ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2842/00

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Council

(6 September 2000)

Subject: Recruitment

Will the Council explain what the relevant qualifications are for the post of Vice-President of the European Investment Fund, and can it say whether the candidate proposed by the Irish government possesses such qualifications?

Reply

(30 November 2000)

According to art. 11 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European Investment Bank, only persons whose independence and competence are beyond doubt can be members of the Board of Directors of the EIB.

Those persons are, furthermore, appointed by the Board of Governors of the EIB following their nomination by the Member State concerned and not by the Council of the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3061/00

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Subject: Clean beaches

What steps has the Commission taken to ensure that all Member States comply fully with European legislation on the cleanliness of the European coastline and bathing water?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2000)

A number of Community directives may have a positive effect in the cleaning of coast and bathing water, most importantly Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975, on the quality of bathing water(1) and Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 on urban waste water treatment(2), but also many others such as Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community(3) or Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(4) as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991(5).

If Community directives are not complied with, the Commission does not hesitate to take all appropriate measures, including legal proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty and under Article 228 (ex Article 171), which may lead to the Court of justice imposing penalty payments on Member States which do not comply.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.

(2) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(3) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.

(4) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(5) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3003/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Level crossing at Oios

As part of the Greek Railway Board (OSE) projects co-funded by the European Union plans are being studied for a level crossing at Oios in the Aghios Stephanos area. The proposal by the Ergose for a flyover to be built has met with criticism from the local authorities and the local inhabitants, given that this proposal does nothing to solve the problem of the lack of cohesion of Aghios Stephanos which has been cut in two by the railway lines and significantly degrades the natural and urban environment.

By decision No. 6/2000 the Prefectural Council of the Prefecture of Attica has rejected the environmental study and called for consideration to be given to a solution involving lowering the level of the lines. The Municipal Council of Aghios Stephanos (in decision 81/2000) and other local bodies reached similar decisions and are calling for this solution to be examined. The main argument used by the Ergose in the face of these demands is the impossibility of securing the necessary appropriations to implement the project of lowering the level of the rails.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that consideration is given to the solution of lowering the level of the rails which is the most appropriate solution from an environmental point of view and is in line with the policy of integrated interventions and projects at local level?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

The forms of action to be jointly financed under the structural Funds and the projects to be jointly funded under the cohesion fund are negotiated between the Commission and the Member States concerned. That Member State is then to design and implement specific projects and activities while complying with Community law. Subsequently the Commission only acts where there is a presumed infringement of Community law. In view of the information provided by the Member State this would seem not to be the case as regards the project at issue.

Consequently, and as part of subsidiarity, the Commission is unable to ask that Member State to replace the building of an elavated link with that of a hypsometric variant as requested by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3292/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Destruction of the wetland habitat of the Messolonghi lagoon

The Commission has been notified on numerous occasions of the damage and destruction caused to the wetland habitat of the Messolonghi lagoon, which, inter alia, is protected under the Ramsar Convention. Recent surveys and photographs of the lagoon show that there has been illegal development in the area consisting of unauthorised construction of holiday homes which have also been supplied with electricity, water and telephone-lines to consolidate the situation; work has even begun on the construction of a sewerage system. Earth is also being dumped in the area on a daily basis, even within zone A of the wetland, threatening the flora and fauna of the ecosystem. In view of the fact that this situation constitutes a breach of the international Ramsar Convention and of Community Directives 74/409/EEC, 92/43/EEC and 85/337/EEC, and that Greece has designated the Ambracian Gulf and the Messolonghi lagoon protected areas pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 74/409/EEC, will the Commission say whether Greece has notified it of the particular measures it has taken to protect those areas and what measures it has taken to preserve the wetland habitat of the Messolonghi lagoon, an area of paramount environmental importance? Will the Commission intervene to put an end to these constant violations?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The Messolunghi lagoon is part of a special protection area classified by Greece under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1). The same area is also proposed as a site of Community importance under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2).

In view of the natural value of this wetland and its Community and international importance (Ramsar Convention), appropriate measures must be taken by the Greek authorities for its protection and conservation.

It is the responsibility of the national authorities to monitor the unlawful activities reported by the Honourable Member. However, these activities suggest that there has been a deterioration of the area and on that basis the Commission will be contacting the Greek authorities in order to obtain information about the action being taken to protect the Messolunghi lagoon and the specific measures being taken to safeguard its ecological interests.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2994/00

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(25 September 2000)

Subject: East Timor

Is the Council aware of the incomplete nature of the list of suspects issued by the Indonesian attorney general's office in relation to last year's massacres?

