ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1893/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Subject: Progress of work on the Pylos estuary and the Evrotas delta

As part of the Community's LIFE-Natura programme, the Commission approved a programme for the implementation of measures to protect the Natura 2000 areas of the Pylos estuary and the Evrotas delta for a duration of three years commencing on 1 December 1997.

1. What was the total amount made available from the Community budget for the work? What amount has been used to date and which part of the work was carried out with that amount?

2. Is the Commission satisfied with the progress of the work and, if not, who is responsible for the delays?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The LIFE-Nature project Implementation of management plans for Pylos Lagoon and Evrotas Delta started on 1 April 1997 and ended on 31 December 2000. It was carried out by a partnership of organisations, under the overall responsibility of Hellenic Ornithological Society, and with the support of the Greek Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works. In the context of this project, a set of actions were undertaken aiming at the conservation and restoration of these 2 sites which have been proposed by Greece for the Natura 2000 network pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1).

The total approved budget of the project was 1 513 420, with a Community contribution of 70 % ( 1 059 394) to it. According to the financial elements submitted to the Commission, the actions carried out account for a total amount of 1 359 477. The difference of 153 943, as compared to the budget approved, is mainly due to the fluctuation of the exchange rate of Euro in relation to the Greek Drachmae between the start and end date of the project, and the non-completion of one of the project actions (renovation of the external façade of an old pumping station at Pylos converted into a scientific workstation/information centre).

As a whole the project was completed successfully and has a strong demonstration value. In particular, it has been able to undertake important wetland restoration work, to implement innovative actions,

to elaborate the legislative framework for the long-term protection of the 2 sites, and to create synergies with various stakeholders. Some delays which occurred, resulting in a 3-month extension of the project duration and in the non-completion of the aforementioned work, relate to the lengthy administrative procedures in getting the necessary permits for certain works in the Pylos area. More information about the project can be obtained from the relevant Web-site created (Internet address: http://ornithologiki.gr/life/pylos-evrotas/) or directly from the beneficiary (address: Emm. Benaki 53, GR-10681 Athens, phone-fax: ++30-1-3811271).

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2673/01

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(24 September 2001)

Subject: Measures to protect EU Muslims from racist violence

Prompted by the tragic terrorist attack on the USA on 11 September 2001, the first signs of demonisation of the Arab and Muslim populations living in the European Union have been seen in the EU. In the United Kingdom alone, a string of events has already been recorded, such as the violent attacks on a 19-year-old Muslim woman and on a taxi-driver from Afghanistan, who now faces permanent disability.

What preventive measures does the Commission intend to take to protect this section of the population, while respecting their religious and cultural identity, and, more specifically, how does it plan to educate public opinion in order to avoid the 20 million Muslims living in the EU becoming victims of violent racist incidents and social exclusion?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2001)

In the extraordinary meeting of the European Council of 21 September 2001 which was convened to analyse the international situation following the terrorist attacks in the United States and to impart the necessary impetus to the actions of the European Union, it was underlined that the European Union categorically rejects any equation of groups of fanatical terrorists with the Arab and Muslim world. The Commission fully shares this view.

The Commission deplores all racist and xenophobic violence. The Commission is extremely concerned about the increase in racist attacks against Muslims and people of Arabic and Southern Asian origin in a number of EU countries, following the recent terrorist atrocities in the United States.

The Community action programme to combat discrimination(1), is aimed at promoting measures to combat any direct or indirect, single or multiple discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, disability, age or sexual orientation. Within the limits of the Community's powers, the programme supports and supplements the efforts made at Community level and in the Member States to encourage measures to prevent and combat discrimination. One of its objectives is to promote and disseminate the values and practices underlying the combating of discrimination, including by means of awareness-raising activities. The Commission will be exploring with the Member States the possibilities for using the programme to support national initiatives to prevent the stigmatisation of certain ethnic and religious groups.

Responsibility for monitoring racist and xenophobic incidents rests with the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia based in Vienna. Action taken by the Commission has consisted of close liaison with the Monitoring Centre concerning a request to focus specifically on any apparent increase in racism and xenophobia in the wake of the attacks and, where possible, to identify good practices to try to limit any side-effects.

