title: WRITTEN QUESTION E-0210/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The Erika disaster and the fisheries sector.

eurovoc_concepts:
EU environmental policy
EU financing
coastal pollution
economic consequence
fishing industry
indemnification

text: 28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/35 In general the rules vary substantially between the countries of Europe. The United Kingdom requires import permits to be obtained in advance while Sweden requires the dog to be identified by either a tattoo or a microchip and Spain will not accept rabies vaccinations more than twelve months old. This need to prepare everything in detail and in advance prevents the blind from travelling on impulse, so what kind of freedom of movement are the blind left with? Does the Commission have comprehensive information on the varying rules for the entry of guide dogs into the countries of Europe? Has it considered harmonising these rules so that the blind are also able to use the principle of free movement between European countries? Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (10 March 2000) The Commission is aware of the problems caused by the existence of differing national rules governing the movement of pets, more specifically guide dogs, between Member States. Unfortunately, previous attempts by the Commission to harmonise veterinary requirements in this area proved unsuccessful. After consulting a panel of independent scientists, the British Government recently abolished quarantine in favour of an alternative, less restrictive, system allowing owners to take their pets with them when travelling between Member States, subject to certain conditions. Visually impaired persons travelling with their dogs have been the first to benefit from these new rules. Indeed, before the implementation of the new provision, the first animal to enter the United Kingdom without having been quarantined was a guide dog. In this new context, the Commission will shortly submit to the Council and Parliament a proposal for a Regulation to harmonise veterinary requirements for the movement of pets. In particular, the Regulation will offer a solution to the problems which are still facing visually impaired persons travelling within the Community with their dogs. (2000/C 374 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0210/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission Subject: The (cid:145)Erika(cid:146) disaster and the fisheries sector (4 February 2000) The recent disaster involving the (cid:145)Erika(cid:146) oil tanker, flying a Maltese flag off the coast of Brittany, has brought in its wake enormous and, in many cases, irreparable damage to the environment in general and to the marine ecosystem and fisheries resources in particular. One of the areas of the economy most severely affected, with major social repercussions, is the fisheries and aquaculture sector. Has the Commission evaluated the damage occasioned by the (cid:145)Erika(cid:146) disaster in the fisheries and aquaculture sector? Can it provide information on any such evaluation? Should this information not yet be available, will the Commission undertake to submit it to Parliament(cid:146)s Committee on Fisheries as soon as it is in possession of it? C 374 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 Can the Commission state what economic measures it intends to adopt to ensure financial compensation for those affected in the fisheries and aquaculture sector? Will extraordinary aid measures be adopted to alleviate the damage caused? Can the Commission state what measures have been taken or will be taken with a view to effective action to prevent maritime accidents in the transport of dangerous goods, and, in particular, to combat the risks of oil slicks and to further research into means of containing them when they do occur? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (21 March 2000) The French authorities are in the process of assessing the damage (cid:129) particularly to fisheries and aquaculture (cid:129) caused by the accident involving the tanker (cid:145)Erika(cid:146). As soon as the assessment findings are available, the Commission will pass them on to Parliament(cid:146)s fisheries committee. Based on those findings and at France(cid:146)s request, the Commission will of course take the most appropriate steps possible under current legislation to make good the damage to the fisheries sector resulting from this oil disaster. Community part-financing will be available under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) and could be included in France(cid:146)s forthcoming single programming document (SPD) for 2000-2006 under Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (1). An FIFG budget of € 225 million has been allocated to this programme, under which the Commission and the French authorities will shortly be deciding on specific measures. Current Community legislation covering fisheries and aquaculture does not provide for special aid measures, however. Measures have also been taken (or are planned) with a view to dealing more effectively with accidents at sea. Immediately on being informed of the accident involving the (cid:145)Erika(cid:146), the Commission mobilised the Community(cid:146)s marine pollution task force. In the days which followed, a liaison officer was placed at the French authorities(cid:146) disposal in order to facilitate coordination with European pollution-control vessels. At the French authorities(cid:146) request, specific data were then gathered on the availability of bird-cleaning equipment and floating barriers. As a result, 10 Member States and Norway provided France with over 26 km of floating barriers. Three experts from the Community task force were dispatched to the site to help evaluate the numerous offers of services and equipment made to France for cleaning and restoration. With a view to learning lessons for the future, in January the Commission coordinated a visit by specialist European observers. Throughout the operation, the Commission regularly drew up news bulletins based on documentation supplied by the French authorities and distributed these to the other Member States(cid:146) authorities directly involved. A Commission proposal for a Decision (2) will make it possible to cooperate more closely in the fight against accidental marine pollution. Its final adoption by Parliament and the Council will create the optimum conditions for managing crises such as that resulting from the shipwreck of the (cid:145)Erika(cid:146). With specific regard to the (cid:145)Erika(cid:146), adopting the Decision should provide scope for a financial contribution to help meet the cost of assessing and monitoring the oil slick(cid:146)s environmental impact. As a result of the accident involving the (cid:145)Erika(cid:146), the Commission has decided to produce a communication on tanker safety with a view to enhancing prevention. Legislative measures will be proposed with the aim of making vessel inspections in ports more effective, tightening controls on classification companies and increasing the use in Community waters of tankers which are more environment-friendly. The Commission hopes that the communication, which it plans to present to Parliament and the Council in April 2000, will provide the opportunity for this issue to be discussed in depth. (1) OJ L 337, 30. 12. 1999. (2) COM(1998) 769


