WRITTEN QUESTION E-0436/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. The Commission's position regarding the United Kingdom's attempts to regionalise fisheries in Community waters.
C 26 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 contacts with the Serbian government, nor is it likely to have any influence with Serbia over the release of political prisoners. However the Council fully shares the Honourable Memberís concern over of the fate of the Kosovar prisoners still held in Serbia. It supports all efforts by the international community, among others the ICRC, to obtain the release of all political prisoners. The EU welcomes the releases already obtained by ICRC. At its meeting on 14 and 15 February, the Council agreed to maintain its overall policy framework of applying maximum pressure on Mr Milosevic. Its decision to suspend the flight ban in the light of calls by the opposition was therefore coupled with an extension of the visa restrictions currently in force and an enhancement of the effectiveness of the existing financial sanctions. Any future decision by the Council on the lifting of sanctions would depend on a number of factors, and could only be taken on the basis of an assessment of the overall situation. The Council took note of the appeal launched on 23 February by the Kosovo Transitional Council, urging the international community, and the UN Security Council in particular, to put maximum pressure on the Belgrade authorities to release all detainees from Kosovo held unlawfully in Yugoslav prisons. The Member States of the European Union will certainly support any UN initiative to contribute to a solution of the problem. In this context, the Council took good note of the proposed measure by the head of the UN Interim Administration in Kosovo, Mr Kouchner at the UNSC to appoint a special representative who would take this issue up with the Belgrade authorities. The Honourable Member can remain assured that the Council will continue to consider progress in democratic freedoms and respect for the rights of minorities, including the fate of the Kosovar detainees, as one of the key elements for a change in sanctions policy targeting the Belgrade regime. The Council is keeping the situation in the region, and EU policies towards the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, under constant review. (2001/C 26 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0436/00 by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (23 February 2000) Subject: The Commissionís position regarding the United Kingdomís attempts to regionalise fisheries in Community waters The United Kingdom is consistently expressing its intention to regionalise fisheries in Community waters, thereby seeking to break up the European fisheries area and to extend the exclusive fishing zone of the State concerned from 12 to 24 miles. According to press reports, Mr Franz Fischler, member of the Commission responsible for agriculture and fisheries, is considering endorsing this claim. What is the Commissionís official position on this serious issue? Is the Commission prepared to support this claim made by the United Kingdom which could lead to the destruction of the European economic and monetary area? the Common Fisheries Policy and the disintegration of Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 April 2000) The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the British government has not put forward any proposals for the regionalization of the common fisheries policy (CFP) nor for the extension of the current 12-mile limited access zone to 24 miles. The above-mentioned ideas emerged during the consultation process on the CFP after 2002, organised by the Commission in 1998-1999. A detailed document on the regionalization of the CFP was presented by an English federation of fishermenís organisations. A resolution to create national exclusive zones of 24 miles was indeed adopted by the Parliament in February 1999. 26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/43 The Commission is currently preparing a report on the fisheries situation in the Community, as foreseen in Article 14 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) no 3760/92, of 20 December 1992, establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture (1) to be issued during the first half of 2001. This report will allow for the launching of the debate on the CFP after 2002 within the Community institutions, including a debate on the possible merits and disadvantages of the ideas to which the Honourable Member refers. (1) OJ L 389, 31. 12. 1992. (2001/C 26 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0442/00 by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission (11 February 2000) Subject: Domestic fuel oil for opposition towns in Serbia 1. Which towns in Yugoslavia receive oil from the EU? 2. What criteria are applied in the selection process? 3. Why is the municipality of Pancevo not considered eligible? 4. Can the Commission answer these questions rather more rapidly than usual as it is already winter? Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (28 March 2000) The Commission decided on 15 February 2000 to extend the Energy for Democracyí programme to five additional cities in Serbia. This was at the unanimous request of the Serbian opposition forces on the basis of the results of the pilot project. This request was positively considered by the General Affairs Council (GAC) of 24 January 2000, which invited the Commission to act accordingly. Five additional cities (Kragujevac, Kraljevo, Novi Sad, Sombor and Subotica) have been added to the existing programme which covered Nis and Pirot. The programme aims to provide heating oil, both to the heating plants and to public buildings (schools, kindergartens, hospitals, and public health and administra- tion buildings). The total amount of heating oil, heavy oil and gas-oil, to be supplied will be around 30 000 tons (it is not possible to give a precise quantity due to fluctuations in the oil derivativesí price in international markets). The list of the municipalities was defined on the basis of discussions between the Serbian opposition forces and the Union, in the context of the trilateral meetings (opposition forces, Union and United States). In addition to the two cities under the original programme, the Serbian opposition forces proposed an additional list of 23 cities, 6 of which were considered priorities due to their difficult social conditions. Belgrade was removed from that short inter alia due to the particular logistical and financial implications linked to the purchase, transport, delivery and monitoring of supplies in a city of 2,5 million inhabitants. list, The Commission has not been able to extend the programme to a larger number of municipalities because of limited financial and human resources. The Commission appreciates the efforts made by Norway with its programme Oil for Democracyí which has supplied heating oil for nurseries and schools in Cacak and Uzice in complementarity with the programme Energy for Democracyí. This has been a difficult project to manage, inside and outside Serbia. The Commission has insisted on elaborate monitoring arrangements to minimise the risk of shipments being diverted. The Commission launched the project extremely rapidly, with oil trucks arriving at the Serbian border some five weeks after