WRITTEN QUESTION E-2403/99 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Proposed EUR 2 million cutback of the Poseima programme.
Date: 1999-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU regional policy, agricultural product, budget appropriation, fishery product, island region, peripheral region, supply balance sheet

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/125

for verification is one of the alternatives already under consideration by some trade unionists. The fact that
trade union members themselves have an interest in knowing how many colleagues belong to their
organisation is widely recognised.

No proposal made by the Commission would (cid:145)violate(cid:146)
freedom of association or any civil right to
confidentiality. Allegations that any such proposal has been made are completely without foundation in
fact.

(2000/C 225 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2401/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Priority of international

law over an EU directive, and compliance with provisions of treaties

concerning the (cid:145)Iron Rhine(cid:146)

The increase in the budget for trans-European networks confirms their importance for the European
Union. Both the construction of new transport infrastructure and the modernisation of existing infra-
structure are eligible for co-financing. The question of the Iron Rhine is a matter which is particularly
deserving of the Council(cid:146)s attention in this respect. By virtue of Article 12 of the Belgium-Netherlands
Arbitration Treaty (19 April 1839) and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties of 5 November 1842 and
13 January 1873 deriving therefrom (the (cid:145)Iron Rhine Treaty(cid:146)), Belgium is entitled to a link via the Dutch
district of Sittard to the German frontier. This international right of transit assumed physical shape
between 1869 and 1879 with the construction of the first cross-border rail link in Europe. However, after
the two world wars the Iron Rhine between Antwerp and the Ruhr in Germany fell into disuse. The Dutch
authorities are currently using national legislation to put obstacles in the way of resuming this interna-
tional rail link.

Does the Council acknowledge that by virtue of Article 12 of the Belgium-Netherlands Arbitration
1.
Treaty (19 April 1839), and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties of 5 November 1842 ands 13 January 1873
deriving therefrom, Belgium is entitled to a link via the Dutch district of Sittard to the German frontier?

Is Dutch environmental

2.
legislation pursuant to the habitats directive subordinate to the above-
mentioned international agreements, given that one of the contracting parties to the Belgium-Netherlands
Arbitration Treaty (Russia) is not an EU Member State? (N.B.: The Treaty of Vienna explicitly stipulates that
international law takes precedence over national law.)

In the light of the answers to questions 1 and 2, will the Council call on the Dutch authorities to
3.
comply with their obligations under the treaties, particularly as completion of the Iron Rhine is covered by
the general principle of loyalty to the Community? If not, why not?

Reply

(28 February 2000)

The question raised by the Honourable Member is not within the Council(cid:146)s competence.

(2000/C 225 E/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2403/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Proposed EUR 2 million cutback of the Poseima programme

On 9 November the Commission submitted its fourth Letter of Amendment to the 2000 Budget to
Parliament, proposing to cut EUR 2 million from the Poseima programme, while proposing increases for
the Poseidom and Poseican programmes.

C 225 E/126

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

Given the specific difficulties (cid:129) noted in the Treaty (cid:129) which ultraperipheral regions face, and the cost of
insular status, above all as regards agricultural and fishery products:

(cid:129) what are the Commission(cid:146)s reasons for proposing this fresh cutback in the Poseima programme, and

(cid:129) what are the mechanisms it is using to ensure that the programme(cid:146)s appropriations are being fully

taken up?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the amounts given under budget heading
B1-321 (Poseima) are forecasts of the expenditure necessary for carrying out the measures required under
that
therefore, be construed as a cutback in the
programme.

item (cid:129) the reduction in appropriations cannot,

As regards the specific issues raised, the Commission would point out that the proposed reduction is due
entirely to the fact that the forecasts are based on the actual extent (in percentage terms) to which the
supply balances have been implemented in the last few years. The rate of take-up of the appropriations is
dependant on how effectively and correctly the beneficiary areas themselves have implemented the supply
balances, or any other of the measures provided for in the legislation.

It should also be noted that this item is exclusively concerned with agricultural products. Fishery products
do benefit from the measures in the Poseima programme (cid:129) they are covered by other budget headings.

(2000/C 225 E/135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2406/99

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Senior EURO Pass

Can the Commission provide information on the current status of its consideration of the introduction of a
Senior EURO Pass or EURO Card for senior citizens which would grant a range of concessions (including
transport) across the European Union following the study completed by AGE Concern with Commission
support?

Is the Commission considering making proposals with a view to the introduction of such a scheme of
concessions in the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-1054/99 by
Mrs Billingham (1), to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-1023/98 by Robert Evans during question time
at Parliament(cid:146)s November 1998 part-session (2) and to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-1148/98 by
Niall Andrews during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s December 1998 part-session (3).

The non-governmental organisation (NGO) members of the liaison group for older people have not come
forward in support of the suggestions in the final report of the study, for example in the context of the
preparation of the United Nations international year of older persons.

In this light, the Commission has no present intention to come forward with any proposals for a senior
EURO pass or over sixties card.

(1) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999.
(2) Debates of the European Parliament (November 1998).
(3) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1998).