ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0326/01

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Creutzfeld-Jakob disease (mad cow disease)

Further to the Commission reply to my Written Question E-3886/00(1), and given that the budget Commissioner has recommended that the Commission set aside 1 billion for measures to withdraw, store and destroy beef and veal, a sum which the Commissioner thinks is likely to affect the financial perspective, will the Commission say:

1. As part of a strategic change of policy, why are the appropriations in question not used to support the production of plant produce containing oil and proteins so as to reduce the production cost of beef and veal, instead of using them to destroy products which are deemed a public health risk, owing to the use of animal protein in the food chain of cattle?

2. In order that I may receive information in accordance with the principle of transparency which informs relations between Parliament and the Commission, what are the proposals and recommendations which have been made in this connection to which the Commission refers in its answer and what is their content?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2001)

The expenditure referred to by the Honourable Member has been set aside for the 2002 financial year to pay for the emergency plan proposed by the Commission to deal with the serious disturbance of the market for beef and veal. The plan includes market measures, which should take effect in the short term, and changes to the system of premiums with a view to encouraging extensification and reducing production of beef and veal. Given the scale of the crisis and the emergency, the allocation of this expenditure to the beef sector takes precedence over support for the production of oilseeds and protein plants. Furthermore, granting additional support for such enterprises would not necessarily bring about a reduction in the costs of feedingstuffs.

As promised in the answer to Written Question E-3886/00 from Mr Souladakis and others(1) and in accordance with the remit from the Council, the Commission has undertaken an in-depth analysis of possible developments following the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis and the extension of the ban on animal meal. The analysis covers the markets in meat, animal feed, in particular the supply and demand for protein-rich plants, and the policies applying to the latter. Parliament and the Council will be informed of the findings, which must comply with the financial perspective approved in Berlin and must take the Community's international commitments into account.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0921/01

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Tourism-oriented property development in Bosa and Villanova Monteleone, Teulada, Monte Russu and Cala Giunco-Stagno Notteri, and a fish-farming plant in Bosa

In reply to my Questions Nos E-3009/00(1), E-3339/00(2), E-3340/00(3) and P-3314/00(4) concerning tourism-oriented property development along the coast in Bosa and Villanova Monteleone, Teulada, Monte Russu (Aglientu) and Cala Giunco-Stagno Notteri (Villasimius) and an intensive fish-farming plant in Bosa, the Commission said that it would take the necessary steps to gather detailed information and ensure that Community law is complied with.

Could the Commission clarify what steps it has taken to date with regard to the above-mentioned cases?

In particular, could it confirm:

- with regard to the planned development in Monte Russu, that an assessment of implications has been begun, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC(5), and could it say whether the findings of this assessment are already available?

- with regard to the LIFE legislation, that the development has not yet received final construction authorisation, and could it say whether this means that, once authorisation has been obtained, it will be subject to an environmental impact assessment? Is any Community funding earmarked for the development?

- with regard to the proposed developments in Teulada and Cala Giunco-Stagno Notteri, whether any Community funding is earmarked? If so, does the Commission intend to freeze it pending confirmation that the developments comply with Community legislation concerning LIFE and the Natura 2000 network?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 156.

(2) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 140.

(3) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 141.

(4) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 133.

(5) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0221/01

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 2001)

Subject: Oil spill off the Galapagos Islands

1. Is the Commission aware of the request from Ecuador's Minister of the Environment for more international aid to clear up the large oil spill off the Galapagos islands?

2. What are the prospects for acceding to this request, in order to protect the unique flora and fauna in that region?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

On 23 January 2001, the Commission received a request for emergency aid from the Ecuadorian authorities relating to the oil spill in the Galapagos Islands.

On 24 January 2001, the Commission announced the dispatch of a European task force made up of three experts to Ecuador(1). This decision was taken under the procedure provided for in Decision No 2850/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2000, setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution(2). The experts' task was to help the Ecuadorian authorities to define the best means of reducing the impact of pollution and helping to restore the affected areas.

(1) IP/01/104.

(2) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0153/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Balkans syndrome and the responsibilities of the Agency for the Reconstruction of the Balkans

As implementing authority for the CARDS regulation, one of the responsibilities of the Agency for the Reconstruction of the Balkans is environmental rehabilitation

in the Balkans (Article 2(2)(d) of Regulation 2666/2000(1)). In view of the legitimate concerns of the European public over the Balkans syndrome, why should this agency not be given the additional task of combining environmental rehabilitation with the simultaneous provision of information and assistance to local residents?

