ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0160/00

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Sea- and land-based nature reserves

Does the Commission consider it a matter of priority to protect the environment and marine flora and fauna in particular, on the understanding that any action aimed at safeguarding our seas should be consistent with the concept of sustainable development, without, in other words, leading to pointless extremism or undermining potential resources of the local or national tourist trade? The idea is that any sea- (for instance the Ponza Islands) or land-based nature reserves should help to protect the environment without damaging the local economy, bearing in mind not least that the Union finances tourism and fisheries projects under specific aid plans.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2000)

One of the main objectives set in Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) is the creation of a network of natural protected sites of Community importance called Natura 2000. Maríne sites may be part of this network. The Habitats Directive contributes to the general aim of sustainable development. Its objective is to encourage the preservation of biodiversity while taking account of scientific, economic, social, cultural and regional requirements. The purpose of the Natura 2000 network is therefore not to create nature sanctuaries where all human activity will be systematically excluded. The preservation of biodiversity in the designated sites may require human activities to be maintained or encouraged. However, human activities must remain compatible with the conservation aims of the designated sites.

It is the competence of Member States to establish which activities are compatible, e.g. through specific site management plans.

Any activity financed by the Community in the field of tourism or fisheries must obviously comply with the provisions of the directive.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0069/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Checks on data exchange and telecommunications in the EU Member States

As part of the annual Ilets (International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar) consultation process the police forces of the fifteen Member States are working on the sophisticated interception practices of the National Security Agency (NSA), the American secret service responsible for telecommunications and data exchange. At the request of the NSA, Lotus, Microsoft and Netscape have lowered the security level of their Internet and e-mail programmes for users outside the United Status. The interception facilities are used mainly for industrial espionage.

In the EU report Interception capabilities 2000 Duncan Campbell says that the result is that virtually every computer in Europe has, as a built-in standard feature, a system that enables the NSA alone to crack the user's code and to read secured messages. The messages are intercepted at US Internet nodes or are picked up by the Echelon espionage network of the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia (the UKUSA group).

The NSA bases its interception practices on the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (Calea) which was adopted by Congress in 1994. Since then American telecommunications forms have been obliged to build interception facilities into all digital satellite and mobile communications media. In January 1995 the Council adopted a (non-binding) resolution which is virtually identical to Calea. Approval of the use of these radical measures has never been subject to any parliamentary scrutiny.

1. Can the Council give me a copy of the (non-binding) Calea resolution, as adopted in January 1995?

If not:

(a) why not, and

(b) does this refusal not violate the principle of parliamentary accountability in a constitutional state governed by the rule of law?

2. Has the Council amended the (non-binding) Calea resolution over the years?

If so:

(a) what changes have been made,

(b) when,

(c) why, and

(d) at whose request?

3. Does the Council not think it would be better to draw up a public directive in order to permit democratic accountability? If not, why does the Council not think that there is a need for such democratic accountability?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

1. The Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 on the lawful interception of telecommunications has been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(1).

2. The Council has not amended the above-mentioned Resolution of 17 January 1995.

3. If the development of new technologies makes adjustments necessary, the Council will examine the possible adaptation of the requirements listed in the above Council Resolution.

(1) OJ C 329, 4.11.1996, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1268/00

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

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Euro-Arab Management School

The European Parliament's resolution of 30 March 1984(1) created a Euro-Arab University in Spain, as part of the Euro-Arab dialogue set up between the then European Economic Community and the Arab League.

Plans to create a Euro-Arab Management School in Granada were approved by the European Commission's Mediterranean Committee on 21 September 1994.

The Euro-Mediterranean Conference held in Barcelona in November 1995 referred to the School and the important role it would play in the field of vocational training and education, making it of undoubted value as a regional cooperation project for the Mediterranean area.

In the 1999 budget Parliament adopted an appropriation of EUR 100 000 for the School (Item A-3119), which the Commission has still not disbursed, and a commitment of EUR 380 000. At the same time the Commission endowed the School with a redemption fund of EUR 6 million, of which only the interest payments may theoretically be used, but bureaucratic difficulties are preventing their use.

1. What are the reasons preventing the use of these funds?

2. Is the Commission aware that the economic difficulties described above may prevent the operation of this important project for Euro-Arab cooperation in a region vital to European interests, as pointed out in a number of Parliament's resolutions and Commission and Council statements?

3. Does the Commission have the political will to provide the Euro-Arab Management School with the greatest possible cooperation and financial aid, since this is a project that will make a very positive impact on the exchange of experience and the training of business managers from the Arab world and Europe?

(1) OJ C 117, 30.4.1984, p. 165.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

Experts were commissioned to carry out a rehabilitation study of the initial objectives of the Euro-Arab Management School (EAMS) and its achievements to date.

The conclusions of this assessment show that there is a substantial difference between the initial objectives and what has been achieved.