(1) Council Decision 2000/750/EC of 27 November 2000, OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3516/01

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Fragmentation of the single internal market and the responsibilities of the Member States

According to a report drawn up by the Commission, Greece is lagging furthest behind in the process of harmonising the internal market and has the biggest backlog of Community legislation to be implemented with a total of 114 directives yet to be incorporated into national law.

How will the Commission respond to the failure to create the internal market as yet, and to the problems ensuing therefrom?

How will it deal with the countries which are responsible for the high level of fragmentation of the internal market that currently exists?

What is the cost to European citizens of the failure to establish the single internal market in due time?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

According to the latest Internal Market Scoreboard (November 2001), Greece has a transposition deficit of 3 %, which corresponds to 44 directives which have not yet been implemented. Even if Greece, although not alone, still runs the highest deficit of all Member States, its deficit has been considerably reduced recently. In May 2001, the Greek deficit stood at 4,8 % (or 71 late directives).

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that late transposition fragments the Internal Market and undercuts its ability to create growth and jobs. The Commission systematically launches infringement proceedings according to Articles 226-228 (ex Articles 169-171) of the EC Treaty once the transposition deadline has passed. In addition, the naming and shaming approach, adopted in the Internal Market Scoreboard, has been largely effective in that the average transposition deficit has diminished from 6,3 % in November 1997, when the first Scoreboard was published, to 2 % today. Furthermore, it is expected that a majority of Member States will meet the target of 98,5 % of directives transposed by March 2002 (Barcelona European Council), as agreed by the Stockholm European Council, on 23 and 24 March 2001. The Commission would be in favour of the Barcelona European Council fixing an even more ambitious target for the near future to keep up the pressure on Member States to implement on time.

The legal uncertainty created by late transposition carries significant costs to citizens and businesses. The Commission has no statistics to quantify the overall costs of late transposition. However, it is estimated, for example, that a correct application of the mutual recognition principle could increase trade by up to 1,8 % of the Union's gross domestic product (GDP). It is also estimated that timely transposition and better application of the Community procurement directives could result in savings in excess of 50 billion. While these are only partial estimates, which have to be handled with care, they make it clear that the effective cost of the current situation is quite substantial for the European economy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2870/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Living and working conditions for Andalusian day labourers in the French wine harvest

The French wine harvest is once again providing an opportunity for thousands of Andalusians to travel to France and work in the vineyards while waiting for the olive harvest in their own region.

Nevertheless, Andalusians travelling to France to work in the grape harvest are still making two demands aimed at obtaining decent conditions for their work: that they should have a contract before leaving their homes and that they should be given adequate accommodation, with all the needs of people who work for more than 14 hours a day being provided for.

Could the Commission play a part in ensuring that Andalusian workers taking part in the French wine harvest achieve their objective of securing decent living and working conditions in return for their work and long hours, and that they have a contract before leaving their homes in order to prevent the fraud and deception which they face when they do not have any document regulating their work obligations in the wine harvest?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

First, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship(1). The aim of this Directive is to provide employees with greater protection against possible infringements of their rights, and Article 2 of the Directive provides that the employer is obliged to notify the employee of the essential aspects of the contract or employment relationship.

Member States may provide that the provisions of this Directive are not applicable, for example to employees whose contracts are of a total duration not exceeding one month.

Second, under Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community(2), seasonal workers have the right to be treated in the same way as employees who are nationals of the Member State where they work, including in terms of housing (Article 9(1)). These workers may therefore demand all the rights and benefits, in terms of housing, which are accorded to national workers in the same situation.

(1) OJ L 288, 18.10.1991.

(2) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3065/01

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Council

(8 November 2001)

Subject: Involvement of the Belgian Foreign Minister in a case of corruption

According to a press report, the Belgian Foreign Minister has been accused of having covered up a case of corruption. According to the report, a female embassy official noticed that visas for EU Member States were being sold. After she had reported this breach of regulations, the Ambassador was promoted to the post of Representative of the Belgian Foreign Ministry. When the hideout of a Russian Mafia gang was raided in Paris, the police found Belgian red cards. When legal proceedings were instituted in Belgium, the only person prosecuted was a minor official. Those genuinely responsible were not punished. Nor was there any parliamentary investigation into the case.

