proposal to amend Regulation (EC) 417/2002(1) to step up the pace at which single-hulled ships are phased out and double-hulled ships are phased in. However, the regulation applies only to vessels sailing under the flag of an EU Member State.

This means, not least, that a very large proportion of the shipping sailing in the Baltic Sea and other international waters close to Denmark will not be covered by the regulation.

What initiatives does the Commission intend to take to prevent disasters like that affecting the Prestige caused by ships not sailing under the flag of an EU Member State?

(1) OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002(1) applies not only to ships flying the flag of a Member State but also to any ship entering into a port (or offshore terminal) of a Member State, irrespective of its flag.

It must also point out, though, that the Union has no power to regulate the passage through international waters of ships carrying potentially dangerous cargoes, even if they sail close to the Member States' coasts.

That is why on 10 April 2003 the 15 Member States and the Commission lodged a request with the International Maritime Organisation for an urgent amendment to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol Convention). The request is for measures similar to those laid down in Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 to be implemented at international level.

In any event, the Commission believes the international law of the sea needs to be amended to provide a better balance between freedom of movement and the interests of coastal States, which need to be able to protect their coasts against ecological disasters.

(1) OJ L 64, 7.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0758/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Observation of elections

The last election observation mission in which I took part, in Kenya in late 2002, demonstrated the advantages of a joint delegation with representatives from the ACP and the EU.

Does the Council intend to send joint delegations systematically for the observation of elections?

One problem with joint delegations is that representatives from the EU have much greater resources at their disposal than their colleagues from the ACP.

How does the Council intend to remedy this problem?

A recurring question during election observation missions is whether ACP countries could also come to observe elections in EU countries. In the Netherlands, it has been demonstrated that observation missions of this kind can be highly useful.

Which Member States, apart from the Netherlands, have already invited delegations of this kind, and which are prepared to do so?

Is the Council prepared to recommend this suggestion to Member States?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council conclusions on election assistance and observation of 26 June 2001 (9990/01) emphasised its commitment to contributing to peace and security and to promoting a stable and democratic political environment as outlined in Article 1 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement. These conclusions are consistent with the political dialogue provided for by the Cotonou Agreement, in particular in Article 8(3) thereof.

Decisions to send EU electoral observation missions are based on an assessment of the political situation of the country and the potential effect of EU electoral observation and the availability of resources as well as the relative priority of each mission to be undertaken. At the moment, Council bodies are examining the priorities for election observation in the second half of 2003 and 2004.

The Commission is in charge of the organisation and implementation, including financial resources, of electoral observation missions. In this context, the Commission submits its priorities to the Council and Parliament for political approval.

With a view to nominating joint delegations for election observation missions, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly may refer to appropriate bodies though itself remaining the competent body to decide on the sending of such joint delegations.

The Council was not aware of any Member States having invited ACP delegations to observe elections in the EU.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1681/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Subject: Tripartite Agreement between the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the EIB

On 19 March 2003 the Tripartite Agreement between the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the European Investment Bank expired.

Can the Commission say what is the state of play of renegociation of the Agreement, as requested by Parliament in paragraph 34 of its resolution of November 2002 on the Annual report 2001 of the Investment Bank? Can the Commission explain how Parliament's requests in the above-mentioned resolution will be implemented?

Will the Commission inform Parliament's competent committee (Cocobu) of the draft text for an agreement before it is signed?

Does the Commission agree that, in accordance with Article 248 of the EC Treaty, the audit by the Court of measures financed from the Community budget and managed by the Bank must include an assessment whether the management by the Bank has been sound?

Will the Commission make sure that the new agreement will be available in all Community languages and not only in French?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

On 4 February 2003, the Court of Auditors expressed the wish that the Tripartite Agreement (TA) concluded on 19 March 1999 not be re-conducted by tacit agreement but be amended in certain respects. In a short while the Commission has established a new text after consultation of the European Investment Bank (EIB) on the basis of modifications proposed by the Court of Auditors. Until the signature of the amended TA by the Presidents of the three Institutions concerned, there is a mutual consensus that the expired TA be further applied. The Parliament's requests are taken into account in so far as they do not request that modifications be brought to the EC Treaty.

