ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0107/00

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Revision of TEN guidelines safety in projects of common interest

Under the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network adopted in 1996, the Commission is to provide a report indicating whether or not those guidelines should be revised.

Bearing in mind the unacceptably high rate of fatal accidents linked to transport operations (above all road transport), it appears paradoxical to say the least that those guidelines should not attach the same importance to transport safety as to environmental protection (which merits a specific article).

Given that the above guidelines form the basis for drawing up infrastructure projects of common European interest which will receive financial support from the European institutions, will the Commission introduce a specific article in its proposal for new guidelines with a view to requiring a safety impact study for all projects to be funded by the Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that the number of fatal accidents involving transport, and in particular road transport, is intolerable.

Ensuring the lasting mobility of goods and persons under the best possible safety conditions is one of the aims of the trans-European transport network. In order to update the Community's approach towards expanding that network, the Commission is currently examining how to achieve that aim as effectively as possible. In the medium term, the part played by traffic management systems with regard to safety could be given greater recognition. These include traffic monitoring and accident-detection systems, and also the harmonisation of signs and of railway telecommunication systems. In the longer term expansion of the network should be based on a detailed assessment of network quality, and more particularly of its safety level.

The Community-funded projects have already been subjected to a cost/benefit study which, in general terms, includes safety. However, those projects only cover a limited number of network sections.

The Commission thus intends to encourage a broader approach in its communication on road safety(1). For that purpose decisions on investment in transport infrastructure should take account of the costs and benefits to society of the various options in terms of road safety.

(1) COM(97) 131 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0514/00

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2000)

Subject: Compensation for cocoa-producing farmers

Amendment of the directive on cocoa and chocolate products for human consumption is currently being considered by the European Parliament at second reading. Although the exact outcome of the codecision procedure is not yet known it seems likely that the 1973 chocolate directive will be substantially amended. The main change is that after a certain time vegetable fats other than cocoa butter will be permitted in chocolate.

This will affect sales of cocoa from the ACP and other developing countries.

In the interests of fairness in North-South relations and our legal obligations under the Lomé agreements and the cocoa agreement, it seems obvious that cocoa-producing farmers should be adequately compensated one way or another and possibly helped to switch to other crops.

Is there a legal basis that the Commission can use for initiatives in this area? If so, which one?

Does the Commission plan to take any initiatives in this area? What are its reasons, if it does not?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

The estimation of the impact of the proposed directive(1) on the use of vegetable fats, other than cocoa, in chocolate manufacture is not feasible before the directive comes into force nor justified in the light of the provisions of the common position adopted by the Council in December 1999(2). For example, the Council agreed to limit the vegetable fats to those of tropical origin and produced by African, Caribbean and Pacific ACP countries; further, vegetable fats can only be present to the extent of 5 % and only be added to the minimum content of cocoa required for each product; finally, it is not clear to what extent vegetable fats will be more used than at present. All these elements need to be considered

when assessing the impact on ACP countries and other cocoa producers and this can only be done once the directive is implemented. In case an estimation of the impact were necessary in the future, the common position foresees a study after 36 months of application of the directive.

As far as the compensatory measures are concerned, the Post Lomé Agreement introduces a special mechanism designed to offer support to countries vulnerable to fluctuations from export earnings, in particular earnings from the agricultural and mining sector.

If a country is heavily dependent on the cocoa sector it may, subject to a number of criteria concerning the importance of the export losses and the country's public finances, benefit from the support system. The ACP country concerned may decide to target this additional support, when allocated, to compensate cocoa farmers or help them to diversify their crops.

(1) OJ C 231, 9.8.1996.

(2) OJ C 10, 13.1.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0443/00

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Council

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Domestic fuel oil for opposition towns in Serbia

1. What towns in Yugoslavia receive oil from the EU?

2. What criteria are applied?

3. Why is the town of Pancevo not included?

4. Can the Council answer these questions a little more promptly than usual on account of the winter?

Reply

(2 May 2000)

1. The Council invited the Commission at its meeting on 24 January to extend the Energy for Democracy initiative, as suggested by the Serbian opposition forces after the Berlin trilateral meeting with the EU and the US of 17 December 1999. The final decision on which communities should benefit was left to the Commission, being responsible for the implementation of the budget. On the basis of a proposal by the Commission, a decision was adopted by the Council to amend the Common Position 1999/691/CFSP on support to democratic forces in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), authorising the supply, sale or export of petroleum and petroleum products to the Serbian municipalities of Sombor, Subotica, Kragujevac, Kraljevo and Novi Sad.

