Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

 Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Thursday, 14 March 2002 - StrasbourgOJ edition
 ANNEX
QUESTIONS TO THE COUNCIL
QUESTIONS TO THE COMMISSION

QUESTIONS TO THE COUNCIL
Question no 15 by Neil MacCormick (H-0091/02)
 Subject: Decent treatment of tourists
 

Is the Council aware of the urgent need to maintain sensitive treatment of elderly tourist passengers at passport control points inside the European Union, for example between the UK and Spain?

A constituent of mine, aged 92 years, had her bag which contained her passport stolen after departing from the UK and before arrival at Palma de Mallorca on 6 May 2001. Instead of receiving sympathetic treatment with access to Consular services, she was forced to return unaccompanied to the UK after a night sitting on a plastic chair in the airport. Such incidents are doubtless infrequent, especially in Spain with its admiral reputation for hospitality to tourists. When they do occur the dismay of those affected is all the greater. Would the Council therefore agree that some arrangements to facilitate rectification and an ex gratia compensation would be appropriate in such a case?

 
  
 

The Council is aware of the specific problems that arise in relation to elderly tourists, especially within the EU.

In January 2002, when the Presidency presented its programme to Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, the author of the present question informed it of the case cited in that same question. On that occasion, the Presidency made clear its view that such cases should not be allowed to recur, while also stressing the exceptional character of the incident concerned.

On the specific question of compensation, the Council is not competent to give an answer, and therefore suggests that the author of the question make a direct approach to the competent authorities of the Member State concerned.

 

Question no 16 by Bernd Posselt (H-0102/02)
 Subject: Extradition of war criminals
 

What is the Council doing to bring about the early arrest of the Serbian war criminals Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic? Is it exerting economic pressure on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and on the Republika Srpska so that the two men may finally be handed over to the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague?

 
  
 

The Council would remind you that it does not have the competence to intervene directly in the arrest of suspected war criminals. At its sitting on 11 June 2001, the Council nonetheless approved the report on the review of the Stabilisation and Association Process which assessed the progress towards European integration made by the countries of the region. It thought then that Bosnia and Herzegovina’s cooperation with the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia had been insignificant, particularly where the Republika Srpska was concerned, while the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia now appears more ready to cooperate. Since then, progress has been made, but without its having led to the arrest of Messrs Karadzic and Mladic and their extradition to the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia.

When it proceeds to the subsequent annual reviews under the Stabilisation and Association Process, the Council will again study the degree to which the countries in the region have cooperated with the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia. This ‘review mechanism’ will enable the European Union periodically to assess whether each country’s compliance with the criteria defined under the Stabilisation and Association Process justifies the level of relations established with the particular country. It will also provide a tool for taking decisions on the future development of bilateral relations, as well as enabling practical recommendations to be made. The Council therefore has available to it a means of putting pressure, albeit indirectly, upon the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Spanish Presidency intends to be consistent in continuing on the path marked out by the previous presidencies, designed to remind all the countries in the region of the need to cooperate fully and totally with the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia. The need for such cooperation is one of the conditions laid down by the EU in the framework of the Stabilisation and Association Process. The countries in the region, including the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of which the Republika Srpska is a part, signed up to this process at, specifically, the Zagreb Summit of November 2000.

 

Question no 17 by Olivier Dupuis (H-0110/02)
 Subject: Taiwan
 

In its answer of 10 December 2001 to Question P-1559/01 on Taiwan's observer status at the WHO, the Council said that it had not been willing to 'support Taiwan's application for observer status at the WHO', adding: 'While the Council would welcome a greater exchange of information between the WHO and Taiwan, it would not support the granting of a status to Taiwan in this or any other UN organisation which was inconsistent with its commitment to the principle of "One China" or the rules and regulations governing observer status in that organisation'.

The Council and the Member States lent their unanimous support to the Taipei authorities in the process which led to Taiwan's accession to the WTO, a body which is an integral part of the UN system. On the basis of this precedent, namely Taiwan's joining the WTO, that is, an organisation forming part of the UN system, does the Council not consider that the conditions now exist for it to declare itself publicly in favour of Taiwan being granted observer status in all the organisations and specialised agencies of the UN system, thus creating the minimum conditions for cooperation at international level - conditions which would necessarily work to the benefit of Taiwan and of the entire international community?

 
  
 

The Council welcomes Taiwan's participation in the WTO, but does not consider that the character of that participation, where it entered as the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Peng Hu, Kinmen and Matsu (or simply "Chinese Taipei"), sets a precedent which requires any change in the policy that the Council set out in its reply to the Honourable Member's question on this same subject in December 2001.

 

Question no 18 by Concepció Ferrer (H-0112/02)
 Subject: The European patent
 

The European patent is essential for promoting the creativity of European companies and improving their competitiveness in the international market. However, the introduction of the patent is being held up by debates over linguistic matters and a clash of interests on the part of the various national patent offices, with the result that European companies are being obliged to spend from three to five times more than their American and Japanese competitors in order to secure the protection of a patent.

In the light of the above considerations, what measures will be taken to secure agreement so that the European Patent can finally be adopted?

 
  
 

As the Honourable Member is no doubt aware, the Commission's proposal for a Community patent is a priority file for the Council. Work is being pursued actively both at technical level and in the Council itself with a view to arriving at an agreement as soon as possible. The Internal Market Council assessed the state of play at its session on 1 March 2002 and agreed to continue to give high priority to this file, noting that the European Parliament had still not delivered its opinion in the framework of the consultation procedure. The Council hopes that the Parliament's opinion, which will be studied with great attention, will be available shortly, enabling the Council to proceed towards the adoption of the Draft Regulation.

 

Question no 19 by Marialiese Flemming (H-0113/02)
 Subject: Embryo research
 

Four countries (Austria, Germany, Italy and Ireland) voted in the Council against financial support for research on human embryos. This research is also prohibited in France. What is the Council’s view of Parliament’s legislative resolution in connection with the sixth Framework Programme for Research, which in principle seeks to provide increased financial support for such projects, although more than a third of Member States have ultimately rejected these projects?

 
  
 

1. The Honourable Member will be aware that the Council's views on the European Parliament’s legislative resolution of 14 November 2001 concerning the Commission's proposal for the Sixth Framework Programme are contained in the Council's common position adopted on 28 January 2002 and, in particular, in the accompanying statement of the Council’s reasons, which were transmitted to the European Parliament on 4 February 2002.

As regards research on human embryos, the Council, in its common position:

– has agreed with the opinion of the European Parliament to include references to a number of relevant international instruments on which to base the ethical evaluation of Framework Programme activities, including those relating to the issue of research using human embryos;

– as to the interpretation of these principles, in view of the recent and rapid developments, in particular in the field of biotechnology, as well as ongoing discussions, including those taking place in the European Parliament and at the national level, the Council found it inappropriate to establish in its Common Position on the Framework Programme an exhaustive list of research topics to be excluded from Community funding.

3. The Council adopted its common position by unanimity, with no abstentions. At the time of the adoption of the Council’s common position on 10 December 2001, certain delegations, including those referred to by the Honourable Member and the Commission, made known their views concerning Community-funded research involving the use of human embryos. The Council has committed itself to re-examine this issue, in particular during its discussions on the relevant specific programme proposals. This examination is yet to take place as the Council is awaiting the further views of the European Parliament on the text of the Common Position and its opinion on the specific programme proposals.

 

Question no 20 by William Francis Newton Dunn (H-0114/02)
 Subject: Undemocratic procedures within the Council
 

On 27 December the Council approved a legal text about terrorist organisations.

Were all 15 Member States represented by a minister present in person to take the decision? If not all 15 ministers were present in person, do the Council's rules of procedure permit binding legal decisions to be taken by bureaucrats in the absence of government ministers?

If the Council's rules permit bureaucrats to take legally binding decisions, what is the point of having ministers, or alternatively what is the point of having such expensive buildings in Brussels for the Council when decisions could be made cheaply and electronically by ministers staying at home in their national capital?

 
  
 

The decision to which the Honourable Member refers was a matter of urgency, and as such was taken under the procedures provided for in Article 12 (written procedure) of the Council's Rules of Procedure.

Article 12 requires that any decision to have recourse to written procedure be taken on the basis of unanimity. The procedure in no way undermines the role of Council meetings, since it is used only in cases of urgency, and when there are no outstanding issues to be resolved. Moreover, the procedure does not preclude any one or more Member State raising a substantive issue during the written procedure and requesting that the matter be referred for discussion at a Council meeting.

 

Question no 21 by Ioannis Marinos (H-0117/02)
 Subject: Motifs on euro coins and notes
 

The introduction of the euro was an exceptional step towards European integration which undoubtedly created a mood of optimism about the future of Europe. Nevertheless, a number of objections have been raised about both the common motif on the notes (the mayor of San Sebastian de la Gomera in the Canary Islands, for instance, protested that the important islands of Gomera and Hierro forming part of the Canaries were not depicted) and about the national motifs on some coins (such as the Greek euro, none of which depict the great European Konstantinos Karamanlis who put Greece on course for Europe). Moreover, it is reported in the news bulletin 'NOTE EURO 2' published by Directorate A of the European Parliament's Directorate-General for Research that President Prodi would like to issue a new series of euro notes depicting great historical figures such as Plato, Beethoven etc. Can the Council say exactly what procedure can be used to change the common (European) and national motifs on the new euro coins issued by the 12 central banks in the euro zone? Can a country issue a national coin which is not confined to a single theme?

 
  
 

The Council recalls to the Honourable Member that further to the Florence European Council of June 1996, recital 10 of Council regulation 975/98 on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation states that giving the euro coins one European and one national side is an appropriate expression of the idea of European monetary union between Member States and could significantly increase the degree of acceptance of the coins by citizens.

Thus, as regards the design of euro coins, Member States having adopted the euro as their single currency in conformity with the Treaty, agreed to have euro coins presenting one common face and one face with a national design. The European Council, in Amsterdam, (16-17 June 1997) welcomed and fully endorsed the choice for the design of the euro coins. Accordingly, a competition was organised at European level for the design of the common face. The winning designs were selected by the Heads of State or Government at the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997. The same procedure applies for possible future modifications of the design of the common face.

Concerning the designs of the national face, it is, in principle, for Member States to decide on these designs and their eventual modifications in conformity with their applicable national procedures.

 

Question no 22 by Alejandro Cercas (H-0120/02)
 Subject: World Assembly on Ageing
 

The second UN World Assembly on Ageing is to be held in Madrid from 8 to 12 April with a view to revising the international action plan adopted in 1982. Given the importance of old people - not solely in terms of numbers (600 million) - the Spanish Presidency, acting on behalf of the Council, needs to take up a clear position to put across at this assembly.

How and on the basis of what mandate will the European Union be taking part in this major assembly and its side-events?

Is the Union cooperating with or providing support to the World NGO Forum that is to be held at the same time as the assembly?

In what manner does the Council intend to support the UN action plan?

 
  
 

The Council informed the Honourable Member that the preparation of the Second UN World Assembly on Ageing has so far taken place within the Commission for Social Development of the Economic and Social Council of the UN, acting as Preparatory Committee for the Assembly. The Swedish, Belgian and now Spanish Presidencies have aimed at ensuring a coordination of the EU position, mainly in the form of oral and written contributions as agreed between the Member States, and the intention is to continue this coordination during the Assembly itself.

There is no clear mandate in the Treaty with respect to ageing and other demographic developments, but a coordinated EU participation in the Assembly is a logical consequence of the increasing and repeated attention paid by the European Council to the challenges posed by an ageing population, and of the increasingly structured activities in the Union which aim to modernise and improve social protection while at the same time ensure economic and financial sustainability.

Currently there are no plans for the EU as such to take part in the side events of the Assembly, including the NGO World Forum. This will be left to the discretion of the Member States.

Future support for, and the follow-up to the forthcoming UN Action Plan will largely be the responsibility of the Member States, but the plan will certainly also have an impact on those areas where there are concerted EU actions, as defined in the European Council conclusions since the Lisbon Council, which include economy and finance, employment and social policy.

 

Question no 23 by Astrid Thors (H-0130/02)
 Subject: Sterilisation of Roma women in Eastern Europe
 

Open Society Institute recently published a report revealing that Roma women were sterilised without their knowledge during the 1990s in Eastern Europe, especially Slovakia. The fact that they had been sterilised came to light when some of them sought asylum in Finland and underwent medical examinations.

Is the Council aware of this infringement of fundamental European standards? Has this issue been raised in the context of accession or in other contacts with the candidate countries concerned?

 
  
 

The European Union has consistently accorded the highest priority to the question of human rights and the protection of minorities in its dealings with those countries that are candidates for membership. This issue is a critical element of the pre-accession strategy for each of these countries following the political criteria for membership agreed by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993.