title: Décision du Comité mixte de L'EEE n° 3/2000 du 4 février 2000 modifiant l'annexe II (Réglementations techniques, normes, essais et certification) et l'annexe XIII (Transports) de l'accord EEE

eurovoc_concepts:
EC conformity marking
pressure equipment
roadworthiness tests
safety standard
transport of dangerous goods
transport safety

formats: html pdf print

text: 12. 4. 2001 FR Journal officiel des CommunautØs europØennes L 103/5 D(cid:201)CISION DU COMIT(cid:201) MIXTE DE L’EEE No 3/2000 du 4 fØvrier 2000 modifiant l’annexe II (RØglementations techniques, normes, essais et certification) et l’annexe XIII (Transports) de l’accord EEE LE COMIT(cid:201) MIXTE DE L’EEE, vu l’accord sur l’Espace Øconomique europØen, modifiØ par le protocole portant adaptation de cet accord, ci-aprŁs dØnommØ «l’accord», et notamment son article 98, considØrant ce qui suit: (1) (2) (3) (4) L’annexe II de l’accord a ØtØ modifiØe par la dØcision no 82/98 du ComitØ mixte de l’EEE du 25 sep- tembre 1998 (1). L’annexe XIII de l’accord a ØtØ modifiØe par la dØcision no 178/1999 du ComitØ mixte de l’EEE du 17 dØcembre 1999 (2). La directive 1999/36/CE du Conseil du 29 avril 1999 relative aux Øquipements sous pression trans- portables (3) doit Œtre intØgrØe (cid:224) l’accord. La directive 1999/36/CE a pour objet de renforcer la sØcuritØ des Øquipements sous pression trans- portables et d’assurer leur libre circulation et doit, (cid:224) ce titre, Œtre intØgrØe (cid:224) l’annexe II et (cid:224) l’annexe XIII de l’accord, D(cid:201)CIDE: Article premier Le point suivant est ajoutØ aprŁs le point 6. A (directive 97/23/CE du Parlement europØen et du Conseil) du chapitre VIII de l’annexe II de l’accord: «6. B. 399 L 0036: directive 1999/36/CE du Conseil du 29 avril 1999 relative aux Øquipements sous pression transportables (JO L 138 du 1. 6. 1999, p. 20). » Article 2 Le point suivant est insØrØ aprŁs le point 17. E (directive 94/55/CE du Conseil) de l’annexe XIII de l’accord: «17. F. 399 L 0036: directive 1999/36/CE du Conseil du 29 avril 1999 relative aux Øquipements sous pression transportables (JO L 138 du 1. 6. 1999, p. 20). » Article 3 Le point suivant est insØrØ aprŁs le point 42. B (directive 96/49/CE du Conseil) de l’annexe XIII de l’accord: «42. C. 399 L 0036: directive 1999/36/CE du Conseil du 29 avril 1999 relative aux Øquipements sous pression transportables (JO L 138 du 1. 6. 1999, p. 20). » (1) (2) (3) JO L 189 du 22. 7. 1999, p. 52. JO L 61 du 1. 3. 2001. JO L 138 du 1. 6. 1999, p. 20. L 103/6 FR Journal officiel des CommunautØs europØennes 12. 4. 2001 Les textes de la directive 1999/36/CE en langues islandaise et norvØgienne, annexØs aux versions linguis- tiques respectives de la prØsente dØcision, font foi. Article 4 Article 5 La prØsente dØcision entre en vigueur le 5 fØvrier 2000, pour autant que toutes les notifications prØvues (cid:224) l’article 103, paragraphe 1, de l’accord aient ØtØ faites au ComitØ mixte de l’EEE (*). La prØsente dØcision est publiØe dans la section EEE et au supplØment EEE du Journal officiel des Communau- tØs europØennes. Article 6 Fait (cid:224) Bruxelles, le 4 fØvrier 2000. Par le ComitØ mixte de l’EEE Le prØsident F. BARBASO (*) Pas de procØdures consitutionnelles


