WRITTEN QUESTION P-2910/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Common Foreign and Security Policy (chemical weapons in Turkey).
Date: 2000-09-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Türkiye, UN convention, chemical weapon, common foreign and security policy, military cooperation

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/211

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2000)

The further proposed reduction from 12 mg to 10 mg of the tar level in cigarettes (1) continues a process
begun with Council Directive 90/239/EEC of 17 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the maximum tar yield of cigarettes (2). On
the occasion of the substantial reductions introduced in the 1990 directive, no negative economic or
employment consequences were brought to the Commission(cid:146)s attention. The Commission is not aware of
any evidence to the effect that the much smaller decrease in tar level presently proposed would have
serious economic or employment consequences.

As regards the proposal to apply the tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide ceilings to all products whether
imported or manufactured in the Community, this provision is considered essential to ensure that no
diversion occurs, that the application of the product rules are open to control, and that a high level of
public health protection is ensured. There has been no evidence presented to the Commission of serious
negative economic or employment consequences.

However, in order to allow manufacturers sufficient time to adapt to these new Community standards, to
seek new markets or to change marketing and manufacturing processes, the Commission has proposed an
extended transitional period.

(1) COM(2000) 428 final.
(2) OJ L 137, 30.5.1990.

(2001/C 113 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2910/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(7 September 2000)

Subject: Common Foreign and Security Policy (chemical weapons in Turkey)

In its joint reply to written questions E-1203/00, E-1204/00 and E-1205/00 (1),
the Council says:
(cid:145)The specific questions referred to by the Honourable Member have not been raised within the Council
or the Council bodies(cid:146). Given the importance of the (cid:145)specific questions(cid:146) in written questions E-1203/00, E-
1204/00 and E-1205/00 for the European Union(cid:146)s Common Foreign and Security Policy, I feel it would
nevertheless be appropriate for them to be (cid:145)raised with(cid:146) the Council.

I should therefore like a reply to the following questions:

1. Will the Council now seek information from the University of Munich on the German provenance
(Buck and Depyfag) of the shell bodies used by the Turkish army in a chemical attack on the Kurdish
PKK movement on 11 May 1999?

(a)

If not, why does the Council refuse to seek information on the German provenance (Buck and
Depyfag) of the shell bodies used by the Turkish army in a chemical attack on the Kurdish PKK
movement on 11 May 1999, given the importance of this question for the CFSP?

(b)

If so, will the Council convey to the German and Turkish governments its displeasure at this
violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention?

2. Will the Council now seek information from the German Ministry of Defence on the ministry(cid:146)s help in

constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey?

(a)

If not, why does the Council refuse to seek information from the German Ministry of Defence on
the ministry(cid:146)s help in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey, given that it
may be a violation of the CWC?

C 113 E/212

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

(b)

If so, does the German aid in constructing a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey conform
with the CWC which obliges the states which are parties to it, including Germany, never, under
any circumstances, to develop, produce, acquire in any other way, stockpile, possess or transfer
directly or indirectly chemical weapons?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 146.

Reply

(16 November 2000)

The Honourable Member should note that, under Article 22 of the TEU:

Any Member State or the Commission may refer to the Council any question relating to the common
foreign and security policy and may submit proposals to the Council.

(2001/C 113 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2916/00

by Paul R(cid:252)big (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Transport licences for traffic between Austria and Romania

Since 1991 trade across the border between Romania and Austria has increased three-fold. However, for
years the scope of 4 500 transport licences has hardly been increased. In comparison, there is an effective
demand for approximately 8 000 licences per annum. Transport is being forced to make the shift to rail
traffic ((cid:146)rolling road(cid:146)), but this brings with it considerable delays and irregularities. Developments make
speedy solutions necessary: in the first quarter of 2000 alone, Austrian exports to Romania increased by
over 13 %.

How does the Commission assess this situation, both in relation to its Internal Market policy on the one
hand, and in view of the accession efforts of Romania on the other?

What can and will the Commission undertake, in order to bring about an increase in the number of annual
transport licences?

Alternatively, does the Commission consider the improvement of the (cid:145)rolling road(cid:146) to be a way to protect
trade across borders?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2000)

The Honourable Member points out that transport licences between Austria and Romania are insufficient
in light of increasing trade.

Shortages of bilateral transport authorizations between Romania and Austria fall under the competence of
Austria, as does the preference Austria accords to the usage of the (cid:145)rolling road(cid:146) by third country transports
under bilateral agreements.

In fact the relevant Community law, i.e. Council Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 of 26 March 1992 on access
to the market in the carriage of goods by road within the Community to or from the territory of a
Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States (1), expressly states that,
pending the conclusion of agreements between the Community and third countries, the Regulation shall
not affect bilateral agreements concluded by Member States with third countries.