In the revised Accession Partnership for Slovakia that was adopted by the Council on 28 January 2002, the priorities and intermediate objectives include the stipulation that Slovakia should "Continue improving the situation of the Roma through strengthened implementation of the relevant strategy, including the provision of the necessary financial support at national and local levels; measures aimed at fighting against discrimination (including within the public administration), fostering employment opportunities, increasing access to education, improving housing conditions; provide adequate financial support".

The Council has not been informed of the allegations that Roma women were sterilised during the 1990s in any candidate country of Central and Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, the Union will continue to monitor closely the situation of the Roma in all candidate countries. Should any such violations of human rights be verified, the Union will raise the issue with the candidate country concerned, particularly in the context of the bodies created within the framework of the Europe Agreements, such as the EU-Slovakia Association Council and Committee.

 

Question no 24 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (H-0136/02)
 Subject: Equal pay for men and women
 

At the informal meeting of Ministers for Gender Equality and Social Security held from 21 to 23 January 2001 in Norrköping in Sweden, it was emphasised that equal pay for work of equal value is essential to achieve future security for pensions and social protection, that in their 2001 NAPs the Member States make no reference to taking specific action in this field and that working women’s pay continues to amount, on average, to 75% of men’s pay.

Would the Council therefore agree that it is necessary to amend Directive 75/117/EEC(1) currently in force? Would the Council agree that the relevant guidelines on employment ought to be boosted by introducing specific quantitative targets and deadlines? Does the Council intend to give the Commission the task of conducting a study into all the factors which influence pay and on the role played by the mechanisms for salary adjustment?

 
  
 

1. The Council considers the elimination of discrimination between men and women to be an important part of a community wide approach to achieving gender equality. In that context the Honourable Parliamentarian is reminded of the proposal for a Directive amending Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, which is currently subject to the conciliation procedure.

Clearly, any possible amendment of Directive 75/117/CEE on the principle of equal pay for men and women would depend on the Commission's right of initiative in respect of legislative acts.

2. In accordance with the Employment Guidelines for 2002, Member States will pursue positive steps to promote equal pay for equal work of equal value and to diminish differentials in incomes between women and men. The Council considers that action to address gender pay gaps is necessary in both the public and private sectors, and that the impact of the implementation of the Guidelines on gender pay gaps should be assessed.

In this connection, the Council would like to draw attention to the fact that the Member States are currently developing indicators to measure progress in gender equality in relation to each Guideline.

3. Regarding the question of a study into the factors which influence pay, it is recalled that, in the context of the follow-up of the Beijing process, the Belgian Presidency submitted a report to the Council on the subject of gender pay equality which proposed 9 quantitative and qualitative indicators on the subject of pay differentials.

On the basis of this report, the Council (Employment and Social Policy) of 3 December 2001 adopted conclusions which, inter alia, invited the Commission and the Members States to review and improve their existing data collection and processing systems, invited the Employment Committee to pursue its work on indicators in this field and invited the Commission also to set up a mechanism for the exchange of best practices in the context of the Beijing follow-up.

 
 

(1) OJ L 45, 19.2.1975, p. 19.

 

Question no 25 by Konstantinos Alyssandrakis (H-0140/02)
 Subject: Suspension of peace process in Colombia
 

Using air piracy and the kidnapping of a senator as pretexts, President Pastrana of Colombia has decided unilaterally to suspend the peace process between the government and the FARC-EP guerrillas. Implementing the 'Colombia Plan' drawn up by the USA, he has launched a relentless bombing onslaught on the demilitarised zone of the country, spreading death and destruction. This operation not only jeopardises any attempt to find a political and sustainable settlement , it has also escalated hostilities to the particular detriment of the population.

Will the Council call on the Colombian Government to end its attacks on the demilitarised zone, prevent the murderous operations of the paramilitary organisations, help free the hostages and enter into a constructive dialogue with the FARC-EP with a view to a peaceful political and sustainable settlement of the conflict?

 
 

Question no 26 by Pedro Marset Campos (H-0143/02)
 Subject: Colombia
 

On 21 February 2002 the Colombian President, Mr Pastrana, announced that the peace talks in his country had been broken off.

Certain commentators believe that this has happened when in reality the parties were close to an agreement on the substance, namely the need for social reforms.

Can the Council state whether the 'group of friendly states' was consulted before the talks were broken off? Will the EU continue its support for peace on the basis of an independent position which does not favour military solutions, while opposing third-country involvement in the conflict?

 
 

Question no 27 by Marianne Eriksson (H-0147/02)
 Subject: Peace in Colombia - EU position
 

Following the breakdown of the peace process, Mr Piqué has made a number of statements to the effect that Plan Colombia is needed now more than ever. Was he speaking as EU President, as Spain’s Foreign Minister or in a purely personal capacity?

Is the EU planning to give unconditional support to Mr Pastrana’s government, which, together with paramilitary groups, is responsible for 80% of human-rights abuse in Colombia? Or is the EU intending to maintain a non-militarist stance which is conducive to peace and human rights?

 
 

Question no 28 by Richard Howitt (H-0152/02)
 Subject: Human rights in Colombia
 

What action is the EU Presidency taking to insist on the full implementation of repeated UN recommendations on human rights in Colombia, including protecting the human rights of threatened groups, dismantling paramilitary groups and ending impunity in cases of human rights violations?

Following the breakdown in peace talks, what action will the EU take to ensure close international monitoring of the human rights situation in the former demilitarised zone and to enable international delegations access to this zone and to other areas of conflict in Colombia including the Caguan/Caqueta and Meta?

Joint Answer

Please allow me to give a joint reply to the four questions concerning Colombia which have been tabled by the European Parliament.

The Council has always supported President Andrés Pastrana and the efforts which, with indefatigable determination, he has been making over the last few years in order to bring peace to Colombia. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said about the FARC-EP.

The Council understands and fully abides by the decision which the Colombian President felt obliged to take on 20 February 2002, thereby bringing to an end the process (begun in 1998) involving dialogue, negotiation and the signing of agreements with the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces – People’s Army (FARC-EP). It also signalled the demise of the demilitarised zone.

Since the agreement with the Colombian Government on a timetable for the future of the peace process was signed on 20 January 2002, the FARC-EP has demonstrated its unwillingness to make any serious headway in the process, thereby failing to honour its commitments vis-à-vis the government. Serious acts of provocation by the FARC-EP, such as seizing an aircraft and kidnapping some of its passengers, including the chairman of the Senate’s Peace Committee, Mr Jorge Eduardo Genshen Turbay, have led to the breakdown of a negotiating process in which the Colombian people had invested its hopes for peace.

More recently, the 23 February kidnapping by the FARC-EP of Ingrid Betancourt, a candidate standing in Colombia’s presidential elections, and the murder on 3 March of Senator Martha Catalinas Daniels merely demonstrate the FARC-EP’s true intentions.

The Council has repeatedly rejected and condemned the kidnappings, blackmailings and other crimes committed by armed groups in Colombia and has called for international humanitarian law to be upheld and for the civilian population to be protected.

The Council has decided that the EU Member States will not issue new visas or residence permits to representatives of the FARC-EP, unless a failure to do so would hamper the efforts of those States which are involved in the dialogue between the various parties in Colombia. The Council reserves the right, where appropriate, to revise its policy vis-à-vis the armed groups in Colombia, depending on the progress made in upholding human rights, international humanitarian law and diplomatic immunity.

The Council has always expressed its deepest concern at the acts of violence perpetrated by paramilitary groups, in which connection the Council has urged the Colombian Government to continue and step up its efforts to disarm those groups and to bring the full weight of the law to bear on those responsible for the crimes committed, whoever they may be.

The Council has expressed its support for, and its solidarity with, both the entire Colombian people and President Pastrana and his government, and it hopes that, on the basis of sound constitutional government and full observance of human rights and basic freedoms, Colombian democracy will enable every Colombian’s yearnings for peace and prosperity to be fulfilled.

The Council has also assured the Colombian people of its support for any initiative designed to establish a proper dialogue with a view to ending the conflict which is tearing Colombia apart.

The Council will endeavour to secure fulfilment of the commitments laid down in the European programme to support the peace process in Colombia, provided that implementation of the programme is not hindered by security problems.

On the basis of the principle of shared responsibility, the Council considers that the efforts which are already being made to stamp out the cultivation of illegal crops and the production of, and trafficking in, drugs at both local and regional level must continue, with due respect for biodiversity and the environment.

With a view to tackling socio-economic inequalities in Colombia, the Council has also called for a programme of decisive socio-economic reforms to be drawn up and implemented as a matter of urgency, irrespective of any developments in the peace process.

 
 

Question no 29 by Efstratios Korakas (H-0144/02)
 Subject: EU-US judicial cooperation and violation of the law and fundamental democratic rights of citizens
 

The Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs meeting in Santiago de Compostela, Spain, on 15 February 2002 decided in favour of EU-US judicial cooperation. After strong pressure from the USA, that decision has now cemented the process of cooperation between the two sides' judicial authorities, facilitating the flow of information, extradition of suspects and the freezing of bank accounts etc. At the same time, and under the same umbrella, electronic surveillance and monitoring of individuals is intensifying, evidently by virtue of the notorious 'Echelon' network.

Given that in the USA, inter alia, the death penalty applies - about which, supposedly, the EU was greatly concerned in the past - and exceptional judicial proceedings, including special military tribunals, are operating by presidential decision (the Patriot Act), will the Council say on the basis of which criteria it overcame its reservations and objections concerning fundamental principles of law and why, on the pretext of combating terrorism, it legitimises and promotes the violation of citizens' fundamental human and democratic rights?

 
  
 

The Council would, first, like to underline that it has not been subject to "strong pressure" from the USA in favour of EU-US judicial cooperation. All member States have agreements with the US on extradition and most also on mutual assistance in criminal matters. However, room for providing added value to these agreements through an agreement to be concluded with the US on the basis of Article 24 TEU and the extent to which this would be the case are currently being explored. At this stage, formal negotiations still have to be conducted and no agreements have as yet been concluded with the US.

The Presidency has presented to the Council a Draft Mandate for negotiation, currently under discussion in the appropriate for a of the Council, in which all guaranties for the preservation of the basic principles and values of the European Judicial System are preserved, according to the views expressed by the members of the Council, in particular during its meeting of 28.02.2002.

This being said, as the Honourable Member of Parliament knows, there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the US and all EU Member States on the issue of the death penalty. The policy of the EU has not changed on that issue. Moreover, it is clear that any agreement between the US and the EU on the basis of article 24 and 38 TEU must ensure that all guarantees of due process and fair trials are upheld. The Council is convinced that it would be possible in a future agreement to ensure that this is guaranteed. The Council will not conclude any agreement with the US that does not unreservedly fulfil this aim.

 

Question no 30 by Ioannis Patakis (H-0146/02)
 Subject: Imminent attack on Iraq
 

At their meeting in April the US President and the British Prime Minister will finalise plans for the second phase of the anti-terrorist campaign and, more specifically, action against Iraq. The justification given for the imminent attack is that Iraq is allegedly holding stores of chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction.

Given that the sanctions and the criminal bombing of Iraq by the United States and Great Britain over the last ten years has claimed around 1,600,000 innocent lives, mainly women and children, and caused large-scale destruction of the country, what steps will the Council take to avert a further attack on Iraq, of which the victims will once again be innocent citizens, and to end the sanctions which are having such a devastating impact on the Iraqi people?

 
  
 

The Council is still convinced that Iraq must comply fully, unconditionally and without qualification with the Security Council’s resolutions and, in particular, resolutions 687, 1284 and 1382. In a statement made at the beginning of March, Deputy Prime Minister Aziz implied that it was possible to reach an agreement with the UN’s international inspectors. On 7 March, the Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs met the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and we hope that this meeting afforded the opportunity to convey the clear message that Iraq is ready to fulfil its international obligations and, without laying down prior conditions, to allow the inspectors of the Monitoring Commission (UNMOVIC) to do their work under the conditions set by the Security Council(1).

 
 

(1) An opinion which will need to be updated on the basis of the results of this meeting.

 

Question no 31 by Reino Paasilinna (H-0150/02)
 Subject: European competitiveness and the absence from the Barcelona agenda of 3G
 

Improving European competitiveness and sustainable development are among the main objectives of the Spanish Presidency. Under the e-Europe strategy, it was stated that one of the cornerstones of the Union’s competitiveness was an information society involving all citizens, with convergent communications fields as its driving force. The Stockholm conclusions stated that we should do everything possible to create a competitive operating environment for 3G services.

Europe’s mobile communications market has been a central element in our competitiveness. The financing of 3G auctions has plunged the whole industry into an unprecedented crisis, which our legislators must now tackle.

Such fields as broadband communications and digital television have been placed on the Barcelona agenda. Why is there no longer any mention of improving the 3G market and its operating environment? What will Spain do to reinstate on the agenda measures to guarantee a favourable operating environment for 3G? What practical measures does Spain intend to adopt?

