WRITTEN QUESTION E-2420/99 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Providing a scaled-down military structure for the EU.
C 280 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 What financial penalties does the Commission intend to impose on the competent Greek authorities who have not yet complied with the Courtís decision on their failure to observe Article 7 of Directive 76/464 (1) on pollution caused to the aquatic environment by certain dangerous substances? (1) OJ L 129, 18. 5. 1976, p. 23. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (31 January 2000) The Commission did not have any information on the operation of the Mamidakis companyís plant in the Gulf of Yera area on the island of Lesbos. Following the Honourable Memberís question, the Commission will ask the Greek authorities for details of how this plant operates, and how the dangerous waste is stored. With regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 June 1998 which found that Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous subtances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, by failing to establish programmes including quality objectives and setting deadlines for their implementation to reduce the pollution of Lake Vegorrítis, the river Soulos and the Gulf of Pagasaí by the dangerous substances on List II of the Directive, the Commission sent Greece a letter of formal notice on 18 December 1999 on the basis of Article 228 (ex Article 171) of the EC Treaty. The Greek authorities replied on 23 March 1999 and 16 September 1999, notifying a set of measures taken to comply with the aforesaid judgment. The relevant documents are now being examined. In addition, the Commission, noting Greeceís general failure to establish programmes which include quality objectives and set deadlines for their implementation to reduce the pollution of water by substances on List II of Directive 76/464/EEC, brought the matter before the Court of Justice on 11 November 1997. The Court has not yet delivered its judgment. (2000/C 280 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2420/99 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission Subject: Providing a scaled-down military structure for the EU (16 December 1999) During the recent third round of Franco-Spanish strategic talks, both countries stated their wish to see the EU equipped with a scaled-down military structure which would enable it to react quickly to crises such as that in Kosovo. This structure could take the shape of an ambassadorial-level Policy and Security Committee, a high command and a headquarters whose remit would be to plan and carry out military operations. How does the Commission, given its powers of initiative, regard the Franco-Spanish view of the basic nucleus on which Europeís ísecurity and defence identityí might be built up? Will it support the position of Spain and France? Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (18 January 2000) The Franco-Spanish talks focussed on issues concerning military and non-military aspects of crisis management, for Petersberg tasks. As the Honourable Member will know these issues discussed extensively in the Council in the period leading up to the Helsinki European Council. i. e. 3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/45 is for the Union to have an autonomous capacity to take decisions, The objective agreed at Helsinki to launch and then to conduct Union-led military operations where the Atlantic Alliance as a whole is not engaged. The headline goal adopted at Helsinki is for the Union to be able to deploy up to 50 000-60 000 troops ü capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks ü within 60 days. Interim institutions for decision-making on crisis management, and for operational control of both military and non-military actions which may be launched in crisis situations are to be introduced. A report identifying non-military (civilian) aspects of crisis management and crisis response tools both at Union and national level was also noted at Helsinki. The intention is to bring together capabilities at national and European level (for instance police, monitors, human rights experts), and to establish a mechanism for rapid co-ordination and deployment. As a first step new decision-making and advisory bodies will be set up in Brussels on an interim basis. The structures to be set up are a political and security committee staffed by representatives at senior level. There will also be a military committee, staffed, in the interim phase, by military representatives of Member States. It will give military advice to the Council as needed. A civilian crisis management coordinating mechanism is also to be established within the Council. All decisions in the area of European security and defence policy will be taken áwithin the single institutional frameworkí, thus ensuring inter-pillar coherence. The Commission looks forward to these new forms of cooperation and will contribute actively where it has responsibility and experience, namely in the area of non-military crisis management and conflict prevention. (2000/C 280 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2443/99 by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Europe Agreements with Eastern European countries Each of the Europe Agreementsí which the EU has concluded with Eastern European countries includes an áequal treatment requirementí relating to the establishment of companies and nationals of the contracting countries (subject to certain provisos for special occupations). Does the Commission consider that this equal treatment requirement includes a prohibition of 1. discrimination? 2. Does the Commission consider that an EU Member State is barred from submitting nationals of the contracting countries to áneeds testsí if their own self-employed nationals are not required to undergo such tests? 3. Does the Commission agree that, where a Member State does not require its own self-employed nationals to produce evidence of prior knowledge, etc. , such evidence may not be required of the nationals of the contracting partner countries? 4. Does the Commission agree that, where a Member State does not require its self-employed nationals to produce evidence of capital, this may not be required of the nationals of the contracting partner countries? Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (24 January 2000) 1. The Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member that the principle of equal treatment contains the prohibition of discrimination between nationals of the associated countries and nationals of the Member States