At this stage the EAMS project is being evaluated carefully to work out the best plan of action for the School's future.

The Commission is aware of the School's financial difficulties and of the importance of the project and will do its best to judge objectively and make decisions in the best interests of all concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0010/00 by Ole Krarup (EDD) to the Council. Taxation of savings income of EU staff.



Official Journal 280 E , 03/10/2000 P. 0157 - 0157



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0010/00 by Ole Krarup (EDD) to the Council (20 January 2000) Subject: Taxation of savings income of EU staff Should the Council finally adopt the proposal to tax savings income in accordance with the Helsinki Summit's conclusions concerning the tax package (paragraph 34), would it also apply to staff in the EU institutions? Reply (28 March 2000) Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities only exempts from national taxes salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Communities. Accordingly, if an official were to receive savings income falling within the terms of the proposals such income would be chargeable to tax in the normal way in accordance with the tax laws in force in the Member State in which the official is deemed to have his or her fiscal domicile in accordance with Article 14 of the Protocol. Such tax law would of course include the provisions of the directive on the taxation of savings if and when it is adopted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1124/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

Large quantities of information are gathered on food safety, but often it is not properly collated or analysed. The (daily) risk analysis therefore needs to be improved in order to facilitate a prompt response to potential risks (sections 16 and 17).

What procedural and practical forms will cooperation between the EFA and the Commission take in order to satisfy the high requirements of the (daily) risk analysis in order to facilitate a prompt response to potential risks?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1121/00, E-1124/00, E-1126/00, E-1129/00, E-1130/00, E-1131/00, E-1132/00, E-1135/00, E-1136/00, E-1137/00, E-1138/00 and E-1139/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

In the White Paper on Food Safety(1), the Commission set out the general guidelines it intends to adopt concerning the future establishment of the European Food Authority and invited all the parties concerned to respond and contribute to the discussion during the consultation period. Regarding many of the points raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to finalise its proposals or fix the details of operational mechanisms until it has had an opportunity to consider the opinions expressed during the consultation procedure.

However, with regard to the question of responsibilities, the White Paper states that risk assessment, the gathering of data and providing information to consumers in areas for which the Authority is responsible should be a matter for that Authority. For legal reasons and reasons of democratic responsibility, the Commission believes that, under the current framework, the transfer of regulatory powers to an independent authority cannot be justified. However, any future extension of the Authority's powers would have to be considered in the light of the Commission's assessment of the Authority's performance and the degree of confidence that it has generated without ruling out a possible need to amend the Treaty.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1130/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

The Authority will be responsible for scientific advice and it has to acquire the status of a visibly appreciated point of reference. It must be available to give consumers information on developments in food safety. Finally, it has to work in close collaboration with national bodies and network with them.

1. What form will cooperation on providing information to consumers between the EFA and the national information bodies take? Will the Authority and the national bodies have clearly defined powers in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity?

2. What form will cooperation on scientific advice take between the Authority and the national information bodies? Will the Authority and the national bodies have clearly defined powers in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1121/00, E-1124/00, E-1126/00, E-1129/00, E-1130/00, E-1131/00, E-1132/00, E-1135/00, E-1136/00, E-1137/00, E-1138/00 and E-1139/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

In the White Paper on Food Safety(1), the Commission set out the general guidelines it intends to adopt concerning the future establishment of the European Food Authority and invited all the parties concerned to respond and contribute to the discussion during the consultation period. Regarding many of the points raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to finalise its proposals or fix the details of operational mechanisms until it has had an opportunity to consider the opinions expressed during the consultation procedure.

However, with regard to the question of responsibilities, the White Paper states that risk assessment, the gathering of data and providing information to consumers in areas for which the Authority is responsible should be a matter for that Authority. For legal reasons and reasons of democratic responsibility, the Commission believes that, under the current framework, the transfer of regulatory powers to an independent authority cannot be justified. However, any future extension of the Authority's powers would have to be considered in the light of the Commission's assessment of the Authority's performance and the degree of confidence that it has generated without ruling out a possible need to amend the Treaty.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1535/00

by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Protection of families and children

In its resolution A4-0004/1999(1) of 28 January 1999 on the protection of families and children, the European Parliament called on the Commission to hold a conference in the coming year, with the European Parliament, the NGOs and the Council of Europe, on the situation of children in the European Union.

Could the Commission state what action it has taken, or intends to take, to put this proposal into practice?

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 79.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1530/00, E-1531/000, E-1532/00, E-1533/00, E-1534/00, E-1535/00, E-1536/00 and E-1537/00 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0249/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Pension liabilities

What are the present liabilities for the European Communities staff?

What are the estimates of the same for 2020?