title: QUESTION ÉCRITE P-0304/00 posée par Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) à la Commission. Retards dans l'exécution de projets au titre du Fonds de cohésion en Grèce: installations de traitement biologique des déchets et amélioration des décharges d'ensevelissement à Thessalonique.

eurovoc_concepts:
Italy
Structural Funds
budgetary control
commitment of expenditure
financial management
management

text: C 225 E/226 Journal officiel des CommunautØs europØennes FR 8. 8. 2000 (2000/C 225 E/263) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE P-0304/00 posØe par Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) (cid:224) la Commission (4 fØvrier 2000) Objet: Retards dans l(cid:146)exØcution de projets au titre du Fonds de cohØsion en GrŁce: installations de traitement biologique des dØchets et amØlioration des dØcharges d(cid:146)ensevelissement (cid:224) Thessalonique La rØalisation des projets intitulØs «Agrandissement et achŁvement des installations de traitement biologique des dØchets de Thessalonique (cid:129) Phase 2» et «AmØlioration des dØcharges d(cid:146)ensevelissement et conception et construction d(cid:146)une installation de transbordement complŁte (cid:224) Thessalonique», projets qui revŒtent beau- coup d(cid:146)importance pour la protection de l(cid:146)environnement et l(cid:146)amØlioration de la qualitØ de la vie des habitants, conna(cid:238)t des retards incomprØhensibles, alors mŒme que les ØchØances du cadre financier du Fonds de cohØsion pour la prØcØdente pØriode de programmation (1994-1999) sont venues (cid:224) expiration. Les installations en question ont ØtØ admises au financement du Fonds de cohØsion en 1995 et auraient dß Œtre terminØes et entrer en service dŁs 1998. La Commission peut-elle indiquer? Oø en est la rØalisation de ces deux projets? Quelles sont les raisons des retards qu(cid:146)elle a subis? Pour 1. quelle date prØvoit-on l(cid:146)achŁvement des travaux? 2. Quel est le pourcentage des subventions communautaires dØj(cid:224) accordØ au titre de la pØriode de programmation 1994-1999 du Fonds de cohØsion? Les engagements relatifs (cid:224) l(cid:146)achŁvement des travaux suffiront-ils? Quelles mesures la Commission a-t-elle prises ou compte-t-elle prendre pour que les travaux soient 3. achevØs le plus rapidement possible et pour que le bon fonctionnement des installations soit assurØ? S(cid:146)agissant des engagements pris par les autoritØs grecques au sujet de la station de traitement biologique des dØchets: (cid:129) la qualitØ de l(cid:146)eau des zones intØrieure et centrale du golfe Therna(cid:239)que est-elle contr(cid:244)lØe? Si tel est le cas, par qui? (cid:129) Le rØseau de drainage correspondant a-t-il ØtØ agrandi? (cid:129) La zone industrielle a-t-elle ØtØ raccordØe au rØseau de drainage? La qualitØ des effluents industriels est- elle contr(cid:244)lØe? Comment seront financØs les coßts d(cid:146)exploitation et d(cid:146)entretien? RØponse donnØe par M. Barnier au nom de la Commission (23 fØvrier 2000) La Commission recueille les informations nØcessaires pour rØpondre (cid:224) la question posØe. Elle ne manquera pas de communiquer le rØsultat de ses recherches dans les plus brefs dØlais. (2000/C 225 E/264) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE P-0391/00 posØe par Maurizio Turco (TDI) (cid:224) la Commission (8 fØvrier 2000) Objet: Utilisation des Fonds structurels en Italie au cours de la pØriode 1994/1999 Les rØcentes dØclarations de la Cour des comptes italienne ont relancØ la polØmique en Italie sur la bonne utilisation des Fonds structurels. Selon les informations dont dispose la Cour, l(cid:146)Italie serait encore nettement en retard dans l(cid:146)exØcution de la programmation 1994-1999