WRITTEN QUESTION E-0813/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council. Possible withdrawal of Switzerland's application for EU membership.
C 103 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 4. 2001 Does the Council consider that the decision referred to above will strengthen the positive views of the candidates for accession, and especially the smaller States, regarding the advantages of EU membership and respect for their national identities (as is actually guaranteed in Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union)? What is the Councilís view of this way of proceeding in the light of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union? Have the mechanisms for determining a possible breach of EU principles been complied with? If so, can the Council give the date on which the Austrian Government was invited to submit its observations? Reply (10 November 2000) The measures to which the Honourable Member is referring were set out in a declaration by the Portuguese Prime Minister on behalf of the governments of 14 Member States. This declaration is not binding on the Council. The Council has not taken a view on this issue, and is not therefore in a position to respond to any of the points raised in the Honourable Memberís question. (2001/C 103 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0813/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council (20 March 2000) Subject: Possible withdrawal of Switzerlandís application for EU membership The way the 14 Member States have been treating Austria has prompted critical reactions both in and outside the EU. In Switzerland the parliamentary group of the Swiss Peopleís Party has tabled an urgent question calling on the Federal Council to withdraw the application for EU membership so as not to endanger the vote on the bilateral negotiations. It argues that the eventual rejection of the strategic objective of EU membership is inevitable and that the outrageous way in which Austria is being treated reveals the true face of Brussels to even the most fanatical supporter of the EU. to provide an opportunity for overcoming While occupied with its enlargement, which is meant a centuries-old division once and for all, the EU, with its strategy of isolating Austria, is falling out of favour with many European citizens and countries wanting to join. The boycott partnershipí, European cooperationí and Europe growing togetherí are empty words. imposed on the Republic of Austria shows that such common phrases as European With the Dialogue on Europeí initiative that was launched last February, the Commission wants to join with the European Parliament in helping to trigger a public debate on Europe. The aim is to bring Europe closer to its citizens. At the same time, however, the Council Presidency appears to be doing everything in its power with its political isolation of Vienna to put the Union in a bad light and ensure that it is no longer understood by its citizens. This is unfortunately giving forces critical of the EU a further boost. It is equally unfortunate that the decision taken by the 14 and behaviour such as that of the Belgian Foreign Minister and the French Finance Minister have set back the EU integration policy in Switzerland several years. The Council is therefore asked how and when it intends to stand up for democracy, tolerance and partnership in the form of a dialogue rather than exclusion and to do so in a way that all EU countries and citizens find trustworthy. 3. 4. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 103 E/5 Reply (10 November 2000) The measures to which the Honorable Member refers were mentioned in a declaration made by the Portuguese Prime Minister on behalf of the Governments of 14 Member States. The Council is not bound by that declaration. The Council has not stated an opinion on this matter and is therefore unable to reply to the questions raised by the Honourable Member. (2001/C 103 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0884/00 by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (22 March 2000) Subject: Community inspection requirement for registration of Puerto de Laxe (Galicia) as a border inspection post Council Directive 90/675/EEC (1) of 10 December 1990 lays down the principles governing the organisa- tion of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries. Article 9(3) stipulates that the Member States were to submit their list of border inspection posts to the Commission before 31 March 1991. The list submitted by the Spanish Government did not include Puerto de Laxe (Galicia) as one of the port-located inspection post which are provided for in the Directive. Puerto de Laxe is a centre for unloading tuna, and has been striving since then to meet the requirements laid down in the Directive for inclusion as a port-located border inspection post. The first step was to construct premises, completed in September 1994, on which to carry out the inspection procedures laid down in the Directive. Since that date, infringing the provisions of Article 9(4) of the Directive, neither the Commission nor the relevant Spanish authorities have carried out any inspection to ascertain whether the requirements have been met and Puerto de Laxe can now be registered as a border inspection post. This inactivity and negligence on the part of both administrations is causing severe economic prejudice, particularly to freezer ships. Is the Commission aware of its own tardiness and that of the Spanish authorities? How quickly can it take whatever steps are necessary to carry out the requisite inspection to verify that Puerto de Laxe meets the Community requirements, so that it can be included in the list of border inspection posts? (1) OJ L 373, 31. 12. 1990, p. 1. Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (12 May 2000) Border inspection posts are now approved under Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997, laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), which repealed and replaced Directive 90/675/EC (2). Member States must have adopted the necessary laws to implement the Directive by 1 July 1999. Article 6 of the Directive 97/78/EC states that to be listed a border inspection post must be proposed by a Member State once the competent authority has checked that it complies with the requirements of Annex II to this Directive and of Commission Decision 92/525/EEC of 3 December 1992 laying down the requirements for the approval of Community border inspection posts responsible for veterinary checks on products introduced from third countries (3). It must then be inspected by the Commission in collaboration with the competent authority of the Member States