Of some 2000 Kosovars who were kidnapped and held hostage by the military and paramilitary forces belonging to the regime then in place in Belgrade in the days leading up to the international police operation in Kosovo more than 28 months ago, 229 are still being held in Serb prisons. One hundred of them are being held for common law offences, while the remaining 129, including the student leader Arbin Kurti, are being held for their convictions or for 'political' offences. In February 2001 the Serb and Yugoslav parliaments passed an amnesty law allowing the release of 30 000 Serbs and some 400 Kosovars. At the end of April 2001, 143 prisoners were released from Jakova prison. The Serb judicial authorities had stated that the cases of the remaining Kosovar prisoners would be the subject of a rapid judicial review followed by release. Despite these commitments given by the Belgrade authorities, however, and despite the Council and Commission's repeated promises to intervene forcefully in order to put an end to this intolerable situation, the matter has still not been resolved.

Has the Council decided no longer to consider it a priority to resolve this issue? If not, what initiatives will it take in order finally to bring about the immediate release of Arbin Kurti and the 129 Kosovar hostages and the transfer of the 100 Kosovar prisoners still being held in Serbia for common law offences to the UNMIK, which is the only competent body in this connection?

The Council is continuing to monitor the issue of Kosovar prisoners in Serbia very closely and has stated on several occasions that it is in favour of the swift release of all those imprisoned for purely political reasons under the regime led by Mr Milosevic. Furthermore, the amnesty adopted this year by the Belgrade Parliament is a direct result of pressure from the European Union on the new democratic government of Yugoslavia.

The Council would like to remind the Honourable Member of the progress that has been made in this area. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which, following an agreement reached with Belgrade, monitors the health and conditions of detention of these prisoners, has informed us that there were approximately 2 000 Kosovar prisoners in September 1999. Since then, their number has decreased with each passing day, in line with the commitments given by the Belgrade government to the international community and the European Union. At the end of August 2001, there were 226 Kosovars still detained in Serbian prisons, approximately 50 of whom were being detained for political reasons.

The Presidency of the European Union and the Commission, in the course of their regular contacts with Belgrade, particularly as part of the Stabilisation and Association Process and the consultative Task Force which was set up in order to monitor the implementation of the commitments given in this area by Belgrade, have stressed that the swift release of all political prisoners is a matter of urgency, is one of the conditions for opening up real prospects for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to join the European Union and is a significant measure of confidence for resolving the Kosovo problem.

The Honourable Member mentioned Mr Albin Kurti, one of the political prisoners who are due to be released very shortly by Belgrade. Nevertheless, according to our information, the Serbian legal authorities have not yet completed the evaluation of his case. The ICRC has visited him on a regular basis and the last visit took place during the summer.

The mobility of labour in Europe is extremely sluggish owing to red tape and legal obstacles, but also to language problems and cultural differences, which hamper progress towards the objectives for development set in Lisbon. Studying and gaining a qualification at a university in a country other than a student's country of origin provides a more solid foundation than the ERASMUS and SOCRATES programmes for creating a European employment market and cultivating a European outlook. Despite this situation, relations between the education systems suffer through lack of information and mutual recognition, and the failure to treat local applicants for places and applicants from other Member States on an equal basis.

Does the Council have details of the Member States' policies on accepting European students and, if so, what are its views on those policies? Will it take initiatives to promote the approximation of the secondary education systems and the adoption of common policies by the Member States, and encourage young Europeans to study in a Member State other than their own country?

With regard to the question of conditions for accepting European students in other European countries, the Council must emphasise that it does not have any national data on this and recommends that the Honourable Member contact the relevant national bodies for information.

The Council would also like to reiterate that Article 149(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community defines the competencies of the Community, particularly with regard to education, and states that the Community shall contribute to the development of highquality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States, and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems, and their cultural and linguistic diversity. From this perspective, as the law stands, the Council has to give a negative answer to the second question by the Honourable Member, while pointing out that the Council is, in any case, unable to act on its own initiative.

However, promoting mobility, which is quoted by the Treaty as one of the Community’s spheres of action (Article 149(2), second indent, ex Article 126), is one of the key aims of the Socrates, Leonardo and Youth programmes. The Council is aware of the obstacles to this mobility and, on 14 December 2000, it adopted a resolution for a plan of action in this area.

The Council also reminds the Honourable Member of the recommendation of 10 July 2001, which was adopted under the co-decision procedure with the European Parliament, on mobility within the Community of students, persons undergoing training, volunteers, teachers and trainers.

The Council would also like to point out that it is closely following developments in the Bologna process, launched by the joint declaration signed by the higher education ministers of 29 European countries on 19 June 1999 and which was confirmed by 32 European countries in Prague on 19 May 2001. This is, more specifically, an initiative based on transnational cooperation, which aims, amongst other things, to facilitate mobility and mutual recognition in higher education in Europe.

The Greek Court of Appeal has dismissed the German State's complaint against the confiscation of German property in Greece to meet the claims of thousands of victims of Nazi atrocities during World War II and to collect the war compensation to which they are entitled under a ruling by the Greek courts.

Will the Council urge the German Government to satisfy the just claims of the victims and, in more general terms, to pay the war reparations awarded and repay the loans extracted from Greece during the occupation, thereby fulfilling its formal and moral obligations and ending a stand which can only be construed as a lack of respect for the victims of Nazism? The need for such action is even more pressing given that Germany has paid similar compensation to other countries?

FRAnswer

The Council is not competent to answer the questions submitted by the Honourable Member. The Council therefore suggests that the Honourable Member contact the competent national authorities directly.

In recent years, we have witnessed a trend in the internal market for big groups to close down units and plants even though the latter are profitable. This has just happened at Degerfors in Sweden, where management has decided to close down large parts of the operations at this profitable ironworks. Many employees and the trade unions find it worrying, and difficult to understand, that a business's profitability and good productivity are no longer enough to save it from closure. Such closures are particularly problematic in regions where it is difficult for those made redundant to find new jobs.

What discussions are taking place in the Council concerning this trend?

The Council recalls to the Honourable Member the answer it gave to an identical question raised by Mr Gerard Caudron (H-462/01) on the occasion of the Plenary session last June.

As a matter of fact, the Council is not competent to supervise the implementation of legislation, and therefore is not competent to comment on events and developments in individual enterprises. The Community legislation to be respected in this area regards in particular the following instruments:

- Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16);

- Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purpose of informing and consulting employees (OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 4); and

- Council Directive 97/74/EC of 15 December 1997 extending, to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Directive 94/45/EC on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purpose of informing and consulting employees (OJ L 10, 16.1.1998, p. 22).

The Council is well aware of the difficult situation faced by employees of companies having decided the closure of unprofitable parts of their businesses in situations where as a whole they are profitable. Regarding the specific question of large-scale redundancies, the Council in June reached political agreement on a common position on a new directive on informing and consulting employees within undertakings. It is to apply, inter alia, in cases of business restructuring and other substantial changes with consequences for the employees, including the level of employment. Thus a fundamental objective of the directive is to improve the position of the workforce in situations described in the question. It is also intended to supplement the existing directives on Collective Redundancies and Transfers of Undertakings.

Nevertheless, the Council recalls that it can only act on the basis of proposals from the Commission. If the Commission were to submit such proposals for its consideration, which is not the case at this stage, the Council would be ready to act quickly. The Honourable Member of the European Parliament may be aware that one of the priorities of the Belgian Presidency is to look at the quality of employment.

Will the Council make a statement on the continuing need for a high level of coordinated action at EU and international level to counter the threat of the availability of illegal drugs in our society? What new measures does it consider need to be taken in the area of prevention? Is it satisfied that enough is being done to seize, freeze and confiscate the assets of the drug barons?

The Council is implementing the Action Plan against drugs that was endorsed by the European Council at its meeting in Feira in June 2000. A special section of this Plan is devoted to supply reduction. In order to reduce substantially over five years the availability of illicit drugs, adoption of measures was agreed in the fields of operational border control, maritime drug trafficking, combining forensic and law enforcement information, training of law enforcement officers.

The last three presidencies have actively started to implement the action plan. Under the last presidency a formal agreement was reached on forensic profiling and on 14 March 2001 a public Council debate took place on law enforcement action in the drugs field. The Presidency has listed as a priority the Council Framework Decision laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of drug trafficking.

Furthermore, in co-operation with the United Nations International Drug Control Programme, the Presidency has scheduled a high-level conference on the problem of synthetic drugs, which will take place in Brussels on November 19th. The conference will focus equally on the demand and supply reduction, and intends to provide a platform for discussion of measures aimed at policy lessons and future challenges for both European and international drug control agendas.A progress report on the implementation of the Action Plan has to be presented before the end of 2002.

The Council stresses that Europol is a major instrument in the fight against illicit supply of drugs.

Prevention

As regards prevention the Council has adopted in December 2000, the Council conclusions on networking information on emerging trends and patterns in drug abuse and poly-drug use and the associated risks. Moreover, at its meeting of June 2001 the Council has agreed on a programme of Community action in the field of public health that covers also drugs.

Money laundering

The Council has adopted a Framework Decision of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime. According to this Framework Decision, an approximation of criminal law and procedure on money laundering, in particular confiscation funds, is contemplated. Moreover, the scope of criminal activities which constitute principal offences for money laundering should be uniform and sufficiently broad in all Member States. Therefore the Member States shall take necessary steps not to make or uphold reservations in respect of the Strasbourg Convention of 8 November 1990 on Money Laundering. The Member States shall also take necessary steps to ensure that money laundering offences are punishable by deprivation of liberty for a maximum of not less than 4 years and that they can enforce a value confiscation, both domestically and at the request of another Member State. Furthermore, the Member States shall take necessary steps to ensure that requests from other Member States for mutual assistance is given the same priority as such measures in domestic proceedings. The Member States shall implement this Decision by 31 December 2002.