(1) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the investigation of the alleged Balkans syndrome is still ongoing in various fora. UNEP and the Community's Article 31 Committee have concluded that there is no immediate environmental or health risk. Should it be decided, to implement specific Community environmental rehabilitation programmes in this regard, it is most probable that the European Agency for Reconstruction would be responsible for the implementation of such Community programmes and associated information tasks. However, the primary responsibility for providing information to local residents as regards potential issues of public health and environment lies with the governments of the States concerned. Environmental aspects are, wherever relevant, an integral part, where relevant, of programmes implemented by the Agency, in line with Article 2(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 of 5 December 2000 on assistance for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 and amending Regulations (EEC) No 3906/89 and (EEC) No 1360/90 and Decisions 97/256/EC and 1999/311/EC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0467/01

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE), Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE), Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) and Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 February 2001)

Subject: Protection of forests from fires and the Commission's future strategy in this area

Regulation (EEC) 2158/92(1) on protection of the Community's forests against fire is due to expire in 2001. However, at the last meeting of the standing committee on forestry which was held in France, the Commission notified the Member States that it intended to review this Regulation and that it was examining the possibility of incorporating it in the new Council Regulation (EC) 1257/1999(2) on support for rural development.

This would mean approaching the problem of fires from an agricultural, rather than an environmental point of view, and actions so far funded under Regulation (EEC) 2158/92 would no longer be eligible.

1. What stage has work reached on reviewing regulation (EEC) 2158/92, and, given its consequences, what purpose will this serve?

2. Given the importance of this Regulation for the Mediterranean countries, the European Parliament has already pointed out that the budget for these matters should be increased. Does the Commission intend to review the scheduled budget and increase it from 50 million to 77 million?

(1) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992, p. 3.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question E-0247/01 by Mr Alavanos(1).

(1) See p. 161.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0384/01

by Doris Pack (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: The Commission delegation in Skopje

What measures does the Commission intend to take to enable Mr José Pinto Teixeira, Head of the Commission Delegation in Skopje, to continue working in peace despite the unfounded allegations made by Mr Stoyanov and Mr Bogoevski against his person and the performance of his duties as head of delegation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

Mr Patten issued two press statements condemning the groundless media attacks in some sections of the FYROM press against Mr Pinto Teixeira, and making clear his full support for him. The Commission welcomes the fact that the FYROM Government has also condemned these media attacks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0370/01

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2001)

Subject: The common organisation of the market in flax

Is the President of the Commission aware that since 1993 in Spain, following the Constitutional Court's judgment of 28 May 1992 in Case 79/92, scrutiny of the documents concerned, and the granting and monitoring of subsidies deriving from the common organisation of the market in flax fall within the exclusive competence of the regional authorities of the Autonomous Communities of Spain?

Does the President of the Commission know that the report addressed to OLAF on 19 December by the prosecutor with special responsibility for the case of flax in Spain mentions several times that since 1993 scrutiny of the documents concerned, and the granting and monitoring of subsidies deriving from the common organisation of the market in flax has fallen within the exclusive competence of the regional authorities of the Autonomous Communities of Spain?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Yes, the Commission is aware that, in accordance with the division of responsibilities characteristic of Spanish law, the granting and monitoring of the payment of subsidies deriving from the common organisation of the flax market fall within the exclusive competence of the regional authorities of the Autonomous Communities of Spain. The special prosecutor's report mentions this division. That said, in its relations with the national authorities, the Commission always deals formally with the central authorities even if this means that these authorities have to deal in turn with the authorities under whose jurisdiction the matter comes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0193/01

by Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Second Chance Schools

The purpose of Second Chance schools is to integrate young people lacking qualifications in an education and training programme with a view to gaining employment.

The first pilot establishment was set up in Marseilles in November 1997 and began teaching courses in January 1998. It has since successfully taken on more than 300 students.

Unfortunately, the school has been unable to function properly due to a lack of coordination between the European Commission and the French state services.

As it is, the disbursement of the European Social Funds that provides the bulk financing for state schools is carried out by the regional representatives of the French State in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

Apparently the current system does not provide the Second Chance school in Marseilles with the funding it requires to function.

The establishments in question must meet specific criteria in order to receive funding, yet the special nature of this type of school, as described in the Commission's White Paper Teaching and Learning Towards a Learning Society is not taken into account.

Could the Commission outline the measures that it intends taking to rectify this situation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The integration of young people into the labour market remains one of the political priorities of the European Social Fund (ESF) during the new programming period 2000-2006.

However, the management of ESF-cofinanced programmes is based on strict compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.

The ESF, despite its role as cofinancer, is therefore not involved in examining and selecting the projects to be funded, as programme implementation is the responsibility of the Member State.

Consequently, regardless of the potential benefits of any specific project, the Commission is not in a position to contact the programme managing authorities in order to try to influence their choices.