Therefore I ask the Council:

1. Is there any truth in the press report?

2. If so, what measures can be taken so that, in the future, such activities may be prevented from undermining the entire system?

Reply

(14 February 2002)

The Council is not aware of the press report to which the Honourable Member refers. In any event, the Council is not in the habit of commenting on the content of press articles.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2266/01

by Gordon Adam (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Foot-and-mouth disease Trading problems with EU applicant countries

Will the Commission indicate what steps it has taken and is proposing to take to ensure that restrictions imposed by EU applicant countries on imports from those EU Member States currently or recently suffering from outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease do not exceed the restrictions laid down in Decision 2001/356/EC(1) or other relevant EU Decisions, as amended?

(1) OJ L 125, 5.5.2001, p. 46.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2266/01, E-2267/01, E-2268/01 and E-2269/01given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2001)

The decisions adopted by the Community to safeguard animal and plant health form an integral part of the body of Community law. The principle underlying the accession negotiations is that the applicant countries will adopt this body of law. As soon as they join the EU, these countries will be bound by Community legislation, including the requirements to provide safeguards for instance as regards foot-and-mouth disease and bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE). All the applicant countries have undertaken to abide by this principle. The Commission also insists that the applicant countries gradually incorporate Community provisions into their national law during the pre-accession period.

In the course of the pre-accession period, relations between the Community and the applicant countries are governed by the association agreements. In this context and in various international forums, the Commission has raised the subject of the sometimes excessive restrictions imposed by the applicant countries. The Commission is doing what it can to ensure that such restrictions do not exceed the precautionary measures adopted by the Community. The Commission confirms that the provisions to be adopted by the applicant countries must not constitute arbitrary discrimination or a covert restriction on trade. In this respect, the association agreements are a fundamental component of the pre-accession strategy. The Commission intends to continue its efforts in this area. Moreover, the Commission has frequent contact with the veterinary authorities in the applicant countries and regularly provides them with information on the latest developments in the Member States and on the measures which have been taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2515/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 September 2001)

Subject: Answer to Written Question P-2140/99

Mr Byrne's answer to Written Question P-2140/99(1) not only fails to make any sense but also amounts to an invitation to produce more tobacco, as if there were no link between consumption (demand) and production (supply).

Is the Commission aware that for many years the United Nations has been supporting and funding a campaign to promote alternative crops to poppies in the Golden Triangle and coca in the Andes? Obviously not. What the Commission seems to be interested in, however, is tobacco growing.

As it is the European taxpayers' money that is involved not that of the Commission, I must insist on knowing where the money has gone, country by country, over the past three years. As far as the inexact reference in the above written question is concerned (the word company can also cover farms, I would ask the Commission to think again and answer the question in the interests of openness rather than secrecy.

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 99.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2001)

In addition to the reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-2140/99(1), it may be useful to underline that, since that date, the Commission has proved on several occasions its commitment when it comes to contributing to a reduction of tobacco consumption, to banning tobacco advertising and to eliminating tobacco subsidies, namely with the following initiatives:

- First and foremost, the Commission's Communication(2) of 15 May 2001 on A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development, addressed to the Gothenburg European Council, which calls for the phasing out of tobacco subsidies;

- Secondly, the adoption on 30 May 2001 of a new proposal for a directive on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Members States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products(3);

- Finally, the negotiation process on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control of the World Health Organisation, in which the Community and its Member States are presently engaged.

The Honourable Member will also find below the total amounts (in) of Community premiums paid to tobacco farmers during the last three financial years for which data are available, running from 16 October n to 15 October n+1:

>TABLE>

Other interesting information could be the volume of the tobacco crop production and the total number of farmers for each one of the years considered:

>TABLE>

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000.

(2) COM(2001) 264 final.

(3) OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3104/01

by Yasmine Boudjenah (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Ratification of the Cotonou Agreement

The Cotonou Agreement between the European Union and the ACP countries has already had most of its provisions implemented in advance and on a provisional basis, but there appears to be a considerable delay in ratifying the agreement, particularly in the EU Member States.