 
  
 

The European Council does not follow a formal agenda fixed in advance. It is thus impossible to predict the specific subjects which might be dealt with at this European Council on Telecommunications and Information Society related questions.

 

Question no 32 by John Walls Cushnahan (H-0154/02)
 Subject: Sri Lanka cease-fire
 

Will the Council, in cooperation with the Commission, as a matter of urgency consider how to provide practical support including substantial funding for the Sri Lanka peace process following the recent cease-fire agreement between the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE?

 
  
 

The EU, in its declaration of 27 February 2002, has warmly welcomed the signature of the formal cease fire agreement between the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE. This agreement is an important first step towards ending the armed conflict that the people of Sri Lanka have been suffering from over the past decades. The Union has also clearly indicated that it expects this cease-fire agreement to be followed by other measures aimed at national reconciliation, in particular further improving the security situation and allowing the reunion of family members separated by the conflict.

The Union urged the Parties to use this historic opportunity in the interest of the people of Sri Lanka, and to undertake with determination and in good faith a process of constructive dialogue leading to lasting peace in Sri Lanka.

The Union has consistently and for many years indicated its readiness to promote peace and to contribute substantially to the rehabilitation of the country once the necessary conditions are in place. The Council is currently looking into concrete and practical possibilities to support the political process in Sri Lanka.

 

Question no 33 by Hans-Peter Martin (H-0156/02)
 Subject: The Council's response to accusations in a report by an EU official
 

According to reports in the press, Paul van Buitenen, a European Union official, has submitted a 234-page report which apparently details specific accusations and suspicions of abuse and fraud in fields for which the European institutions are responsible.

What is the Council’s view of this report, and what kind of action has it already taken in response to it?

Will the Council advocate that the public be permitted access to the report and if so, when?

 
  
 

The Council is not in the habit of commenting on publications in the press. Nor has it studied the report to which your question refers.

 

QUESTIONS TO THE COMMISSION
Question no 44 by Antonios Trakatellis (H-0106/02)
 Subject: Infringements and implementation of Community environment law in Greece
 

Although in the past there were some instances of compliance by Greece with Community legislation (the Kouroupitos and Maliakos Bay), in other cases Community environment law is not implemented. Pursuant to Directive 92/43/EEC(1), the Greek authorities have proposed an incomplete list of special areas of conservation for inclusion in the NATURE 2000 network, when the areas proposed are not even protected in accordance with the provisions of that directive. For example, in many areas no protection system has been set up and no administrative body is in operation, while at the same time serious infringements are being revealed, such as inadequate protection of the Caretta-Caretta turtle in Laganas Bay (Court of Justice ruling against Greece in case C-103/00), the continuous pollution and degradation of the Axios Delta, a wetland protected under the Ramsar Convention, etc.

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that all the areas of Community importance, e.g. Marathon-Skhinia in Attica, are incorporated and the administrative bodies set up? In what practical way will it ensure that the areas already proposed for inclusion in the NATURE 2000 network, such as Laganas Bay, Zakynthos, Lake Vistonida and the Nestos Delta (district of Almyra Velonis), are protected? Is it possible to finance projects or measures from Community funds in areas in which infringements of Community environment law have been identified while Community rules or even the judgments of the Court of Justice (see case C-103/00 concerning Zakynthos) are not observed?

 
  
 

As required by Article 4 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC(2), Greece supplied a list of 236 sites of Community importance proposed for the Natura 2000 network. These sites cover an area equivalent to approximately 18% of the national land area. Assessments carried out to date in the Mediterranean biogeographical region show that this list may, as a whole, be considered to be substantial and the few small gaps that have shown up should be filled by the forthcoming meeting on biogeography in July 2002.

The setting-up of the conservation measures needed for Natura 2000 sites in accordance with Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, including the drawing up of management plans and the establishment of management bodies, falls within the competence of the Member States. In Greece's case, nonetheless, important co-financing was arranged through the LIFE programme and the Structural Funds to draw up management plans (‘Specific Environmental Studies’) covering a large number of Natura 2000 sites. Current national legislation (framework law 1650/86) states that the implementation of these management plans requires prior approval by the competent authorities, after which Presidential decrees have to be adopted and management bodies set up. Having noted that little progress has to date been made with the procedures referred to above, and being concerned to ensure that Community funds are used in a proper manner, the Commission has already challenged the Greek authorities on the need to forge ahead in providing the Natura 2000 sites in question, especially those of international significance (Ramsar zones), with an effective system of protection and management, which they still lack. The Commission sees definite progress towards this goal as a precondition for other Community financing for the conservation of Natura 2000 sites. In particular, this is specified by a clause in the relevant measure (8.1) of the operational programme on the environment in the third Community support framework for Greece.

Apart from that, the Commission may act to protect Natura 2000 sites by way of an infringement procedure under Article 226 of the Treaty on the European Communities, which would be commenced either on it’s the Commission’s own initiative or on the basis of a complaint. If projects or actions give rise to infringement of Community law on the environment, any Community co-financing from which they benefit may be suspended.

With particular reference to the protection of the physical habitat at Marathon-Schinias, the Greek authorities, in response to the Commission's intervention in the context of a complaint, have declared their intention of adding the site to the national Natura 2000 list and have given firm guarantees on the implementation of the restoration and management programme for this zone, especially including the forthcoming establishment of a management body for it.

 
 

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ L206 of 22.07.92

 

Question no 45 by Marialiese Flemming (H-0111/02)
 Subject: Alpine Convention
 

In ratifying the Convention on the Protection of the Alps (the Alpine Convention), the European Community also undertook to support its stated objectives. These are supposed to be implemented by means of the protocols. In Austria and in Germany the ratification process for the latter is already under way and will probably be completed in the first half of this year. What steps does the Commission intend to take?

By what date does the Commission intend to take clear decisions as to how to proceed with regard to the signature and ratification of all the protocols drawn up so far?

Why is the European Community's much-publicised concern about the need to establish a closer rapport with its citizens not being reflected in the current debate on the subject of 'population and culture' in the context of the Alpine Convention?

 
  
 

With regard to the Protocols to the Alpine Convention, the Commission wants to focus to the maximum its resources on those areas which can contribute the most to its own policies. Therefore, on 16 January 2001 the Commission adopted a Proposal on the signature of the Transport Protocol, which is currently being considered by the Council Working Party on Land Transport.

The fact that, as to the signature or ratification of other Protocols, the Commission does not intend to make further Proposals, should however not be seen as a lack of interest in the promotion of sustainable development in the Alpine region.

Indeed, the Commission stresses the interest it attaches to mountain regions. This interest is exemplified by the fact that the Commission, in its second Report on Cohesion, recognised that mountain regions are already at a disadvantage and have, as such, been included as one of ten priorities in the Community's cohesion policy. Other Community policies including environment policy are also contributing to the sustainable development of mountain regions including the Alpine region, and to the conservation of mountain eco-systems and biodiversity.

The position of the Commission with regard to the Protocols to the Alpine Convention, other than the Transport Protocol, is determined by the lack of resources to ensure appropriate follow-up to all activities undertaken under the Alpine Convention. This also explains the lack of involvement of the Commission in the discussions within the Alpine Convention on a possible Protocol on Population and Culture.

 

Question no 46 by Gary Titley (H-0116/02)
 Subject: Animal welfare in candidate countries
 

The EU's Zoo Directive (1999/22/EC)(1) is due to be transposed into Member State national law by April 2002. What is the Commission doing to ensure that the directive will be fully and effectively implemented in the Member States? Moreover, in light of the present lamentable animal welfare situation in some applicant countries, such as Romania, how will the Commission ensure that this directive will be fully implemented and respected once the EU enlarges?

 
  
 

In order to assist Member States with the implementation of Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos, the Commission organised a seminar in March 2000, in collaboration with the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA), with representatives from Member States, Member State zoos and non- governmental organisations (NGOs).

The Commission is co-operating with the Candidate Countries in the framework of the screening exercise to ensure that when these countries enter the Union above directive will be implemented. Zoos will be required to participate in:

research from which conservation benefits will accrue to the species and through which in situ and ex situ conservation can be linked; for example through re-education projects;

public education and awareness in relation to the conservation of biodiversity, particularly by providing information about the species exhibited and their natural habitats;

accommodating their animals under conditions satisfying the biological and conservation requirements of the individual species.

The Commission has also participated in workshops organised by the Technical Assistance Information Exchange Office (TAIEX) for candidate countries, which covered amongst other things the provisions of the Zoos Directive.

The Commission has to emphasise however the specific objective of the directive, which is contribution to the conservation of biodiversity. Matters relating to the welfare of animals of non-endangered species remain mainly within the responsibility of the individual countries.

In the negotiations on the accession of new Member States the Commission has always insisted on the full implementation of the “acquis communautaire” in the Candidate Countries. This will also be the case for this directive as well as for animal welfare legislation applicable to those species, as Directive 91/628/EC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport.

 
 

(1) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999, p. 24.

 

Question no 47 by David Robert Bowe (H-0133/02)
 Subject: Classification of toluene
 

Can the Commission say what steps it is taking with regard to progress in the classification of toluene? Will the chemical be labelled as ‘Toxic to reproduction’ or ‘May cause harm to the unborn child’?

 
  
 

The Commission has not yet taken a formal decision on the classification of toluene.

The Commission working group on the classification and labelling of substances has however concluded its deliberations on the classification of toluene. With respect to reprotoxicity, the group has recommended that toluene should be classified as category 3 (substances which cause concern for humans owing to possible developmental effects) and label the substance with R 63: 'Possible risk of harm to the unborn child.'

The Commission will take account of this recommendation in its proposal for the inclusion of the substance into Annex I of Directive 67/548 (harmonised classification and labelling) through a forthcoming Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directive.

 

Question no 54 by María Antonia Avilés Perea (H-0099/02)
 Subject: Lack of transparency in the pre-selection of projects for the Community 'LEADER+' Initiative in Aragón
 

The Commission communication on the 'LEADER+' Initiative's guidelines states the need to guarantee transparency in the project selection procedures and achieve satisfactory competitive conditions for local action groups. Is the Commission aware of the complaints which have appeared in the Aragón regional press to the effect that the pre-selection of LEADER+ projects is bedevilled by discrimination on grounds of political allegiance?

In view of the situation, does the Commission agree that all the projects submitted so far should be subject to a rigorous, open review process?

What does the Commission think of the fact that the selection of projects under the Community LEADER+ Initiative is determined by the established local district boundaries in the Aragón Autonomous Community? Does the Commission endorse the criterion whereby projects which do not conform to these district boundaries are automatically excluded?

 
  
 

The Commission has received no complaint to the effect that there was a lack of impartiality in the recently-held selection procedure for local action groups (LAGs) in the Community initiative Leader+ in the Aragon autonomous community. It has, however, noticed that the local press brought up the possibility of discrimination on the grounds of the political allegiances of the different candidates. Another problem has been brought to the Commission's attention by the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture in connection with a question raised by the regional selection committee as to the demarcation of the local action groups' areas. The Commission will reply to the Ministry in the usual manner and within the customary timescale.

As regards the selection procedure itself, the Commission's communication on Leader+ dated 14 April 2000 has already set out the requirement that Member States guarantee that selection procedures are transparent and that competition takes place under satisfactory conditions. As a result, when the EU's 73 Leader+ programmes were approved, including the Aragon region's, the Commission insisted that the whole of the procedure for the selection of LAGs should be precisely laid down, especially the selection criteria and the weighting involved, the composition of the selection committee, the use of a suitably-publicised invitation to tender, etc.

As is the rule in Community programmes implemented by Member States under the joint management system, the national authorities – the Spanish authorities in this instance – have sole competence in matters concerning the proper application of developed standards. Controls are, in the first place, the responsibility of the Member States, whilst the Commission audits the systems set up and, where fraud is suspected, can call in the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to carry out investigations as and when required. As far as the Commission is at present aware, no such course of action was justified in respect of Leader+ in Aragon, any more than a revision of the selection procedure employed.

As regards the more technical problem relating to the territorial definition of the LAGs, it appears from the programme and from the communication already referred to that it is the groups themselves that must mark out the territory in which they will function. Adherence to a boundary already set up by an autonomous community cannot of itself alone constitute sufficient grounds for excluding a local action group from the selection procedure.

 

Question no 55 by Mikko Pesälä (H-0104/02)
 Subject: Development of sustainable forestry in candidate countries
 

In an enlarged EU, the Union’s forestry resources will be considerably increased. It is in the interest of the whole Union that forestry should be managed in a sustainable way in the candidate countries too.

It has been observed that the sustainability of forestry stands in a positive relationship to private ownership. At present, however, the ownership conditions of forests in the candidate countries are rather confused.

