WRITTEN QUESTION E-0884/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Community inspection requirement for registration of Puerto de Laxe (Galicia) as a border inspection post.
3. 4. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 103 E/5 Reply (10 November 2000) The measures to which the Honorable Member refers were mentioned in a declaration made by the Portuguese Prime Minister on behalf of the Governments of 14 Member States. The Council is not bound by that declaration. The Council has not stated an opinion on this matter and is therefore unable to reply to the questions raised by the Honourable Member. (2001/C 103 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0884/00 by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (22 March 2000) Subject: Community inspection requirement for registration of Puerto de Laxe (Galicia) as a border inspection post Council Directive 90/675/EEC (1) of 10 December 1990 lays down the principles governing the organisa- tion of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries. Article 9(3) stipulates that the Member States were to submit their list of border inspection posts to the Commission before 31 March 1991. The list submitted by the Spanish Government did not include Puerto de Laxe (Galicia) as one of the port-located inspection post which are provided for in the Directive. Puerto de Laxe is a centre for unloading tuna, and has been striving since then to meet the requirements laid down in the Directive for inclusion as a port-located border inspection post. The first step was to construct premises, completed in September 1994, on which to carry out the inspection procedures laid down in the Directive. Since that date, infringing the provisions of Article 9(4) of the Directive, neither the Commission nor the relevant Spanish authorities have carried out any inspection to ascertain whether the requirements have been met and Puerto de Laxe can now be registered as a border inspection post. This inactivity and negligence on the part of both administrations is causing severe economic prejudice, particularly to freezer ships. Is the Commission aware of its own tardiness and that of the Spanish authorities? How quickly can it take whatever steps are necessary to carry out the requisite inspection to verify that Puerto de Laxe meets the Community requirements, so that it can be included in the list of border inspection posts? (1) OJ L 373, 31. 12. 1990, p. 1. Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (12 May 2000) Border inspection posts are now approved under Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997, laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), which repealed and replaced Directive 90/675/EC (2). Member States must have adopted the necessary laws to implement the Directive by 1 July 1999. Article 6 of the Directive 97/78/EC states that to be listed a border inspection post must be proposed by a Member State once the competent authority has checked that it complies with the requirements of Annex II to this Directive and of Commission Decision 92/525/EEC of 3 December 1992 laying down the requirements for the approval of Community border inspection posts responsible for veterinary checks on products introduced from third countries (3). It must then be inspected by the Commission in collaboration with the competent authority of the Member States. C 103 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 4. 2001 The Spanish authorities have not put forward the port of Laxe as an independent border inspection post and therefore this location has not been inspected by the Commission. The question of whether an inspection has been made by the Spanish authorities should more appropriately be addressed to them for a response. (1) OJ L 24, 30. 1. 1998. (2) OJ L 373, 31. 12. 1990. (3) OJ L 331, 17. 11. 1992. (2001/C 103 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1182/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission (12 April 2000) Subject: EU enlargement and nuclear safety in nuclear According to International Atomic Energy Agency figures, there have been 508 áincidentsí power stations from 1993 to date, or more than one for each of the 434 such power stations operating world-wide, where 16 % of the energy consumed is now nuclear-generated. In Europe, the proportion of energy produced by nuclear power stations is higher in the countries whose nuclear facilities are most antiquated ü 45 % in the Ukraine, as much as 77 % in Lithuania ü and a substantial proportion of energy is produced by ápotentially dangerousí power stations such as Ignalina or Kola in Russia, Bouhunice in Slovakia, Kozloduy in Bulgaria and Metsamor in Armenia. Even today, in the former Soviet Union, 15 of the 58 power stations still in operation are the LWGR type, identical to the one at Chernobyl, built without any safety containment around the reactor itself. In the course of the accession negotiations with the candidate countries and discussions on trade relations with other countries: 1. What guarantees were obtained in terms of action to be taken to decommission these power stations? 2. On what conditions would the candidate countries be prepared to comply with the EUís requests in this regard? 3. By what date should these facilities be decommissioned? Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (5 June 2000) The closure agreements reached with Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria in autumn 1999 refer to the following closure dates and are based on the cited decisions by the national authorities of these three candidate countries. the Slovak Government decided on As the result of an intensive dialogue with the Commission, 14 September 1999 (Government Resolution No 801/1999) to close the Bohunice V1 nuclear power plant. Reactor block 1 will be closed in 2006, and reactor block 2 in 2008. Similarly, the Lithuanian Parliament decided on 5 October 1999 (Parliament Resolution No VIII-1348) to approve the national energy strategy submitted by the Lithuanian Government. This strategy includes the commitment to close the Ignalina nuclear power plant. Reactor unit 1 is to be closed before 2005. The final decision on the closure of reactor unit 2 will be taken on the occasion of the 2004 review of the national energy strategy. The closure is expected by 2009 as the Parliament resolution calls upon the Government to establish an action plan to replace the RBMK-type Ignalina reactors by this date