ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0998/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: 1999 discharge agriculture

The information provided by the Commission in connection with question 2.7 of the second questionnaire on the granting of the discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 1999 financial year does not reply to the questions raised in various aspects. Can the Commission therefore clarify the following points:

With regard to question 2.7(d): Can the Commission clarify the concept of production aid in the context of its answer in relation to the support scheme for olive oil? With regard to both olive oil and milk, is the Commission referring to the reports made by the Member States during 1999 or to irregularities occurring in 1999?

Table 2 on the clearance of accounts process is also difficult to understand. Can the Commission make these comparisons in the context of fraud and irregularities, excluding market mechanisms intended to restrict surplus production?

Can the Commission make a comparison between the two sectors based on the same timescale? Can the Commission confirm that, as regards the milk sector, the Member States notified only 4,2 million in fraud in 1999? Can the Commission confirm that no deduction was made from the milk sector in 1999 as part of the clearance of accounts process? Can the Commission explain how the organisation of payment schemes can justify the disparities between the milk sector and the olive oil sector?

Given the difference in scale between these sectors, the Commission's figures show that the Member States are detecting hundreds of times more irregularities involving olive oil than involving milk. Does the Commission consider it reasonable to assume that olive oil producers are hundreds of times more predisposed to commit irregularities than milk producers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 June 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-0486/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Mobile phone masts

Is the Commission aware of any existing European legislation governing the position of short-wave radio and mobile telephone masts in relation to public buildings?

Is there any such legislation in the pipeline? Has the Commission ever carried out research into the possible health hazards associated with such masts?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

The Community regulatory framework on radio products and telecommunications in a competitive environment makes Member States responsible for ensuring that radiation emitted by GSM base station antennas do not expose the public to levels which might be hazardous. In particular Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999

on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity(1) obliges manufacturers to ensure that their products do not affect the public's health when installed for their intended purpose. Article 7(2) of this Directive furthermore allows Member States to regulate the installation of radio transmitters so as to ensure that the health of the public is not affected.

The Community has provided guidance to Member States to exercise their responsibilities in this matter. On 12 July 1999, the Council recommended (1999/519/EC) to Member States the limits to be applied for exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz)(2). Full compliance with the basic restrictions and reference levels included in the Recommendation will ensure a high level of user protection against the acute and long-term effects of non-ionising radiation. Obviously, these rules have to be enforced locally and Member States should ensure that the protection objectives adopted by the legislator are respected in all cases.

Today, electromagnetic radiation is specifically included in the Fifth framework programme for research and technological development, which finances five research projects with funding totalling 9 million. These projects, which focus essentially on the potential carcinogenic effects of radiofrequency fields (RF), were begun at the start of the year 2000 and will yield their findings in around four years from now.

To support the studies under way, future calls for proposals for the key action Environment and Health will concentrate on the other potential effects on health.

The Commission has also recently asked its Scientific Steering Committee to deliver an update of its previous opinion published in June 1998 on health risks associated with electromagnetic fields regarding new technological developments and conditions of exposure. This will be published in July 2001 and used, if necessary, to draw up new Community legislative proposals in the field.

(1) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.

(2) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1545/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 2001)

Subject: Belgian ban on entry of pigeon transporter lorries

Is the Commission aware that the Belgian authorities have imposed a ban on pigeon transporter lorries?

Would the Commission confirm that this action is both unacceptable and inappropriate at this time, since there are no restrictions on pigeon transportation in the UK?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission has been informed by the Belgian authorities that certain restrictions to animal movements have been adopted in relation to the serious outbreaks of foot and mouth (FMD) disease in certain parts of the Community.

These measures also included a ban on the introduction of pigeons from the United Kingdom if there was a risk that they had been in contact with animals potentially infected by FMD.

The Commission has reviewed the situation in the framework of the Standing Veterinary Committee.

The restrictions on the movement of pigeons adopted by the Belgian authorities were lifted on 15 May 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0187/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(5 February 2001)

Subject: Common foreign policy on Kosovo

The Parliament of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia very recently adopted an Amnesty Law for those who refused to serve in the Yugoslav People's Army and for prisoners convicted of crimes against the army or of activities hostile to the State. According to statements by Yugoslavia's Minister of Justice, Moncilo Grubac, on 9 January 2001, this law does not apply to those convicted of terrorism. This means that the amnesty does not extend to some 700 Albanian Kosovar prisoners in Serbia because they were convicted of terrorism. This is despite the recent undertaking given by Yugoslavia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Goran Svilanovic, in Washington that Albanian prisoners would be released, and despite similar promises made by President Kostunica to the EU among others.

1. Is the Council considering expressing its disapproval of these developments? If not, why not?

2. What measures will the Council take to put pressure on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to fulfil the official pledges concerning the release of all Albanian political prisoners?