The Council is currently working on a draft Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing assets or evidence. This draft Framework Decision is applicable to i.a. illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs. The aim of this draft Framework Decision is that a freezing order in one Member State shall be recognised in another Member State without any formalities involved.

In Italy accusations have recently been made public concerning an organised ring for the sexual abuse of young girls by UN peacekeepers, among them Italian and Dutch nationals, who are members of the UN peacekeeping mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia. Prompted by these accusations, UN inspectors are conducting investigations.

What steps does the Council intend to take to ensure that full light is shed upon this case, that a thorough investigation is carried out into all the details of the organised abuse ring, that the guilty parties – who happen to be EU citizens – are punished in an exemplary fashion, and to avoid similar future occurrences of organised paedophile rings, whose effect is to discredit and nullify the aim of the UN’s peacekeeping mission, while at the same time shaking native peoples’ confidence in international organisation?

The Council fully shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member with regard to the accusations about a number of members of the UN peacekeeping mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia. The Council is awaiting the conclusions of the investigation conducted by the United Nations into this matter.

It is difficult for the Council to envisage specific measures, since the investigation is underway, as you are aware, by the United Nations. It will be up to the competent national courts of law to look into the issue, if the investigation upholds the accusations.

I would, however, like to take the opportunity that has been given to me by the Honourable Member’s question to reiterate the extreme importance that the Council attaches to combating paedophilia. A proposal for a framework decision on the fight against the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography is currently being examined by the Council. The Presidency hopes it is possible that this important proposal will be the subject of a political agreement at the Justice and Home Affairs Council at the end of December.

Following the establishment of its crisis centre to prevent crime related to the introduction of euro notes and coins next year, Europol has now set up an anti-terrorism task force crisis centre in the wake of the horrific terrorist attacks in the United States. In the view of the Council what further anti-terrorism initiatives should be coordinated at EU level?

The President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Michel, informed the House this morning about the conclusions of the extraordinary meeting of the European Council held on 21 September 2001. At that meeting, the Council analysed the international situation in the wake of the terrorist attacks in the United States and imparted the necessary impetus to the actions of the European Union.

Let me then simply reiterate the broad outlines of the action plan adopted at that meeting.

The European Council decided that the fight against terrorism would henceforth constitute a priority objective of the European Union.

That commitment involved the adoption of a five-point action plan:

The first point covers the requisite enhancement of police and judicial cooperation, which involves the introduction of a European arrest warrant and a common definition of terrorism.

In practical terms, measures will be taken to identify the terrorists and the organisations which support them and to strengthen the role of Europol and its cooperation with the USA.

The second point in the action plan involves the development of international legal instruments. Some such instruments already exist and need to be implemented. Consideration should also be given to the idea of framing a general convention against international terrorism under the aegis of the United Nations.

The third aspect on which the European Union wants to concentrate is the funding of terrorism which must be ended. Accordingly, it would be useful if the extension of the Money-Laundering Directive and the framework decision on freezing assets were adopted as soon as possible.

The fourth point concerns air transport security. The Union intends to work rapidly on a raft of technical and specific measures seeking to improve air transport security. Such measures would cover, for example, the checking of luggage, technical training for aircrews, and quality control of security measures applied by the Member States

The fifth point concerns the coordination of the European Union’s global action. The common foreign and security policy will have to be strengthened so that the fight against terrorism may be further integrated therein. The Union’s relations with third countries will have to be systematically reviewed in the light of the support which those countries might give to terrorism.

Finally, the fight against terrorism requires the Union to give its all in the efforts being made by the international community to prevent and stabilise regional conflicts. The Union will act most effectively if it develops a genuine common foreign and security policy and makes operational the European security and defence policy.

In the interests of protecting people and the environment it is of decisive importance to take account of the effect a product has on the environment throughout its life cycle. In view of this, will the Council at the WTO meeting in Qatar, pursue the issue of the right to prohibit imports of a product on the grounds that it was processed using a process with a significant negative impact on the environment, or that it contains substances which are prohibited in the EU, and which leak out into the environment either when the product is used or when it is treated as waste?

Does the Council propose to pursue this issue within the framework of the GPA in order to permit a life cycle perspective to be considered in public procurement contracts?

1 The European Union’s position on environmental issues in view of the forthcoming WTO multilateral negotiations is set out in the conclusions of the Council of 26 October 1999. In these conclusions, the Council considers that commercial policy and environmental policy should work together in favour of sustainable development and that the WTO should make the most of the positive links between trade liberalisation, environmental protection and economic development.

2. Regarding the specific point raised by the Honourable Member, the Council has expressed the view that the Commission should work towards the new round offering the opportunity to clarify the relationship between the WTO regulations and the requirements for production processes and methods not relating to a product, particularly with regard to the systems of ecological labelling.

3. In pursuing its environmental objectives, the European Union has absolutely no intention for the negotiations to lead to arbitrary or unjustified discrimination or any form of restriction disguised as trade and is very much aware of the legitimate demands for access to markets, particularly from developing countries.

If Europol is to operate more efficiently, it can do so only if all the Member States supply it with the necessary information.

Given the recent commitment to intensify the fight against international terrorism, what steps is the Council taking to ensure that all Member States cooperate fully with Europol? Furthermore, will the Council guarantee that Europol has the necessary funds and resources to fulfil the tasks it has been set?

The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the following statement made by the Council in its conclusions of 20 September 2001.

The Council would reiterate how important it is for the quality of Europol analyses that the police authorities and also the intelligence services of the Member States should quickly pass on any relevant information on terrorism, in accordance with the terms of the Europol Convention. On this point, the Council is instructing the Director of Europol to report back at its meeting on 6 and 7 December 2001 on the input provided by the Member States into the analytical work files opened on terrorism, together with an analysis of any problems.

That was backed up by the call made by the European Council meeting in extraordinary session on 21 September 2001 in Brussels for the Council to undertake identification of presumed terrorists in Europe and of organisations supporting them in order to draw up a common list of terrorist organisations. In that connection, it reaffirmed that improved cooperation and exchange of information between all intelligence services of the Union would be required. With more direct reference to the Honourable Member’s question, the European Council reached agreement that it would ask the Member States to share with Europol, systematically and without delay, all useful data regarding terrorism. In addition, a specialist anti-terrorist team would be set up within Europol as soon as possible and would cooperate closely with its US counterparts.

The Council will review the budgetary implications of the increase in Europol activities resulting from the conclusions of the Council and of the European Council under the budgetary procedure laid down in Article 35 of the Europol Convention.

EU membership negotiations have brought great progress as regards human rights in several applicant countries as a result of the latter bringing their legislation into line with the acquis communautaire.

The prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation is laid down in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The negotiations have brought progress in that area, too. In countries which long imposed a total ban on homosexual relationships, including between adults, legislation has now been amended somewhat in the right direction.

Problems still exist in some applicant countries, however. These last remnants of discrimination against homosexuals must also be removed from applicant countries' laws before the negotiations are concluded. The EU 15 must not compromise on the position on discrimination clearly set out in the Charter.

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that all legal forms of discrimination against homosexuals are eliminated before each and every applicant country joins the European Union?

1) The prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is laid down not only in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but also in Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. The institutions of the European Union have already transposed this Article by enacting, in 2000, Directive 2000/78/EC, which abolishes discrimination in employment, including on grounds of sexual orientation. The Directive must be transposed into national legislation by 2003 and is part of the acquis communautaire which the candidate countries must also apply.

2) This prohibition also forms part of the Copenhagen political accession criteria which see ‘stability of institutions’ as ‘guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for, and protection of minorities’. The Commission's commitment to this has been shown with respect to the Romanian laws which it has been considering from the outset because of the significantly discriminatory elements they contain. The Commission therefore welcomes the emergency regulation decriminalising homosexuality, which Romania passed in June 2001.

The Commission has also raised this problem in connection with Cypriot legislation.

3) In view of the aspects brought to its attention by the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), the Commission will also be giving particular attention to the laws of other acceding countries, above all in the Regular Reports to be published in November 2001.

Through the process of updating the 25-year old directive on equal treatment of men and women, the Member States are taking a huge step towards overcoming gender discrimination in the workplace.

The Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities has visited several applicant countries over the year and has, unfortunately, observed that women's rights are not high on their agenda. It is therefore tremendously important that the Commission gives the issue priority in enlargement negotiations and stresses the importance of bringing both national legislation and national action programmes into line with the updated directive. Forceful measures are called for, in particular to secure the right to return to work after parental leave, to establish in practice the right to equal pay for equal and equivalent work, and to eliminate gender discrimination and sexual harassment.

What practical measures will the Commission take to ensure that the applicant countries comply with the updated directive on the equal treatment of men and women?

The Commission shares Mrs Theorin's view that the transposition and implementation of the acquis in the area of equal treatment must be acknowledged as a matter of high priority and great importance, and regards it as a precondition for accession.

No exceptions were made on equality of treatment, nor were any transitional periods granted. The Commission will guarantee that the new components of the acquis communautaire in this area will also be fully transposed before accession.

In June 2000, the Commission adopted Directive 76/207/EEC on equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions. A proposal has been made for a directive to amend this. A common position was established at Council level on 23 July 2000. The Commission hopes that this directive will be adopted before the end of 2001, as was proposed at the European Council meeting in Stockholm.

