WRITTEN QUESTION E-2420/99 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Providing a scaled-down military structure for the EU.
Date: 1999-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European defence policy, armed forces, common foreign and security policy

C 280 E/44

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.10.2000

What financial penalties does the Commission intend to impose on the competent Greek authorities who
have not yet complied with the Court(cid:146)s decision on their failure to observe Article 7 of Directive 76/464 (1)
on pollution caused to the aquatic environment by certain dangerous substances?

(1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2000)

The Commission did not have any information on the operation of the Mamidakis company(cid:146)s plant in the
Gulf of Yera area on the island of Lesbos. Following the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question, the Commission
will ask the Greek authorities for details of how this plant operates, and how the dangerous waste is
stored.

With regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 June 1998 which found that Greece had failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain
dangerous subtances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, by failing to establish
programmes including quality objectives and setting deadlines for their implementation to reduce the
pollution of Lake Vegorr(cid:237)tis, the river Soulos and the Gulf of Pagasa(cid:237) by the dangerous substances on List II
of the Directive, the Commission sent Greece a letter of formal notice on 18 December 1999 on the basis
of Article 228 (ex Article 171) of the EC Treaty. The Greek authorities replied on 23 March 1999 and
16 September 1999, notifying a set of measures taken to comply with the aforesaid judgment. The
relevant documents are now being examined.

In addition, the Commission, noting Greece(cid:146)s general failure to establish programmes which include quality
objectives and set deadlines for their implementation to reduce the pollution of water by substances on List
II of Directive 76/464/EEC, brought the matter before the Court of Justice on 11 November 1997. The
Court has not yet delivered its judgment.

(2000/C 280 E/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2420/99

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Providing a scaled-down military structure for the EU

(16 December 1999)

During the recent third round of Franco-Spanish strategic talks, both countries stated their wish to see the
EU equipped with a scaled-down military structure which would enable it to react quickly to crises such as
that in Kosovo.

This structure could take the shape of an ambassadorial-level Policy and Security Committee, a high
command and a headquarters whose remit would be to plan and carry out military operations.

How does the Commission, given its powers of initiative, regard the Franco-Spanish view of the basic
nucleus on which Europe(cid:146)s (cid:146)security and defence identity(cid:146) might be built up? Will it support the position of
Spain and France?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2000)

The Franco-Spanish talks focussed on issues concerning military and non-military aspects of crisis
management,
for Petersberg tasks. As the Honourable Member will know these issues discussed
extensively in the Council in the period leading up to the Helsinki European Council.

i.e.

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/45

is for the Union to have an autonomous capacity to take decisions,
The objective agreed at Helsinki
to launch and then to conduct Union-led military operations where the Atlantic Alliance as a whole is not
engaged. The headline goal adopted at Helsinki is for the Union to be able to deploy up to 50 000-60 000
troops (cid:129) capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks (cid:129) within 60 days.

Interim institutions for decision-making on crisis management, and for operational control of both military
and non-military actions which may be launched in crisis situations are to be introduced.

A report identifying non-military (civilian) aspects of crisis management and crisis response tools both at
Union and national level was also noted at Helsinki. The intention is to bring together capabilities at
national and European level
(for instance police, monitors, human rights experts), and to establish a
mechanism for rapid co-ordination and deployment.

As a first step new decision-making and advisory bodies will be set up in Brussels on an interim basis. The
structures to be set up are a political and security committee staffed by representatives at senior level.
There will also be a military committee, staffed,
in the interim phase, by military representatives of
Member States.
It will give military advice to the Council as needed. A civilian crisis management
coordinating mechanism is also to be established within the Council.

All decisions in the area of European security and defence policy will be taken (cid:145)within the single
institutional framework(cid:146), thus ensuring inter-pillar coherence. The Commission looks forward to these
new forms of cooperation and will contribute actively where it has responsibility and experience, namely
in the area of non-military crisis management and conflict prevention.

(2000/C 280 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2443/99

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Europe Agreements with Eastern European countries

Each of the (cid:145)Europe Agreements(cid:146) which the EU has concluded with Eastern European countries includes an
(cid:145)equal treatment requirement(cid:146) relating to the establishment of companies and nationals of the contracting
countries (subject to certain provisos for special occupations).

Does the Commission consider that this equal treatment requirement includes a prohibition of

1.
discrimination?

2.
Does the Commission consider that an EU Member State is barred from submitting nationals of the
contracting countries to (cid:145)needs tests(cid:146) if their own self-employed nationals are not required to undergo such
tests?

3.
Does the Commission agree that, where a Member State does not require its own self-employed
nationals to produce evidence of prior knowledge, etc., such evidence may not be required of the nationals
of the contracting partner countries?

4.
Does the Commission agree that, where a Member State does not require its self-employed nationals
to produce evidence of capital, this may not be required of the nationals of the contracting partner
countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

1.
The Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member that the principle of equal treatment
contains the prohibition of discrimination between nationals of the associated countries and nationals of
the Member States.