WRITTEN QUESTION E-1216/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Johannes Blokland (EDD), Dorette Corbey (PSE) and Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Reopening of the Iron Rhine railway link through De Meinweg nature conservation area on the Dutch-German border.
C 53 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 In accordance with the conclusions of the 1999 Helsinki European Council, an accession partnership will be drawn up with Turkey on the basis of previous European Council conclusions while containing priorities on which accession preparations must concentrate in the light of the political and economic criteria and the obligations of a Member State, combined with a national programme for the adoption of the áacquisí. Appropriate monitoring mechanisms will be established. (2001/C 53 E/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1215/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission (14 April 2000) Subject: Parliamentary dependants How many British politicians, excluding members of the European Parliament, are in receipt of monies from the European Communities, be they pensions or otherwise sourced? Who are they? What level of finances are involved in each case? What requirement remains on such individuals to support the policy of their former employers? Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (25 May 2000) The Commission takes the Honourable Memberís reference to British politiciansí to refer to former Members of the Commission. The following former members of the Commission of British nationality currently benefit from a pension which commenced when they reached retirement age: George Thompson, Roy Jenkins, Stanley Clinton Davis, Francis Cockfield, Ivor Richard, Bruce Millan, and Ralf Dahrendorf. The total cost involved is currently of the order of £ 245 000 net per annum. The transitional allowance to which Sir Leon Brittan was entitled was suspended, at his request, from 1 January 2000. There is no árequirementí that former Members of the Commission ásupport the policy of their former employersí. Ex-Members of the Commission are bound by the provisions of Article 213 of the Treaty and by their Oath of office áto behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits. In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned be, according to the circumstances, deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its steadí. There is also an obligation to inform the Commission of all changes that might modify the level of entitlement (Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of the Council of 25 July 1967 determining the emoluments of the President and members of the Commission and of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice (1)). (1) OJ L 187, 8. 8. 1967 and amendments. (2001/C 53 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1216/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Johannes Blokland (EDD), Dorette Corbey (PSE) and Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (14 April 2000) Subject: Reopening of the Iron Rhineí railway link through De Meinweg nature conservation area on the Dutch-German border Can the Commission confirm that in late March 2000 Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany agreed link between the port of Antwerp and the Ruhr area in 1. to re-open the Iron Rhineí, the former rail Germany? 20. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53 E/103 Is the Commission aware that the rail link referred to in question 1 passes through De Meinweg 2. nature conservation areas between the cities of Roermond and Mönchengladbach, and that this is one of the reasons why this single-track, non-electrified link was abandoned long ago by rail traffic and why it cannot be reused without being repaired? Does the Commission recall its answer to Written Question P-1875/99 (1) by Mr De Roo in which it 3. said that the likely significant effect on De Meinweg needed to be assessed in the light of directives 92/43/ EC (2) and 79/409/EEC (3), but that there was no indication that these directives had already been infringed, and accordingly it would ask the Dutch authorities for information? What information has now been received? 4. Can the Commission confirm that the decision referred to in question 1 anticipates an environmental impact report to be drawn up in the Netherlands, and therefore that the agreement cannot actually entail any obligations on the part of the Netherlands? 5. What procedure is being followed for identifying the environmental impact on the German part of the route, and at what point will the Commission be able to assess whether the directives have been infringed on that part of the route? 6. Is your assessment determined to a significant extent by whether a transport link which infringes the directives is temporary or permanent in nature, and is it acceptable for the route in question to be used pending the construction of a different route? 7. Is the Commission prepared to encourage the route of the Iron Rhineí to be shifted as soon as possible from the currently agreed route to the route from Venlo to Mönchengladbach, for example by constructing the missing section along the E3/34 motorway between the Belgian railway network near Turnhout and the Dutch network near Eindhoven, which could also be used for passenger transport? Is the Commission also prepared, pending the availability of new infrastructure, 8. to encourage transport via the existing Belgian-Dutch goods link between VisØ and Aachen, so that the Meinweg district can be permanently spared? (1) OJ C 170 E, 20. 6. 2000, p. 113. (2) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992, p. 7. (3) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979, p. 1. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (30 May 2000) As stated in the reply to the Written Question P-1875/99 by Mr de Roo (1) the Commission has sent a letter to the Netherlands requesting information about the application of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (3) with regard to the Meinweg. The Meinweg has been designated as a special protection area (SPA) within the meaning of Directive 79/409/ EEC and has been proposed as an area of special Community interest (SCI) within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC as well. In its letter the Commission asked the Netherlands for information on whether an appropriate assessment as defined in Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC has been made concerning the effects that the project could have on the Meinweg and if so, what are the results. The Commission has not yet received a reply from the Netherlands in time and it is now overdue. Therefore it has sent a further letter to the Netherlands requesting a reply as soon as possible. Until the Commission has been informed about the results of the assessment it is not able to judge the applicability of Directive 79/409/EEC and Directive 92/43/EEC, in particular Article 6(4) of the last mentioned Directive, to the project in question. C 53 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 The application of Directive 79/409/EEC and Directive 92/43/EEC is primarily the responsibility of the Member State concerned. The Commissionís only responsibility is to check whether the Member State has respected the requirements of those Directives. The requirements of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC, such as the assessment of alternative routes instead of the temporary or permanent re-opening of the existing railway line through the Meinweg, only apply if the results of the assessment under Article 6(3) of the Directive show that the project will have significant effects on the Meinweg. At the moment the Commission has no indication that action has to be taken as suggested in the question in advance of receiving the reply from the Netherlands. It has not yet received any indication that an infringement of Directive 79/409/EEC or Directive 92/43/EEC has already taken place. (1) OJ C 170 E, 20. 6. 2000. (2) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979. (3) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992. (2001/C 53 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1218/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission Subject: Consequences of the drought in Portugal (14 April 2000) It is common knowledge that the drought in Portugal is damaging agriculture in various ways, especially where winter and late spring and early summer crops are concerned. Have steps been taken to aid the Portuguese producers who have sustained losses? If so, what support has been granted? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 May 2000) The Commission has been fully aware of the continuing drought in Portugal in recent months. It is still too soon to assess the damage to this yearís crops. The Commission will examine any specific problems that may arise in the context of the common market organisations. If Portugal wishes the Community would be able, as part of her operational programme on agriculture and rural development for the period 2000-2006 and within the financing limits already set, to part-finance restoration of production capacity lost as a result of natural disasters. (2001/C 53 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1222/00 by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (14 April 2000) Subject: Recovery of customs duties Under the generalised system of preferences textile products are imported on favourable terms from Bangladesh to the European market with certificates of origin. The Commission has initiated action for the recovery of customs duties on products imported during 1994-1996. This is giving rise to considerable financial difficulties for European importers and great dissatisfaction has also been caused by the fact that importers who were acting in good faith have been kept in ignorance of the authoritiesí suspicion of widespread irregularities. The following questions need to be clarified here: