WRITTEN QUESTION E-2946/02 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Dangers to whales posed by the use of high-power active sonar technology in naval exercises.
Date: 2002-10-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental liability, environmental protection, marine environment, marine mammal, remote sensing

C 222 E/30

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

In cases of manifest violations of EU law, the Commission should have the right to take a preliminary
decision requiring that the Member State comply with EU legislation. To dispute the Commission’s
decision, the Member State could take the matter to the Court of Justice. The Court of Justice would always
have a duty to treat the Commission’s preliminary request urgently, so that the Member States’
legal
certainty would not be infringed. In addition, the Court of Justice’s decision-making should be speeded up,
as was attempted to some extent in the rules adopted in 2000 at Nice.

Does the Commission consider that the implementation of EU law is currently too slow and

1.
unpredictable?

Does the Commission intend to propose to the next Intergovernmental Conference that it should be

2.
granted the right and duty to take preliminary decisions?

3.

If not, how does the Commission propose to intervene in this unsatisfactory situation?

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 64.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2002)

1.
The information in the annual reports on monitoring the application of Community law, which the
Commission has been sending to Parliament for nineteen years, does not, in the Commission’s opinion,
give the impression that the implementation of Community legislation is slow and unpredictable, as the
Honourable Member claims.

2.
The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty laying
down the procedure whereby failure by a State to fulfil an obligation under that Treaty was recorded in a
reasoned Commission decision against which the State in question could institute proceedings before the
Court of Justice. At this stage in the Convention’s deliberations, the Commission has not yet stated whether
it would be desirable to include a similar procedure in the new treaty.

Discussions prompted,

the
3.
Commission is attentive in pursuing its role as guardian of the treaties, including at the level of preventive
measures, which were not mentioned by the Honourable Member and which,
it is very
important to develop.

in particular, by the White Paper on Gouvernance (1)

indicate that

in its view,

(1) OJ C 287, 12.10.2001.

(2003/C 222 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2946/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 October 2002)

Subject: Dangers to whales posed by the use of high-power active sonar technology in naval exercises

Greenpeace recently accused NATO of causing the death of 16 whales in the Canaries during naval
exercises as a result of noise pollution from high-power active sonar systems. Many environmental NGOs,
such as the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), consider that the spread of this technology
represents a huge threat to the survival of many marine species.

Will the Commission carry out investigations to determine where responsibility lies? What practical
measures will it take to deter the use of active sonar systems? Is it one of the Commission’s priorities, in
the context of protecting the marine environment, to instruct a special committee to carry out a study of
the impact of this technology on the survival of marine wildlife and examine possible alternatives? In which
parts of the Mediterranean is the danger particularly acute?

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/31

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-2797/02 by Mrs Lucas (1)

(1) See page 17.

(2003/C 222 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2950/02

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Information network on education in Europe

The initiative undertaken by the Commission to create a network of national academic recognition
information centres (NARIC) in 1984 demonstrates the EU’s intention to provide advice and reliable
information on the academic recognition and validity of degrees, diplomas and study periods abroad. This
initiative has encouraged mobility amongst students in Europe.

Since 1984 improvements and new aims have been introduced, including first and foremost the specific
desire on the part of ministers from more than 30 countries to create, by 2010, a ‘European higher
education area’ as referred to in the Bologna Declaration to facilitate the direct comparison of degrees.

With regard primarily to the effectiveness of the centres in the NARIC network and the results achieved by
them: Will the Commission provide figures on the number of pupils who have approached the network to
obtain information on the recognition of qualifications?

Can it give details as to the outcome of these queries and the advice provided at the offices in the Member
States?

If so, how long does it take on average for a reply to be given to a query?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2002)

The Commission does not have at present reliable statistics on the issues raised by the Honourable
Member, which would only be available from individual Narics. The Commission will examine, on the
basis of recent surveys, whether such statistics can be elaborated and will not hesitate to inform Parliament
on its findings.

(2003/C 222 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2953/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Volume of payments into and from the Commission’s bank accounts

In its answer to my Written Question E-1851/02 (1), the Commission listed the banks with which it holds
accounts in order to make payments into and from the budget of the European Union.

However, the Commission refused to indicate the volume of payments relating to those banks in 2000 and
2001.