ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2901/00

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(18 September 2000)

Subject: Elections in Kosovo

The UN representative in Kosovo, Mr Kouchner, has announced that municipal elections will be held in Kosovo at the end of October 2000. In the light of European Union declarations concerning the creation of a multicultural Kosovo, will the Council say how that objective can be achieved by means of the recently announced elections when the overwhelming majority of Kosovo Serbs have been driven out and the rest are living with the fear of being killed?

Reply

(20 November 2000)

The Council is following developments in Kosovo very closely. It has on a number of occasions stated its full support for UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999 and for the efforts of UNMIK and KFOR to implement all aspects of it.

The Council supports the decision taken by the UN Secretary-General's special representative, Bernard Kouchner, on 12 August 2000 concerning the holding of municipal elections in Kosovo on 28 October 2000. It also supports all the efforts made by Mr Kouchner and UNMIK to ensure that non-Albanian minorities are included in the electoral process and represented in future local institutions, in order to preserve the multi-cultural and multi-ethnic nature of Kosovo.

Via the Commission and Member States' bilateral aid, the European Union has provided substantial assistance to the Kosovo Serbs with regard to: security (contribution to UN police forces, support for the creation of an impartial judicial system), the media (financial support for Serbian radio in Kosovo, cross-ethnic and multicultural television and radio programmes) and infrastructures in the neighbourhoods or municipalities with a Serb majority (restoration of water and electricity supply systems, building of schools, public transport, etc.).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2774/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Sale of a banknote printing machine to Ukraine

In 1992 the Italian State Printing Works, Stationery Office, and Mint won an order worth several hundred billion lire from the newly independent Republic of Ukraine for 1,7 billion coins and a quantity of industrial equipment, including banknote printing machine.

According to the official version put out by the Ministry of the Treasury, bureaucratic and diplomatic complications not specified in greater detail intervened, and, as a result, the State Printing Works apparently supplied only the coins and, later, a general-purpose paper machine. However, a statement by the Under-Secretary responsible, Mr Pennacchi, and the State Printing Works' own balance sheets make it clear that the machine in question was intended expressly to produce banknotes. On 10 April 2000 the Corriere della Sera, one of Italy's foremost newspapers, carried an article by its Brussels correspondent, Ivo Caizzi, which revived the theory that the mystery surrounding the banknote printing machine for Ukraine might be due to the fact that the machine could be used for unlawful ends, among other things to print euro banknotes.

Could the Commission express a general view on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

The printing of euro banknotes involves several processes with the use of different machines, i.e. for the production of water-marked paper, the printing of the design, the printing of the relief design and for the application of other security features. This complex production process is a safeguard against illicit printing of euro banknotes by unauthorised people using a machine for a particular step in the process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2280/00

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Repeal of the opium act for the transport of research medicines within EU Member States

The EGASIS research project is currently under way in Europe. This is a clinical trial of the effect of Diapezam, a medicine administered in the acute phase after a stroke. The aim is to test whether the risk of poor prognosis (death or serious handicap) can be reduced, measured over three months. This sort of clinical trial requires large numbers of patients for the research to be carried out. Accordingly, it cannot be conducted in one country alone, but a number of European countries are asked to take part. In practice, however it is difficult to convey the research medication to the place of destination. This is because some medicines (including Diapezam) are covered by the Opium Act which means that a special exemption has to be obtained per country for importing these medicines. The exemption is valid for only a limited quantity of medication and for a limited period. This makes the logistics of supplying the participating European centres extremely difficult.

1. Is the Commission aware of these problems with the transport of medicines covered by the Opium Act for clinical trials?

2. Does the Commission agree that a general exemption from this rule for specific instances, e.g. a multinational medical research, should be made available?

Reply given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Pharmaceutical law does not exclude control measures, particularly those relating to transport or other administrative or police measures adopted by Member States, notably for implementing applicable international agreements for restricting or setting conditions for the transport of medicinal products which are or could be equated with narcotic substances, or substances capable of causing dependence.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2237/00

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Subject: Banana import fraud

Forged import licences for bananas have been in circulation in the European Union for almost a year. 164 000 tonnes of bananas produced in third countries have entered European territory illegally in this way. The operators involved pay a duty of 75 instead of the 750 per tonne that they would have had to pay as importers of non-quota bananas.