In accordance with paragraph 34 of Parliament's resolution of November 2002 the Commission will inform the Parliament and send the amended Tripartite Agreement.

The extent of the right of control of the Court of Auditors in respect of the EIB's activity in managing Community expenditure and revenue is determined by Article 248 of the EC Treaty. On the one hand, according to Article 248(2) the Court of Auditors shall examine whether the financial management of all revenue and expenditure has been sound. On the other hand, Article 248(3) stipulates that to this effect the Court of Auditors has access to the information necessary for the audit of Community expenditure and revenue managed by the Bank and that the TA governs this right of access. Like the expired TA, the amended TA will provide for such rules governing the Court's right of access to information.

The amended TA will be signed in a single Community language that will form the authentic text. The Commission will also see to it that a translation into other Community languages will be available upon request.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2835/03

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject: Approval of TERRA project Geoplantour OLAF investigations

The European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, is investigating suspected irregularities (case reference IO/2001/4030) in connection with the approval of a project entitled Geoplantour submitted under the EU's TERRA programme in 1997.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is the Geoplantour project approved in 1997 simply a modified version of the original project No. 57 B, Bugewitzer Oderhaff-Zone, or is a totally new project actually involved?

2. How does the Commission explain the fact that Directorate-General XVI (currently regional policy) approved a Geoplantour project in the summer of 1997, i.e. a year after the deadline of 8 July 1986, contrary to the implementing provisions for the TERRA programme and the principle of equal treatment?

3. How does the Commission explain the fact that the Directorate-General for Regional Policy has to date failed to answer two written inquiries from OLAF, thereby delaying OLAF's investigations into this matter?

4. What does the Commission now intend to do to step up the investigation into this case?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2313/03

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject: Ramifications of the Chemicals Directive

Is the Commission aware of the concerns of the leather industry in Europe regarding the Chemicals Directive? The industry fears that the directive will lead to substantially increased costs for processing

leather within the EU, and that the industry will then face unfair competition from third countries where the directive does not apply, and where processing costs are therefore far lower.

What action will the Commission take to ensure that the leather processing industry in the EU is not disadvantaged in this way?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of concerns of the leather industry with regard to the impact of the future Community chemicals legislation (REACH). An Internet consultation on texts prepared by the services most directly concerned, namely, Directorates General Enterprise and Environment was recently concluded. The comments received, including those of the leather industry in relation to higher costs and potential distortions of competition, will be taken into account by the Commission in the adoption of its proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0698/03

by Giovanni Procacci (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject: Possible breach of Community law by the Republic of Italy

In reporting a possible breach of current Community law by the Republic of Italy to the Secretary-General of the European Commission and the Directorates-General for Competition and the Internal Market on 3 February 2003, LAPET (the Italian association of independent tax advisers) has drawn attention to a blatant violation of current Community law arising from legislative decree No 241 of 9 July 1997, and in particular Article 36 thereof.

This decree gives advantages to those taxpayers whose accounts are subject to thorough scrutiny by certain professionals who, because they satisfy the requirements of the above law, may issue certified approval for tax purposes. The professionals concerned not only have to be auditors who have been registered with the professional association of chartered accountants, book-keepers, commercial experts and labour advisers for at least five years, but must also have been responsible for keeping the taxpayers' accounts during the tax period in question.

Can the Commission say:

1. What the current position is in this matter?

2. What measures it has taken or intends to take?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2003)

The Commission has received a letter concerning the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member. This has been registered as a complaint by the Commission. It is now launching its investigation and cannot, at this stage, be in a position to foresee the results of such an investigation.

The Honourable Member will be informed of the outcome of the investigation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1856/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject: Relocation of an autonomous electricity generating plant run by the Greek Public Power Corporation (DEI) in Lesbos

The Mytilini municipal authorities have expressed concern regarding an outdated electricity generating plant run by the Greek Public Power Corporation (DEI) which has been operating within the municipality for many years. Investigations by the Ministry of the Environment, Regional Planning and Public works (8 April 2003) revealed 22 infringements of the environmental regulations drawn up by the ministry in 2000 with serious public health and environmental implications.

Given the multiple infringements of the Community environmental legislation, will the Commission make representations to the Greek authorities to persuade the northern Aegean regional authorities to transfer the DEI plant outside Mytilini replacing it with modern, non-pollutant plant?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1856/03 and E-1963/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2003)

On the basis of the information available, it appears that Directive 85/337/EEC(1) does not apply, because the plant in question was already in operation before the deadline for transposing the Directive into national law. As regards the violation of the environmental conditions which apply to the plant, the incorrect application of the Ministerial Decision approving the operation of the plant is a matter of national law and is not necessarily covered by Community environmental legislation. In the absence of information indicating that Community environmental legislation has been breached, this is a matter for the Greek authorities.

However, the Commission invites the Honourable Members to send it all relevant information in their possession, to enable its departments to examine whether there has in this case been a breach of Community legislation, in particular as regards the combating of air pollution from industrial plants.

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1655/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: Italians in Germany thousands faced with immediate expulsion and refusal of residence rights

Thousands of cases have been reported in the Federal Republic of Germany of Italian citizens being faced with immediate expulsion or the refusal of their residence rights. If these reports are true, it is clear that such illegal practices are a violation of the rights of large numbers of Italian workers.

Can the Commission state whether it intends to investigate the matter and include its findings in a chapter of its annual report on the state of fundamental rights in the Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2003)

The Commission has put in place, at Parliament's request, a network of independent experts on fundamental rights that is charged with drawing up an annual report on the situation regarding fundamental rights in the Union. It will draw the experts' attention to the question raised by the Honourable Member and ask them to deal with it in the report to be prepared for 2003.

It is for Parliament to address this question in the resolution it adopts each year on the situation regarding fundamental rights in the Union.

The Commission would also point out that it has referred to the Court of Justice the cases of expulsions of Italian citizens from Germany for reasons of public policy (Case C-441/02). It is seeking a ruling that Germany has infringed the rules of Community law laying down the conditions to be respected by a Member State which expels a Union citizen for reasons of public policy.

The Commission has also dealt with several cases concerning expulsion for reasons of long-term unemployment. It twice asked the German authorities for their position on this matter. They replied that they share the Commission's position and have informed the relevant authorities accordingly, the position being that, if a five-year residence permit has been renewed once, the Member State cannot refuse to renew it on the ground of involuntary unemployment and, consequently, may not expel a person in this situation. The Commission has not been informed of any new cases of this type recently.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2292/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject: Visit to China by Commissioner Lamy

On 13 June 2003 Commissioner Pascal Lamy left for China to hold talks on closer cooperation between the European Union and that country. He met, among others, the Prime Minister, Jiabao Wen, the Minister for Trade, Lu Fuyuan, and the Minister with responsibility for supervising quarantine arrangements, Li Changjiang.

To what extent did the Commissioner make the expansion of trade relations with China contingent on improvements in the human rights situation?

What undertakings with regard to human rights have Chinese Government representatives given following Mr Lamy's visit? How does the Commissioner assess those undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

The sole objective of the visit to China on 13 and 14 June by the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade was to discuss trade issues with the new Chinese government: multilateral trade issues and closer cooperation with China on the Doha agenda; bilateral trade issues, including China's implementation of its commitments in connection with its accession to the WTO and the settlement of specific problems such as Chinese health and plant health measures against European exports.

The human rights issue was therefore not broached on this visit. However, it is at the very core of the EU's relations with China. The EU's concerns on this matter are regularly raised, notably at meetings forming part of the political dialogue with China. In addition, the Union has been conducting a structured dialogue since 1997 on human rights with China. Every six months this provides the opportunity to reiterate these concerns and encourage China to make improvements in terms of respect and promotion of human rights in that country.