The draft directive was presented to the candidate countries in the context of the latest sessions of the subcommittees set up by the European Treaty. Once the directive is adopted, the candidate countries will have to formally accept it as a new component part of the acquis communautaire and transpose it by the time of their accession.

The candidate countries are participating in the Community's Equal Opportunity Programme, the aim of which is to make the public more aware of equal treatment issues, to collect data and produce statistics on the subject.

The Commission concedes that some legislative measures on equal treatment are still needed in several candidate countries, principally with regard to their ability to enforce them.

The current year in particular has seen great progress in this field, which, for most of the candidate countries, has contributed to the provisional conclusion of negotiations on the 'social policy and employment' chapter.

Careful monitoring will, however, be needed even after negotiations on this chapter have been concluded, and the Commission will guarantee it by means of expert missions, frequent contact with the responsible authorities in the candidate countries, through subcommittees, monitoring tables and Regular Reports.

The candidate countries were called upon to produce precise timetables for the adoption and implementation of all equal treatment measures and also to submit more precise information on enforcement and practical transposition, in particular with regard to appeal procedures and the roles of the various control agencies . This request was generally complied with.

Would the Commission consider it acceptable under EU law if applicant countries in central and eastern Europe exempted certain groups of EU citizens, for instance expellees and their descendants, from transitional arrangements before expiry of the transition periods and granted them full freedom of establishment and an unrestricted right to purchase real estate, e.g. from the date of accession?

The EU has successfully negotiated transitional arrangements with the candidate countries in respect of investments in real estate. It has been possible to provisionally conclude negotiations on this issue with nine candidate countries and to find a solution for several countries which grants a transitional period in respect of farmland and forests, and also for the purchase of second homes.

It should, however, be the general rule that EU citizens resident in the candidate countries enjoy the same rights after accession as do the countries' citizens. Several candidate countries did not request any transitional period and will therefore be applying the acquis from the date of their accession.

On completion of accession, EU citizens who were expelled from their homelands will be able to settle in the candidate countries and buy property there in the same way as other EU citizens.

It must be recalled in this context that the return of property does not feature in the negotiations on the free movement of capital. It is therefore not included in the acquis, but falls within the remit of the Member States alone.

On the question of what practical effects the transitional periods will have on the right to buy property in the candidate countries that negotiated them, I would like to say that the solution differs from country to country, depending on what transitional period was agreed on, and on current law in the country in question on the acquisition of property by nationals of foreign States.

There are no transitional periods for the three Baltic States and Slovenia, which means that, with effect from the date of accession, EU citizens can invest there without restriction.

EU citizens or independent farmers wanting to settle in the Czech Republic or Bulgaria can, on accession, purchase land and property in the same way as the citizens of these countries.

In Hungary and Slovakia, an independent farmer must have been resident in the country for three years before entering into the enjoyment of the same rights as the citizens of these countries.

A four-year residence period is required for the purchase of a second home in Hungary. Negotiations on this point are still proceeding with Poland and Romania.

It must furthermore be emphasised that no transitional periods were accorded with respect to first homes, that is to say, an EU citizen wanting to move to one of these countries after its accession can always buy the house which he wants to make his permanent abode. Moreover, with the exception of the agricultural and forestry sector, unrestricted entrepreneurial investment may be engaged in from the date of accession onwards.

With the Mont Blanc Tunnel due to reopen in the next few months, it should be pointed out that the lack of harmonisation of social provisions in the European Union is giving rise to high traffic levels, owing in particular to the relocation of various stages in the production process or of entire companies. This situation is causing not just pollution but also social problems.

How does the Commission plan to reduce the high traffic levels caused by the lack of harmonisation of social provisions within the European Union? Is it giving any thought to upward harmonisation of these provisions, and if so, how would it achieve this?

Pursuant to Article 137 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Community has approved legislation which lays down minimum requirements in the area of social policy and employment law. The Treaty does not set out to harmonise social legislation. The problems of relocation, described in the question by the Honourable Member, are part of a much wider debate than that of the lack of harmonisation of social conditions.

The Commission, which has recently adopted its White Paper on European transport policy for 2010, does not wish to disrupt the level of service that the transport system provides for the free movement of goods and individuals in the Community. The Commission wishes to optimise the use of this system, and particularly to transfer part of this business to other means of transport, which are more environmentally friendly and which have spare capacity.

Does the Commission consider the Pyrenees mountains to be an environmentally sensitive region?

Given that road traffic is increasing, what measures is the Commission taking to switch traffic across the Pyrenees from road to rail?

The Commission considers the Pyrenees, like the Alps, to be a sensitive mountain area, although it believes that we have to differentiate between these two mountain regions. The Alps are an almost saturated bottleneck while the Pyrenees present an obstacle to interconnection that should be breached whilst respecting environmental requirements. The Commission is concerned about the increase in the number of lorries crossing these mountain ranges (+10% per year) and the negative effects of this situation on quality of life and ecology.

The Commission’s strategy in this field is clearly explained in the White Paper on Transport. Modal transfer will take place by means of more efficient rail and sea services and by means of a considerable improvement in the infrastructure of this region. To this end, the Commission has co-funded improvement measures for the border terminals between Irún and Hendaye and between Portbou and Cervera. Furthermore, thanks to the PACT programme, regular coastal services have been implemented between Bilbao and Rotterdam and between Valencia, Livorno and Salerno in Italy.

The Commission also proposes, within the framework of the review of the guidelines on the trans-European transport network, to add a new rail project crossing the centre of the Pyrenees. This project will be classified as a ‘specific’ project (the so-called Essen list) under the same conditions as the major projects for crossing the Alps, such as Lyon-Turin and the Brenner.

On 29 August 2001, a tragic plane accident on the Melilla-Málaga route left four people dead and over twenty injured. The local authorities and citizens' associations had repeatedly pointed out that the CN-235 class planes flying this route were unsafe.

Given that this route constitutes Melilla's sole airlink with the rest of Spain, and that the sea links are slow and inadequate, does the Commission believe that there is a case for setting up an airlink with state aid, in the public interest?

The Commission deeply regrets the tragic accident mentioned by the Honourable Member. The relevant Commissioner offered his condolences to the Spanish authorities on behalf of the Commission.

The type of aircraft involved in the accident was approved in accordance with current European regulations and, until the conclusions of the technical investigation are made available, the Commission has no information to hand which would cast doubt upon the safety of the aircraft.

Furthermore, Community legislation has taken into account the need to provide vital regional transport services. The Communication on state funding in the sector⁽¹⁾ mentions the risks of distorting competition, which could occur where government aid is authorised to develop regional airlines.

The Commission would also reiterate, however, that there are two types of measures that could be adopted to support these routes. Firstly, Member States have the option to impose public service obligations on some routes (Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92⁽²⁾), which could provide funding for operational deficits. The second option is to grant social assistance to residents of some regions in order to reduce the price of tickets. Spain is already applying this measure for residents of Mellila.

Following the dreadful events surrounding the attacks on the United States, does the Commission consider that joint discussions should take place at EU and US level aimed at ensuring common security procedures at all EU and US airports and, further, does it consider that steps should be taken to secure world-wide agreement on common standards?

The Commission fully shares the honourable Member’s point of view and this is why it cooperated with the Presidency to ensure that the conclusions of the extraordinary Council meeting of Ministers of Transport on 14 September included these ideas. The European Council also confirmed these guidelines at its extraordinary meeting on 21 September 2001.

It is clear that the Community must ensure that common security measures are implemented effectively and uniformly and are harmonised with those of its main partners, in particularly the United States. An ad hoc multidisciplinary group has been set up for this purpose; this will inevitably involve establishing appropriate contacts with the Americans.

European and American experts have already started to coordinate their approaches.

At the same time, joint action has been taken in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to ensure that the same measures are taken at world level under its auspices.

The recently published Commission White Paper on transport policy paints a picture of shipping as an underdeveloped sector in crisis and, on that basis, presents a scheme for developing the use of short sea shipping by designating sea routes to be given priority treatment by offering start-up funding under the Marco Polo programme and from the EU Structural Funds.

Will the Commission therefore state how it can defend the introduction of targeted aid in the maritime sector when this will both distort competition between different modes of transport and cause distortion within the maritime sector between routes designated as eligible for funding and those which must pay their own way?

Will it also state how these proposals fit in with its overall policy on industry, which is based on free competition and maximum liberalisation?

The Commission is aware that distortions of competition can arise from subsidies to market operators.

However, it has to be clarified that the future “Marco Polo” programme will not only subsidise specific short sea operations, but also rail and inland waterway services. The aim of the Marco Polo is to transfer goods from road to other modes, in order to reduce road congestion in Europe and to improve the environmental balance of transport. To force this modal shift, incentives to industry are necessary.

Marco Polo, like its predecessor programme PACT, will insist on well-proven mechanisms to avoid distortions of competition in the market.

The honourable Member can be assured that the Commission, in the selection and monitoring of subsidised projects, will assess possible distortive effects of subsidies with the utmost care. The Commission will also have at its disposal mechanisms to react swiftly, if unacceptable distortions of competition should result from any grant.

The Commission has gained quite an extensive experience in managing such subsidies since 1992, when the Pilot Actions for Combined Transport were set up. I am thus confident that it will also in the future manage such programmes successfully.

It cannot just sit and watch as the problem increases every day. Concrete actions have to be taken on Community level, helping the market to set up environmentally friendly and competitive solutions to the huge problem of congestion that Europe is facing.

In the light of the exceptional financial difficulties currently affecting many Member State national airlines, is the Commission now willing to consider a relaxation of EU rules banning state aid to airlines and to the aviation industry in general?

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York, many sectors of the European economy are facing a crisis, particularly the aviation and tourist sector.

Will the Commission bring forward a package of measures to assist these sectors, and would it also consider relaxing its guidelines on state aid to the aviation sector?

Joint Answer

The terrorist attacks in the United States will have an adverse economic and financial impact which is not limited to the airline industry, but to which the airlines are very much exposed.

The immediate signs are that demand has decreased significantly, that some costs are rising – notably insurance – and that uncertainty about future developments is weighing on the industry.

On September 20th the Commission met the Committee of the Presidents of the European Airlines Association, in order to analyse the difficulties and to assess possible responses by the Community.

Following the conclusions of the meeting of ministers of Economic Affairs and Finance held in Liege on September 21st-22nd, the Commission has taken note of the wish of several Member States to support their air companies by providing special guarantee mechanisms to cover the increased insurance costs they have to bear.

Since any action conferring financial advantages to transport operators is likely to fall under article 87 of the EC Treaty, by letter of September 24th the Commission has reminded all Member States their duty to notify in advance this type of measure, as well as any other possible State interventions. It has in particular stressed that, according to Article 87.2.b of the EC Treaty, Member States may be authorised by the Commission to "grant aids to make good the damage caused by exceptional occurrences", if those aids are clearly limited in amount and duration, so that any overcompensation threatening intra-Community competition is avoided as well as any abusive exploitation of the American tragic events to cover losses which some European air companies might have faced already before the crisis.

The Commission is currently elaborating a methodology to analyse any support measure to the air industry in the light of the above-mentioned article 87.2.b as well as of other Community rules on State aids. It intends to submit its proposals on the subject to the Council and the Parliament by mid October.

As far as the tourism sector is concerned, the Commission does not intend to provide specific assistance. Existing Community financial instruments, in particular the Structural Funds, already make it possible to co-finance measures regarding the sector that would help to tackle a crisis. Since these instruments are managed by the authorities in the Member States, it is up to them to decide what use to make of them.

The Commission is preparing a communication in which it will propose a strategic and contextual framework for tourism policies and activities taking place in the Union.

This will identify a pragmatically defined and limited set of coherent measures and activities to be put in place by the various stakeholders. In this context, the Commission will also take into account the actual and likely consequences of the terrorist attacks of 11 September on the sector.

In light of the potential terrorist threat posed to sensitive facilities in Europe in the wake of the attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, will the Commission establish an immediate review of the security of all nuclear facilities in the European Union, in particular the reprocessing plants at Sellafield & Dounreay in the UK, La Hague & Marcoule in France and KFK at Karlsruhe in Germany; the MOX plutonium production plants in the UK, France & Belgium; and all nuclear materials in transit within the EU, and to and from the UK?

The Honourable Member’s question refers to the measures to be taken to protect nuclear installations against attempted terrorist attacks. The question focuses on nuclear installations other than those for electricity generation.

The attack carried out on 11 September 2001 does indeed raise the issue of the implications of a similar attack against a nuclear installation. In that connection, it should be pointed out that, not least in the light of concerns relating to non-proliferation and protection against radiation, the nuclear sector has some of the strictest safety and security standards of any industry.

The Member States, which have, unfortunately, already been the target of terrorist attacks, have long-standing arrangements designed to provide protection against such attacks. The Member State authorities immediately stepped up the physical measures to protect nuclear installations, for example checks on persons entering such installations.

The press has reported details of a study claiming to show the particularly dangerous effects of an attack on the reprocessing plants in The Hague and Sellafield. Since it is not in possession of a copy of that study, the Commission cannot comment, but takes the view that a sensible, methodical approach is required.

The Commission would like to point out that the design and construction of nuclear power stations is solely a matter for the Member States. The events in New York have highlighted the need to consider the factors, which make nuclear installations vulnerable. In close cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, the Commission will thus carry out such a study, focusing on the security of nuclear installations.

Is the Commission currently funding research into the situation in the Alpine and Arctic regions and the problems experienced by those regions (demographic trend, loss of biological diversity, impact of traffic, etc.)?

Will it also say, with the European Year of the Mountains in view, whether there are plans for such research in order to obtain a true and clear picture of the situation in those areas?

The Commission is supporting research and studies into Alpine and Arctic regions as part of the activities of the 5th Framework Programme for Technological Research and Development, in particular, and also with other activities.

For example, therefore, with regard to the Alpine region:

- the EMERGE project is studying the effects of pollution, climate change and anthropic pressures on high-altitude lakes;

- the GLORIA project is setting up a network for observations and measures, which aims to detect signs of climate change and, in particular, changes in biodiversity and distribution of vegetation;

- the ECOMONT project is investigating the effects of changes in land use on mountainous ecosystems;

- the SUSALP project is assessing the impact of Community instruments on the mountain environment and agriculture and is proposing guidelines for sustainable development;

- the ALP-NET project is a network for exchanges of information between local authorities and scientists on trans-alpine transport in order to set up harmonised methods for data analysis with the view to influencing future political decisions. This network has been in operation since April 2001 and will continue until October 2003. There are plans to set up working groups, such as ‘A regional problem with European consequences or a European Problem with regional consequences’, which will be held on 27 and 28 May 2002 in Italy.

Several other projects are tackling the problem of natural risks (land slides, risks of avalanches, reduction in the permafrost), or those relating to biodiversity or agriculture.

A study was also carried out in order to assess the environmental impact of transporting goods by road, particularly the specific problems relating to the effects of traffic in mountainous areas. The report, published in December 2000, also contains a number of case studies in the Alpine region and in the Pyrenees. The report can be found on the European Environment Agency web site:

With regard to the Arctic, several projects are underway to detect signs of climate change by monitoring changes to glaciers or by evaluating CO2 and CH4 emissions in the tundra and the taiga. Furthermore, a large-scale project, THESEO, is investigating the shrinking of the ozone layer over the Arctic.

In addition to these scientific research projects, the Commission is currently calling for tenders to carry out a study into mountainous regions (including Arctic regions). The aim of this study is to clarify or update a definition of the criteria for defining mountainous zones, to collate statistical information, to carry out geo-referencing and create a database that is compatible with the geographical information contained in the Eurostat-Gisco reference database, and to analyse the situation of the Community’s mountainous regions. The initial results of this study are expected to be available during the second half of 2002.

Lastly, in 2002, International Year of Mountains, the Commission intends to organise a seminar to explain how to best apply Community policies in mountainous regions.

In view of the report adopted by the Commission on 25 July 2001 and the very slow progress in assessing plant protection products, it is likely that the deadline for harmonisation of policy on approval of such products will have to be altered from 2003 to 2008. However, a further delay in harmonisation is unacceptable, as this will perpetuate for yet longer the existing differences in the situations in different Member States, many of which distort the market.

What funding, staffing and decision-making would be required in order, instead, to complete this harmonisation by 2003 at the latest?

The Honourable Member makes reference in the question to the progress report adopted by the Commission on 25 July last and transmitted to the Parliament and the Council the following day⁽¹⁾1. The report described progress in evaluating the active substances used in plant protection products in the Community as governed by Council Directive 91/414/EEC on the placing of plant protection products on the market⁽²⁾2. Complementing the report is a detailed technical annex, available on the Commission Internet site⁽³⁾3. Without going into details and avoiding repeating what is in the report itself, the following key points need to be made:

- The directive entered into force in 1993 and the early years were devoted to building the foundations of the evaluation process such as fixing data requirements and agreeing on guidelines. The testing requirements are so comprehensive that an industry dossier takes a minimum of four and a half years to prepare.

- All dossiers (about 50,000 pages each) are then evaluated very carefully by the Commission and the Member States and it can take a couple of years before everybody is sufficiently satisfied with a dossier to enable a decision to be taken.

- It is only recently, as the first substances came out of the process, that decision-making has accelerated from one or two decisions per year to about 30 per year at the moment. With new measures put in place recently, this rate should increase in the future.

- To minimise the duration of market distortions, substances have been prioritised to enable evaluations and decisions on the major ones to precede those of minor ones.

- It was recognised already in 1991 in the directive that the target of 2003 was ambitious and the directive explicitly provides for the eventuality that the final date could be postponed by the Commission for specific substances to allow their evaluations to be finalised. The need for such a postponement was recognised in Commission Regulation 451/2000⁽⁴⁾4 setting up the second and third phases of the evaluation programme.

- The major obstacle to the completion of the programme in 2003 is that dossiers are not yet available for substances in the later phases of the programme. Considering the time required to complete testing and build up a dossier, compounded by the finite number of testing facilities in the world and the fact that pesticides have to compete not only with each other for testing, but also with biocides, pharmaceuticals and chemicals, it will not be possible to complete the testing of substances and to build dossiers for all substances in good time to complete all evaluations by 2003. The original deadline cannot reasonably be respected.

In the wake of the failure at Nice, the negative Irish referendum result, the statements made by national leaders such as the German President and Chancellor and the French Prime Minister, to say nothing of President Prodi's views about the 'Irish effect' on enlargement, the Commission has been paralysed, renouncing its proper role within the European institutional set-up, namely to provide impetus and take the initiative. The failure of the intergovernmental decision making mechanism at Nice calls for a rather different approach on the part of both Commission and Parliament. What is the Commission going to do to change the present negative attitude?