2. The choice of municipalities was based on the priority list tabled by the Serbian opposition forces themselves. Particular attention was given to the municipalities which have a great number of socially vulnerable persons, as well as social institutions of regional character.

3. Pancevo was not among the priority municipalities indicated by the Serbian opposition.

4. The Council reiterates its readiness to continue supporting Serbian people in need and recalls that humanitarian assistance already provided by the Community for 1999, amounted to 72,1 million for Serbia alone, while member States contributed with almost the same amount.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0771/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council. Opting out of cooperation.



Official Journal 026 E , 26/01/2001 P. 0110 - 0111



WRITTEN QUESTION P-0771/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council (13 March 2000) Subject: Opting out of cooperation Would the Council make sure that a country is able to opt out of EU cooperation or parts thereof, such as EMU cooperation, for instance, if this is what the country in question itself wishes, without the need for the other Member States to agree to this? Reply (8 June 2000) The Treaty contains no specific provisions concerning a Member State's withdrawal, whether it be from the EU in general or the third phase of EMU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1205/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 April 2000)

Subject: Use of German shell bodies in a chemical attack carried out by the Turkish army

In reply to Written Question E-2386/99(1), the Council says that the sources referred to by the Honourable Member have not been brought to the attention of the Council.

However, the information sources on:

- German help in building a chemical weapons laboratory in Turkey,

- the use of chemical weapons by the Turkish army against the Kurdish PKK movement, and

- the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of chemical shell bodies used by the Turkish army

were mentioned in the introduction to the question

The sources are:

- the German Ministry of Defence,

- The Kennzeichen D programme on the ZDF television channel, and

- research carried out by the University of Munich.

Furthermore, Points 3 and 5 of Written Question E-2386/99 literally stated that the Council had been made aware or had been informed of the facts (i.e. construction of a laboratory for chemical weapons and the use of chemical weapons).

1. Will the Council now seek information from the German Ministry of Defence on the ministry's help in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey?

(a) If not, why does the Council refuse to seek information from the German Ministry of Defence on the ministry's help in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey, given that it may be a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention?

(b) If so, does the German aid in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey conform with the CWC which obliges the signatories, including Germany, never, under any circumstances, to develop, produce, acquire in any other way, stockpile, possess or transfer directly or indirectly chemical weapons?

2. Will the Council now register its opposition to German aid in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey in the light of the answers to question 1?

(a) If not, what are the Council's reasons for not registering its opposition to German aid in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey, given that this is a violation of the CWC?

(b) If so, in what way will the Council make its opposition known to the German government?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 38.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1203/00, E-1204/00 and E-1205/00

(10 July 2000)

All EU Member States are States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their destruction (CWC).

Article VIII of the Convention established the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to ensure the implementation of its provisions, including those for international verification of compliance with it. All States Parties to the CWC are members of the OPCW. This is the organisation entrusted with the verification of compliance by States Parties with the provisions of the Convention.

The specific questions referred to by the Honourable Member have not been raised within the Council or the Council bodies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1204/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 April 2000)

Subject: Use of German shell bodies in a chemical attack carried out by the Turkish army

In reply to Written Question E-2386/99(1), the Council says that the sources referred to by the Honourable Member have not been brought to the attention of the Council.

However, the information sources on:

- German help in building a chemical weapons laboratory in Turkey,

- the use of chemical weapons by the Turkish army against the Kurdish PKK movement, and

- the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of chemical shell bodies used by the Turkish army

were mentioned in the introduction to the question

The sources are:

- the German Ministry of Defence,

- the Kennzeichen D programme on the ZDF television channel and

- research carried out by the University of Munich.