Can the Commission provide a list of EU Member States and ACP countries which have ratified the agreement?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to speed up the ratification process?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

In order to come into effect, the Cotonou Agreement, signed on 23 June 2000, must be ratified by all Member States and the Community (16 ratifications necessary, including the assent of the Parliament) as well as by 2/3 of the signatory African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States (51 of the 76 signatories article 93.2 of the Agreement).

As of 14 November 2001, the Agreement has been ratified by one Member State, ie Denmark, and by 27 ACP States. The ACP States having ratified the Agreement are in alphabetical order: Bahamas, Belize, Comoros, Cook Islands, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Guinea, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mauritania, Niue, Palau, St Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Tonga, Tuvalu.

The Commission regularly uses the opportunity to remind the signatories of the need to proceed as soon as possible to the ratification of the Agreement. At the Development Council on 31 May 2001 and subsequently by letter, the Member of the Commission responsible for Development urged Member States to complete the ratification procedure. At the Joint Parliamentary Assembly on 30 October 2001 the Member of the Commission reiterated his appeal urging that full implementation of the Agreement should be planned for the middle of 2002, in time for the meeting of the ACP-Union Joint Council of Ministers in the Dominican Republic in June 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2883/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Crop-spraying using the insecticide Lebaycid on Corfu and the legality of its use

Is the Commission aware that the Greek authorities permit crop-spraying (originally by fixed-wing aircraft and now, following public pressure, by helicopter) using the insecticide Lebaycid every 10 to 15 days throughout the summer months in the north-eastern part of Corfu in an effort to control the Dacus fly, which eats the olive fruit, and that this is associated with a number of respiratory complaints suffered by people living outside the main villages of Kassopi and Acharavi? One resident, Mr Andrew Langton took soil samples from an area used for recreational purposes in the winter months which, after analysis, revealed traces of Fenthion.

Can the Commission say if such spraying in populated areas is legal?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the answer given to Written Question E-3552/00 by Mr Papayannakis(1) in which the legal provisions concerning the use of plant protection products are set out.

The aerial application of Lebaycid, an insecticide containing the active substance fenthion, is at present a matter regulated by the national law of the Member States. As explained in greater detail in that reply, the use of fenthion is at present allowed under Community law pending the completion of the evaluation in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(2).

The Community evaluation of fenthion has almost been finalised and the Commission will, after consultation of the Scientific Committee on Plants, propose as soon as possible a decision on fenthion, which will also address the acceptable ways of application.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 76.

(2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2753/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Date stamping of eggs

The 21 days' use-by dating of eggs in the EU suits conditions south of Denmark where eggs are kept refrigerated. Sweden has proposed 28 days under refrigeration, but discussion of this proposal by the EU is dragging on. In Sweden the supporters of the proposal claim that the reason is that a short shelf life favours the EU countries as this would reduce the opportunity for the USA to export eggs to Europe.

Does the Commission consider that the proposal for 28 days' date stamping of eggs may be introduced in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2001)

Article 3(1) of Council Decision 94/371/EC of 20 June 1994 laying down specific public health conditions for the putting on the market of certain types of eggs(1) states that eggs must be delivered to the consumer (sell-by date) within a maximum time limit of 21 days of laying. However, paragraph 2 of this Article allows a further seven days for the date of minimum durability. In practice, the use-by date for eggs is therefore already 28 days after laying, the first 21 days of which are for delivery to the consumer and the last seven for storage by the consumer.

Member States which, at the date of notification of this Decision, applied specific requirements relating to temperature for transport from one storage to another have been able to maintain these requirements in compliance with the provisions of the EC Treaty.

The Commission takes public health criteria into account both in Community policy and in its relations with international bodies such as certain Codex Alimentarius Committees and the World Trade Organisation's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS). There are regular contacts between the United States and the Commission, and veterinary issues relating to the EU and the US are even being included in negotiations on an equivalence agreement. The Commission therefore does not agree with the allegations reported by the Honourable Member concerning measures to protect the market from eggs in shell from the United States.

(1) OJ L 168, 2.7.1994.