The Treaty of Nice was viewed in many different ways, but even so, the Commission utterly refutes the views of the Honourable Member regarding the impact of Nice on its institutional set-up. In no way has the Commission renounced its role of taking the initiative, which is evident in all the European Union’s policies.

Furthermore, the debate on the future of the European Union, which will give rise to another Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), will provide the Commission with an opportunity to review the decision-making procedures in the European Union. As President Prodi reiterated in his speech to the European Parliament on 4 September 2001, the Commission fully intends to use this debate to unveil the substantial changes that are due to be made to the Treaties.

In reply to question P-2088/01, the Commission states that ‘Regulation (EC) 1038/2001⁽¹⁾ does not have the purpose of alleviating the shortage of vegetable protein arising from the ban on the use of meat and bone meal in animal feed’. Yet increasing the cultivation of leguminous plants would solve a number of pressing problems such as (a) the manure problem, (b) sharply diminishing soil fertility, (c) heavy dependence on concentrated feed (protein) from the United States and (d) the ban on the use of meat and bone meal in animal feed.

In the light of observations (a), (b), (c) and (d), will the Commission draft a regulation extending area payments for the cultivation of leguminous plants on set-aside land to all farms? If not, what arguments does it have against this, and what alternatives does it propose?

Under the current circumstances, the Commission does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to extend the facility of using leguminous plants produced on set-aside land under Regulation (EC) No 1251/1991 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops to all producers.

Restrictions concerning the use of vegetation do not apply to the cultivation of leguminous plants on set-aside land. This cultivation is perfectly integrated into the appropriate environmental measures for set-aside land, to be applied by Member States. The goal of maintaining soil fertility is already a minimum requirement for this land, whilst ensuring that there is no excess variable nitrogen in order to avoid possible water quality problems.

In a communication to the Council and Parliament on the options for promoting the cultivation of vegetable proteins in the Community, the Commission concluded that replacing proteins with animal meal does not present a major problem.

Given the likely reduction in the use of raw proteins and the additional use of cereal-based proteins, the additional quantities of imported soya meal are fairly limited. Furthermore, global production of soya has increased considerably in areas other than the United States, particularly in South America.

Is the Commission aware that different film censorship standards are currently applied in each individual Member State? Indeed, it is now suggested that the UK applies stricter controls than were applied 25 years ago and, as such, boasts the most stringent film censorship regulations throughout the EU.

As such diverse regulations are grossly confusing for film-makers and constitute a barrier to trade and to the smooth operation of the single market, does the Commission have any plans to harmonise film censorship controls across the EU?

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it has recently adopted a Communication to the Council, the Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on certain legal aspects relating to cinematographic and other audiovisual works, in which it considered the issue of ratings. Audiovisual works are generally subject to rating of their content, indicating for which age ranges they are considered suitable.

In the public consultation on the issues contained with the Communication, a certain number of commentators considered that differences were the result of cultural differences and did not affect circulation significantly and therefore should be dealt with at a national level. Others were in favour of action to address this issue.

In its Report on the Recommendation on the protection of minors and human dignity the Commission has stressed the need to have a coherent approach across all media. The Commission intends to continue this work and to evaluate which systems could be put in place, which would address this problem, whilst taking account of the cultural differences existing between the Member States. The Commission recognises the important cultural aspects of ratings, to be decided in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and governance as set out in its recent White Paper, but considers that further analysis should be carried out of the role played by self-regulatory schemes such as NICAM in the Netherlands.

The Commission intends to launch a Study on the rating of films, for cinema, television, DVD and videocassette in the European economic area (EEA). The study will evaluate the reasons for, and the impact of differences between the different national laws or self-regulatory measures for rating of films on their subsequent marketing.

The Commission considers that these initiatives will address the issue raised by the Honourable Member, and provide a sound basis for future decisions on this important subject.

Given the recent violent attacks on Zimbabwe’s farmers by supporters of President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party, the occupation of various farms by these supporters, the ineffectiveness of the Zimbabwean police’s response and the politically motivated nature of the land acquisition process, can the Commission outline what actions it is taking through its offices in Zimbabwe on this grave issue and does it believe that some form of sanctions must be considered against President Mugabe and the political violence and flagrant disrespect for the rule of law which he is overseeing in Zimbabwe?

The Commission and the Member States have strongly condemned farm invasions in Zimbabwe. Illegal land occupations have been raised repeatedly with the Government by Union Heads of Mission in Harare within the political dialogue between the Union and Zimbabwe. The Commission has supported all international efforts aimed at solving the land crisis, especially the United Nations Development programme (UNDP) led approach and most recently that of the Commonwealth in the Abuja Agreement.

The Commission does not favour sanctions at this stage. The situation was discussed in June in the Council and will be reviewed again by the Council in October.

In the Communication to the Commission - on the reform of the management of external aid (May 2000) it is proposed:

‘To set up a Board of the Office with Mr Patten as Chairman, Mr Nielson as Chief Executive, and Mr Verheugen, Mr Lamy and Mr Solbes as members. Political responsibility for the actions of the new body will lie with the Chairman and Chief Executive in line with their respective policy portfolios. The Chairman will preside over the Board, setting its agenda and overseeing its strategic direction.’

Can the Commission state what progress has been made in implementing this proposal?

At its meeting on 29 November 2000, the Commission approved the creation of Europe Aid Cooperation Office, as well as the composition, missions and operating procedures of the Board of the Office. The Board meets at least once per quarter.

The Board has met three times in 2001. There will be another meeting before the end of the year.

The Board has therefore closely followed the setting up of the Office, the deconcentration process, the reduction of old and outstanding commitments and the implementation of the External Relations services reform.

In her answer to my questions on a suitable system for pinpointing, recording and monitoring fluctuations in unemployment in Greece, the Commissioner of Social Affairs had answered, inter alia, that 'the Greek Government acknowledges the problem of its being unable to record human resources entering and leaving work'⁽¹⁾ and 'there are significant undertakings concerning, firstly, the organisation and coordination of statistical services in Greece with those in other European countries and of Eurostat…' and '…there is an undertaking to speed up the reorganisation of public employment and statistical services. This reorganisation will be completed by the end of 2001.'⁽²⁾

Given the recent allegations by employees of the National Statistics Service casting doubt on the reliability of statistical data concerning the development of unemployment in Greece, given the fact that Regulation (EC) 577/1998⁽³⁾ has been violated and given also that statistical data for employment in Greece are missing from Eurostat tables for 2001, will the Commission take this subject up again as it had promised and notify me what progress has been made in this issue and what the immediate outlook is?

As mentioned in the Commission's answers to previous parliamentary questions1, the Greek authorities have been committed to reform the national Public Employment Services (OAED) and to develop a modern and comprehensive statistical system able to monitor the flows into and out of unemployment.

The reform of the Employment Services is underway but it has been delayed and further efforts will be needed to speed up the process. Greece says that the main part of the reform should be carried out by the end of 2003, while complementary measures will continue until the end of 2005. The special action undertaken this year to improve statistics flow is welcome but the need for a comprehensive statistical monitoring system remains.

Greece generally complies with the Regulation No 577/1998⁽⁴⁾2 on the organisation of a labour force sample survey but the Greek results are usually submitted with a delay of about six months. The quality control carried out by Eurostat on the labour force survey results for Greece has not revealed any particular problems. In accordance with the above-mentioned Regulation, the Commission can, if necessary, ask for detailed information, in particular on the sampling criteria adopted.

A formal administrative inquiry held in the Greek Embassy in Moscow has uncovered not only a number of breaches of discipline, but also evidence that offences were committed with the purpose of illegally granting Greek citizenship. In view of both the large number of 'repatriations' (some 150 000 processed by the Moscow Embassy) and the fact that significant information was concealed by officials of this Embassy, a further judicial inquiry is now being sought to shed light on this matter. It should be pointed out that all these violations have taken place despite Greece's full participation in the Schengen 'acquis'. Given that in the elections in the Year 2000 votes were cast by persons who were not entitled to do so, which creates a serious political problem, will the Commission say:

What is its position on the illegal naturalisations in question and the large number of illegal 'repatriations' on the basis of the Schengen 'acquis'? Will it bear these findings in mind, given that, according to the answer to my Written Question E-1438/01, the Greek Government has not so far provided any information about the number of illegal naturalisations and 'repatriations' for 1999 and 2000? What measures does it intend to take to prevail upon the Greek Government to provide these figures and to put an end to the practices in question, to ensure transparency and to annul all the illegal naturalisations?

As the Commission stated in its answer to the oral question (H-0087/01) by the Honourable Member, granting a Member State nationality is a matter for the national government⁽¹⁾, whose action must respect Community law⁽²⁾. Consequently, the Commission cannot take over the work of the relevant national authorities, both administrative and legal, and issue an opinion on possible irregularities in the granting of Greek nationality to a number of individuals.

The Commission was not aware of the conclusions of the judicial inquiry mentioned by the Honourable Member, and since this matter does not fall within its remit, the Commission cannot take this up with the Greek Government, particularly when the matter is under investigation.

The Council has decided that olive-oil subsidies will be paid out of EU agricultural funding on the same basis as before for three more years. What will the Commission do to put right the failings identified by the Court of Auditors? When will the ‘olive cultivation register’ be completed in the Member States? How can it be ensured over the next three years that olive-oil from mills in Member States will not be adulterated by the addition of imported olive-oil or blending with other vegetable oils? What can be done to prevent inflated production volumes being declared for the purposes of aid applications, a practice benefiting growers and mills alike?

The Commission has already had the opportunity, in the spring of 2001, to explain how its proposals to the Council concerning olive oil (COM(2000)855), and the accompanying measures that it has taken (Regulation (EC) No 648/2001), provided a response to the criticism made by the Court of Auditors.

The difficulties highlighted by the Court of Auditors are dated prior to 1999 and those relating to the statistical estimates have been alleviated by new methods introduced in 1999 and 2000.

As far as the insufficient checks on mills and national sanctions are concerned, the Commission introduced a number of measures at the end of 1998 (Regulation (EC) No 2366/98) and after analysing the initial results, these measures were amended and strengthened again in March 2001 in order to increase their deterrent effect.

Regarding the absence of the Geographical Information System (GIS), which was criticised by the Court of Auditors, the Commission and the Council have made this a key point of the future aid system. The GIS could enable us to limit the potential for abuse within the current system, or could enable us to envisage a different system.

The implementation of national GISs depends on the Member States. The Council decided, however, that following two campaigns, as of 1 November 2003, aid would in one way or another be linked to the existence of a GIS.

There is no ban on blending Community olive oils with olive oils from third countries, or with other vegetable oils. The problem is not, therefore, how to prevent this blending, but how to directly and clearly label blended oils for consumers. A Community regulation already exists in this area. Following Parliament’s resolutions and the Council’s debates, this regulation will be strengthened and changed. The Management Committee for Oils and Fats has already carried out work on this issue.

Allegations regarding inflated declarations by olive oil producers are constantly being made, but of course, no one is able to assess the extent of this problem. The system of checks put in place, which in some respects is one of the most stringent in the common agricultural policy (CAP), is entirely geared towards preventing these inflated declarations.

Inflated declarations have had very limited consequences on the budget since Guaranteed National Quantities were introduced in 1998. The Commission, and the Council, will only be able to make significant progress on this issue when the GIS is implemented.

With reference to the political dialogue between the European Union and Iran and to the forthcoming cooperation agreement which is currently being finalised, will such dialogue lead to any improvements in the legal situation of Iranian women? What form are such improvements expected to take?

Overall, the policy of dialogue and engagement with Iran has proven constructive and helpful. The 7th meeting in this context was held in Tehran on 3 September. The Commission believes that this is one of several fora in which concerns relating to the status of women can be discussed.

The Iranian Foreign Minister Mr Kamal Kharrazi met with the member of the Commission in charge of External Relations on 10 September. The human rights situation, including women’s rights, was indeed raised on that occasion as well.

The Commission will continue to raise these issues and would suggest that the rights of women be mentioned in the envisaged Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The Commission expects to be able to submit recommendations for a negotiating mandate to the Council in November.

Should severe setbacks in Iran’s human rights situation occur, it would naturally affect the possibility of reaching an agreement.

The Commission has noted with satisfaction the efforts by the Iranian Parliament (Majlis) to raise the status of women and girls. It welcomes – as stated in Resolution 2001/17 on Iran by the Commission on Human Rights – recent improvements in the field of women’s education, health and democratic participation. The Commission, however, is concerned that some suggested measures have yet to be promulgated into law and to be implemented in practice (raising the age of marriage is one such example). It will continue to monitor these developments closely.

Large-scale demonstrations and major clashes between certain groups of demonstrators and the police occurred in connection with the European Council meeting in Gothenburg and the G8 meeting in Genoa. In both Gothenburg and Genoa, the police used excessive force and abusive tactics, including assaults on and the arbitrary arrest and improper treatment of non-violent demonstrators. Most of those arrested during the two demonstrations have since not been charged with any offence.

Can the Commission guarantee that demonstrators who were arrested and identified, but are not suspected of any criminal offence, will not be registered in the SIS?

Responding to the question of the honourable Member, no, the Commission cannot guarantee that demonstrators who were arrested and identified during the meetings in Goteborg and Genoa, but are not suspected of any criminal offence, will not be registered in the Schengen Information System(SIS).

The Commission would like to recall that the issue of maintenance of public order and security during European Council meetings is the competence of Member States, as established in article 33 TEU. In line with article 36 TEU, the Commission is fully associated with the work in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and actively supports the efforts of Member States in the prevention of serious disturbances at high-level meetings. In doing so, it always keeps in mind the need to guarantee the freedom of people in the Union to express their opinions and assemble, peacefully and without threat to their integrity or that of their property, as fundamental rights enshrined in the Union Charter.

As regards the registration of people in the SIS, however, it must be recalled that such registration is the exclusive competence of the national authorities of the Member States. (Art. 105, 106 Schengen Convention).They must ensure that the data that they enter are lawful, accurate and up-to-date. The persons who can be registered in the SIS are restricted to specific categories and subject to a corresponding action to be taken by the authority that eventually finds them. The categories are regulated in Art. 95-100 of the Schengen Convention : persons to be arrested for extradition purposes; third-country nationals to be refused entry; missing persons; witnesses to appear before judicial authorities. Among these categories, there is the possibility to insert alerts on persons for the purpose of discreet surveillance and specific checks where there is clear evidence that the person intends to commit or is committing "numerous and extremely serious criminal offences" or when on the basis of past criminal offences there is reason to suspect that the person will also commit extremely serious criminal offences in the future (Art. 99).

It is important to remind that any person has the right to obtain the deletion of her/his data when unlawfully registered in the SIS and can ask to the National Supervisory Authority of the State concerned to check whether the processing or use of the data does violate her/his rights.

The Spanish church has recently dismissed a number of religious education teachers for reasons unconnected with their teaching ability. These dismissals contravene the letter and the spirit of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Does the Commission share this view and, if so, what steps will it take in this regard?

The Commission is aware of the existence of specific cases, reported in the Spanish and international press, regarding the situation of a number of teachers in Spain.

Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, adopted on 7 December 2000 by the Nice European Council⁽¹⁾ prohibits any type of discrimination based on a non-exhaustive list of criteria including religion or belief. Nonetheless, the Charter is addressed to Member States only when they are acting within the scope of European Union law. The Charter does not apply to activities that fall outside the scope of European Union law and concern areas that fall within the remit of national governments, as is the case under current Community law for the events mentioned by the Honourable Member.

On 27 November 2000, on the basis of Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the EC, the Council unanimously adopted Directive 2000/78/EC⁽²⁾, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and aims to combat various forms of discrimination. As a general principle, this Directive prohibits any form of direct or indirect discrimination based on, amongst others, religion or belief.

The Directive must be transposed, however, into the national law of each Member State before 2 December 2003 and, until then, the Commission has no power to monitor whether it is being applied.

In any event, Article 4(2) of the Directive specifically concerns the case of a difference in treatment that may be justified due to certain occupational requirements, in organisations that have religious affinities. In these organisations, a number of tasks or activities may have to be carried out by employees who share their religious views or have appropriate beliefs. Article 4(2) therefore enables churches and other public or private organisations, the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, to justify a difference in treatment based on the religion or belief of a person when this religion constitutes ‘a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement’ by reason of the nature of these activities, or of the context in which they are carried out. Article 4(2) therefore allows these organisations to require that those working for them show honesty and loyalty towards the organisation’s ethic. These differences in treatment must be considered individually and the Commission is unable to provide general guidelines.

The mobility of labour in Europe is extremely sluggish owing to red tape and legal obstacles, but also to language problems and cultural differences, which hamper progress towards the objectives for development set in Lisbon. Studying and gaining a qualification at a university in a country other than a student's country of origin provides a more solid foundation than the ERASMUS and SOCRATES programmes for creating a European employment market and cultivating a European outlook. Despite this situation, relations between the education systems suffer through lack of information and mutual recognition, and the failure to treat local applicants for places and applicants from other Member States on an equal basis.

Does the Commission have details of the Member States' policies on accepting European students and, if so, what are its views on those policies? Will it take initiatives to promote the approximation of the secondary education systems and the adoption of common policies by the Member States, and encourage young Europeans to study in a Member State other than their own country?

The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that education systems are a matter of subsidiarity. However, the Commission is well aware of the problems described by the Honourable Member and launched a study on obstacles to mobility, following which a recommendation was proposed in this area which was adopted by Parliament and the Council. The Council adopted a ‘mobility action plan’ in December 2000. This year, the Commission set up a Skills and Mobility Task Force in order to obtain more in-depth information about this issue and to propose strategic areas for consideration.

More specifically, with regard to Member States’ policy on accepting European students, the Commission only has limited information. This information has come about from organising studies at national level and from internal provisions taken by each establishment.

The Commission does not plan to make formal proposals to approximate secondary education systems, although shared challenges may call for shared solutions which may lead to a certain degree of approximation.

The Commission is already offering incentives at higher education level to help students who wish to pursue part of their studies abroad, via the Erasmus programme. The Commission has also provided incentives for those undertaking vocational training and school students to take up this option. It is, however, a serious problem to find funding for these activities.

A range of problems are arising with regard to relations between the European Union and Morocco which should not be seen solely in the context of an assessment of the interests of the Member States most affected, such as Spain in the case of issues linked to fisheries and immigration.

What steps will the Commission take in response to the problems arising with Morocco in areas such as those mentioned above, and what measures might the European Union take to ensure that all matters of mutual interest to the two parties can be addressed within the framework of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Morocco?

Since its entry into force on March 2000, the whole range of relations with Morocco are ruled in the framework of the Association Agreement, including those related to fishery and migration. Annual meetings are held at ministerial level (Association Council) and technical level (Association Committee).

Given the impossibility to achieve a fisheries agreement with Morocco, questions related to fisheries are dealt with the objective of achieving free movement of goods and in order to strengthen economic co-operation among the parties.

