WRITTEN QUESTION E-1780/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Drugs cooperation with Latin America.
Date: 2001-06-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Latin America, exchange of information, narcotic, technical cooperation

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/205

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1774/01, E-1775/01, E-1776/01, E-1777/01 and P-1823/01
given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The draft second amendment to the German regulation on packaging (cid:129) notification of which was given in
connection with Directives 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (1) and 98/
34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical
standards and regulations (2) (cid:129) was examined by the Commission in the light of the relevant provisions of
Community law.

The points mentioned by the honourable Member were also considered by the relevant departments of the
Commission.

In view of the fact that at its meeting of 13 July 2001 the Bundesrat accepted a proposal for a resolution
put
the draft as notified to the
Commission, the issue of the proposed draft(cid:146)s compatibility with Community law no longer arises.

forward jointly by several L(cid:228)nder and did not vote in favour of

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2001/C 364 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1780/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Drugs cooperation with Latin America

(15 June 2001)

Six years after it was set up the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA),
which has been thoroughly overhauled as regards both its objectives and its working methods, provides
a proper integrated system for information on drugs and the drug policies conducted in the various EU
Member States.

The Monitoring Centre is needed not only by the countries applying for EU membership but also by other
third countries as a reliable source of knowledge and experience relating to such matters. Although it has
been able to meet this need in the case of the applicant countries ever since its statute was suitably
amended and the necessary human resources were made available to it under the PHARE programme, the
same cannot be said in the case of other third countries and, in particular, those of Latin America, a part
of the world for which drugs-related information is one of the priority areas of cooperation with the EU.
The EMCDDA has neither the legal means nor the resources it requires in order to be able to meet this
need and cooperate directly with Latin America.

Would the Commission therefore provide the following items:

1. A list of the Latin American, African and Asian countries which have requested cooperation with the
EU as regards drugs-related information, with a view to setting up national and/or regional drug-
monitoring centres.

2. A list and a description of the projects which the Commission is planning to implement in this field

and of the resources allocated to the implementation of those projects.

3. A list of the EU entities selected by the Commission for the purpose of implementing the projects and

information regarding the way in which they have been selected, the criteria used, etc.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission would refer to its answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question on cooperation with
Latin America in the field of drugs, in particular with regard to the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs
and Drug Addiction (P-1768/01) (1).

C 364 E/206

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

To date, only Venezuela has asked to benefit from European cooperation on information on drugs.

Only one monitoring project is being developed in a non-candidate third country. This is the monitoring
centre in Venezuela for which the Commission will provide a grant of €1 950 000.

The list of European bodies selected by the Commission for carrying out this project has not yet been
drawn up and the implementing arrangements have still to finalised between the Venezuelan government
and the Commission.

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 223.

(2001/C 364 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1781/01

by Carlos Carnero GonzÆlez (PSE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Request for further information concerning the construction of an industrial estate in a special bird

protection area in San Fernando de Henares (Spain)

In its reply of 8 May 2001 to my Written Question E-0882/01 (1) concerning the construction of an
industrial estate on a site set aside as ZEPA (special bird protection area) 142 in San Fernando de Henares
(Spain), the Commission said that, on the basis of the complaint submitted, it had asked the Spanish
authorities for their comments on the matter and had requested from them a copy of the impact
assessment carried out in respect of the project and a detailed description of the types of habitat to be
found in the area. The Commission also stated that it would make sure that the relevant Community
legislation was complied with.

Has the Commission received the information it requested?

If so, what view does it take of the matter in the light of that information? What action has it taken (or is
it intending to take) as a consequence?

If not, will
possible?

it urge the Spanish authorities to make the documents requested available as quickly as

(1)

JO C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 115.

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

(30 July 2001)

indicated in its answer to Written Question E-0882/01 (1) by the Honourable Member,

As it
Commission asked the Spanish authorities
environmental legislation which may apply in this instance.

to comment on the application of

the
the Community

The Spanish authorities(cid:146) reply has just been received and is now being examined. It would therefore be
premature to make a judgment regarding any improper application of Community law in this particular
case.

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 115.