This means uncertainties regarding the procedures for taking account of the Second Chance School under ESF programming for 2000-2006 cannot be put down to any lack of coordination between the Commission and the French state services.

Any questions concerning this project should therefore be sent to the competent national authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0675/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Fishing-licence fees in the EU's international fisheries agreements

1. Could the Commission provide information regarding the amount of funding allocated to development cooperation under each of the fisheries agreements concluded between the EU and third countries and currently in force?

2. Could the Commission provide information regarding the finanical contribution made by Community shipowners in the form of payments for fishing-licence fees under each of the fisheries agreements concluded between the EU and third countries and currently in force?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2001)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0185/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 February 2001)

Subject: Murder of Turkish prisoners by the military

What are the Council's views on the tragic and violent events perpetrated by the military in Turkish prisons, where serious and persistent human rights violations are being committed.

Does the Council think that the European Union should suspend all measures intended to establish links of any kind between Turkey and the Community, bearing in mind that the principles of liberty and democracy cannot be flouted by the governments of countries which aspire to become members of a united Europe?

The killing of 30 year-old Halit Onder, who was burned alive for protesting about violence by the military, is clear evidence that the Turkish prison system, and thus the government of the country, are far from meeting the requirement to respect human rights, as laid down in the treaties signed by the Member States of the European Union.

Reply

(14 May 2001)

The Council refers the Honourable Member to its answer to questions E-4111/00 and E-4154/00.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0173/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: CFP review and the accession countries

How is the Commission planning to involve the accession states in its consultation process for the CFP review?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0173/01 and E-0213/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2001)

The Commission intends to keep the candidate countries informed of the consultation process for the Common Fisheries Policy review through the normal meetings which regularly take place with these countries, notably the meetings organised in the framework of the Association Agreements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0260/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Right of Resale

What provisions will the natural or legal persons referred to in Article 9 of the draft Directive on the Right of Resale be required to make for payment of the potential right in the case of unknown and unknowable claims?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0256/01, E-0260/01, E-0262/01 and E-0264/01 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

On 13 December 2000, Parliament approved several amendments to the Council's common position of 19 June 2000 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art(1). Under Article 251(3) (formerly Article 189b(3)) of the EC Treaty, it is for the Council to decide on those amendments. The Commission will therefore take the common position as amended by Parliament as the basis for its answers to the Honourable Member's questions on certain specific provisions.

The Honourable Member is concerned about the obligations under which this Directive will place the persons mentioned in Article 9 who, under Article 1(4), will often be liable for the payment of the resale right if several persons think they are entitled to it, or if the resale right is not claimed.

The procedures for paying the resale right will depend on the way it is managed. According to the common position as amended, this question is a matter for the Member States, which may adopt specific solutions. For example, if a Member State opts for compulsory collective management of resale rights, it will be for the bodies responsible for collective management to deal with these questions.

In any event, the question of payment of a debt when the identity of the creditor is uncertain arises in many other areas apart from resale rights, and the Member States have well established rules. The persons referred to in Article 9 will therefore only have to follow the procedures prescribed in their national legislation.

Establishing a centralised European register of all qualifying artists and their heirs would therefore seem to be a pointless administrative formality, and the Commission has no such intention.

The Honourable Member also wonders about the scope of Article 5. The Commission confirms that the selling price taken as the basis for calculating the resale right must not include any of the taxes, such as VAT, normally added to the net price. This Directive is therefore without prejudice to the tax systems in force in the Member States.

(1) OJ C 300, 20.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0387/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Galapagos Islands

What EU assistance, if any, is available to the Ecuadorian Government to help protect the fragile ecosystems of those Galapagos islands (San Cristobal, Espanola, Santa Fe) most directly affected by the recent oil spill?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Since 1994, the Commission has supported the Charles Darwin Foundation (an independent body responsible for research, training and educational activities for conserving the archipelago) as part of a project to step up its scientific and educational programme (project ref. ECU/RELEX/1994/0046, for 862 000). The Foundation is at present involved in a Community research programme on the management of marine resources and the conflict resolution in island ecosystems financed in 1998 (ref. IC18-CT98-0297, 550 000).

On 23 January 2001, the Commission received a request for emergency aid from the Ecuadorian authorities concerning the oil slick in the Galapagos Islands. On 24 January 2001 the Commission announced that it was sending a European task force made up of three experts(1). This decision was taken under the procedure provided for in Decision 2850/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2000, setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or intentional marine pollution(2). The experts' task was to help the Ecuadorian authorities to define the best way of reducing the impact of pollution and helping to restore the affected areas.

Lastly, the call for proposals which is under way for the environment in developing countries (ref. SCRE/111699/C/G) is open to organisations equipped to help preserve the archipelago's ecosystem.

(1) Press release IP/01/104.

(2) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.