In addition to the foreseen fora, questions related to migration are treated in a specific structure created to discuss social affairs and migration. In June and July migration experts from Morocco and the Union have started their dialogue and agreed that there is an urgent need to address the increasing migratory flows from North Africa to wards the Union.

The newly created budget line for co-operation with third countries in the area of migration could be utilised to support the implementation of various measures.

In its reply, given at the part-session on 3-6 September 2001, to my oral question the Commission said: ‘As the results of a general and a targeted risk-assessment will only be available at a later stage, this proposal will in all probability not include a phasing out of cadmium’. In the same answer, the Commission states that there are problems caused by cadmium on human health and environment⁽¹⁾.

I should therefore like to ask the Commission whether there is really a technical need to produce batteries with cadmium and whether it is aware of the alternative products which are already available on the market. In the same connection, why does the Commission not apply both the precautionary and the substitution principles? Finally, can the Commission say when the ‘results of a general and a targeted risk-assessment’ will be available?

The Commission recognises the environmental and health hazards of cadmium. Cadmium is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic and has no known useful biological function. It is acknowledged that cadmium which has been released in the environment cannot be taken out again and might finally find its way in the food chain. Because it poses real health problems, it should not enter into the environment.

While the substitutes are sometimes at different stages of technical maturity, cadmium batteries can be substituted in a number of applications (such as mobile phones, computers, camcorders, power tools, emergency lighting). In some other applications, in particular industrial applications, alternatives are either not yet available, or they have technical disadvantages.

The Commission is currently examining the feasibility of a phase-out of NiCd batteries by the year 2008. At the same time, the Commission is also looking into the respective merits of other options, amongst which a deposit scheme, to ensure that cadmium does not enter the environment through its application in batteries.

The outcome of a general risk assessment on cadmium has been promised by the responsible authorities for some time and is now scheduled to be available within a few months. The ongoing targeted risk assessment examines in detail whether the use of cadmium in batteries causes risks to health and the environment, and if so, at which stages in the life cycle of these products. According to the work plan of the Technical Meetings on substances assessed under the Existing Substances Regulation (793/93), an in-depth discussion on major parts of the draft targeted risk assessment is foreseen at the next meeting in December 2001. A further discussion on the targeted risk assessment on cadmium oxide in batteries is envisaged for the meeting in March 2002. Subject to a positive outcome of these discussions, the agreed draft risk assessment report will be finalised by June 2002.

In the light of this work, the Commission will also consider whether, in the absence of available and/or conclusive information, it is appropriate to apply the precautionary principle in line with the Commission’s Communication on the Precautionary Principle (COM (2000) 1) in this case.

In recent years, we have witnessed a trend in the internal market for big groups to close down units and plants even though the latter are profitable. At Degerfors in Sweden, the group management recently decided to close down large parts of the operations at this profitable ironworks. Many employees and the trade unions find it worrying, and difficult to understand, that a business's profitability is no longer enough to save it from closure. Such closures are particularly problematic in regions where it is difficult for those made redundant to find new jobs.

Has the Commission noted this trend? If so, is it considering taking any action?

The Commission is very aware of the concerns of employees and trade unions faced with redundancies following large-scale closures or restructuring, whatever the cause of such job losses.

It is therefore seeking to ensure that corporate restructuring, often necessary to maintain competitiveness in an increasingly competitive international environment, is undertaken in an acceptable manner having regard to the social consequences which, as the Honourable Member points out, can be particularly severe in regions faced with the departure of a major employer. To that effect, it needs to be recalled that the Community has developed mechanisms to enhance the understanding of the process of change through the establishment of the European Monitoring Centre on Change. Moreover, the Commission has also been instrumental in launching a debate on voluntary action through the presentation of the Corporate Social Responsibility initiative1.⁽¹⁾

Furthermore, the Community legal framework (in particular the European Works Council⁽²⁾2 and the Collective Redundancies⁽³⁾3 directives), which is about to be complemented (European Company Statute⁽⁴⁾4 and the Information and Consultation⁽⁵⁾5 Directives) already provides for the involvement of workers in the process of change within companies.

In Italy accusations have recently been made public concerning an organised ring for the sexual abuse of young girls by UN peacekeepers, among them Italian and Dutch nationals, who are members of the UN peacekeeping mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia. Prompted by these accusations, UN inspectors are conducting investigations.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that full light is shed upon this case, that a thorough investigation is carried out into all the details of the organised abuse ring, that the guilty parties – who happen to be EU citizens – are punished in an exemplary fashion, and to avoid similar future occurrences of organised paedophile rings, whose effect is to discredit and nullify the aim of the UN’s peacekeeping mission, while at the same time shaking native peoples’ confidence in international organisation?

The Commission considers that allegations concerning sexual abuse are a very serious matter. Thorough investigations should be conducted and the responsible persons should be brought to justice.

The United Nations has confirmed that after the serious accusations made in the Italian press, the Head of Mission of the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) set up a Board of Inquiry. It is composed of senior United Nations military and professional civilian staff (in co-operation with UNICEF) to investigate and report on all allegations concerning incidents involving serious misconduct by members of UNMEE.

UNMEE has declared that the Mission has zero tolerance towards such acts, and that it will do its utmost to quickly and thoroughly establish the facts. Once the information has been gathered and assessed, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Legwaila Joseph Legwaila, will determine the scope and depth of appropriate measures to be taken, bearing in mind that the Italian units allegedly involved in these acts have already been rotated and replaced by new Italian peacekeepers.

All United Nations peacekeepers are bound by a Code of conduct under which they should not indulge in immoral acts of sexual, physical or psychological abuse or exploitation of the local population, especially women and children.

The Board of Inquiry has yet to come out with a final statement.

In the Nordic countries, local authorities provide citizens, out of public funds, with a number of services which in many other countries are supplied by private undertakings. The leading role of the local authorities is in keeping with a welfare state model which seeks to ensure equal services for all citizens.

The EU’s competition rules call for the opening up of competition, but the borderline defining which services are covered by the scope of competition law seems from the local authorities’ point of view to be ill-defined. Borderline cases occur, for example, in the areas of water management and energy, in which the local authorities have responsibilities for providing a service of general interest.

The proposal currently before the European Parliament does not in my opinion resolve this issue.

Can the Commission draw up a list stating which services are covered by the scope of competition law and which are profit-making services?

On 20 September 2000, the Commission adopted a Communication on Services of General Interest in Europe (published in the Official Journal of the EC No C 17/4 of 19.1.2001). In its Annex II, the Communication defines services of general interest as market and non-market services which the public authorities class as being of general interest and subject to specific public service obligations. The case law of the Court of Justice (ECJ) has clarified that the Community competition rules can only apply to those services of general interest which are of an economic nature. Moreover, Community competition law does not apply where it can be excluded that the case in question involves effect on trade between at least two Member States. The Communication gives a comprehensive overview of the principles for assessing effect on inter-State trade and of cases in which the Court of Justice or the Commission have considered activities to be of non-economic nature, notably intrinsic prerogatives of the State, State-organised education and the management of State-imposed social security schemes which are based on the solidarity principle. The fact that certain services are provided without the intention of profit-making is according to the Court of Justice only an indication but not a sufficient element to consider them as non-economic in nature. With regard to the provision of energy, the treatment of cases under Community competition law as well as Community legislation for the liberalisation of this sector have made clear that this is economic activity. The same is true for the sector of water management in which the Commission has scrutinised various mergers in recent times.

Beyond these principles and their implementation in the cases already decided by the Court of Justice and the Commission it would be difficult to draw up an abstract list of services which should not be covered by the scope of Community competition law. This is because of the particularities of each individual case. The determination whether a certain service is subject to Community competition law should therefore in principle be left to the assessment in the case at hand. This will lead to further guidance through a growing body of decided cases.

Moreover, with regard to services which are covered by Community law, the Communication of 20 September 2000 illustrates the various ways in which Member States can ensure the safe and reliable functioning of services of general economic interest without running into conflict with the Community competition rules or other provisions of Community law. The most important means are (a) general interest obligations, e.g. relating to quality, regularity and territorial coverage, which the State may impose non-discriminately on every undertaking operating in the market, or (b) the attainment of the same objectives through the entrustment of a specific undertaking with the provision of a services of general economic interest. Moreover, the Community rules on the control of State aid in principle allow Member States to compensate undertakings which have been entrusted with a service of general economic interest for the extra costs incurred in providing this service.

The sudden cessation of opium production in Afghanistan has, according to the UNIDCP, had very serious economic and social consequences for communities which used to grow poppies. Against this background, the UNIDCP helped organise a mission by donors to assess the situation. The mission, made up of experts from Germany, Belgium, Canada, the European Commission, the USA, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, visited the country at the end of April. It made a tour of the villages where opium poppies were grown and of the markets in order to examine the needs of the population and factors which would prevent a resumption of poppy growing, with a view to determining the implications of action to be taken in the short, medium and long term.

In what capacity does the Commission act as a donor with regard to the activities of the UNIDCP in Afghanistan? What level of responsibility does the Commission expert who visited Afghanistan hold, and what was his final assessment? Which Afghan authorities did members of the mission meet, and what decisions were taken with regard to the implications of action to be implemented in the short, medium and long term?

The United Nations Drugs Control Programme (UNDCP) organised donor assessment mission to which the honourable Member refers took place from 23 April to 3 May 2001. The purpose of the mission was to look at the effectiveness and consequences on the Taliban ban on the cultivation of opium poppy in Afghanistan.

The report indicated that the poppy ban was effectively implemented. This information was later confirmed by Europol and the department of State.

