WRITTEN QUESTION E-0913/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Potentially dangerous developments on French farms.
C 26 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 3. Is it true that DG XI D 02 has commissioned an expert opinion on environmental issues relating to the Avantis industrial estate, and that: (a) (b) the expert who is to deliver it was given the assignment at the proposal of the above official, the expert, who is regarded as objective, Professor Stubbe of Halle, is himself a member of NABU, and has he made this clear? 4. Does the Commission agree that for an objection by NABU to be dealt with by a member of NABU and assessed in the light of an expert opinion delivered by a member of NABU, who has been given the proposal of a member of NABU, does not constitute an impartial and the assignment at transparent procedure? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (18 April 2000) The Honourable Memberís first question relates to German law. The Commission does not have the 1. authority to answer it. 2. The Commission would recall that all European citizens have the fundamental right to join any association or to belong to any religion of their choice. That freedom also applies to European officials, inasmuch as the rules of the Staff Regulations for officials of the European Communities guarantee that they perform their duties impartially, independently, objectively and competently. The Commission there- fore does not have to know to which organisations its officials belong. The Commission would stress that its decisions are the result of a collective assessment involving several departments and hierarchical levels. It therefore has no reason to doubt the integrity and impartiality of the official referred to by the Honourable Member. 3. In choosing an expert to formulate a scientific opinion on the Avantis case, the Commission sought a person who had recognised expertise on hamsters, was a university professor, had an excellent knowledge of German and/or Dutch, and was not involved in the regional debate surrounding the Avantis project. The Commission chose Professor Stubbe on the basis of these four criteria, which are reflected in the study contract referred to by the Honourable Member. The Commission will question the professor about any activities within the NABU. It believes a large number of professors of biology and ecology are members of the principal nature conservation associa- tions in their respective Member States. On the basis of the information available to the Commission, in view of the freedom of European 4. citizens to join the associations of their choice and given the internal procedures for the control and assessment of the information which it receives, the Commission does not believe that there was any conflict of interest in the procedure for the study of the Avantis case. The Commission has not yet considered Professor Stubbeís report. It has not adopted a position on the complaint concerned and has not considered which points it feels should be taken into consideration. (2001/C 26 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0913/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 March 2000) Subject: Potentially dangerous developments on French farms Since 1994 the French agriculture ministry has been making considerable efforts to harmonise agricultural installations (livestock housing, slurry pits etc. ). These installations are built to low-level specifications and are of inadequate quality, and have the potential to cause considerable environmental damage. In the foreseeable future these structures, which can no longer be restored, are in danger of collapsing. They are 26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/131 consequently both an environmental and a financial liability. To date 50 % of French agricultural holdings have already applied the standards laid down by the government, even though these seem to be contrary to EU law. Is the Commission aware of this problem, and does it plan to take measures to clarify the situation? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 May 2000) Since introduction of the rural development strand of Agenda 2000 (July 1999) support for investment on agricultural holdings in the Community, and therefore in France, is restricted to those complying with minimum standards regarding the environment, hygiene and animal welfare (Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1)). The standards embrace the Community rules and any complementary national provisions. Compliance with them is checked and non-compliance debars from Community aid. (1) OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999. (2001/C 26 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0917/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council (24 March 2000) Subject: Qualified majority voting Can the Council state on how many occasions each year for the last five years each Member State has been outvoted in the Council when a decision on a legislative proposal (directive, regulation, decision) has been taken by qualified majority voting? Reply (26 June 2000) The Honourable Member will delegations on the adoption of legislative acts by the Council. find below a summary of the abstentions and votes against cast by It should be noted that this information was compiled from the monthly summaries of the Councilís activities drawn up and published by the Council General Secretariat. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 (1) B 1 1 3 0 1 DK 0 1 1 0 0 D 4 2 7 1 0 EL 0 0 2 0 0 E 0 1 7 2 0 (1) First two months. Abstentions: F 1 3 2 0 0 IRL IT 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 1 L 2 1 2 0 0 NL 2 0 1 1 0 A 1 1 0 0 0 P 2 2 4 1 0 FIN 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 UK 0 3 0 3 0