WRITTEN QUESTION P-1748/99 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Understanding with respect to disciplines for the strengthening of investment protection of 18 May 1998 between the EU and the USA.
1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/21 Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (12 November 1999) The Commission is aware that present European and national legislation cannot deal properly with noise and vibration generated in neighbouring Member States. In particular, the Commission is aware of industrial sites and airports that are causing problems across borders and about the difficulties faced by local and national authorities handling these cases. The Commission believes that some harmonisation of noise legislation would considerably simplify the tasks of these authorities in seeking improvements. The Commissionís green paper on future noise policy (1) gave many reasons to undertake some harmonisa- tion of noise legislation. As a direct result the Commission is therefore considering presenting a directive on environmental noise exposure that will provide a basis for such harmonisation. A major element of such a directive would be the harmonisation of indicators and assessment methods. In order to have clarity in discussion and information exchange, other elements will be European wide noise mapping, local action plans, publication of data by the Commission and further improvement of the Community noise emission policy. The Commission hopes to present a proposal for such a directive to Council and Parliament in the course of 2000. The Commission has no intention at this time to include vibrations in such a proposal or to prepare a separate directive on that subject. (1) COM(96) 540 final. (2000/C 219 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1748/99 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (30 September 1999) Subject: Understanding with respect to disciplines for the strengthening of investment protectioní of 18 May 1998 between the EU and the USA On 8 January 1999, Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman of the US House of Representativesí Committee on International Relations, sent a questionnaire to Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan, in which Mr Gilman requested the trade commissioner, with regard to the granting of the waiver under paragraph II. 4 of the Understanding, to clarify certain áambiguousí formulations. 1. Has the Commission answered the above questionnaire and, if so, is it prepared to make it available immediately to the members of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (INDU)? Irrespective of whether the questionnaire has been answered, can the Commission give a brief summary of the progress made in this matter between EU and US institutions? Has the Understanding entered into legal force and, 2. authority? Have the national parliaments expressed their views on the Understanding? if so, on what legal basis and/or by what Has the US Congress granted the waiver in respect of Titles III and IV of the Helms-Burton Act and, 3. if so, for how long? What commitments has the Commission entered into in return? 4. What implications does the Understanding have for any prospective accession of Cuba to a post- LomØ Convention? What effects will it have within the European Union? C 219 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 Does the Understanding imply that the Commission accepts US extraterritorial legislation if European 5. firms are not affected thereby? 6. What is the new Prodi Commissionís position on the problematic issue of extraterritorial legislation? Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (21 October 1999) The former member of the Commission in charge of trade replied by letter of 4 June 1999 to Mr Gilmanís letter. A copy of this letter has been sent, at their request, to the members of the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy. Since the understanding on, inter alia, the Helms-Burton Act, reached with the United States on 18 May 1998 at the Community and United States Summit in London, the Commission has consistently pressed the American Administration on the question of the waiver to Title IV of the Helms-Burton Act which is the prime condition for the entry into force of the understanding. The Commission remains very concerned that no tangible progress has so far been made on this, without which the Community cannot ü of course ü deliver its side of the bargain. The understanding is of a political nature and does not in any way give validity to the illegal provisions of the Helms-Burton Act. On 25 May 1998, the General Affairs Council took note of the decisions and statements made at the 18 May Community and United States summit. As far as the Commission knows, no national parliament has expressed any opinion on the understandings. Accession to the LomØ Convention is a matter of negotiation between the applicant country and the other members of the LomØ Convention. The Community supports Cubaís request to join the LomØ Convention negotiations as an observer, without prejudice to any future decision on Cuban membership. As is made clear in the Commissionís reply to Mr Gilman, the Commission is opposed both in law and in principle to the imposition of secondary boycotts and legislation with extraterritorial effect and retro- activity. The understandings do not alter the Commissionís conviction that the Helms-Burton Act is contrary to international law and World trade organisation rules. This remains the Commissionís position. (2000/C 219 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1754/99 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Council (1 October 1999) Subject: Costs of employing Mr Hombach and his staff On 10 June 1999 EU foreign ministers appointed Mr Bodo Hombach Coordinator of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe. Can the Commission answer the following questions: 1. Which persons are on Mr Hombachís staff, and by which Member States have they been sent? 2. What are the staffing costs for employing Mr Hombach and his staff? 3. What proportion of the costs of employing Mr Hombach and his team comes from the EU budget? 4. What contribution does each Member State have to make towards the staffing costs? 5. Has the Federal Republic of Germany promised the other Member States that it will provide the majority of staff and bear the main share of staffing costs? 6. Have individual Member States indicated that they will not contribute to staffing costs? 7. How are staffing costs to be financed in the next few years?