How does the Council intend to ensure that these men are brought to justice and that they do not evade prosecution through the medium of recent constitutional amendments which will most likely bar prosecutors from charging suspects with international crimes such as war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Reply

(22 December 2000)

The European Union has stated on various occasions that the perpetrators of violations of human rights in East Timor should be accountable for their acts and that that would be the best means of promoting democratic stability in Indonesia and a lasting reconciliation in East Timor.

The Council has been informed that the attorney-general's office of the Indonesian Republic has added new names to the initial list of suspects involved in the atrocities committed in East Timor in 1999. In mid-October of this year, the Troika, acting on behalf of the Council as part of the representations made to the Indonesian authorities, pointed out to them the need to arrest those who have committed acts of violence and to bring them to justice.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member of its declaration of 4 February 2000 in which it stressed the fact that the international community, through the United Nations system, has a responsibility to ensure that gross violations of human rights and of humanitarian law in East Timor are investigated and that the perpetrators are brought to justice. It would also point out that the Untaet has initiated an autonomous process of identification of and of criminal proceedings against those responsible following the establishment of institutional cooperation arrangements with the attorney-general's office of the Indonesian Republic.

The Council will continue to follow further developments in the situation attentively.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3302/00

by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Turkey and human rights

Last March the Turkish trade unionist, Suleyman Yeter, died in police custody after suffering torture. In the opinion of Commissioner Verheugen what consequences does this apparent blatant breach of human rights have on Turkey's application for membership?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

According to the Commission's information, Mr Suleyman Yeter, member and education expert of Limter-Is Union died in detention on 7 March 1999. Three police officers are currently on trial for causing his death. A court hearing took place on 23 October 2000 in the Istanbul No 6 Heavy Penal Court and the court is still in the process of hearing witnesses. Prison sentences of up to 13 years are demanded against the police officers.

The Commission is monitoring closely developments in the human rights situation in Turkey, and made a general assessment of this situation in its annual regular report on the progress of Turkey towards accession, adopted on 8 November 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3330/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Protection of animals during transportation

Article 8 of Council Directive 91/628/EEC(1) (as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC)(2) concerning the protection of animals during transport provides that the competent authority in each Member State shall submit to the Comission an annual report stating the number of inspections carried out in the preceding calendar year in respect of (a) means of transport and animals during transport by road and at certain specified places and (b) the particulars on the accompanying documents. Article 8 stipulates that the annual Member State reports must also include details of any reported infringements and the action taken as a result by the competent authority.

Will the Commission state whether all Member States have complied with the above requirements in (a) 1998 and (b) 1999. If not, which Member States have failed in either of these years to provide an annual report including all the details required under Article 8 and what action is the Commission taking in respect of those Member States?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

The Commission has received the above-mentioned report in relation to the year 1998 from twelve Member States. Three Member States failed to comply with this requirement of the Directive (Belgium, Greece and Portugal).

The Commission has received six reports in relation to the year 1999 (Belgium, Germany, Spain, Luxembourg Finland and Sweden). However it should be noted that Article 8 of the Directive does not provide a particular deadline for the transmission of the report to the Commission.

Since May 2000 the Commission has regularly reminded the Member States of the requirement through the standing veterinary committee.

Unless it receives the outstanding reports for 1998, it will consider opening infringement proceedings against Member States concerned. It will also formally request the Member States that have not reported for 1999 to do so as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3433/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Gianfranco Fini (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Floods in northern Italy

As a result of the current spate of bad weather in northern Italy, dozens of people have died, hundreds injured and thousands evacuated; road and rail traffic has been disrupted, hundreds of communes have been isolated, rivers have burst their banks, and bridges, roads and buildings have collapsed.

Will the Commission, in addition to immediately setting up an emergency assistance plan, draw up a directive instructing regions to forward a hydrogeological risk map, to provide detailed information on geological conditions in each commune?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Commission deplores the deaths, injuries and homelessness and the infrastructural and environmental damage resulting from the bad weather in northern Italy during October 2000.

As regards emergency assistance, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the answer given by the Commission to Oral Question H-0857/00 by Mr Ebner during question time at the November 2000 session of Parliament(1) and to its comments during the debate on climate change at the second October session on 25 October 2000(2) and during the debate on the floods in Europe at the November session, on 16 November 2001(4).

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and for reasons of proportionality it is not for the Commission to draw up any rules instructing regions to forward detailed hydrological risk maps for each municipality.

The Commission watched this disaster closely as it developed and offered assistance in the form of its own expertise and coordination of the national emergency teams. It would remind the Honourable Member that in September 2000 it adopted a proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community mechanism for the coordination of civil protection intervention in the event of emergencies(3) which will make it possible to mobilise operational resources and take rapid action to help a Member State facing an emergency situation.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 2000).