Reply

(31 May 2001)

The Council remains seriously concerned about the political prisoners detained in Serbia, including the approximately 700 Kosovo Albanians referred to by the Honourable Member, and has repeatedly pressed the competent authorities for their release.

The Yugoslav Federal Government submitted to Parliament on 22 January a draft amnesty law, which is presently under discussion. Its adoption is expected by the end of the month of February. The draft law covers political prisoners, including part of the 700 Kosovo Albanians referred to by the Honourable Member.

In the EU's view the initiative undertaken by the new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) leadership, while welcome, did not go far enough. Therefore, the European Union has been exercising strong pressure on Belgrade, not least directly on President Kostunica during the recent visit of the EU Ministerial Troika on 8 February. On that occasion, and during a previous visit to Stockholm, President Kostunica assured his EU interlocutors that all the cases of those prisoners not covered by the amnesty law would be reviewed, indicating, however, that this process could take two to three months. The European Union will certainly continue to give this issue high priority in its relations with the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0259/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council. Right of Resale.



Official Journal 340 E , 04/12/2001 P. 0015 - 0016



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0259/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council (14 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-0257/01, E-0259/01, E-0261/01 and E-0263/01 (13 July 2001) The questions asked by the Honourable Member relate to matters which remain the responsibility of the Member States and answers will therefore depend on the measures adopted by Member States when implementing the Directive on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, as well as on other relevant provisions of national law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1339/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Religious discrimination

Can the Commission confirm that Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty outlaws discrimination on the grounds of religion? Can they therefore confirm that different treatment in employment law of Christian ministers compared to Muslim imams or Baha'i leaders would constitute such discrimination?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2001)

1. Under Article 13 EC (ex Article 6A), introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Council is entitled to take appropriate action, on a proposal from the Commission, to combat discrimination based, inter alia, on religion or belief. However, this provision has no direct effect and does not grant individuals any right which can be enforced before national courts or the European Court of Justice.

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(1) is based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty.

This Directive establishes a general principle of prohibition of any direct or indirect discrimination based, inter alia, on religion or belief. Article 4(2) of the Directive deals specifically with churches and other public and private organisations based on religion or belief. This provision would allow the religious employer to justify differences of treatment on grounds of religion or belief which are necessary to maintain the ethos of the relevant organisation or institution and to require that persons working for them act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation's ethos. Article 4(2), however, does not establish a general exemption and provides that the differences of treatment which could be justified as referring to a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement for a specific job will depend on the context or the nature of the job. The Directive also states very clearly that this provision should not justify discrimination on any other ground.

The Member States now have until December 2003 to take the necessary measures at national level to implement Directive 2000/78/EC.

2. The Commission does not have at its disposal any relevant information in order to be able to examine the existence of possible discrimination, in terms of employment conditions, between ministers of different religions.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1617/01

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

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Aid for construction of plants for the separation and treatment of light packaging

The Association of Local Authorities of the Western Costa del Sol, in Malaga province (Spain), has entered into an agreement with an enterprise in the sector for the selective collection of light packaging (plastics, cartons, cans) and for the construction and operation of a plant for the separation of such packaging in the association's member municipalities.

The aim is to meet the deadlines laid down by the EU directives for introducing selective waste collection.

Can the Commission state on what basis bodies such as this association can benefit from Council aid for the construction, maintenance and operation of plants of this nature?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that Member States have a certain amount of discretion in implementing their obligation under Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994, on packaging and packaging waste(1). In particular this applies in respect of the Member States' obligation to meet the recovery targets in Article 6 and the establishment of return, collection and recovery systems under Article 7 of the Directive.

Concerning Community aid to waste treatment plants in Member States, it can be stated that no special programme to finance or co-finance waste treatment facilities exists. However, different options to improve the state of the environment are available within the framework of the structural and cohesion funds. Member States are at liberty to submit proposals for such projects. In addition, funds for implementing innovative approaches to tackle environmental problems are available under the LIFE programme. All funding offers from the Directorate general (DG) Environment are listed on the website - www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/funding/intro_en.htm.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0448/01

by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Traffic accidents involving children

What measures, both indicative and binding, does the Commission intend to take in response to the alarming report by the United Nations Children's Fund that 8 000 children in the industrialised world are killed and many more injured in traffic accidents every year?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

Each year around 1 000 children under the age of ten are killed in road accidents. Whether they are passengers in vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists, children can never be blamed for road accidents. They are thus a group requiring special protection.

In the short term, the Institutions are examining two measures designed to give children greater protection. These are a proposal to make it compulsory to use child restraints in vehicles(1) and work to provide greater protection for vulnerable road users in the event of collision with a car(2).

The Commission is also envisaging new measures in the Road Safety Action Programme for 2002 to 2010 it will be sending to the Council and Parliament this year.

It may be assumed, lastly, that all road safety measures, whether general or specific, serve to provide children with greater protection.

(1) OJ C 96, 27.3.2001.

(2) COM(2001) 389 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1331/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

Has the Commission received representations from a Mr Phil McCarthy (and others) alleging that Tameside MBC breached the terms of Directive 97/11/EC(1), insofar as it relates to the need for environmental impact assessments, by approving without undertaking an EIA the relocation of Hattersley High School to a green field site known locally as Backbower, off Mottram Old Road, within the Tameside borough?

If so, what action is the Commission taking or does it propose to take?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Unfortunately, the Commission is not in a position to provide the Honourable Member with information regarding the identity of individual complainants and/or the subject matter of their complaints. Complaints to the Commission are handled in confidence unless the complainant indicates otherwise. When complaints from the public are formally registered by the Commission, complainants are informed that their identity or information which may lead to their identification will only be revealed if their express permission is given. This guarantee is important as it ensures the confidence of complainants who may draw the Commission's attention to potential infringements of Community law without fear of adverse consequences deriving from the disclosure of their identity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0924/01

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Council

(29 March 2001)

Subject: Directive on renewable energy sources

At the Kyoto Conference the European Union undertook to ensure that, between 2008 and 2012, greenhouse-gas emissions would be reduced by 8 % by comparison with 1990 levels. However, such emissions have in fact increased in most of the Member States and the situation is so serious that the EEA (European Environment Agency) has recently forecast that by 2010 there will have been a 6 % increase in EU greenhouse-gas emissions.

In February of this year the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) put forward positively alarming forecasts regarding the impact which greenhouse-gas emissions could have on climate change, namely that by 2100 the Earth's temperature could increase by over 5 °C.

In 2000 the Commission submitted a Green Paper which lays the foundations of a European scheme for trading in emission rights. The undeniable advantage of this scheme (which is to come into effect in 2005) is that it will use the rules of the market in order to bring about a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions at a very low cost - although the European Union has always rightly maintained that flexible instruments (in particular trading in emission rights) are intended as an adjunct to policies and measures which are to be given absolute priority - the most important of these being the promotion of renewable energy sources.

The Commission recently submitted a directive which sets quantified targets for the promotion of renewable energy sources. Despite the soundness of this initiative, some of the Member States are currently questioning the need for those targets to be made mandatory.

Meeting the targets laid down in the Directive on renewable energy sources would take the European Union halfway to meeting the Kyoto commitments.

In the view of the above, would the Council answer the following questions:

1. What is the position of Portugal vis-à-vis the targets laid down in the Directive on renewable energy sources (given that Portugal is one of the countries which have recorded the largest increases in greenhouse-gas emissions)?

2. On the eve of what will be very difficult negotiations at the COP6a meeting, what would be the political impact of any decision to make the targets laid down in the Directive on renewable energy sources mandatory?

Reply

(16 July 2001)

With regard to the first question put forward by the Honourable Member, it must be stated that the Council does not, as a matter of principle, comment on the positions of individual Member States.

With regard to the second question, it is sufficient to state that the Council remains firm about the EU-reduction targets set in Kyoto. As has been repeatedly stated by the Council, the reduction will be brought about by policies and measures both at the Community- and the national levels, and in accordance with the EU's burdensharing agreement, matters which are currently discussed within the Council, with particular regard to the ongoing discussions within the framework of the IPCCC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0438/01

by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Single market

A European Union citizen tried to buy a Eurostar ticket for a London to Brussels round-trip and discovered that the ticket would cost him less if he were to buy the ticket in Brussels. Eurostar justifies the price disparity by reference to the variable market conditions in each country. However, when he contacted the Eurostar ticketing facilities in Belgium, hoping to buy the ticket with the use of his credit card over the telephone, he was surprised to find that Eurostar would not mail him the ticket to a destination outside Belgium, even though he was fully prepared to pay for the mailing and packaging fee. Not having any contact in Belgium, the citizen was forced to buy the ticket in England and therefore incur a higher cost for the same service.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? Is this not a violation of the Single market? Is Eurostar's behaviour legal?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it is always concerned by business practices that are aimed at dividing the Single Market along national boundaries or that discriminate against consumers in certain Member States.

The question refers to a private business practice that should be assessed under the Community competition rules. Under these rules it is not illegal for a provider of transport services to apply different prices on different markets, such as travel in different directions on the same route. Nor is it necessarily a breach of Community law for a company to sell an identical product at different prices in different Member States.

A refusal to sell or transmit a ticket to a customer in another Member State may be illegal in certain circumstances, however. In particular, Eurostar may be in breach of the competition rules if it has concluded a restrictive agreement with independent distributors of its services or if there is a concerted practice to prevent them selling tickets outside their home Member States. It could also be a breach of the competition laws if Eurostar's behaviour results from a horizontal agreement with its competitors or if it could be shown to have abused a dominant position on the market.

While the Commission does not have evidence of such behaviour in this case it would be interested in receiving further information.