In the candidate countries the legislation on private forestry, and the institutions and structures to implement and monitor it, are having to be recreated. At the same time, the new private forest owners lack experience and know-how in forestry management and the timber trade. There is a need for training and research institutions.

How will the EU and the Commission be taking into account in the pre-enlargement activities – e.g. the SAPARD programme and the enlargement negotiations themselves – the development, training and motivation of the candidate countries’ forestry administration? In that connection, what action will be taken to develop private forestry, e.g. by supporting the organisation of training and by organising a comprehensive advice system?

 
  
 

The possibility of Community intervention in forestry policies is defined by the following:

- The Community Forestry Strategy stipulates that the sectoral forestry policies fall to the Member States in line with the principle of subsidiarity;

- This Forestry Strategy also states that the Community can contribute positively towards the achievement of its objectives by different actions taken under several Community policies namely rural development, sustainable development and research.

Under these conditions the Commission is dealing with forestry matters under the accession negotiations in a similar way as for the present Member States.

Three support instruments are used to meet the difficulties described in the Honourable Member's question:

PHARE: Support for institution building projects or twinning projects is being provided in the following areas: sustainable management of forests, forestry inventories, development of private forestry or preparation of extension services namely in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia and Poland. The amount involved since the beginning of these actions exceeds €20 million.

SAPARD: The forestry measure generally allows for the same activities as for Member States under the rural development rules. Seven countries have this measure in their programme: Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Poland, Romania and the Slovak Republic. The Community contribution will be €167 million, representing 5% of the total Community contribution for SAPARD. The main areas are afforestation of agricultural lands, improvement of existing forest areas, investments to improve and rationalise the harvesting, processing, and marketing of forestry products and support to forest infrastructure. The training measure also provides assistance to forest owners to acquire the necessary skills to manage their forests in a sustainable way.

RESEARCH: A considerable increase in participation of institutes from Candidate Countries is being experienced during the course of the Fifth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998 - 2002). In total 21 institutes from 9 Candidate Countries have been participating in 12 Quality of Life-programme forestry-related research projects under this framework programme, whereas only 9 institutes from 5 candidate countries participated in the similar previous framework research programme. To allow research institutes from Candidate Countries to join ongoing projects, the Commission has also launched, under this Fifth framework programme, a dedicated call to the Newly Associated States. Nine proposals were submitted on forestry related subjects and will be evaluated soon.

 

Question no 56 by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (H-0128/02)
 Subject: Wild berries regarded as agricultural produce
 

Transport subsidies are an important element in the European Union's efforts to develop and support its peripheral regions. To avoid duplication of EU subsidies, agricultural produce is excluded from transport subsidies, which are granted only where the goods concerned have undergone significant processing. In the sparsely populated areas of northern Sweden, products are manufactured that contain wild berries such as lingonberries and cloudberries, which grow at such latitudes. These products, e.g. glögg (a Swedish wine-based drink), sweets and jam, do not qualify for transport subsidies, as they are considered to be agricultural produce. This is odd, because the berries grow wild and are not cultivated, and the products made from them undergo substantial processing.

Will the Commission therefore state whether it is right to consider these products to be agricultural produce?

 
  
 

Lingonberries, cloudberries, as well as glögg and jam made out of such berries, as mentioned by the Honourable Member, are products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty. The berries referred to are covered by the rules of Council Regulation (EC) 2200/1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables. Glögg is covered by Regulation (EEC) No 827/68 of the Council of 28 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in certain products listed in Annex II to the Treaty, whereas jams are covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products.

Therefore, the Commission can confirm that these products are agricultural products in the meaning of the Title II of the EC Treaty, dealing with agriculture. The sweets, on the other hand, would not seem to fall under Annex I.

 

Question no 57 by Michl Ebner (H-0132/02)
 Subject: Mid-term review
 

In connection with the impending mid-term review of Agenda 2000, which should set out clear ideas concerning the future of the CAP, can the European Commission state whether it intends to continue with its policy of subsidising agriculture on the basis of acreages under crops, whether degressive subsidies will be introduced, and what steps it plans to take regarding a ceiling on subsidies?

 
  
 

The mid-term review of the sectors outlined in the Agenda 2000 decisions, is currently being prepared.

The Commission is in the process of completing the necessary analysis and it is too early to prejudge the results of this work. However, the Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it will pay particular attention to the needs of rural areas and the preservation of the family farm. In this respect, Community policy will continue to promote an agriculture that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially acceptable.

Ensuring continued farming throughout the Community territory will remain a core objective of the CAP. This is indispensable in order to preserve the ecological value of many areas and because farming is an important element in the economic and social fabric of rural areas.

The Commission will bring forward the reports required by the Berlin Council in June 2002, followed, where appropriate, by legislative proposals.

 

Question no 58 by Bart Staes (H-0061/02)
 Subject: Protection of public health in relation to patents and licences - EU action within the World Trade Organization
 

The American company Myriad Genetics, which holds three patents granted by the European Patent Office for tests to detect tumours in patients with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer, wishes the tests to be carried out in the USA. That threatens to make such tests, which can prevent the development of cancers and which are therefore important for public health, prohibitively expensive for EU citizens.

A test of this kind currently costs patients EUR 10 and health insurance schemes EUR 300 in Belgium. The requirement for the tests to be carried out in the USA would push up the price to EUR 3 000 per test, and would mean that a technique for preventing breast cancer in patients with a genetic predisposition to the disease would be available to only a select few in the EU on the basis of social class.

What steps is the Commission taking, including within the framework of the World Trade Organization, to provide for exceptions in relation to intellectual property in order to safeguard public health interests in the EU?

 
  
 

The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission’s attention to the prohibitive cost of tests to detect tumours in female patients with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer, which are covered by several patents issued by the European Patent Office.

It should be noted that the issuing of a patent cannot be used to prevent the use of tests that were already discovered and in use before the aforementioned patent was issued. In other words, if a test already existed in Belgium when the patents were issued to the company Myriad Genetics, its holder could continue to use this test. This exception is known as personal possession which allows those already using the invention within the Union before a patent was issued(1) to continue using it. Therefore, the test used in Belgium to detect breast cancer should not be called into question.

Furthermore, if a patent on the test to detect breast cancer was issued on Belgian territory, patients have a right to have access to technological advances contained in this patent.

The Honourable Member implies that the company, Myriad Genetics, intends to use its tests exclusively within the United States and that the cost of the test would be considerably increased.

However, in the legislation of the various Member States, there are provisions on compulsory licences which fully comply with the provisions laid down in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs).

Compulsory licensing permits, in exceptional cases, any third party with an interest in the invention, to use it in cases where the right holder has not used it or has used it but not extensively on the territory of the country in which the patent is valid. A licence may be issued by the competent authority of the relevant State to the interested third party, who, having applied to use the patent in question, has received a refusal from or was proposed unreasonable commercial terms by the right holder.

If the amount of the fee to be charged is established in law, this will avoid the cost in using a patent being pushed up.

 
 

(1) Or, where priority is claimed, before the priority date of the application on the basis of which the patent is issued

 

Question no 59 by Camilo Nogueira Román (H-0067/02)
 Subject: The brutal Israeli destruction of airports and ports in Gaza built with the aid of EU investment
 

In a brutal terrorist attack, the Israeli state has just destroyed Palestinian airports and ports in Gaza which were built with EU funding. It is incumbent on the EU not only to condemn this brutal act, and the disrespect for the EU itself which it implies, at political level, but also to call on Israel to make good the investment undone by the destructive actions of its army. What action does the Commission intend to take in this connection?

 
  
 

The Commission has compiled a preliminary list of Union and Member States - funded projects which have either been destroyed or damaged by Israeli military forces. This list includes damages inflicted on both the Gaza airport and seaport, to which the Honourable Member refers.

This matter was discussed at the General Affairs Council (GAC) of 28 January 2002. The Union's concerns are stated quite clearly in the Council conclusions in which, “The European Union urges the Government of Israel to put an end to this practice and reserves the right to claim reparation in the appropriate fora”. The GAC conclusions have received the support of the Parliament in its most recent Resolution on the Middle East.

The Commission should stress however, as the Commissioner responsible for External Relations did when he addressed the Parliament on 5 February, that this does not come down to a simple compensation claim. The destruction of basic infrastructure and facilities is in Union's view counterproductive, and sets back efforts to improve the economic, social and humanitarian development in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Moreover, it does little to improve Israeli security in the area.

This assessment is ongoing and the Commission shall continue to monitor the situation on the ground in close coordination with the Member States.

 

Question no 60 by Eluned Morgan (H-0068/02)
 Subject: Full national status in the European Union
 

What does the Commission understand by the term 'full national status' for a country or region within the European Union? Does it exist in a formal, constitutional manner? How does this differ from having status as a Member State? Does the Commission believe it realistic in the context of enlargement to expect more regions or countries which are already a part of an EU Member State to gain full national status? Does the Commission agree that, for an area to gain full national status within the EU, there would be a need for unanimity in Council? Does the Commission agree that it would be highly unlikely for the Council to agree unanimously to allow for example, full national status to Wales because of the possibility that this might set a precedent for other regions (e.g. Basque country, Catalonia) in the EU?

 
  
 

The Treaties do not recognise the notion of "full national status". The only Members of the Union are the States which have signed and ratified the Treaties. That situation has prevailed at all previous enlargements of the Community and will continue in the forthcoming enlargements.

Clearly the Treaties do take into account the existence of regional and local bodies within Member States to a certain extent - notably through the Committee of the Regions as the Institution which is their consultative body - or through Article 203 of the EC Treaty which makes the provision that a Member State may be represented in the Council by a regional Minister if this conforms with internal constitutional rules.

Since the term "full national status" does not exist in the Treaties, and since such a concept could only apply to independent countries that - in the context of the Union - would have to be separate Member States, the Treaties do not allow for regions that are formally recognised as such in Member States and under the terms of the Treaties to be given a status equivalent to that of a Member State.

That situation could only be changed, of course, if the provisions of the Treaty were explicitly altered. As the Honourable Member will know, the Treaties can only be amended by a new Treaty which has to be established by common unanimous accord between the Member States in an Intergovernmental Conference, and which enters into force only after ratification by all Member States.

The Honourable Member may care to note that the notion of Member State in the Treaties - in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice - does not only refer to national (central or, as appropriate, federal) authorities, but to all public authorities, irrespective of their level.

 

Question no 61 by Carlos Carnero González (H-0069/02)
 Subject: Report on management of the IMEFE during the six-year period 1994-1999 by the unit responsible for administering the European Social Fund in Spain
 

Further information has come to the attention of political groups and the public on the management of the Madrid Training and Employment Institute (IMEFE), which is under the authority of the Madrid city council, an issue which has been raised in three previous questions to the Commission.

A few days ago, the unit responsible for administering the European Social Fund in Spain asked for substantial sums of money awarded to subsidise internal courses provided by the IMEFE to be handed back, after its investigations had shown that the relevant rules had not been observed. While this is a serious matter, it is only the first part of the conclusions of the unit's report on this matter.

The second part apparently deals with the management of external courses awarded by the IMEFE to outside companies where there are serious and justifiable concerns as to whether the funds concerned have been used properly.

What are the contents of the second part of the report by the unit responsible for administering the European Social Fund in Spain?

 
  
 

The unit responsible for administering the European Social Fund has informed the Commission of the decision to request an audit in addition to the investigation that has already been carried out on the management of external ‘Technical Assistance’ courses, the report on which has not been sent to the Commission, since it is still in draft version and not yet finalised.

The aim of this additional audit is to increase the size of the sample that was initially audited by its investigation team.

The unit responsible for administering the European Social Fund has also informed the Commission that once it has received the final reports of the audits, it should be in a position to determine the total amount involved and then to present to the Commission the corresponding financial corrections file.

 

Question no 62 by Ozan Ceyhun (H-0070/02)
 Subject: IGMG (‘Milli Görüs’) and Islamic extremism posing a threat in EU Member States
 

As in previous years, Germany’s annual reports for 2000 on the Protection of the Constitution at national and regional level categorise the IGMG (‘Milli Görüs’) and the Islamic Federation in Berlin as ‘Security-endangering and extremist activities by foreigners’. These organisations are trying to influence the teaching of Islamic religious studies in state schools. This poses a great threat to society.

What knowledge does the Commission have of aspirations, activities and contacts of the IGMG, Milli Görüs and Islamic Federations in other EU countries?

How much information does EUROPOL have on this and what action is planned?

 
  
 

The Commission is aware of the potential risk of certain Islamic groups. The security and intelligence services of the various Member States are responsible for taking appropriate measures in response to potential threats to public safety.

The various Member States, in conjunction with EUROPOL, are continually assessing these threats and analysing the situation and, if necessary, they adopt measures in the light of the conclusions of this analysis. The information provided by the Honourable Member has been passed on to EUROPOL.