The fall in prices registered in recent months, which is extremely damaging to many producers in extremely remote areas, may therefore be due to the unscrupulous attitude of some operators.

What measures does the Commission intend to take, and how soon, to repair the damage suffered by these producers?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

As soon as it was informed of the cases of fraud, and in particular of their nature, and following action taken by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in collaboration with the Directorate-General Agriculture, the Commission felt that it was essential that a number of measures be taken in the immediate future aimed at strengthening the monitoring of import licence arrangements in the banana sector. A regulation was adopted by the Commission to this effect on 25 July 2000(1). It covers mainly checks, to be carried out by the body issuing the import licences, on the authenticity of all licences/licence extracts used in the Community, the distribution of the list of operators registered for the banana import arrangements with the customs offices and the procedure to be followed by the customs services in the event of doubt as to the authenticity of the licences/extracts presented for the release into free circulation of the bananas.

With regard to the banana producers from the most remote regions of the Community and the negative impact these frauds would have had on them, the Commission reminds the Honourable Member that the producers in question benefit from a compensatory aid scheme under which they receive for each marketing year an aid corresponding to the difference between the flat-rate reference income and the average level of prices obtained on the market.

The Commission would lastly point out that the 164 000 tonnes of bananas referred to by the Honourable Member (in fact 163 000) are only a provisional evaluation of just one of the two cases of fraud uncovered. Moreover, the duty to be paid on imports of non-quota bananas is currently 680 per tonne.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1632/2000 (OJ L 187, 26.7.2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2519/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Incorporation of plans for projects in Third CSF

In March 2000, a few days before the general election in Greece, Secretaries-General of the Region instructed their respective regional authorities to invite tenders for projects to be funded under the Third Community Support Framework. Document 4091 of 21 March 2000 written by the Secretary-General of the Ionian Islands Region reveals that, in the prefecture of Lefkada alone, tenders were invited for eleven projects with an overall budget of GDR 3,16 billion.

1. Is the Commission aware of any similar circumstances in which invitations to tender have been issued for projects under the Third CSF and on the basis of which specific decisions were those invitations issued?

2. What are those projects, in which region of the country are they located and what is the budget for each project?

3. How were instructions issued to invite tenders for these projects particularly in the run-up to an election given that Greece and the European Union have not yet signed the Third CSF?

4. Will these projects continue to be implemented using funds from the Third CSF?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2000)

The preparation and publication of calls to tender for projects part-financed by the Structural Funds is, under the principle of decentralised management of the Funds, the exclusive responsibility of Member States.

Part-financing of projects or activities under the operational programmes (OP) of the Greek Community support framework (CSF) for 2000-2006 will be decided on by the programme managing authority in line with the criteria and procedures set in the CSF, now in process of approval, and in the OPs, at present under negotiation.

Tender calls for projects part-financed under OPs are normally made after the decision to include them in the programme but under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) expenditure incurred by Member States from 1 January can be eligible even if it predates approval of the programme.

In such cases the decision to part-finance a particular project or activity under the programme in question must subsequently be taken by the managing authority in line with the abovementioned criteria and procedures. If a project now under realisation turns out not to satisfy the criteria for its inclusion in a programme it will have to be financed from national resources only.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2412/00

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: Wind farm at Sierra la Hez (La Rioja, Spain)

The Government of La Rioja has approved the installation of a wind park with 75 wind-power generators at Sierra la Hez, between the special bird protection areas of Peñas de Ireguas, Leza y Jubera and Peñas de Arnedillo, Peña Isasa y Turruncún.

