WRITTEN QUESTION P-3585/00 by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission. Report on Directive 95/46/EC and its possible revision.
Date: 2000-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, data processing, data protection, exchange of information, personal data, report

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/171

last ESF instalment for the period 1994-1999 to the Dutch authorities. Apart form a modest reservation
for irregularities in 1994-1996, all ESF funds for the period 1994-1999 have been paid to the Dutch
authorities.

During the last one and a half years, irregularities have been discovered in many Dutch ESF projects. The
Dutch Minister for Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid warned the Dutch Parliament
in a letter of
19 October 2000 that the controls carried out by Arbeidsvoorziening so far indicate very high irregularity
rates. For instance the irregularity rate for 1998 projects is estimated to be as high as 47 %. This implies
that substantial amounts of money may have to be paid back to the Commission.

3.

(a)
It is not the Commission but the Dutch authorities who decide if projects are eligible for the
whole amount of ESF subsidies set out in their original project application approved by Arbeidsvoor-
ziening. The 1994-1999 programming period must be closed before 31 December 2002. It is in
principle possible that the Dutch authorities decide to postpone their final payment claim to the
Commission until this very date. This would give the Dutch authorities ample time to deal with the
final payments of ESF subsidies to individual promoters.

(b) The Commission itself does not decide if an individual promoter is paid or not. This is the sole

responsibility of the Dutch authorities.

(2001/C 163 E/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3585/00

by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Report on Directive 95/46/EC and its possible revision

Article 33 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, which
entered into force on 25 October 1998, reads as follows: (cid:145)The Commission shall report to the Council and
the European Parliament at regular intervals, starting not later than three years after the date referred to in
Article 32(1), on the implementation of this Directive, attaching to its report,
if necessary, suitable
proposals for amendments. The report shall be made public. The Commission shall examine, in particular,
the application of this Directive to the data processing of sound and image data relating to natural persons
and shall submit any appropriate proposals which prove to be necessary, taking account of developments
in information technology and in the light of the state of progress in the information society(cid:146).

What stage has the Commission reached in the process of drawing up such a report? Does the
Commission consider that amendments are necessary? If so, what amendments, and within what timescale?

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

As the Honourable Member points out, the Commission is due to report to the Council and the Parliament
within the meaning and the deadline provided for in Article 33 of Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament
and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
personal data and on the free movement of such data.

The Commission is closely following the implementation of the Directive in Member States. It has decided
to refer to the Court of Justice the cases of five Member States which have not yet notified national
implementing legislation. In view of this situation, it seems premature to take position on whether to
suggest amendments to the Directive.

C 163 E/172

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

If amendments were required because the report on the application revealed that, even after harmonisa-
tion, obstacles to the internal market would continue or in view of developments in information
technology and the state of progress of information society, these would be announced in the context of
the report.

(2001/C 163 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3586/00

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Replacement afforestation under LIFE projects

inadequate maintenance. The fact

Bogs, marsh areas, dry grasslands and sandy grasslands are among the most endangered habitats in our
rural landscape. They are the last refuges of many endangered species of plants and animals. The extent of
these habitats has decreased dramatically in recent decades because of increasingly intensive land use, but
tree cover (Austrian Forestry Law,
also because of
section 4(1))
leads to
considerable conflict with nature conservation interests. For example, if woody plants start encroaching on
bogs, marsh areas, dry grasslands and sandy grasslands and reach this extent of cover, they can be removed
only when an appropriate clearance authorisation has been obtained, i.e. replacement afforestation could
be required. As nature conservation has no equivalent legal instruments at its disposal there is a constant
decline in these habitats.

is to be treated legally as woodland once cover extends to 50 % of the area,

that natural

Under a LIFE nature project of the office of the Lower Austria regional government, with 60 % EU
financing, sandy habitats are to be enhanced. To enable particularly valuable habitats to be permanently
returned to sandy grassland small-scale clearances (about 10-12 hectares) are planned in various locations
under this project.

Can replacement afforestation required by the authorities be co-financed under LIFE projects via the rural
development programme (Regulation (EC) 1257/1999) (1)?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Article 38.1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999, on support for rural development
from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain
Regulations lays dow that (cid:145)payments may not be made in respect of the same measure under both this
Regulation and another Community support scheme(cid:146).

(cid:145)Substitution afforestation(cid:146) is a legal obligation deriving directly from the conservation measure supported
by the Life-Programme,
it is not possible to cofinance this action by the Austrian rural development
programme.

(2001/C 163 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3591/00

by Linda McAvan (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Welfare of poultry for slaughter in Spain

The Commission has published a report of a mission carried out by it Food and Veterinary Office in Spain
from 18 to 29 October 1999 concerning the production of poultrymeat (DG (SANCO) 1213/1999-MR
Final). Paragraph 3.9.3 of the report reveals that bad stunning procedures were procedures were observed