The Member States are also responsible for organising the way in which religious studies are taught in state schools.

 

Question no 63 by Sylviane H. Ainardi (H-0071/02)
 Subject: Situation of abandoned mariners
 

Cases of ships being abandoned by shipowners are increasing in Europe. As in Sète last year, these practices place seafarers in an intolerable situation, since they find themselves without wages, without any means of subsistence and with no possibility of returning to their countries.

In the light of such incidents, concrete action is needed to follow up the declared intention of making the occupation of seafarer more attractive. Further to the decisions taken with a view to creating a compensation fund for victims of pollution caused by oil spills, does the Commission not consider it necessary to set up a European guarantee fund, financed by a tax paid by all shipowners, which would ensure that payment is made for work carried out without awaiting the result of possible court cases against unscrupulous shipowners?

 
  
 

The Commission’s communication of 6 April 2001 on the training and recruitment of seafarers(1) has already addressed the problem of abandoned mariners. Ships are increasingly being abandoned in European ports and their crews remain on board without being paid. Apart from the unacceptable human consequences of this type of situation, the abandoned ships also create difficulties in terms of the daily business of ports, due to the space that they take up. The Commission will investigate the possibility of proposing an instrument to authorise ports to sell these ships.

Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee issued their opinion on the Commission communication, but the question of abandoned mariners was not retained by these two bodies as a priority. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation of abandoned mariners in Europe and it also intends to raise this issue with the Member States when the communication is discussed within the Council.

In view of the international nature of this problem, the Commission is also convinced that action taken at international level could have considerable added value. The Commission therefore intends to closely monitor the revision of the international maritime conventions launched by the International Labour Office to ensure that the issue of abandoned mariners is addressed in the appropriate manner as part of this revision.

The Commission believes that greater transparency is needed in order to clearly identify, at port entrances, the identity of operators that are financially liable for ships and their cargo. This transparency, coupled with international legislation, should enable port authorities to take immediate action against operators who go missing.

 
 

(1) COM(2001)188 final

 

Question no 64 by Manuel Medina Ortega (H-0075/02)
 Subject: Status of the outermost regions
 

Is the Commission intending to submit further proposals with a view to enhancing the status of the outermost regions, pursuant to Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty?

ENAnswer

1. The Commission is currently implementing the measures set out in its report of 14 March 2000(1) in respect of the outermost regions.

2. The Commission does not intend, at this stage, to present further proposals on the status of these regions.

3. With regard to the future cohesion policy, it should be stressed that the Commission launched a wide-ranging debate on this issue by publishing the second report on economic and social cohesion. Furthermore, on 30 January 2002, it adopted an interim report which gives current statistics on the situation of the regions, presents an overview of the debate on the future of cohesion and reviews the resources needed to prepare future Member States for the establishment of structural instruments. Although it is too early to speculate on the conclusions of the debate currently underway and the proposals arising from this, the Commission would, nonetheless, like to remind the Honourable Member that its proposals will take into account the specific problems of the outermost regions as described in Article 299(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community. In this regard, it has carried out a study to evaluate the specific problems of these regions.

 
 
 

(1) COM(2000) 147 final of 14 March 2000 entitled ‘Report by the Commission on measures to implement Article 299(2) in respect of the outermost regions of the European Union’.

 

Question no 65 by Marit Paulsen (H-0077/02)
 Subject: 'Gap' in the food chain
 

European agricultural policy is suffering from a system fault that leaves animals with defective immune defence, which creates a need for large quantities of antibiotics and other pharmacological substances for therapeutic use. Obviously, this situation constitutes both a direct and indirect threat to public health, particularly through the development of multiresistant strains of bacteria. According to the WHO, resistance to antibiotics is set to become one of our major public health problems.

In October 1999, I asked the Commission whether it was prepared to take steps to bring animal welfare into the public health sphere. Today - in the light of the white paper on food safety - it seems even more absurd that the Union's work on public health should cover all the links in the food chain (feed, slaughter, preparation etc.) except for the actual breeding of animals.

Is the Commission therefore prepared to take steps, by way of the co-decision procedure and Article 152 of the EC Treaty, to close this 'gap' in the food chain?

 
  
 

The Community is sensitive to the requests of European consumers for safe food produced in accordance with good farming practices, with greater respect for the environment and for the welfare of food producing animals.

To give concrete answers to these demands the Commission published the White Paper on Food Safety. The White Paper integrates the way animals are farmed, including their health and welfare status as factors which may contribute to achieving a high quality and safety of food.

Based on the White Paper, the recently adopted Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety,(1) 1 includes all issues having a direct or indirect impact on the safety of the food and feed supply chains, animal health and welfare, and plant health.

The farming of animals for the production of food is by definition and also historically an agricultural activity and as consequence Article 37 of the EC Treaty constitutes the legal base to undertake legislative initiatives at the level of the Community. According to Article 152 (4) (b) of the EC Treaty this Article could only be regarded as an appropriate legal base if the measures have, as their direct objective, the protection of public health, which is not the case for animal welfare legislation. In any case it should be noted that the Parliament is always consulted and has expressed its opinion on every occasion that the Commission has adopted proposals for new legislation on animal health and welfare.

As stated above, this approach does not exempt the Community from undertaking a sufficiently comprehensive and integrated approach to food safety considering all aspects of the food chain as a continuum, including the ways in which animals are kept.

The Commission considers that the evolution of the agricultural policy, in particular a shift towards rural development and away from aids to production, should provide a more favourable framework for the production of food of animal origin, obtained in less intensive productions systems, that are more respectful of their natural behaviour.

 
 

(1)1 OJ L 31/1 of 1.2.2002

 

Question no 66 by Francesco Enrico Speroni (H-0087/02)
 Subject: Restrictions on the use of euros
 

Some businesses, such as the Novotel hotel chain in France, refuse to take cheques made out in euros and drawn on banks in other countries, including Euroland countries, and make this quite clear to their clients. Is this practice acceptable?

 
  
 

In general, a shopkeeper is not obliged to accept any cheque at all; a retailer can decide to accept only cash payments. Euro banknotes and coins are the only form of legal tender that any retailer is obliged to accept after the end of the dual circulation period. During the dual circulation period, retailers are obliged to accept euro banknotes and coins, as well as legacy banknotes and coins. If a retailer does accept cheques, he may for instance limit acceptance to a certain type of cheque or to cheques from known customers or to certain minimum or maximum amounts.

 

Question no 67 by Lennart Sacrédeus (H-0089/02)
 Subject: EU's common airspace and Gibraltar
 

Gibraltar's status as a valid part of the EU is enshrined in Article 299(4) of the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Commission is the guardian of the Treaties and is responsible for ensuring that the Union's legislation is upheld and respected throughout its territory. The fact that Spain does not accept Gibraltar's almost 300-year status as part of the UK is impeding Gibraltarians from enjoying freedom of movement within the EU, particularly in regard to flights and access to telephone numbers.

Given that EU directives apply throughout the Union's territory - and that the process of European integration should be based on a spirit of cooperation and solidarity - what are the legal grounds for Spain's exclusion of Gibraltar from European common airspace (the 'single sky') under the first pillar? What legal grounds are there for the Commission's failure to initiate proceedings against Spain?

 
  
 

The airport in Gibraltar is temporarily exempt from Community legislation as a result of specific provisions introduced on a case-by-case basis by the Council when adopting legislation relating to air transport.

The Commission is responsible for ensuring that the Union’s legislation is respected throughout its territory.

 

Question no 68 by Maurizio Turco (H-0095/02)
 Subject: Democratic and judicial control of Europol
 

The Council assigned the Commission the task of drafting a communication on the democratic and judicial control of Europol by the end of 2001. Commissioner Vitorino also stated his intention to propose the creation of a joint committee of national and European members of parliament to be responsible for scrutinising the operation of Europol. In the meantime Belgium and Spain proposed a draft act amending the Europol Convention, which does not include any provision for the democratic control of Europol.

When does the Commission intend to release the communication? Why was it not released by the date set by the Council? What is the Commission’s opinion of the proposal by Belgium and Spain? Does the Commission not consider that its inactivity is having an adverse effect on the breadth and scope of the proposed reforms compared with those which would be needed to allow real democratic and judicial control of Europol in accordance with democracy and the rule of law?

 
  
 

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that it has adopted its communication to the Parliament and the Council on the democratic control over Europol 1 on 26 February 2002.

The Commission welcomes the joint initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of Spain with a view to adopting a Council Act drawing up a Protocol amending the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), the Protocol on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities of the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office and the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of Europol, the members of its organs, the deputy directors and the employees of Europol 2. The Commission favours a speedy implementation of the provisions of the Treaty of the European Union and the Tampere conclusions with a view to enabling Europol to participate in joint investigative teams in a support capacity as well as to request the Member States authorities to conduct or co-ordinate investigations 3.

Moreover, the Commission supports in principle the proposal aimed to simplify the procedure for amendments to the Europol Convention. Some additional work will, however, be necessary as to identify the most appropriate way to realise this simplification.

 

Question no 69 by Bernd Posselt (H-0103/02)
 Subject: Agricultural markets and enlargement to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe
 

What is the Commission’s estimate of price trends on agricultural markets after the first round of accessions, and how does it believe that fair arrangements may be put in place for the farming community in the countries acceding to the EU?

 
  
 

On 30 January 2002, the Commission communicated its strategy for the successful integration of the new Member States into the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It includes provision of just under € 2 billion to cover the expected market expenditure requirements of the new Member States over the period 2004-2006. This budgetary estimate has been made on the basis of the Commission’s most recent projections of production developments, and assumptions about world market prices, the dollar/euro exchange rate and internal and external market developments.

The Commission considers that it has outlined a balanced and fair package. Its approach to the gradual introduction of direct payments will mean that after a transitional period there will not be a two-tier CAP, but will also ensure that the process of agricultural restructuring in these countries is not jeopardised. In addition, to further assist restructuring the Commission proposes an enhanced package for rural development for the new Member States. This includes boosted funds and measures specially tailored to suit their specific needs.

 

Question no 70 by Myrsini Zorba (H-0105/02)
 Subject: Copyright societies
 

The collection of royalties is one of the most fundamental conditions for the survival of authors and composers and the continuation of their work. Royalties are principally collected by copyright societies, though there are no uniform legal provisions in the Member States to regulate their activities. Complaints are frequently heard about excessive commissions, unfair contracts and poor management, which result in composers/authors losing part of their royalties.

Can the Commission provide details of how the copyright societies operate? Does it intend to take measures in the future to modernise them and standardise the terms and conditions on which they operate?

 
  
 

The question raised by the Honourable Member relates to the collective management of copyright and related rights in Europe, and in particular, how copyright societies operate.

The way in which these societies operates is currently regulated by the various national provisions. The extent of the monitoring undertaken by the state authorities and, more generally, the relations between these societies and their members vary from State to State. The same applies to relations with commercial users. Within the Union, therefore, transparency, financial accountability and external and internal monitoring of copyright are carried out in various ways and thus may be more effective in one State than in another.

For its part, the Commission has been examining the question of rights’ management, including collective management since 1994. The question was addressed in 1996 by the communication on copyright and related rights in the information society. Several meetings, consultations and studies have been carried out and a hearing was organised more recently in November 2000 by the ‘Internal Market’ Directorate-General, which brought together all the players and institutions involved in collective management.

The Commission is completing its analysis on rights’ management and also maintaining contact with the interested parties. This analysis includes the question of a possible Community initiative.

 

Question no 71 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (H-0107/02)
 Subject: Micro-businesses
 

In the light of the Commission's 2001 review of the definition of SMEs to include a separate and identifiable category of micro-businesses with their own special problems and needs, could the Commission please advise what specific plans it has to use this revised definition to give help and encouragement to such micro-businesses, and to ensure that quantifiable action is taken by itself as well as Member States to minimise the regulatory burden on this sector?

 
  
 

The average European enterprise employs only 6 people(1) and the overwhelming majority of European enterprises - over 18 million - employ fewer than 10 people(2). That is why the Commission’s approach is to “think small first”. By doing so, the Commission can contribute to the creation of a favourable environment for small and micro enterprises. This principle is embodied in the European Charter for Small Enterprises.

The Commission is reviewing its definition of SMEs. Its aim is to make sure that it is as operational as possible. In the process, the existing definition of micro-enterprises has been completed by the inclusion of a financial threshold. This should be a help if, in appropriate cases, national and Community measures are targeted at this important category.

The Commission's action in favour of micro-enterprises is inspired by the European Charter for Small Enterprises.

Thus, the Commission is committed to Better Regulation, and will present an Action Plan on simplifying the regulatory environment to the Seville European Council.