Furthermore, Points 3 and 5 of Written Question E-2386/99 literally stated that the Council had been made aware or had been informed of the facts (i.e. construction of a laboratory for chemical weapons and the use of chemical weapons).

Will the Council now seek information from the makers of ZDF's Kennzeichen D programme on the use of German shell bodies in a chemical attack by the Turkish army on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999?

If not, why does the Council refuse to seek information on the use of German shell bodies in a chemical attack by the Turkish army on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999, given that it is a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?

If so, will the Council convey to the German and Turkish governments its displeasure at this violation of the CWC?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 38.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1203/00, E-1204/00 and E-1205/00

(10 July 2000)

All EU Member States are States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their destruction (CWC).

Article VIII of the Convention established the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to ensure the implementation of its provisions, including those for international verification of compliance with it. All States Parties to the CWC are members of the OPCW. This is the organisation entrusted with the verification of compliance by States Parties with the provisions of the Convention.

The specific questions referred to by the Honourable Member have not been raised within the Council or the Council bodies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1461/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Conflicts of interest within the Commission

After the Commission's refusal to approve the merger between Volvo and Scania, people in Sweden have been asking whether it is proper that the Commissioner concerned had sat on the board of a competitor. Does the Commission consider that the Commissioner responsible could be suspected of bias in such circumstances? Has the Commission a set of principles to govern potential conflicts of interest within its ranks?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The Code of Conduct for Commissioners lays down rules with which they must comply during their term of office and for one year after they have ceased to hold office. It requires all Commissioners to make a declaration relating to former and current outside activities in which they have engaged, financial interests and assets and, if appropriate, the activities of their spouses.

As regards former activities, the declaration must relate to activities engaged in over the last ten years.

The Commissioner with special responsibility for competition stated in his declaration of former activities that he had sat on the board of various firms, including Fiat from 1988 to 1993.

The declarations were scrutinised under the authority of the President and with due regard for Members' areas of responsibility and were made public.

As the Commissioner with special responsibility for competition ended his involvement with the boards of the firms in question between 1983 and 1994 and his membership of the Fiat board in 1993, i.e. six years before he took up that office (September 1999), he cannot in any way be regarded as having faced a conflict of interest, either when he took up office or when he had to deal with the Volvo-Scania merger.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1538/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Nepal

Nepal is a country with a population of over 20 million and rather unstable political institutions, where 600 people already have been killed in the course of an uprising by Maoists who have taken control of some regions of the country. Nepal is strongly affected by the presence of its powerful and fundamentally undemocratic neighbour, the People's Republic of China, and is also one of the poorest countries on Earth.

For these and other reasons, the European Union pays particularly close attention to Nepal. In particular, the Commission supports a large number of projects there, which a Commission representative based in Delhi is responsible for following up.

Could the Commission state the reasons which in this instance do not seem to involve budgetary considerations why the Commission's representative for Nepal has to be based in New Delhi rather than Katmandu?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The Commission handles its relations with Nepal from its Delegation in New Delhi since that Delegation has regional responsibilities.

The Commission is currently examining its political priorities for the possible opening of new delegations and offices in third countries. Once such priorities are established, it will be a question of allocating the available human and financial resources. A communication will be sent to the Council and Parliament on these matters during the course of this year.

The Commission cannot therefore, at this stage, enter into any undertaking about establishing a presence in Nepal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1119/00

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(13 April 2000)

Subject: Imprisonment of Arkin Birdal and the judgment against Necmettin Erkaban in Turkey

On Tuesday 28 March 200 the Public Prosecutor in Ankara refused to suspend the prison sentence against Arkin Birdal, a renowned and courageous defender of civil rights in Turkey accused of making subversive speeches. His lawyers had requested a six months' suspension of the sentence because he needs intensive medical treatment for injuries sustained as a result of an attempt made on his life.

At the beginning of March the former Prime Minister Necmettin Erkaban was sentenced to a year's imprisonment for similar offences, because of a speech he made in 1994.

1. Does the Council not consider that these blatant violations of freedom of expression and human rights are at odds with the commitments entered into by the Turkish Government with a view to EU membership and the basic conditions for the accession of new States, such as respect for the founding principles of the Union, sanctioned in Article 6(1) of the TEU, and the political criteria laid down by the Copenhagen European Council in June 1993?

