ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2966/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) and Mariotto Segni (UEN) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Sicily and Sardinia after 2006

The Commission has forecast that at the end of the 2000-2006 Structural Fund programming period, Sicily and Sardinia will no longer come under Objective 1.

That forecast is based, among other things, on the fact that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will most probably have joined the EU by then.

Given that the loss of Objective 1 status will be a severe economic blow to the two islands,

what action does the Commission feel it should take to maintain the cohesion of Objective 1 regions, with particular reference to peripheral and island regions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2955/00 and E-2966/00 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2000)

In January 2001 the Commission is to adopt the second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, which will be submitted to Parliament under Article 159 (formerly Article 130b) of the EC Treaty.

The report will consider the position and development of the regions in the context of an enlarged Union, evaluate the impact of Community policies on cohesion and propose guidelines for cohesion policy beyond 2006.

The Commission wants this second report to be the catalyst for a major debate on the future of this policy. To this end it is organising in May 2001 a forum to which the Members of Parliament and all those actively involved in regional development in the current Member States and in the applicant countries are to be invited.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2869/00

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

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Fishing in Latin American southern Pacific waters outside the 200-mile zone

What is the Commission's position on the announcement by Mr Heinz Moller, Foreign Minister of Ecuador and member of the Permanent Committee of the South Pacific formed by Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, to the effect that those countries intend to impose more restrictive conditions for fishing outside the 200-mile zone applying to them, given that this will affect the Community's interests and, in particular, the vessels of the Galician fleet which fish for scabbardfish in those waters?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2000)

The Commission has been recently informed of the adoption of the so-called Galapagos Agreement negotiated by Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. The text of the agreement has been made available to the Commission, and is currently subject to an analysis in detail.

At this time, a first analysis of the text already reveals a number of provisions which would be contrary to the Community's interpretation of the Law of the Sea and, from that point of view, the text of the agreement would seem very difficult to accept for the Community.

In addition, the agreement as drafted will overlap with the existing Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), an organisation that has been managing tropical tuna in the Eastern Pacific for 50 years. For the Commission, this duplication of instruments is not justifiable, since IATTC is already a fully-fledged organisation where the management of all highly migratory fish stocks in the Eastern Pacific can be adequately covered.

Furthermore, the Community has always defended the open character of multilateral fisheries management agreements and undertakings. In this case, the negotiation of this agreement by only the four coastal states, thus excluding other potentially interested parties, would be clearly contrary to the necessary open character of such an initiative, and this constitutes a cause of concern.

The Commission is examining this question and, on the basis of a definitive analysis of the text, will decide on a possible reaction to the countries concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1754/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Regional Economic Partnership Agreements

In view of the signing of the Suva Convention in June and the undertaking to begin negotiations by 1 January 2002 on WTO-compatible regional economic partnership agreements or other WTO-compatible arrangements, which should take account of the level of development and the socio-economic impact of trade measures on ACP states, will the Commission indicate the composition and working methods of the bodies that have been, or will be, established to prepare and carry out these negotiations?

In particular, what will be the relationship between the DG for Trade and the DG for Development in this process, and how will responsibilities be allocated?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission is presently examining an action plan for the preparation and the negotiation of regional economic partnership agreements.

Without anticipating the results of the deliberation of the Commission, it is obvious that the preparation and the negotiation of these agreements will require a close cooperation between the relevant services of the Commission, in particular between Directorate general Trade and Directorate general Development. The Commission is indeed convinced that, as provided in the partnership agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States and the Community, trade cooperation and development cooperation must be interlinked and mutually supportive so as to create the most favourable conditions for the ACP to adapt to the new trading environment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2919/00

by Didier Rod (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Science and technology cooperation with developing countries

In the Fifth Research Framework Programme an approximate 210 million have been devoted to S & T in developing countries, notably in the sectors of health, environment and agriculture. Given the long-standing S & T cooperation with Asia, Africa and Latin America over the past two decades and the high profile given to it by bi-regional political fora (ASEM, Rio Summit 1999, EU-Africa Summit April 2000) and its relevance for the implementation of the Conventions for Biodiversity, Desertification and Climate Change, what is the role to be assigned to S & T cooperation in the European Research Area and the Sixth Framework Programme?

European research has been promoted against the background of improving EU integration, competitiveness and of guaranteeing European presence in top research areas of the international scientific community. Since the 1980s and as a synergy with EU development policies the INCO programme promotes scientific cooperation with developing countries.

In the recent discussions about the European Research Area, the international scientific cooperation with developing countries is not even mentioned. Does this mean that 20 years of fruitful scientific partnership with these countries will be given up?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2091/00 by Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra(1).