What reforms leading to a private-based system are under consideration?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

A recent estimate puts the pension liabilities for the staff of the Communities, including those of the Commission, Parliament and the Council at 14 100 million at the end of 1997 and 22 200 million (excluding inflation) at the end of 2020.

These estimates result from an actuarial calculation based inter alia, on a real interest rate of 2,5 % for the whole period. The mortality table was developed by the actuary Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG) for the purpose of the evaluation.

The liabilities have been determined as the defined benefit obligation that would be required to be disclosed in the employer's balance sheet under International accounting standard 19.

The Commission is not considering any proposals relating to the pension scheme that would lead to a private-based system.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0905/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Council. Alteration of the cultural heritage in FYROM.



Official Journal 026 E , 26/01/2001 P. 0128 - 0128



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0905/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Council (24 March 2000) Subject: Alteration of the cultural heritage in FYROM Extensive alterations have reportedly been made recently to the architecture of the Church of Ayios Dimitrios in the town of Bitola (Monastir) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), which clearly constitute alteration of the cultural heritage of that historical monument and of the region in general. Will the Council say whether it is aware of this situation, what steps it intends to take to put an immediate end to these actions, and whether it has taken or intends to take any measures to protect the historical monuments and the cultural heritage in general in the Balkans? Reply (26 June 2000) The Council would point out that on 24 January 2000 it issued negotiating directives to the Commission for the negotiation of a stabilisation and association Agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. These directives foresee that the future Agreement would contain provisions on cultural cooperation and in particular the conservation and restoration of monuments and cites.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0218/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Financial aid to the European oil industry

In answer to question E-2126/99(1) Mrs de Palacio has stated that the Commission has provided approximately EUR 750 million to the hydrocarbons sector since 1975.

Please provide an annual breakdown of this figure, specifying the amounts allocated to (a) oil, (b) gas and (c) coal, together with a breakdown per Member State.

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 145.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

After the first oil crisis in 1973 the Community started programmes to give financial support to technology for production exploration and transport of hydrocarbons. The main concern at that time was security of supply. Financial support was therefore focused on technology to develop indigenous resources in the North Sea.

During the following years however the programme enlarged its objectives to competitiveness and protection of the environment. Priority was given to projects reducing the environmental impact of hydrocarbon exploitation and promoting the competitiveness of European technology.

In the period from 1975 to 1998, nearly 750 million of support was granted to projects for the research development and demonstration of innovative hydrocarbons technology. The 750 million of financial support already mentioned in the Commission's previous reply to Written Question E-2126/99 by Mrs Maes refers only to oil and gas technology (it did not include the support for coal technology projects). The following table indicates the split by year and by country for the period 1990-1998, which related to the Thermie programme. In addition the total support for the period 1975-1989 has been included in the first column.

>TABLE>

The relatively high amount of support allocated to the United Kingdom, Italy and France, derives from the support to the United Kingdom and Italy related to projects for the production of hydrocarbon in the Mediterranean and in the North Sea and the French strong network of service and supply industry.

As far as the split between oil and gas is concerned, this is somewhat more complex. Innovative drilling equipment or a new seismic acquisition system can be used both for oil and gas applications. In such cases it is not possible to classify a technology as a gas or as an oil technology. However, there are some techniques whose application is limited to gas, mainly in relation to gas conversion and transport issues. The number of projects dealing exclusively with gas technology is fairly limited and the related financial support can be estimated at less than 10 % of the total budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0149/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Traffic separation schemes and interpretation of rules to prevent collisions in the German Bight

Concerning the interpretation of rules to prevent collisions in the German Bight, the frequency with which fines are imposed for infringement of these regulations are a source of irritation, in particular for German sailing federations.

1. To what extent are rules to prevent collisions in the relevant areas of the German Bight internationally recognised?

2. Is compliance of these rules monitored by international organisations?

3. Is the Commission aware that these rules are interpreted differently in the various Member States?

4. What possibilities does the Commission see of harmonising at European level the interpretation and implementation of measures to prevent collisions?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

The navigation of all vessels (including small boats and yachts) is regulated by the Convention on the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea (Colregs).

1. The Commission is aware of some legal discussions over the precise powers of the coastal state over navigation in areas of the German Bight which lie outside the territorial sea area. However, it is unaware of any special rules in the German Bight which conflict with the requirements of the Colregs. It would be expected that the Colregs would be applied and enforced in the German Bight area.

2. Implementation of the Colregs is not supervised by any international organisation. It is the responsibility of the flag state of the vessel to ensure that its vessels comply with the rules. Coastal states may monitor compliance and prosecute an offending vessel's master under their national laws if the vessel enters port.

3. The Commission is not aware of any differences in interpretation of the Colregs in Member States as the rules have evolved over a long time and their interpretation has been discussed and agreed by International maritime organisation (IMO) Member States.

4. The Commission therefore has no evidence of any need for harmonisation of the application of the Colregs in the Community.