(2) Debates of the European Parliament (October 2000).

(3) COM(2000) 593 final.

(4) Debates of the European Parliament (November 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2370/00

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Bonded labour

With reference to the Commission's response to my written question (P-0359/00(1), 8 March 2000), will the Commission provide details for each year since the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act of 1992 was passed, on:

1. The number of investigations undertaken by the Government of Pakistan into the scope and scale of bonded labour?

2. The number of successful convictions against people who were prosecuted under the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1992 for using bonded labourers?

3. The number of bonded labourers who have been rehabilitated since the passage of the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1992?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 58.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

The Commission, through its delegation in Islamabad, took up these questions with the Pakistani authorities on behalf of the Honourable Member, in response to a letter from him of 1st February 2000.

The authorities in Pakistan have since declared that the year 2000 would be observed in their country as the Year of human rights and human dignity. At a human rights convention in April 2000, launching this initiative, the Chief executive, General Musharraf, announced a package of measures, including the elimination of bonded labour. In these circumstances, the Commission will ask its delegation in Islamabad to take up these questions once again with the relevant ministry, and will communicate the response to the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2475/00

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Recognition of the specific nature of sport in the Treaties

The recent summit in Feira, the last to be held under the Portuguese presidency, included in its conclusions the following statement: The European Council requests the Commission and the Council to take account of the specific characteristics of sport in Europe and its social function in managing common policies.

In a recent interview(1), Mr Jacques Delors commented: mldr To decide on the free movement of footballers by analogy with the free movement of workers is a measure with damaging consequences for the future of sport from the educational and popular viewpoints. (mldr) I have reminded Jacques Chirac and Lionel Jospin of the need for a protocol introducing asporting exception(comparable to the existingcultural exception) in Europe, with a view to injecting a moral dimension into sport and insisting on its educational aspect. (mldr) Every professional club playing in a national league in an EU Member State should be obliged to use at least six players of its home nationality. (mldr) It is their responsibility [i.e. that of the French presidency] to include the protocol which I am campaigning for in the Treaty of Nice in December 2000.

President Jacques Chirac, introducing the main points of the French presidency's programme at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 4 July 2000, made, in his turn, the following guarantee. We must ensure that the European Union takes better account of the specific nature of sport and its role in society. There is a real problem which needs to be studied and tackled. The French presidency will make every effort to do so.

In view of the position adopted by the Portuguese presidency and strongly reiterated by the French presidency before the European Parliament, can the Council state what practical action it is taking with a view to the forthcoming adoption of a protocol to the Treaties which will properly recognise the specific nature of sport and provide an appropriate and balanced response to the problems which have already been the subject of a wide-ranging and detailed debate, given the social, popular and educational dimensions of sport, even in the professional context?

(1) Le Figaro, 4 July 2000, first section, p. 13.

Reply

(16 November 2000)

While it is aware of the debate surrounding the possible inclusion of a reference in the Treaties to recognition of the specific nature of sport, the Council cannot prejudge the outcome of the current Intergovernmental Conference on the revision of the Treaties. It would point out, moreover, that any amendment to the Treaties is adopted by the Member States by common accord.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3193/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Illegal fishing in West African waters

In the light of reports of widescale illegal fishing by European vessels in West African waters, which is resulting in hundreds of deaths and threatening to destroy the livelihoods of local fishermen, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2000)

The Commission would like to point out that the Community's fisheries agreements with West African countries were negotiated taking into account Article 62 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). These agreements, which cover fishing possibilities utilised not at all or only to a limited extent by local fishermen, generally contain provisions governing fishing zones, gear, landings, crew assignment, and by-catches. All the provisions are designed to avoid any clash between Community fishing vessels and local fleets. When negotiating with a non-Community country, the Commission also includes funding for initiatives targeted at developing local and small-scale fisheries.

Such targeted initiatives are meant to enable the coastal states in question to improve their monitoring and surveillance methods in order to combat illegal fishing. Policing the waters placed under their sovereignty or jurisdiction is, of course, a matter for them. Although the Community is not legally empowered to carry out inspections in waters which are under the jurisdiction or sovereignty of third countries, the Commission cooperates as closely as possible with the coastal states in question to monitor fishing activities covered by our fisheries agreements. Community legislation also requires each Member State to check that fishing vessels flying its flag comply both with the fisheries agreements (including as regards submitting catch data and monitoring in Community ports) and with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy(1) (including the satellite-based vessel monitoring system (VMS)).

The Community is of course actively involved in the Food and Agriculture Organisation's current work on drawing up an international plan of action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. The plan contains a chapter on the specific needs of developing countries.

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.