Further, most of the regulations affecting businesses are national. In the end, these can only be made simpler by the Member States. The Commission is helping Member States improve their performance through, for example, benchmarking projects. In particular, these have aimed to help the start up and early stages of new businesses. As a result, it is now easier and cheaper to start up a company in most Member States. Further, Member States are working at simplifying legislation. In some of them it is now possible to settle some tax and social security issues on line. Micro-enterprises will be the first to benefit from this progress.

.

Another serious problem for micro-enterprises is access to finance. Under the Multi-annual Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship the Commission has provided a specific window offering guarantees for micro-loans. The Commission is also about to launch an initiative on best practices in micro-finance for SMEs. This should help access to micro-loans.

 
 

(1) 19 in the USA. Source: European Observatory for SMEs (2000).
(2) In 1998 there were 18,040,000 micro-enterprises in the EU. Source: Sixth Report of the European Observatory for SMEs (2000). The forthcoming report indicates 19,040,000 micro-enterprises in the Union and Norway, Island, Liechtenstein, Switzerland in 2000.

 

Question no 72 by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (H-0109/02)
 Subject: World Forum on Ageing
 

From 5 to 9 April 2002 the NGO World Forum on Ageing will be held in Madrid, coinciding with the United Nations Second World Assembly on Ageing. Given the importance in terms of quantity and quality of participation by members of civil society in world conferences, to which they bring a realistic and constructive approach to the problems being considered, and bearing in mind that the NGOs concerned represent, directly or indirectly, the 600 million older people mainly affected by this Assembly, will the Commission contribute to financing the organisation of this forum and, if so, on what scale?

 
  
 

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member on the importance of the participation of civil society in the debate on ageing, and more specifically in connection with the Second World Assembly on Ageing.

As far as the possibilities of Community funding for the event are concerned: while the Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) Forum is linked to a world assembly, the Commission wishes to underline that the possibilities for funding under external assistance and development budget lines are determined by the overall objectives of Community development policy, or in the case of certain specific thematic budget lines (such as those relating to human rights or migration), by the specific objectives agreed for the line in question by the budgetary authority. The Commission was approached by the organisers of the event with a view to obtaining Community funding, but the Commission regrets that it is not in a position to provide funding in the context of its external assistance programmes and budget lines, as the event does not unfortunately correspond to the criteria referred to above. Moreover, the relevant programming documents do not provide for funding such an event on ageing.

Under very specific conditions it might be feasible to consider the possibility of support from budget lines related to Community internal policies on ageing, on the understanding that these budget lines cannot cover any costs of participation of NGOs from the developing countries.

In relation to the possibility of funding from budget lines related to internal Community policy measures, a delegation from the organising committee met with the Commission services in mid-January of this year. At this meeting the delegation was informed that there might be some small possibility for financial support for this event from the "Community action programme to combat discrimination(1)1", if several conditions were met. First, there would need to be a clear anti-discrimination component to the Forum, which was not the case in its draft programme. Second, the Commission would have to receive a formal application from the authorities responsible for the Anti-discrimination Programme in Spain. The delegation was advised to take immediate contact with the appropriate Spanish authorities to process the application as soon as possible, given the short timeframe. However, the Spanish authorities have not contacted the relevant Commission services on the matter and unfortunately it is now too late to process an application to secure support in time for the event.

 
 

(1)1 OJ L 303 of 2.12.2000

 

Question no 73 by William Francis Newton Dunn (H-0115/02)
 Subject: Transparency
 

Is the Commission fully satisfied with its work in making its documents open to the public?

 
  
 

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that it has voluntarily implemented a policy of public access to its documents since 1994.

In the context of the commitments made at the beginning of its term of office and the strategic objectives for 2001-2005, the Commission has pursued an active policy as regards transparency.

In this context, in order to ensure full compliance with the new rules on the subject introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, the Commission amended its internal Rules of Procedure on 5 December 2001 to incorporate the regulation’s implementing provisions.

The Commission intends to continue its efforts to ensure transparency and develop the best practices to guarantee the broadest possible public access to its documents.

 

Question no 74 by Chris Davies (H-0118/02)
 Subject: Odelouca Dam, Portugal
 

In view of the Reasoned Opinion against the construction of the Odelouca Dam issued by the Commission in October 2001, what steps has the Commission taken to persuade the Portuguese authorities to suspend construction work which started in January 2002?

Will the Commission detail what EU funding has been authorised to support construction of the Odelouca/Funcho water system since 1993, and why such funding was approved prior to final completion in 1999 of the environmental impact assessment for the Odelouca dam which is the centrepiece of the entire system?

 
  
 

The Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Portuguese authorities on 23 October 2001 concerning the construction of the Odelouca dam mentioned by the Honourable Member. In the light of the reply received from them the Commission is currently considering what further action to take in the infringement proceedings, including referral to the Court of Justice in accordance with Article 226 of the Treaty.

No Community funding has been granted, up to now, to fund directly the construction of the Odelouca dam. A request for Cohesion Fund financing of the Odelouca dam project was received from the Portuguese authorities on 22 February 2002. The appraisal procedure has therefore just started. The Commission will take into account the infringement procedure as mentioned under point 1, when assessing the request.

The Commission can also confirm that it has approved funding for projects under the Cohesion Fund which are subsidiary to the Barlavento water supply system in Algarve. This system was given high priority in the reference framework for the Cohesion Fund in Portugal, in view of an urgent need to improve the drinking water quality and to protect the water beds which were being depleted due to excessive demand. For all projects co-financed up to the present, the Portuguese authorities have provided the necessary environmental assessment information, which was subject to prior analysis and approval by the Commission in relation to compatibility with existing Community legislation.

 

Question no 75 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (H-0119/02)
 Subject: Failure of privatisation of Olympic Airways
 

In the light of the latest failure to privatise Olympic Airways, will the Commission say how it will respond to the Greek Government's plans to enable the airline to continue operating? What is the Commission's position in regard to the reports concerning checks on state aid to the airline and how will Olympic Airways be able to survive?

 
  
 

On 6 March 2002, the Commission decided to re-open proceedings in accordance with the requirements of the Treaty establishing the EC with regard to the State aid scheme and with Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 on the application of Article 88(ex 93) of the Treaty(1), for abuse of aids that have already been approved and granted to Olympic Airways, as decided by the Commission in 1994 and 1998 and for new aids that were granted illegally since that time to this company.

The Commission’s investigation focuses, in the main, on the existence of doubt surrounding:

- the respect of the restructuring plan covering the period 1998-2002;

- the respect of a number of conditions and commitments, subject to which aid measures were approved both in 1994 and in 1998;

- the payment arrears relating to various airport charges and taxes and other amounts due for the use of premises at Greek airports by Olympic Airways and its subsidiaries.

Furthermore, the Commission decided to investigate the guarantee provided by the Greek government regarding Olympic Airways, a guarantee which concerns EUR 19.5 million in credit, which would have enabled Olympic Airways to survive the operational difficulties experienced between November 2001 and February 2002.

By launching the proceedings, the Commission will be able to carry out a detailed examination of the economic and financial developments of the company since 1998, as well as the recent decision of the Greek government to split up Olympic Airways.

 
 

(1) O. J. L 129 of 22 March 1999

 

Question no 76 by Pedro Marset Campos (H-0122/02)
 Subject: Situation in the Middle East
 

Given the seriousness of the current situation in the Middle East, would the Commission not agree that the time has come to charge the State of Israel for the damage which illegal attacks by the Israeli army have caused to Palestinian infrastructure financed by the European Union?

 
  
 

The Commission has compiled a preliminary list of Union and Member State - funded projects which have either been destroyed or damaged by Israeli military forces. This assessment is still ongoing and the list of damages shall invariably rise.

Union’s concerns are stated quite clearly in the General Affairs Council conclusions of 28/01/02 in which: “The European Union urges the Government of Israel to put an end to this practise and reserves the right to claim reparation in the appropriate fora”. This message has been subsequently conveyed to the Israeli Government in a letter from the Spanish Foreign Minister Piqué to Simon Peres.

The initial estimate of € 17 million is, of course only a minute fraction of the overall destruction of infrastructure of the territories which has been identified by the World Bank.

But this is not simply a case of the Union drawing up a compensation claim or a bill for damages. The political message is clear. The wanton destruction of basic infrastructure and facilities is in Union’s view counterproductive, and sets back efforts to improve the economic, social and humanitarian development in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Moreover, it destroys hope and any prospect of stability and security for both Israel and the Palestinians.

The Union shall continue to convey this message to the Israeli authorities at every possible occasion.

 

Question no 77 by Albert Jan Maat (H-0123/02)
 Subject: Transport of live animals
 

A report from DG SANCO's Food and Veterinary Office has recently been published concerning a series of missions to the Member States regarding control of staging points. The report makes disturbing reading and of particular concern is the conclusion where it states that 'the failure to check that animals destined for staging points actually arrive, as indicated on the route plan, has also led to a failure to ensure that journey times are respected.'

What action has the Commission taken against the Member States responsible and would the Commission agree that applying an absolute limit of eight hours for all road journeys is the only way forward?

 
  
 

Council Regulation (EC) N° 1255/97(1) concerning Community criteria for staging points and amending the route plan referred to in the annex to Directive 91/628/EEC(2), as amended by Directive 95/29/EC(3) had to be applied by Member States from 1 January 1999.

The general report of the Food and Veterinary Office, to which the Honourable Member refers, is based on the individual missions carried out within the Member States quite shortly after the Regulation had to be applied.

Staging points were a new concept in Community law and were set up, where needed, by private trade interests subject to inspection and control by the competent Member State authorities. For this reason it was, perhaps, not surprising that some difficulties occurred in relation to securing compliance with the requirements of the Regulation.

The Commission was, of course, disappointed that the first FVO inspection reports on staging points found some serious breaches of the requirements of the Regulation.

The FVO always carries out a follow-up to these reports, and the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the statement in the report indicating that “in all Member States, the competent authority responded to the mission team’s findings by either initiating corrective action or withdrawing the approval of the staging point”.

Given the degree of co-operation, the Commission would not normally seek to open infringement proceedings following a first inspection mission. It will, however, continue to monitor the situation and take further appropriate action if necessary.

Under present Community legislation there is already a maximum journey limit of 8 hours for all journeys over 50 kms in basic vehicles.

Existing Community legislation aims to achieve a satisfactory level of welfare for journeys over 8 hours by imposing additional welfare requirements notably in relation to the facilities available on the vehicle and the particular needs of the species of animal being transported(4).

The Commission is aware of the Parliament’s concerns relating to journey times and is currently examining this aspect in the context of the drafting of its proposals for new animal transport legislation.

In redefining travelling limits, it is necessary to take into account both scientific and socio-economic evaluation.

For this reason, the Commission requested an opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on different aspects of animal transport and in particular to define the most appropriate time limits. This opinion is expected very shortly.

However, it should be pointed out that a wide range of other measures need to be addressed to improve the welfare of the transported animals in combination with appropriate travelling time limits. The Commission has, therefore, consistently argued for a wider approach.

In this context long distance transportation of live animals has to be examined against its contribution to a sustainable agriculture which should be not only capable of maintaining an active rural community but which is also environmentally and ethically sound.

 
 

(1) OJ L 174, 2.7.1997, p. 1
(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.91, p. 17
(3) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52
(4) Adult bovines for example can be transported in upgraded vehicles for 29 hours including a 1 hour mid-journey rest.

 

Question no 78 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (H-0124/02)
 Subject: Applications for supplementary benefits from the French National Solidarity Fund
 

Under the transitional provisions set out in Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) 1247/92(1) (Article 95b of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71(2)), applications for a special non-contributory benefit cannot be refused in cases where the conditions for the grant of that benefit were met before 1 June 1992, with provision being made for a five-year transitional period during which to submit the relevant application.

In France (National Solidarity Fund), four years after the expiry of the transitional period during which various Spanish nationals duly applied for recognition of their rights within the appointed deadline, only a minority of the applicants have received any reply, whether affirmative or negative. The administrative inertia shown by France in this matter is unjustifiable.

Can the Commission say why France has failed to honour its obligations in this instance and whether it has already conducted any inquiries into the matter?

Does it consider that this failure on the part of a Member State to meet its obligations - should this be confirmed - constitutes a breach of Community law, and of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 in particular?

Can it say what action it intends to take with a view to ensuring that France makes up for the delays, particularly in view of the fact that the people concerned are elderly?

 
  
 

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has recently received copies of correspondence from a Spanish national relating to the same issue raised in the question.

In order to assess whether Community law has been infringed, the Commission will contact the French authorities to find out why claims made by Spanish nationals have not yet been dealt with.

As soon the Commission has information from the French authorities, the Honourable Member will be informed.

 
 

(1) OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

 

Question no 79 by Roy Perry (H-0125/02)
 Subject: Borders as impediments to the movement of mortal remains in Europe
 

Has the Commission any statistics which show the number of European citizens who die in EU countries other than their own, and is it aware of any difficulties that may be encountered by those who wish the mortal remains of family members to be repatriated for burial?