Does the Commission not take the view that this project may be in breach of both Directive 79/409/EEC(1) on the conservation of wild birds and Directive 92/43/EEC(2) on habitats?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

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

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2411/00 and E-2412/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Bonelli's eagle is a species listed in Annex I of Council Directive 79/409/EEC, of 2 April 1979, on the conservation of wild birds(1). Pursuant to Article 4.1 of this Directive, Member States are obliged to take appropriate steps to ensure the protection of the species.

Two special protection areas (SPAs) are sited on the sides of the Sierra de Hez, where it is proposed to install a wind farm. As regards the first SPA, called Peñas de Iregua, Leza y Jubera Code ES64, at present there is an abandoned territory of Bonelli's eagle, which means no adults breed or live there now. Furthermore, the settlement of this eagle territory is at some distance (more than 10 kilometres) from the proposed wind farm. The other SPA, called Peñas de Arnedillo, Peña Isasa y Turruncún Code ES65, is an eagle territory, where a breeding couple is present. As the proposed wind farm is located high and faraway from this eagle territory, it is unlikely to affect it.

The eagle's range has been taken into account in deciding where to install the infrastructure for this wind farm (e.g. installation of an electric power line).

In this region (La Rioja), the Commission supports a Life project LIFE 1999NAT/E/6419 recovery of the Bonelli's eagle in La Rioja, Spain- under Council Regulation (EC) No 1404/96(2), of 15 July 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (LIFE). The main objective of the Bonelli's eagle recovery project in this region of Spain is to promote the natural recovery of the species in the Iberian range, and to consolidate the La Rioja population. This Life project expended almost 25 000 repairing and changing three electric power lines to avoid eagle collision and electrocution.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 181, 20.7.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2187/00

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Attack on bonded labourers and human rights workers in India

Can the Commission seek information as to whether the 11 bonded labourers from the villages of Kili-Nahal-Singh-Wala and Buraj Mehma in Punjab State, India, who filed cases for their release with the District Magistrate on 13 November 1999, have now been freed and whether any prosecutions were initiated against landlords for illegally employing bonded labourers or for using threats and intimidation in order to persuade individuals to abandon their cases?

Can it seek information as to what action has been taken by the Indian authorities to bring to justice the instigators of the attempted abduction of bonded labourers from the human rights organisation, Volunteers for Social Justice on 7 February 2000 and to ensure the safety of human rights workers at Volunteers for Social Justice.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

In response to the questions raised by the Honourable Member on the above issues, the Commission has undertaken thorough research through its delegation in New Delhi.

According to the accessible information, 11 bonded labourers were freed from a stone quarry from Charki Dadri, near Bhiwani, in Haryana on 11 February 2000, through the efforts made by the National Human Rights Commission acting on a petition filed by the South Asian Coalition on Child Servitude.

Regarding prosecution of landlords for illegally employing bonded labourers, unfortunately, no information is available and relevant details on the human rights organisation Volunteers for Social Justice could not be retraced.

If the Honourable Member could provide additional information, the Commission will be happy to pursue its enquires.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2923/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Food labelling with specific reference to disease risk reduction information on food packs

Does the Commission agree that there is a need for urgent action in the context of proposed measures on functional foods to authorise disease risk reduction information on food packs, provided that the benefits described are based on sufficient and recognised scientific findings and have been reviewed and confirmed by an independent body within the European Union, recognising that there is a distinction between provision of disease risk reduction information and claims that particular foods prevent, treat or cure a disease?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

There is no definition of functional foods in Community legislation. This is because, given that each food, of whatever kind, has a function, there is no justification for describing foods that belong to a particular category as functional.

With regard to the claims concerning the reduction in the risk of disease, as has already been pointed out on several occasions, pursuant to Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs(1), it is not permissible to attribute to any foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease, or to refer to such properties. Claims concerning the reduction in the risk of contracting a disease come under this ban.

As the Commission indicated in the White Paper on Food Safety(2), it believes that there is no need to change the principle of this provision.

As stated in the White Paper, however, the Commission will consider whether specific provisions should be introduced into Community law to govern nutritional claims and functional claims concerning the beneficial effects of a nutrient on certain normal bodily functions. The establishment of a strict framework for this type of claim will be the first stage in an overall commitment to provide consumers with information that is reliable, scientifically sound and appropriate to the nature of these products, so that they can make choices that are beneficial for their health and general well-being.

