WRITTEN QUESTION E-3456/01 by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission. Knock Airport in Co. Mayo, Ireland.
Date: 2002-01-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, European Regional Development Fund, Ireland, airport

C 160 E/118

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

The EAGGF Guarantee Section accepted the expenditure but refunded it only in part, because of the
penalty imposed on the Member State for late implementation of the integrated administration and control
system.

Community financing was therefore reduced by that penalty, which amounted to approximately
€ 24,25 million. The expenditure and the correction applied are subject to the clearance of accounts
procedures in order to determine the final contribution from the Community budget.

The variable premium for non-dairy ewes for the 2000 marketing year was € 17 477 per head. For dairy
ewes and goats the premium was € 13 982 per head.

In less-favoured regions, non-dairy ewes qualify for an additional fixed rural area premium of € 6 641 per
head; for dairy ewes and goats the amount is € 5 977 per head.

When the second instalment of the variable premium for ewes for the 2001 marketing year was set on
21 September 2001, the estimated premium for non-dairy ewes was € 10 779 per head. For dairy ewes
and goats the estimated premium was € 8 623 per head.

The final value of the variable premium for 2001 will be set in January 2002. Given that sheep prices are
stable, the final premium should be lower than the estimates already made.

During the EAGGF Guarantee Section 2001 financial year, Greece effected and declared expenditure under
sheep/goat aid totalling approximately € 200,58 million. The EAGGF Guarantee Section accepted all the
expenditure included in the monthly declarations.

the EAGGF Guarantee Section’s

Under
incurred and declared by
Member States is reimbursed at the latest on the third working day of the second month following the
month of declaration. The Commission met that deadline in full.

system, expenditure

financial

The expenditure is subject to the clearance of accounts procedures in order to determine the final
contribution from the Community budget.

Year

(1) 2001

2000

Basic premium (variable)

Rural area premium (fixed)

Non-dairy ewes

Dairy ewes and goats

Non-dairy ewes

Dairy ewes and goats

10 779

17 477

8 623

13 982

6 641

6 641

5 977

5 977

(In euro)

(1)

21.9.2001 estimate.

(2002/C 160 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3456/01

by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 2002)

Subject: Knock Airport in Co. Mayo, Ireland

1. What is the annual level of EU support for Knock Airport in Co. Mayo, Ireland?

2. What proportion of the airport’s running costs is borne by the EU?

3. What was the EU’s contribution towards the cost of building the airport?

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/119

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2002)

1.

2.

The Community does not at present grant any support to Knock Airport in Ireland.

The Community does not bear any running costs for the above mentioned airport.

Through the Irish Peripherality Operational Programme under

3.
the
1989-1993 period, Knock Airport (then known as Connaught airport) received a European Regional
Development Fund contribution of approximately € 270 000. Under this programme, improvements were
made to the terminal building and the meteorological station.

the Structural Funds for

(2002/C 160 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3457/01

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 2002)

Subject: Electromagnetic pollution caused by telephone base stations

Article 8 of Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC (1) on exposure of the general public to electrom-
agnetic fields lays down requirements for the authorisation, planning and installation of radioelectric
stations, recommending in particular that their location should minimise as far as possible the levels of
emissions in sensitive areas such as schools, health centres, hospitals and public parks.

What scientific data did the Commission have to enable it to make the recommendation in Article 8
concerning sensitive areas?

Does it currently have any new scientific data to confirm that sensitive areas should be ruled out as
possible locations for radioelectric stations?

How does the Commission view the fact that, despite the Recommendation, the Spanish Government is
allowing the installation of eight telephone base stations with more than 30 antennae emitting radio-
frequency radiation, less than 100 metres from a college in which two cases of leukaemia and one case of
lymphoma have been diagnosed among the pupils?

Does it consider that the current Recommendation is adequate to guarantee the health of the population
and,
if not, does it intend to propose a directive which will go beyond the provisions of the 1999
Recommendation and include effective measures to ensure respect for the precautionary principle and
health protection?

(1) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2002)

The Honourable Member is requested to refer to the Commission’s answer to her written question
P-3452/01 (1). The Commission would point out that Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July
1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (O Hz to 300 GHz) (2) is
based on the opinion issued by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, which was
endorsed by the Commission’s Scientific Steering Committee (SSC).

The measures to implement the Recommendation are the responsibility of the Member States. Under the
terms of the Recommendation, the Member States must report to the Commission, within three years of
the adoption of the Recommendation, on the measures taken to adopt a framework for protecting the
public from the health effects of non-ionising radiation. The Commission will publish these measures in an
implementation report in 2002.