The Commission’s expert who took part in the mission is a Technical Assistant who is currently the Programme Co-ordinator for aid to uprooted people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and is based in Peshawar. The Programme Co-ordinator has had a number of years of experience working for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) inside Afghanistan and therefore knows the country and its problems well.

The mission produced a joint report, to which the Commission’s expert gave a technical input. The principal recommendations concerned the need for immediate food assistance through World Food programme (WFP) to those populations most seriously affected by the poppy ban and the subsidised delivery of basic components for substitution crops – essentially seeds and fertiliser.

The mission also proposed that UNDCP should oversee the continuing enforcement of the poppy cultivation ban; facilitate missions by other concerned international organisations and NGOs; endeavour to obtain commitments from the Taliban concerning stockpiles of opium/heroin; approach the Northern Alliance to request that they also ban opium cultivation, stockpiling and trafficking in areas under their control.

Other recommendations concern seeking with the Taliban a suitable methodology for the repayment of debt by highly indebted small farmers; the study of policies for sustainable non-drug related development and an evaluation mission to look at judicial and law enforcement aspects of the drug trade in Afghanistan.

The mission was to the principal opium producing provinces of Afghanistan, namely Helmand and Nangarhar. The mission met a wide range of contacts including provincial governors, district chiefs, members of local councils and other local representatives with respect to the 2002 season.

The excellent Commission publication entitled ‘European unity, solidarity among peoples, diversity in the regions’ contains some interesting statistics concerning each Member State’s level of development. With regard to poverty levels, the Commission states (on page xiii) that 20-25% of the population in Greece and in Portugal has an income below the poverty threshold, while long-term or chronic poverty affects 10% of the Greek population. On page 48 of the same publication we learn that Greece ranks last but one in the Union for total investment in learning, while it comes a clear last in terms of public education’s share of this investment, in contrast to that of private education (including the voluntary and religious sectors) where the amounts are – in relative terms – fairly satisfactory. Finally, with regard to the relation between technological capacity and development the Commission says (on page 134) that southern Macedonia, central Greece, the Peloponnese, the northern Aegean and the Ionian islands fall into a category eloquently dubbed ‘technological deserts’. What does the Commission consider to be the reasons for Greece’s disappointing performance in sectors which affect the present and future prosperity of its citizens, after twenty years of membership of the Union?

The selection of priorities for publicly financed investment in Greece – for example, for education or for research – is largely a matter for the national government. Since 1989, the European Union has supported economic development programmes under the Structural Funds which seek to reduce socio-economic disparities between Greece and the rest of the Fifteen. As the report referred to by the Honourable Member confirms, these programmes have helped Greece to reduce the gaps with the rest of the Union in many key fields.

For example, 'with regard to research and development, it is worth emphasising that past investments have produced results: Attica, Central Macedonia and Crete have recorded growth rates above the European average as a result of increasing their technological potential and of the effects of training provided in locally produced materials. As the Honourable Member points out, some regions are indeed considered to be ‘technological deserts’ due to their lack of investment in research and development. Nevertheless, it must be emphasised that this type of investment must be undertaken selectively and in line with the potential and the needs of the regions concerned.'

For the current programming period, 2000-2006, the Greek authorities, in partnership with the Commission, have decided to increase financial allocations in favour of human resources development by 20,6 %, as part of an overall increase in investment in human capital of around 42,5 %. Further increases are foreseen in the context of the mid-term review. These decisions reflect the results of the ex-ante evaluations carried out by the Greek authorities which revealed the need to improve the quality of human resources in the country.

The enlargement of the EU to include applicant countries which are poorer than the present Member States will present a huge challenge to the future of cohesion policy and to the funding of regional policy measures. If the level of funding of structural measures were to remain constant in an enlarged Union, funding of new Member States would entail significant cuts in spending on structural policy in the present Member States.

However, the Commission’s second cohesion report indicates that there are still significant problems within the territory of the current EU Member States. Moreover, economic and social disparities between the EU’s most developed and less developed regions have grown.

Will the Commission increase the share of funding allocated to structural policy if enlargement comes about, and does the Commission have plans for new sources of funding for this purpose?

The Commission believes that the amounts specified in the Financial Perspectives for 2000-2006 are sufficient to meet enlargement costs up to 2006. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, present proposals on the use of these appropriations when it knows how many and when the new Member States will join.

With regard to the period after 2006, the Commission adopted, as the Honourable Member mentioned, the second report on economic and social cohesion in January 2001. The Commission used this report to open a wide-ranging debate on the future cohesion policy, its aims and how it is to be implemented. The Commission will present its proposals in the third cohesion report, which is scheduled for publication at the beginning of 2004.

We must stress that the questions on the financial impact of the cohesion policy in the Community budget cannot be tackled in an isolated manner. The proposal on the new financial perspectives will also include amounts for other Community policies and will be presented in 2004.

Given the devastating effects of HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB in developing countries, no efforts must be spared in combating those diseases. The joint declaration of the Development Council and the Commission (2352nd Council meeting, on 31 May 2001), which welcomed the proposal for a Global Health Fund to fight these diseases and stating that contributions to the Fund should be additional to existing resources, was therefore very welcome, as was President Prodi's commitment in Genoa of a EUR 120 million EU contribution to this Fund in 2001. Regretfully, however, there seem to be difficulties in terms of living up to the promise of financing this through additional resources. It is thus crucial to look to the future immediately, if we are to avoid reoccurence of such a situation. Given the fact that the Fund, in order to have a real impact, will need substantial annual contributions from donors such as the EU, what specific plan does the Commission have in terms of proposing the necessary legal basis for such contributions, and what options does it foresee in terms of financing them without encroaching on already scarce resources for development cooperation?

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s view that no effort should be spared in combating diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in developing countries. The Global AIDS and Health Fund constitutes an innovative and important mechanism to this end, and the Community contribution of €m announced by the President of the Commission thus responded to a very urgent and immediate need. With regard to the funding sources to be drawn on for this contribution, it should be stressed that the possibilities for sourcing and allocating additional resources at very short notice are limited. The sum pledged by the Commission will thus be committed out of a combination of unspent 2001 funds and 2002 EDF funds (European development fund). However, the Commission appreciates the need, underlined by the Honourable Member, to avoid encroaching on other important priorities for development cooperation. Therefore, the Commission is at present actively exploring options to ensure that any future contribution to the Global Health Funds represents additional development funding.

In the interests of protecting people and the environment it is of decisive importance to take account of the effect a product has on the environment throughout its life cycle. In view of this, will the Commission, at the WTO meeting in Qatar, pursue the issue of the right to prohibit imports of a product on the grounds that it was processed using a process with a significant negative impact on the environment, or that it contains substances which are prohibited in the EU, and which leak out into the environment either when the product is used or when it is treated as waste?

Does the Commission propose to pursue this issue within the framework of the GPA in order to permit a life cycle perspective to be considered in public procurement contracts?

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) regulations do not in any way prevent WTO members from banning imports of products that are harmful to the environment or products that are banned in their country.

With regard to manufacturing processes which are not directly linked to the product itself, the Commission believe that instead of banning imports, it would be more appropriate to use eco-labelling to provide consumers with clear information, so that they themselves can decide whether or not they want to buy the product. This approach gives developing countries the possibility of responding to the market and of exploiting the market for environmentally friendly products.

In this respect, again well in advance of the WTO ministerial conference in Seattle, the Community has called for eco-labelling systems to be recognised in a positive light. These systems, similar to its own, are based on the analysis of the product throughout its life cycle. This objective remains on the Community’s agenda for the forthcoming WTO ministerial conference in Doha.

Will the Commission explain whether the Charter on Fundamental Human Rights confers rights on EU citizens exclusively in relation to the Commission or whether the fundamental rights concerned are also conferred in relation to the Member States.

Is it conceivable that a conflict could arise as to whether the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has jurisdiction in a given dispute?

1. The Commission states that, pursuant to Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Charter’s provisions ‘are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union […] and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law.’

Consequently, and subject to the legal effects attached to the Charter as proclaimed at Nice last December⁽¹⁾, citizens of the European Union may invoke the Charter in their dealings with the institutions of the European Union as well as with Member States when they are implementing European Union law.

This definition of the scope of the Charter serves only to reproduce the legal situation arising from Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union and from the case law of the Court of Justice.

2. The Commission believes that, as part of their respective competences, the case laws of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights are developing along similar lines. Any conflict of competences between the two courts would therefore serve no real purpose. The Commission also acknowledges, however, that simply becoming a member of the European Convention on Human Rights and including the Charter in the Treaties would enable the risks of conflict predicted by the Honourable Member to be avoided.

The events of 11 September 2001 will also lead to changes to the EU budget. Which sectors of the budget will be affected, will appropriations simply be reallocated, or will additional expenditure from the budget be the goal? If the last option is selected, can the Commission already indicate the amount of the additional resources urgently required?

It is still too soon to give a full assessment of the budgetary consequences of the events of 11 September 2001. At this stage, we can point out the following details:

The Extraordinary European Council of 21 September asked the Commission ‘to set up urgently an aid programme particularly for Afghan refugees’. The Commission is in the process of analysing the situation of the chapters concerned within the 2001 budget, with a view to taking action as quickly as possible, at the invitation of the Heads of State and Government.

Furthermore, in the light of the conclusions of the European Council to develop the Common, Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and to make the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) operational at the earliest opportunity, the Commission considers it a priority to set up a mechanism for secure communications in order to ensure contact is maintained between the headquarters and delegations in third countries that are at risk. This measure is being investigated as part of a technical enquiry.