(1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

(2) COM(1999) 719 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3551/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Ban on dangerous dog breeds

With reference to my earlier question (E-2659/00)(1), I would point out first that the Commission's work programme ought to be adaptable to real conditions and events, and secondly, that if there is no legal basis it should be the Commission's business to establish one by submitting proposals to that effect. The problem of dangerous dogs does not halt at the national frontiers and the protection of defenceless children and people with a dog phobia can be achieved only by strict, uniform European rules. In a European Union proclaiming the principle of freedom of movement for persons, this protection must be guaranteed. I would therefore again call on the Commission to initiate measures to bring to an end the series of horrific attacks, some of which have been fatal. Dangerous breeds of dog are and, however well trained, will remain, inappropriate and unacceptable weapons.

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 146.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2001)

The Commission is aware that dangerous dogs constitute a potential hazard for EU citizens. However, in the light of the subsidiarity principle and in accordance with the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 28 and 30 (ex Articles 30 and 36), the Commission takes the view that it is up to Member States to adopt appropriate measures to protect human life.

According to Article 28 of the EC Treaty, Member States are not allowed to adopt national measures creating restrictions on the movement of these dogs. However, Article 30 of the Treaty authorises the adoption of such measures if justified on grounds of, in particular, public morality, public order, public security, the protection of health and life of humans or animals.

These measures must be strictly necessary and proportionate to their intended objective, i.e. to protect people from the danger posed by these dogs.

As long as these principles are respected, any Member State may therefore establish national provisions to protect people.

At the moment, the Member States have very different attitudes to dangerous dogs. The Commission does not have a sufficiently sound scientific basis for drawing up European legislation on this matter. In the circumstances, the Commission's view is that, for the time being, it is unable to make any relevant proposals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3321/00

by António Campos (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Common agricultural policy

Will the Commission please tell me:

1. the annual variation, in euros and percentage points, in EAGGF-Guarantee spending in the cereal sector between 1992 and 1999;

2. the total growth in euros and percentage points, in EAGGF-Guarantee spending on cereals between 1992 and 1999;

3. the annual financial growth, in euros and percentage points, of the EAGGF-Guarantee between 1992 and 1999;

4. for the total growth of the EAGGF-Guarantee in euros and percentage points, between 1992 and 1999;

5. the annual variation in market prices for cereals between 1992 and 1999, and the percentage by which they have fallen or risen against 1992;

6. the average difference, in euros and percentage points, of cereal prices between 1992 and 1999?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4042/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act

With regard to Section 36 of the 1999 United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum Act and the fining and detainment of road hauliers found with asylum-seekers on board their vehicles(1), could the Commission indicate whether that Act contravenes any aspects of EU law and list any cases pending before EU courts on this subject?

(1) 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act The Carriers' Liability.

Answer given by M. Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2001)

Part II (section 32-43) Carriers' Liability of the 1999 United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum Act contains provisions for preventing and combating illegal entry of undocumented aliens.

The fight against illegal entry of undocumented aliens is an important aspect of Union policy in the field of Justice and Home Affairs. This has been explicitly confirmed by the October 1999 Tampere European Council which expressed its determination to tackle at its source illegal immigration, especially by combating those who engage in trafficking in human beings and economic exploitation of migrants.

Whilst Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985(1) already addresses the issue of carriers liability at Community level, the scope of that provision is restricted to passenger transport. Currently, Community law does not address the issue of carrier liability for transporting illegal immigrants aboard lorries.

The Commission cannot see any conflict between Community law and the regulations on truckers under the United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum Act of 1999 provided the implementation of this act does not lead to any infringement of Community law. No cases on that issue are currently pending before the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance.

(1) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000; The United Kingdom has opted in to apply Article 26 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (see Council Decision of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 131, 1.6.2000) Article 26 has, however, not yet entered into force for the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 6 par.1 of that Decision.