WRITTEN QUESTION E-2469/99 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission. Reply to Question E-1056/99.
C 225 E/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 As regards this Directive, the Commission can confirm that an infringement procedure pursuant to Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty was mounted against Austria for failure to communicate transposition measures. This procedure has since been closed, after notification of the measures in question. However, it should be noted that the Court of Justice, in Case C-67/97 on the keeping of a non-indigenous species of bee on the island of Læsł (DK), found that ü since no implementing measure had been adopted in the bee sector ü Directive 91/174/EC was not applicable and so the existing national law remained applicable, with due regard to Articles 28 and 30 (ex Articles 30 and 36) of the EC Treaty. In this judgment the Court ruled that a legislative measure prohibiting the keeping on an island such as Læsł of any species of bee other than the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera must be regarded as justified, under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 36), with a view to protecting the health and life of animals. The Commission considers that this case law might, under certain conditions, also apply to other territories larger than the island of Læsł. An examination is now under way to determine whether the requirements for restricting the keeping of certain species of bees in the Austrian regions concerned have been met. (2000/C 225 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2469/99 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Reply to Question E-1056/99 In its answer to Written Question E-1056/99 (1) of 20 April 1999, the Commission stated that it had asked the Austrian authorities for information on the type of insurance services, the items covered and existing insurance contracts. ü Has the Commission received this information? ü Do Council Directive 92/50/EEC (2) relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and ü Council Directive 93/37/EEC (3) concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts apply here? ü What is the outcome with regard to my Written Question of 20 April 1999? (1) OJ C 348, 3. 12. 1999. (2) OJ L 209, 24. 7. 1992, p. 1. (3) OJ L 199, 9. 8. 1993, p. 54. Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (20 January 2000) The insurance services addressed by the Honourable Member concern áhouse insuranceí for buildings in the property of the municipality, that are concluded by the town of Vienna with insurance agencies for the property in possession of the town of Vienna. As already announced in the Commissionís answer to the question of the Honourable Member E-1056/ 99 (1), the Austrian authorities were requested to provide further information concerning the nature of the contract, the threshold of the contract and the duration of the contract. On the basis of the information provided, the Commission found that the town of Vienna concluded 1850 house insurance contracts with a duration of 10 years. All but 100 contracts will expire in the year 2001. The insurances concluded by the town of Vienna can be qualified as services in the meaning of Annexe I A Category 6 (financial services) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts. The obligation to publish ü if the threshold is met ü exists only for those contracts signed after the accession of Austria to the Community. 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/141 During a meeting between the Commission and the Austrian authorities on 3 December 1999, the municipality of Vienna declared that it will publish all the contracts as of 2001. (1) OJ C 348, 3. 12. 1999, p. 149. (2000/C 225 E/153) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2473/99 by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Problems of Air Traffic Control Would the Commission agree that any increase in the average time of flight delays being experienced by airlines and passengers because of ATC restrictions is totally unacceptable? Furthermore, would it agree that this is principally the fault of the Member States who have failed to invest adequately in a modern ATC system, failed to produce a single ATC area covering the EU, failed to agree a common EU capacity plan and, as a result, are failing the travelling public? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (19 January 2000) On 1 December 1999, the Commission adopted a communication on the current situation of air traffic delays and on new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management system it needs to ensure the proper functioning of its internal market (1). The Commission has made a broad analysis of the causes of air traffic delays and their trend during last years. Several factors contribute to the situation of chronic congestion. The main factor is air traffic control restrictions as cited by the Honourable Member. It is also widely recognised that the present level of delays is not sustainable for passengers and airlines and it also may endanger the achievement of Community objectives, in particular in the field of air transport policy. The question raised by the Honourable Member, regarding the failure of Member States to provide the Community sky with a single air traffic control system and the urgent need for remedial actions, is answered in this document which has been communicated to the Council and the Parliament. (1) COM(1999) 614 final. (2000/C 225 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2475/99 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission Subject: Dioxin emission levels of incinerators in the EU (16 December 1999) Numerous urban waste incinerators in the Member States are still producing dioxin and furan emissions at levels exceeding the EUís recommended threshold. According to the first Spanish survey of emissions of those substances, recently made public by the Spanish Higher Scientific Research Council, certain incinerators have been registering emissions as high as 1,08 nanograms per cubic metre, while the EUís recommended threshold is 0,1 nanogram per cubic metre