2. Does the Council not consider that it should prevail upon the Ankara government to put an end to the judicial and other forms of persecution inflicted on Mr Birdal and Mr Erkaban?

Reply

(10 July 2000)

The Council regrets the re-imprisonment of Mr Birdal, which constitutes a serious setback for the freedom of expression in Turkey and is not in accordance with the spirit of the Helsinki conclusions. The Council has urged the Turkish Government to take measures to release Mr Birdal and to ensure adequate medical treatment while he remains in prison. The Council will continue to closely monitor the human rights situation in Turkey and, if necessary, raise individual cases with Turkish authorities.

The Council notes that the sentences against Mr Birdal and Mr Erbakan are both founded on Article 312 of the Turkish Penal Code. Article 312 makes it a criminal offence to incite the people to hatred or hostility on the basis of a distinction between social classes, races, religions, denominations or regions. This provision has been interpreted by Turkish courts and other authorities in a way that, in the Council's view, limits the freedom of expression.

The Council notes that Turkey has embarked on a process of reform in this area. The Council welcomes Turkey's intention to improve the human rights situation and will continue to support and encourage Turkish efforts in this regard. The Council looks forward to further progress in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0350/00

by Rosa Díez González (PSE), Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Public aid in the electricity sector in Spain: costs borne by the consumer

To date Spanish consumers have paid more than Ptas 300 000 million for the CTC (costs of transition to competition) approved by the Government and defined by the Commission, in principle, as illegal public aid. Does the Commission consider that action must be taken to put an immediate end to this situation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Commission is closely examining this very complex dossier which would in fact appear to be a case of state aid granted without prior notification. However, as the Commission pointed out to the Honourable Members in its reply to written question E-0165/00(1), in accordance with the Court's case law the unlawful nature of a state aid measure, i.e. the fact that it was granted without prior notification to the Commission, does not prejudge its compatibility with the common market. The Commission consequently does not plan at this stage to apply Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty(2) to request the Member State to suspend payment of the aid. Needless to say, it will take account of the amounts already paid when it takes its final decision on the case.

(1) See page 96.

(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0131/00

by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Employment of third-country drivers

The Belgian/Netherlands Transport Newsletter (NT) for 4 January 2000 carries a detailed report revealing that illegal employment within the EU of drivers from non-EU countries in particular Eastern Europe is increasing sharply. The activity is illegal in the sense that work permits are not applied for and employment contracts are not issued. The situation amounts to an inadmissible distortion of competition and evasion of collective labour agreements.

1. Is the Commission alert to this phenomenon, and if so how widespread is it? Can the Commission provide an overview?

2. Major companies like Willy Betz operate a scam posing negligible risk of detection. They arrange, for example, for East European drivers to drive in all EU Member States except the one in which the goods vehicle concerned is registered. That, after all, is the only country in which any checks are likely to be made on work permits. Is the Commission aware of this and other scams, and if so what action is it taking to extend and harmonise the necessary checks?

3. Can the Commission provide an overview of its activities in this connection in arranging consultations with Member States and drawing up directives and other relevant measures?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

1. The Commission is aware of the increasing number of drivers from outside the Community who are employed by haulage firms in the Community. It is likely that in many cases the employment conditions of these drivers are contrary to the national rules of the Member States where the haulier is established. The Commission is concerned about the distorting effects of this practice on road haulage competition within the Community but has no data about the exact size of the problem.

2. The Commission considers the difficult control of the legal employment status of drivers to be a very pressing problem within the national and international road haulage industry. Indeed, for this reason the Commission has already written to the Member States in order to raise awareness of the problem.

3. In order to grasp the extent of the problem of the often illegal use of third country drivers, the Commission has asked the Member States to provide an overview of the diverse social, labour and transport rules they apply in this area. A meeting with government experts will be organised shortly in order to explore possible ways to address this issue. Industry will also be consulted.

Once it has gained an overview of the relevant rules and details determining current practice and has explored possible measures, the Commission will consider what precise action must be taken. The Commission intends to adopt a communication on this matter in the course of this year.