Has the Commission any plans to address such difficulties?

 
  
 

The Commission recognises that the repatriation of mortal remains of a person who has died in another Member State than his/her own is a sensitive and difficult issue which can cause great suffering for the family involved.

The Commission is aware of some individual cases, in particular, through the recent written parliamentary questions, where the repatriation of a deceased person from one Member State to another has raised difficulties. However, the Commission does not have any information or statistics which would provide an overview of a possible problem and its scope.

These issues potentially raise a number of questions, some of them in relation to different Community policies, for instance, transport, health, free movement, etc. However, it does not appear that there would be a clear Community competence to cover all these various aspects. Moreover, the regulations governing the transfer of remains of dead persons are laid down in the International Agreement of Berlin (1937, N° 4391 League of Nations Treaty Series) and by the Agreement on the transfer of corpses of the Council of Europe concluded in September 1973. In any event it should be recalled that Member States which regulate the transport of deceased persons, must, in conformity with the case law of the Court of Justice, apply any requirements on a non-discriminatory basis. Any derogation based on public health grounds must also be in conformity with the case-law of the Court.

In the light of the above, the Commission will continue to follow these issues closely, but does not envisage any specific initiative for the moment.

 

Question no 80 by Ioannis Souladakis (H-0129/02)
 Subject: Omission in publication of posters by the Commission
 

It has recently come to my notice that the poster entitled 'Europe on the move', which is published by the Commission and distributed by the European institutions' Infopoints, does not exist in Greek.

Can the Commission explain the reasons why this poster does not exist in Greek and when does it intend to remedy this omission?

 
  
 

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that the poster entitled "Europe on the move" has been available in Greek since February 2002. The Greek version of this poster was produced later than other language versions in order to adapt it in the best possible way to the communication actions planned by the Commission Representation in Athens.

 

Question no 81 by Astrid Thors (H-0131/02)
 Subject: Pepino mosaic virus in tomatoes
 

Random sampling was carried out in February on consignments of vegetables imported for sale in shops in various places in Eastern Bothnia, Finland, and pepino mosaic virus was found in 11 of the 13 samples analysed at the Agricultural Research Centre in Jockis.

The Commission probably asked Member States last year to take steps to prevent the spread of the virus. Does it consider that the Member States have taken the action required to deal with the situation? What will it do to help those Member States where few cases of this infectious disease have occurred to ensure that it does not gain a foothold there?

 
  
 

The first outbreaks of the Pepino mosaic virus in the Community were detected in late 1999 and early 2000, and a preliminary pest risk analysis carried out by several Member States based on available scientific information demonstrated that Pepino mosaic virus and its damaging effects could be of significant plant health concern to the Community, in particular for protected tomato production. However, fruits of tomato were not found to present a particular risk of spreading this disease.

Therefore, the Commission, by Decision 2000/325/EC(1) and subsequently by Decision 2001/536/EC(2), introduced measures against the introduction into and the spread within the Community of Pepino mosaic virus. Those measures apply to the inspection of tomato plants intended for planting, originating in third countries or produced in the Community, and the movement of tomato plants, intended for planting, within the Community. They also include more general monitoring for the presence of Pepino mosaic virus in the Community.

The Commission has asked the relevant services in the Member States to continue scientific work and to deliver an opinion on the risk of Pepino mosaic virus to out-door production of tomatoes and of other Solanaceae crops. At this stage, the scientific work performed on the Pepino mosaic virus has not provided sufficient clarification to revise the preliminary pest risk analysis.

Accordingly to Article 5 of Decision 2001/536/EC, the Commission will, by 30 October 2002, consider possible subsequent measures in the light of information and scientific opinion delivered by the relevant services of the Member States.

 
 

(1) OJ L 113, 12.5.2001
(2) OJ L 193, 17.7.2000

 

Question no 82 by Felipe Camisón Asensio (H-0134/02)
 Subject: Closure of the Bielsa tunnel
 

The French Government's decision to close the Bielsa tunnel to heavy-goods vehicles is causing serious concern throughout Aragon, and particularly in the province of Huesca, owing among other things to the tunnel's great importance for the tourist industry and for trade in livestock and agricultural products. When did the Commission become aware that this was going to happen?

The French Government unilaterally took the decision to restrict access for vehicles over 3.5 tonnes at the beginning of February. What is the body competent to take a decision of this kind?

What institution is competent to take a decision which, without neglecting safety aspects in relation to the tunnel's use, also takes account of the interests of Aragon?

 
  
 

The French Government's decision to close the Bielsa tunnel to heavy lorry traffic, to which the honourable member refers, was not notified to the Commission.

Decisions on traffic prohibitions or restrictions of this type fall within the remit of the Member States' authorities.

The Commission wishes, however, to state that any restriction on freedom of movement must be based on objective reasons and must not constitute an arbitrary form of discrimination. Moreover, the Commission wishes to reiterate its determination to guarantee the free movement of persons and goods, on which the proper functioning of the Internal Market depends.

The Commission will conduct an inquiry to ascertain on what basis the French authorities took such a decision.

With the objective of bringing about a degree of harmonisation in the area of restrictions on free movement, the Commission presented, on 23 November 2000, an amended proposal for a transparent system of harmonised rules relating to international heavy lorry traffic on specified routes(1). This proposal is at present being considered by Parliament.

The Commission does not exclude the option of proposing supplementary measures to ensure that the right to freedom of movement is respected throughout the territory of the EU.

 
 

(1) OJ C 120 of 24.04.2001

 

Question no 83 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (H-0137/02)
 Subject: Construction of a network supplying natural gas to Greece
 

The project to construct a network supplying natural gas to Greece, funded by the European Union and the Greek firm DEPA(1), will certainly provide a boost to the economic development of the country in general and the domestic economy in particular.

In view of the small-scale fire on the Athens road caused by a natural gas leak, and allegations by seismologists that the installations are dangerous, and given the serious accidents of a similar nature in earthquake-prone, densely populated areas such as Kobe in Japan and Los Angeles in the USA, can the Commission say whether DEPA’s main network installations and the pipelines for supplying gas to consumers have been constructed in accordance with all the international safety standards? What steps have been taken to guarantee an automatic shut-off of natural gas in the main networks and in pipes supplying residential or business areas in the event of an earthquake or other incident, as a fire-prevention measure?

 
  
 

In accordance with the Community legislation currently in force, the realisation of projects jointly financed by the Structural Funds is a responsibility devolving upon the national authorities.

The Commission has obtained from the competent authorities the following information concerning the construction of a natural gas distribution network in Greece.

Safety at installations is based on adherence to international norms (ASME, API etc.) and the materials produced are utilised in accordance with the ISO 9002 standard. Technical studies have taken into account Greece's seismological characteristics. Information provided by the Greek authorities indicates that the flexibility of polyethylene, the material used for the distribution networks, radically limits the possibilities for cracks and gas leaks in the event of an earthquake.

With respect to the arrangements for cutting off the supply in the event of an accident, the Greek authorities have informed the Commission that cut-off valves have been installed with a higher frequency than that laid down by the relevant norms currently in force.

Finally, both the construction of the networks and their fitness for safe operation have been assessed by the certification company LLOYD’S REGISTER, as required by the European Investment Bank, which had a share in financing the project.

The Commission has asked the Greek authorities to keep it informed as to the conclusions reached by the inquiry into the accident that occurred at Thessaloniki.

 
 

(1) Public Gas Corporation of Greece

 

Question no 84 by Anneli Hulthén (H-0138/02)
 Subject: Lack of consultation of NGOs
 

Bearing in mind the Commission's White Paper, 'European Governance,' published last year, and in particular the section 'Involving Civil Society' where it states that 'Non-Governmental Organisations play an important role at global level in development policy', will the Commission explain why NGOs have not been consulted in shaping the policy outlined in the Commission's Communication published on 13 February 2002, ' Towards a Global Partnership for Sustainable Development,' called for by the Göteborg Council in June 2001 in preparation for the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development and what steps the Commission intends to take to rectify this lack of consultation with NGOs and the civil society?

 
  
 

In June 2001, the Gothenburg European Council invited the Commission to present a Communication on "how the Union is contributing and should further contribute to global sustainable development". In February 2002, the Commission responded to this request by adopting the Communication « Towards a Global Partnership for Sustainable Development ». This document is intended to provide building blocks for the development of the Union's position in the framework of the work at international level preparing the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Contributions from all stakeholders, including Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), the Parliament and the Council will of course feed the debate in the run-up to the Summit as well.

In April 2001, the United Nations (UN) Commission on Sustainable Development decided to develop the agenda for the Summit following a "bottom-up" approach, including: the identification of regional priorities via preparatory conferences in each UN region ; the review of the implementation of Agenda 21 ; and the consultation with stakeholders at national, regional and international level. The Commission, which has been actively participating in this preparatory work, attaches great importance to consultation of stakeholders. In fact, although, due to time constraints, it was not possible to consult civil society on the Communication as such, the Commission has publicly addressed sustainable development related issues, including meetings on sustainable development and trade policy, where the preparations for the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Ministerial, its outcome, and preparations for Johannesburg have been discussed. It also participated in public events, such as the High Level Seminar on globalisation, sustainable development and the Union’s external policies, co-organised by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) at the end of October 2001.

Over the next few months the Commission intends to intensify consultation with stakeholders. For example, it has set up a European Civil Society and Private Sector Steering Group, with the participation of representatives from environment and development NGOs, trade unions, business, women and youth organisations, consumers and regional and local authorities. The Steering Group, which will convene several times during 2002, aims at ensuring stakeholders involvement in the international preparation of the Summit and its follow up. Most notably, the outcome of the work of the Steering Group will provide input for defining the Union position for Johannesburg. In addition, the Commission will hold a public event on the Summit in Brussels on 18 April 2002, within the framework of the Green Week.

Finally, sustainable development will be addressed at the stakeholder forum, which the Commission and the Economic and Social Committee will organise on 12/13 September 2002.

 

Question no 85 by Hans Karlsson (H-0139/02)
 Subject: Discrimination against women at work
 

In Sweden, the law on security of employment was amended last year, enabling employers unilaterally to derogate from the rules that determine the order in which employees are dismissed when operations are cut back. The Commercial Employees Union has now found that what was feared would happen has in fact happened. In Örebro, for instance, five women were dismissed within a short space of time, when their employer applied the derogation. In all cases, the women were dismissed whilst on parental leave.

Will the Commission explain whether, according to the definition used by the European Union, this can be regarded as discrimination and, if so, what action it intends to take to eliminate such discrimination?

 
  
 

With reference to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to point out that Council Directive 96/34/EC(1) lays down minimum requirements designed to facilitate the reconciliation of parental and professional responsibilities for working parents.

According to Clause 2(4) of the framework Agreement on Parental Leave, "Member States and/or management and labour must take the necessary measures to protect workers against dismissal on the grounds of an application, or the taking, of parental leave in accordance with national law, collective agreements or practices".

This Community provision therefore prohibits dismissal on the grounds of either the application for or the taking of parental leave. However, it does not grant any protection if the dismissals in question are based on other grounds, provided that the reason is not directly or indirectly discriminatory on the ground of sex. This should be examined taking into account all the circumstances of the case in question.

According to information sent to the Commission, Sweden has taken appropriate measures(2) for the implementation of the above-mentioned Community legislation, providing notably that dismissal only because the employee has requested or used the right to parental leave is invalid.(3)

The Commission monitors with the greatest attention the implementation of this Directive in all Member States and launches infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty when a Member State has not fulfilled its obligations under the above Directive.

Moreover, the Commission is preparing a report on the implementation and application of this Directive throughout the Union.

 
 

(1) Council Directive of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC, OJ L 145, 19.6.1996
(2) Föräldraledighetslag (Parental leave act), SFS 1995:584.
(3) See in particular section 16 of the Swedish parental leave act.

 

Question no 86 by Konstantinos Alyssandrakis (H-0141/02)
 Subject: Changes to the staff regulations of European Union officials
 

The Commission's proposals to amend the staff regulations of European Union officials have caused deep concern. According to their trade unions, the proposals change the very nature of the civil service, call into question fundamental democratic principles governing the recruitment, career development and independence of civil servants, will cause chaos in the institutions by recategorising some 40 000 officials and jeopardise the interests of the general public.

Does the Commission consider that the rules which apply to private enterprise can and should also apply to public service? What are its reasons for amending the staff regulations of officials and, in particular, their career scales? What is its response to the criticism that its proposals will result in the privatisation of a significant part of the civil service and create a network of patronage and favouritism? Finally, why does it not take seriously into account the counter-proposals of a large section of the trade unions with whom there is no real dialogue?