The said answer still applies.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2301/00

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Water treatment plants in the Balearics

Mr Joan Mateu Horrach, Director of the Institut Balear de Sanejament (Ibasant), a body answerable to the environment office of the Government of the Balearics, told the local press on 21 June 1999 that the Balearic Regional Government had asked the EU for PTA 17 billion to invest in purification plants and that the EU replied that it would not receive any money from the Cohesion Fund, since major investment was not needed in view of the fact that a large number of such plants had already been built in the Balearics.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

1. whether the Regional Government of the Balearics asked the EU for PTA 17 billion to invest in purification plants;

2. whether this request was refused by the EU and if so, why?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2000)

The national administration, not the Autonomous Communities, submits proposals for assistance from the Cohesion Fund to the Commission. The Commission did not receive an application to part-finance the installation of water purification plants in the Balearic Islands in 1999, nor has it received one since then.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3156/00

by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Transport taxes on pleasure boats in Greece

Is the Commission aware that, pursuant to Article 11(1) of Act 2743/1999, transport taxes are payable to the port police authority's special capital account in respect of private pleasure craft over 7 metres in length irrespective of their country of registration which are not regularly anchored in Greek waters?

Does the Commission consider that this tax conflicts with the basic notion of a united Europe and with Community law, particularly the principle of freedom of movement and the rule that EU Member States may not charge other EU citizens for entry into their territory?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1062/00 by Mr von Wogau(1).

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 150.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3034/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: EU-Turkey Partnership Agreement

At the Helsinki Summit it was decided that Turkey was a candidate for accession to the EU subject to certain specific and expressly defined conditions.

The Commission is obviously concerned to ensure that summit decisions are implemented precisely, and that the fundamental principles underpinning the outlook of European peoples and their governments are fully observed. However, the violent reaction of a section of the Turkish press to the talks held by the Commission delegation last July in Ankara creates the impression that certain parties may be attempting to exclude from the draft of the Turkey-EU partnership agreement explicit references to the conditions relating to Turkey's candidate status.

What steps will the Commission take to ensure that the conditions which the Helsinki Summit attached to Turkey's status as a candidate for accession, namely a settlement of the Cyprus problem, an improvement in the human rights situation, resolution of the Kurdish problem, Turkish claims in the Aegean and their settlement by the International Court in The Hague, the democratisation of the political system, together with the other Helsinki political criteria are incorporated in the main body of the text and not the preamble of the prospective partnership agreement?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2000)

The Commission is closely monitoring the developments in Turkey in relation to the political criteria of Copenhagen. It will present its results in the regular report for Turkey and in the accession partnership for Turkey to be adopted on 8 November 2000.

The developments on human rights, the Cyprus issue and other related issues are subject to regular political dialogue between the Union and Turkey.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2918/00

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Bans on particular breeds of dogs

Is the Commission aware of the recent German legislation banning particular breeds of dogs? Does the Commission have a view as to whether such bans should be introduced on an EU-wide basis?

Is the Commission aware that the German ban, possibly inadvertently, includes a Staffordshire bull terrier although this is by no means the same breed as the American Staffordshire terrier which is similar to a pitbull terrier? If the Commission is considering proposing EU legislation on this issue will it ensure that such mistakes are avoided and will it take up the issue with Germany in order for the German national legislation on this point to be rectified?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that at the moment there is no specific Community legislation banning particular breeds of dogs. Consequently, in the absence of Community harmonisation, Member States may adopt national measures designed to protect people's lives, subject to compliance with the provisions of the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 28 and 30 (ex Articles 30 and 36).

In accordance with Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of

technical standards and regulations(1), the German authorities have notified the Commission of their draft legislation on protection against dangerous dogs. The Commission is in the process of assessing the conformity thereof, with regard to Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2534/00

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Fauna-flora-habitat directive

Almost all the areas along the Upper Rhine earmarked for gravel extraction are covered by the fauna-flora-habitat directive.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What implications does this have for the ongoing operation of gravel works in those locations?

2. What implications does inclusion in the directive have for those areas earmarked as reserve areas in the regional development plan?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

The sites which Germany has to date notified under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 2 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2) are not adequate. This applies in particular to Baden-Württemberg, the German Bundesland in which the Oberrheinebene is primarily situated.

Therefore it should first be stressed that there is an urgent need for Germany to notify the appropriate sites under the birds and habitats directives including those within the Oberrheinebene.

The significance for the quarries mentioned has to be decided on a case by case basis, by the national authorities in the framework of European nature protection legislation (in particular Article 6 Habitats Directive).

For any new plan or project requesting (Abgrabungsgenehmigung) permission for gravel exploitation and which might involve considerable impacts on a Natura 2000 site, Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC needs to be applied, even if the quality as resource is known. Detailed information about the scope of the Article 6 application is given in a brochure prepared by the Commission available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/home.htm., under Community Nature legislation Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.

Already in the 1960's and 1970's, scientific literature notes the positive effects of renaturated quarries including gravel quarries(3). Therefore not every quarry in the neighbourhood of a Natura 2000 site should be seen as a disaster, and mitigation and compensation measures like renaturation which reconcile nature protection and gravel industry interests might be possible in a considerable number of cases.

However, large parts of the Oberrheinebene are under agricultural use (such as maize fields) and gravel or pebbles are a raw material of broad distribution. Therefore it should not be too difficult for the Member States to find alternative sites for gravel quarrying outside of Natura 2000 sites.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(3) cf. eg. Weinzierl (1964): Kiesgrube und Landschaft.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2704/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Cost of air travel in the EU

Will the Commission please state the average price of an airline ticket for journeys of a comparable length in the EU and in the US, taking typical short-, medium- and long-haul routes?

Has there been any improvement in the relative EU position over the last ten years, and what is the evidence for this?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

In terms of international comparisons, the real difference is not between fares on either side of the Atlantic, but rather between routes where there is substantial competition and routes where one or two carriers operate unchallenged. According to work carried out by the travel industry, it seems that in the mid 1990's, Community travellers were on average paying between twenty and forty percent more than their American counterparts per kilometre for comparable economy class travel. By 1997 this gap seemed to have almost disappeared. The economy fares available today on the most competitive routes in the Community are comparable with those on the most competitive routes in the United States, but on both sides of the Atlantic there remain many routes where new competitors have yet to emerge and fares are higher. Because of a longer history of liberalisation and a larger low-cost industry in the United States, the Community probably still has a higher proportion of the latter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2207/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Discrimination in the Luxembourg Football Federation

A number of clubs in Luxembourg, most but not all of whose directors and players are Portuguese, have been prevented from registering with the Luxembourg Football Federation.

After abandoning its initial argument that they were foreign clubs, the Federation has used various ploys, laying down requirements which are not contained in its own statutes and using last-minute pretexts when all the requirements have been met, as happened in the case of Águias Boavista.

Does the Commission agree that the Luxembourg Football Federation's attitude is creating discrimination between clubs which, though comprising members of different nationalities, are governed by the same Luxembourg legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

The Commission is of the opinion that a discrimination between clubs by a sports federation on the grounds that a number of the members, players and/or directors of certain clubs have the nationality of other Member States is contrary to Community law, and notably Article 7(2) of

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of workers within the Community(1). This provision states that workers who have the nationality of other Member States are to be granted the same social and tax advantages as national workers. The Court of Justice has ruled on several occasions that this provision applies to leisure activities(2) and it is obvious that practising sport as an amateur is a leisure activity.

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the breach of Community law would be attributable to the rule of a private operator, since sports federations' status is governed by private law. Therefore the Commission has no competence to intervene and formally examine this case. In the context of a private sport federation, the Commission could only intervene directly on the basis of competition rules. However competition issues are not concerned in this particular case. Therefore, it is up to the potential victims of the discrimination to seek redress before the national judge.

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(2) Case C-334/94 [ECR] 1996, I-1307.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3328/00

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Damages for pain and suffering after air accidents

There are substantial differences between the Member States of the European Union in respect of the level of protection for consumers in the event of air accidents. Compensation is based largely on national law.

What is the Commission's attitude towards the demand for common European rules on entitlement to compensation, including appropriate damages for pain and suffering for injured parties or surviving dependants?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Warsaw Convention of 1929, the existing international legislation on the liability of air carriers for damages when a passenger is killed or suffers injury in an accident, set low limits to liability and gave passengers quite inadequate protection. Accordingly the Community adopted Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997(1) on air carrier liability in the event of accidents. This also served the purpose of creating an uniform regime for Community carriers in a single market for air transport. It applies to Community carriers, irrespective of whether a flight is international or domestic.

The regulation removes any limit on a carrier's liability for damages sustained in the event of death, wounding or bodily injury and establishes strict liability for damages up to 100 000 Special drawing rights. The carrier cannot exclude or limit liability by proving that it did everything possible to avoid the damage or that it was not possible to do so. It does not limit the types of damage that can be considered. The regulation also provides for advance payments to meet the immediate economic needs of people entitled to compensation.

The Community's initiative in adopting this regulation did much to stimulate the negotiation of a new international agreement in 1999, the Montreal Convention covering international flights. This closely follows the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 so far as liability for damages resulting from death or injury is concerned.

Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 gives the courts responsibility for fixing the actual amounts of compensation to be paid. A court can take account of the type and extent of the damages suffered by each individual, including pain and suffering, of the economic consequences of an accident for the victim and the dependents, of the particularities of each case, and of different national approaches to defining levels of compensation (in general and not just for air accidents). Fixed rates of compensation set by regulation could not reflect all these variables and so would appear unfair in light of the damages actually suffered by each individual.

As for the person entitled to compensation, Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 defines this as the passenger or as any person entitled to compensation in respect of the passenger, in accordance with applicable law, i.e. that of the court where the action is brought.

(1) OJ L 285, 17.10.1997.