WRITTEN QUESTION E-1533/01 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission. The Commission's attitude towards nuclear power.
Date: 2001-05-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, energy policy, energy supply, nuclear energy

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/137

(2001/C 364 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1527/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Adulterated wine in Western Portugal

At the end of March this year various media reported that in Western Portugal 25 million litres of wine
adulterated by the addition of water and spirits made from sugar cane or sugar beet had been seized.

The firm responsible had apparently already adulterated wine exported to Angola in this way in the past
and had been discovered as a result of an investigation carried out by national and Community authorities,
since the product received Community support for wine exports.

Can the Commission say:

(cid:129) whether it knows of any cases of wine being adulterated by a firm in Western Portugal which has

received Community export aid and, if so,

(cid:129) how much the aid was worth and what measures were taken?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) reported that it had conducted an investigation in 1999 into
exports of wine to Angola by a Portuguese company based in Lageosa Do Dao. The investigation found
that the company in question had systematically employed illegal wine-making practices to increase the
alcoholic strength of the wine, receiving export refunds worth € 11 million to which it was not entitled.

OLAF(cid:146)s final report on the investigation was sent to the Portuguese administrative and legal authorities in
March 2000. The Portuguese administrative authorities began the recovery procedure on 28 July 2000.

The Portuguese authorities issued two communications in 2000 on the basis of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in
connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of an information
system in this field (1).

OLAF also announced that it had requested information from the Portuguese authorities on 10 April 2001
following further reports in the Portuguese press in March 2001. The Portuguese authorities replied that
the evidence in their possession led them to conclude that no Community funds were involved in this case.
They also invoked the confidentiality of
the investigation. This case did not give rise to any
communication under Regulation (EEC) No 595/91. This Regulation requires Member States, during the
two months following the end of each quarter, to communicate to the Commission a list of irregularities
which have been the subject of primary administrative or judicial findings of fact.

(1) OJ L 67, 14.3.1991.

(2001/C 364 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1533/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

Subject: The Commission(cid:146)s attitude towards nuclear power

(21 May 2001)

Does the Commission share Loyola de Palacio(cid:146)s positive attitude towards nuclear power, and does it regret
the decisions by Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany to decommission their nuclear power
stations?

C 364 E/138

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Nuclear power contributes significantly (about 35 %) to electricity production within the Community and,
accordingly, mitigates the Community(cid:146)s dependency on imported fossil fuels and the Community(cid:146)s green
house gas emissions. On the other hand,
its public acceptability is hampered due to public concern
regarding waste disposal and safety.

These aspects are discussed in the Commission(cid:146)s Green Paper (cid:145)Towards a European Strategy for the
Security of Energy Supply(cid:146) (1). The purpose of the Green Paper is to provide the necessary transparency to
political decision makers and the public regarding today(cid:146)s supply security issues and to launch a debate
with a view to developing the necessary strategy for the three to four decades to come. The Green Paper
has been adopted by the Commission and therefore reflects the views of the College on this question.

The various moratoria on nuclear power adopted by some of
the Member States have also been
considered. Member States have a sovereign right to decide for themselves whether to rely on nuclear
energy for electricity production or to phase it out. The Commission respects this right, while at the same
time considering that security of supply and environmental protection concerns make it necessary to
examine the present situation of nuclear energy and its potential for the future with an open mind and on
the basis of objective facts. The Green Paper shows that the absence of nuclear energy would make it even
more difficult to tackle climate change in the long term.

In the meantime, it is necessary to progress towards the development and implementation of a sustainable
approach to the disposal of nuclear wastes and to ensure adequate research in this sector.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.

(2001/C 364 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1541/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Prevention of animal diseases by allowing agricultural markets to take better account of natural

biological laws

1.
In the Commission(cid:146)s view what are the possibilities of preventing the rapid dissemination of plant
and animal diseases and the transfer of pests and infectious animals over long distances, given that natural
geographical barriers which may limit or prevent this are to an increasing extent disappearing as a result
of trade and transport operations?

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, what measures could be taken to prevent the transport of seed and
2.
breeding animals over long distances which results from the concentration of agricultural production in
areas where the lowest production costs are anticipated and to prevent the final product being traded over
long distances, thereby increasing the risk of the spread of diseases?

Does the Commission regard as acceptable the continued failure within the territory of the Member
3.
States of the European Union to exploit the possibilities offered by the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
to make the import of plants, animals and foodstuffs subject to strict health rules?

4. What new and more comprehensive arrangements are being envisaged by the Commission to
prevent a further spread of BSE, swine fever, foot-and-mouth infection and other diseases?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

1. and 2.
Increased movements of people, animals and goods throughout the world and globalisation of
agricultural markets imply additional risks of spreading human, animal and plant diseases. Given the