 
  
 

In his question the Honourable Member is ignoring the fact that, following the initial presentation of its package of personnel policy proposals adopted on 28 February 2001, the Commission entered into a phase of intensive consultation and negotiation discussions with Staff Representatives which lasted from March until October 2001. Discussions were conducted under an independent Chairmanship within the “Ersboell Group” – a joint high-level negotiating body of Staff Representatives and members of the administration. The establishment and composition was agreed by the Commission and the trade unions.

The Commission endorsed the basic Reform principles that were elaborated and approved by this Group on 18 July 2001 and, in the period after that, the Commission and the trade unions further discussed and negotiated about detail, particularly detail relating to the career structure.

In this setting and at all other times the Commission has strongly confirmed its view that maintaining and strengthening the competence, independence and permanence of the European public service is the principle objective of the proposals for amendments to the Staff Regulations and other rules. The Commission embraces the aim of safeguarding and improving the system of careers, remuneration, pensions and working conditions contained in the Staff Regulations. It has emphasised its conviction that working conditions and rewards need to remain among the most effective and competitive in the Union in order to permit sustained recruitment of the best qualified staff.

The objectives and rules of the Union’s Institutions reflect the fact that they are of public service organisations. The objectives and rules therefore differ, and will continue to differ, from several conventions in the private sector. An unbiased examination of all of the Commission’s proposals would further prove to the Honourable Member that the Reform does not aim to “privatise a significant part of the European public service”. Meanwhile, the Commission’s “response to the criticism” that the proposed changes will “create a network of patronage and favouritism” is that such a claim is completely unsubstantiated.

The Honourable Member’s question gives the impression that he has not been informed that, whilst it was possible in the negotiations with Staff Representatives to get unanimous agreement on basic reform principles, differences of opinion with some trade unions on specific reform proposals could not be overcome. It must be stressed, however, that these differences have nothing to do with a lack of dialogue or serious consideration of counter-proposals. On the contrary, meetings were held between the administration and trade unions on an unprecedented scale. The reality is that differences were mainly caused by differing perceptions of the possibility of the Council being willing to approve the essential parts of the proposed package of modifications to the Staff Regulations. Where counter proposals were put, it would not be accurate to say that they came from “a large section of trade unions”. Indeed, the Commission regrets that unions that were opposing some of the Commission’s proposals generally failed to attend the final rounds of negotiation.

Despite this disagreement with some trade unions, the Commission points out that Staff Representatives representing, in electoral terms, 59% of the Commission’s staff have agreed to the Commission’s proposals. These proposals are currently under discussion with the Administrations of the European Institutions and representatives of their Staff Committees. Following those discussions in the Inter-institutional Staff Regulations Committee the legislative proposals of the Commission for revision of parts of the existing Staff Regulations will be given final consideration by the Commission and then laid before Council and Parliament.

The Commission notes the declarations made by the Honourable Member in the first paragraph of his Question and invites him to examine all proposals so that he can see that, regrettably, he has been badly misinformed on all of the points that he makes.

 

Question no 87 by Ioannis Patakis (H-0145/02)
 Subject: Construction of Acropolis museum over important archaeological finds
 

For two decades, the Ministry of Cultural Affairs has endeavoured to build the new Acropolis museum on an inappropriate site, as competent scientific bodies have repeatedly pointed out. The Central Archaeological Council of Greece has reported that some important archaeological finds have recently been made at the same site. Nevertheless, while the survey is not yet complete and no official announcement and assessment of the finds have been made, the Ministry of Cultural Affairs is hastening to build the museum over them.

Since the EU provides part of the funding for the project, what measures will the Commission take to prevent the construction of a cultural edifice over other archaeological remains, ensure that another site is selected which is able to accommodate and enhance a modern museum worthy of the international appeal of its exhibits, and to protect and develop the archaeological site at Makriyannis?

 
  
 

The third Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece provides for support from the European Regional Development Fund for interventions in the cultural sector. In particular, the operational programme on culture - the main means for delivering investment in this sector - aims, amongst other things, to improve the building and technological infrastructure in existing museums as well as creating new ones including Acropolis.

Identifying actions to be carried out and implementing projects is a responsibility that is decentralised to the Greek authorities, in particular, to the managing authority that reports to the Ministry of Culture.

The Commission is informed that the Central Archaeological Council has determined the zones where construction of the new museum can proceed and the areas within the ancient ruins where foundations can be laid. The archaeological finds which have come to light through the on-site excavations will be incorporated into the stock held by the new Acropolis museum and provisions for their exhibition will be made.

A special commission of archaeologists and architects has been designated under the authority of the organisation for the construction of the new Acropolis museum with the task of monitoring a study that was launched which aims, to find ways to protect the archaeological finds while serving the needs of the new museum.

 

Question no 88 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (H-0149/02)
 Subject: Unremunerated traineeships at the Commission
 

The Commission’s web page which provides information on traineeships within the Commission contains the following statement: ‘Because of budgetary limitations, there are currently a small number of trainees who are not paid and whose travel expenses are not reimbursed’. According to the same web page the Commission hopes that all trainees will be paid by the year 2001.

The author of this question knows for a fact that non-remunerated traineeships continue to exist (for which reason the Commission should begin by updating its web page). She is also aware (because she has received complaints on the subject) that non-remunerated trainees are not entitled to attend the training and information sessions organised for paid trainees. Would the Commission say how many non-remunerated traineeships there are in the latest call for applications? Why does this category of trainee continue to exist? What criteria does it use in order to decide which trainees are to be paid and which not? For what reasons are non-remunerated trainees not granted the same entitlements as paid ones in fields which do not affect the budget (training, information, etc.)?

 
  
 

In relation to the question raised the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that:

1. The traineeships office of the Commission recruits 1.200 trainees (stagiaires) each year, following a pre-selection and selection procedure between more than 12.000 applications. All these trainees are the official "administrative trainees" in the Commission.

2. Since 1997, following an agreement between the Commission and the Budgetary authority, (relevant letter of Mr Liikanen of 29/10/1997), the annual budget of the Traineeships program of the Commission has progressively increased, in order that all trainees recruited (1.200 /year) be remunerated. From 1 March 2002 all trainees recruited in the Commission will receive a monthly grant of € 695 and they will be entitled to the reimbursement of their travel expenses and participation of all activities organised for them by the traineeships office (visits, conferences etc.).

3. As far as concerns “non remunerated trainees”, these are trainees selected and recruited directly by the different Directorates General (DGs) and services of the Commission, on a bilateral basis and outside the official administrative program of the Commission. They are known as “atypical traineeships”. The duration of their traineeship and their nature differ in each DG (i.e. from four weeks to 12 months, PhD researchers, students in their final year required to have a short specific traineeship, specialist for a specific project or action, etc.). Each DG recruits according to its needs, requirements and availability for their reception.

4. None of these "atypical trainees" receives any form of grant or remuneration by the Commission. Some of them receive research grants from other institutions or organisations during their traineeship in the Commission.

5. Since atypical trainees are not part of the official "administrative trainees", thus they are not entitled to join in activities organised by the Traineeships office for the "administrative trainees".

 

Question no 89 by Christos Folias (H-0151/02)
 Subject: Greek Government VAT levy on SME
 

Contrary to the general principles applying to VAT, in Greece Law 2753/1999 (Article 2, paragraph 6) applies, the mandatory provisions of which are to become optional within a matter of days.

Does European law allow VAT to be calculated on this basis? Is it legal to collect VAT calculated on the basis of the above method?

If not, when and in what manner will the Commission act to prevent the distortion of the very essence of a landmark law in common European policy, uphold the equality of European citizens before the law, bring justice back to the tax system and restore the faith of Greek business taxpayers in the law?

 
  
 

The Commission has no knowledge of the legal text quoted by the Honourable Member. It shall reply to the question when its services have obtained the aforementioned text from the Greek authorities and when the provisions in question have been scrutinised.

 

Question no 90 by Richard Howitt (H-0153/02)
 Subject: Rhizomania-free status for Norfolk and Suffolk
 

What justification can the Commissioner responsible for Agriculture give for the difference in treatment between the recommendation to remove Rhizomania-free status from the UK taken by the Plant Health Standing Committee last month, but to enable an extension for the Swedish protected zone? Does the Commissioner recognise the importance of the sugar beet crop to farmers in Norfolk and Suffolk in my constituency? Does he agree that there is only one Rhizomania tolerant variety which at present matches the quality of non-tolerant varieties, and when does he consider that a sufficient number will become commercially available? Will the European Commission offer any alternative assistance to beet growers to find alternative ways to manage rhizomania?

 
  
 

Responding to the results of a survey carried out in 2001 on the distribution of Rhizomania in the United Kingdom, and on extensive industry wide consultations regarding this disease, the United Kingdom informed the Standing Committee on Plant Health that it was not the intention to seek renewal of the United Kingdom protected zone status for the whole of the United Kingdom except for Northern Ireland. Sweden informed the Standing Committee on Plant Health of the presence of the disease in certain areas at very low level.

Consequently, the Standing Committee on Plant Health proposed to change the protected zone status of the United Kingdom to be restricted to Northern Ireland, and to change the permanent status recognised for Sweden into a temporary status enabling Sweden to complete its efforts for eradication of this disease in the areas concerned.

The importance of the sugar beet crop within the Honourable Member’s constituency is fully recognised.

In accordance with information received from the United Kingdom, the development of Rhizomania tolerant varieties is continuing; a second high yielding Rhizomania tolerant variety is in national trials with a view to listing in the United Kingdom recommended list; several other promising lines are in the first and second year of trials.

At the current time the Commission has no plans to offer any alternative assistance to beet growers to find alternative ways to manage Rhizomania. Future management options would be for the industry to decide.

 

Question no 91 by John Walls Cushnahan (H-0155/02)
 Subject: Irish National Development Plan
 

Is the Commission aware that the Irish Government has delayed the implementation of aspects of the National Development Plan, especially in relation to a number of road projects including the construction of the Ennis by-pass which was due to commence in 2001?

This delay has detrimental effects on regional development, increases traffic congestion and adds to environmental problems. Would the Commission intervene with the Irish authorities to ensure implementation of the National Development Plan as previously agreed?

 
  
 

The development of Ireland’s road infrastructure is one of the aims of the Economic and Social Infrastructure Operational Programme (ESIOP) supported by the Structural Funds.

The Commission has been informed by the national authorities that the Ennis bypass has completed all planning procedures and will proceed to construction as soon as is practicable having regard to the available resources.

The Commission is aware that the rate of individual project start-ups in general – including the Ennis bypass in particular – is lower than initially projected by the national authorities. The Commission does not have responsibility for individual projects, including the timetable for their realisation, although it is concerned that the overall objectives of the agreed programme are met over the life of the programme which is kept under constant review in partnership with the Irish authorities.

 

Question no 92 by Hans-Peter Martin (H-0157/02)
 Subject: Accusations in a report by an EU official
 

According to reports in the press, Paul van Buitenen, a European Union official, has submitted a 234-page report which apparently details highly specific accusations and suspicions of abuse and fraud in fields for which the European institutions are responsible.

Will the Commission grant the public access to the report and if so, when?

Is it true that the Commission intends to arrive at a final assessment of the accusations contained in the report before the end of March 2002?

When and in what form will the Commission publish this assessment?

 
  
 

As the Commission has made known in press statements, the official referred to in the Honourable Member’s question did submit a lengthy personal statement of concerns together with 5 000 pages of annexes to the Commission and to the independent EU Anti-Fraud office, OLAF, on August 31 2001.

The duty of all officials to report suspicions of wrongdoing was set down in Parliament Regulation 1073/99 of 25 May 1999 and implemented by Commission Decision of 2 June 1999. Because the Commission considers that the duty must be taken seriously, the Commission provided the official referred to in the Honourable Member’s question with eight weeks of paid leave and with secure office accommodation to enable him to compile the statement.

The Honourable Member will recognise that the fact that a statement of concerns is submitted does not give automatic validity to the allegations made in a dossier, nor does it constitute the opening of an investigative procedure, or mean that individuals referred to in the statement can be considered to be under investigation. The Honourable Member will appreciate that basic considerations of natural justice, of the presumption of innocence, and of the right to privacy as well as proper procedure require recognition of these realities.

The Commission is also sure that the Honourable Member’s parliamentary experience and professional background as a journalist will enable him to appreciate one other relevant and vital consideration: it is that public divulgence of allegations can be regarded to unjustifiably compromise the rights of individuals and put at risk the proper conduct of any investigations that might potentially be undertaken.

Those are the very considerations which make it impossible for the Commission to publish the statement of allegations. OLAF has, however, provided material to the Budgetary Control Committee of this Parliament under the terms of Annex III of the Framework Agreement, and the Commission has reported to that Committee in ways that seek to impart the maximum possible information without compromising individuals or potential proceedings.

The initial, and separate, examinations of the statement and its annexes were finalised by OLAF and by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission at the end of February 2002. The press was informed on 1 March 2002 after the President of the Parliament and the Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy