WRITTEN QUESTION E-0552/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Compliance with the environmental protection laws with regard to the Mugello borrow pit.
26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/61 Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (3 April 2000) The Commission does not have a general record of which officials were provided with tickets, whether paid for or free of charge, for the football World Cup. However, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer to Written Question E-2342/99 in respect of officials working in the Competition Directorate General. The general rules relevant to gifts to officials working in all EU Institutions are in Article 11 of the Staff Regulations which state that officials áshall not without permission of the appointing authority accept from any source outside the Institution any decoration favour, gift or payment of any kind whatever . í The Commissionís internal rules (delivered to the Commission staff on 19 February 1996 with Adminis- trative Notice No 926) set out criteria for publications, speeches and gifts. They make clear that officials should discourage the offering of gifts, but provide, inter alia, that ástaff may be allowed to accept gifts worth less than Ecu/Euro 250í. They further state that trips or weekends away organised by a third party can only be allowed if the attendance of the official is in the Commissionís interest. it is clear that not all However, invitations meetings or events, which may include meals, should be regarded as gifts or favours within the meaning of Article 11. Meetings, events and other informal contacts between senior officials and industry, Member States or third countries often include invitations. Such contacts may well be relevant to the fulfilment of officialsí tasks. Moreover, within reasonable limits, they may also be considered as part of the representational duties of senior officials. The Commission therefore does not believe that acceptance of invitations to football matches or similar events necessarily constitutes a breach of the rules or automatically risks compromising the independence or integrity of officials. Clearly, if evidence was provided that an attempt had been made on any occasion to compromise the integrity or independence of an official, or that an officialís obligation of duty had been breached as a consequence of the provision of tickets or hospitality, the appropriate action would be taken. So far as changes in working practices are concerned: In the Action Plan which was adopted as part of the Reform Strategy White Paper on 1 March 2000, the Commission announced that it would ácodify and simplify the texts implementing the Staff Regulations in order to ensure transparency and fairnessí in their application. The Commission intends to review its guidelines in this context. Since the Staff Regulations apply to all EU Institutions the Commission believes that there should be common rules to assist officials and their superiors in dealing with cases such as the one referred to by the Honourable Member. It will therefore present new draft guidelines to the Heads of Administration with a view to reaching an inter- institutional agreement. (2001/C 26 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0552/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (29 February 2000) Subject: Compliance with the environmental protection laws with regard to the Mugello borrow pit A project has been drawn up for the excavation of a large borrow pit in Galliano di Mugello (Florence province), which will also involve the setting up of a crushing plant for the Bologna-Florence mountain bypass. The site of the pit is not included in any general development schemes or plans. The Territorial Plan for Provincial Coordination (PTCP) defines the area as a ávulnerable area which has already been damaged by flooding and which is still subject to such risksí. C 26 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 The two streams near the site ü Taviano and Sorcella ü are subject to the environmental constraints of Law No 431/85 (the so-called Galasso Law) and the scheme would also ruin the Gabbianello ornithological lake project, which is nearing completion and which was funded by public money. Furthermore, the site is in an area at high risk of earthquakes, as many studies have shown, and the choice of site conflicts with the Italian Ministry of the Environmentís árules and guidelinesí on the choice of location for pits and landfill sites, published in 1993. Near the area, there is a medieval 13th century bridge which is already in a somewhat precarious state and which is governed by existing laws on the cultural and architectural heritage; there are also several listed historic buildings. Lastly, the site is in an áarea of great importance for rural tourismí (Regional Council Decision No 104/ 1989) and even though the Town Council of Barberino voted against the excavation of the pit, the project still seems to be going ahead. In the light of the above, what action does the Commission intend to take to ensure compliance with the numerous laws on the protection of the environment and the architectural heritage and town planning? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (7 April 2000) The project for the excavation of a large borrow pit in Galliano di Mugello (Florence) mentioned by the impact Honourable Member, falls within Annex II of both Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on environmental assessment (EIA) of certain private and public projects and Directive 97/11/EC (2) which modifies Directive 85/337/EEC. Directive 85/337/EEC establishes that certain public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment, by virtue inter alia, of their nature, size or location, are made subject of an assessment with regard to their effects. Classes of projects covered by the directive are listed in the two Annexes. Article 4(2) states: Projects of the classes listed in Annex II shall be made subject to an assessment, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10, where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. Pursuant to Directive 97/11/EC, for projects listed in Annex II, Member States are obliged to determine, through a case-by-case examination, or thresholds or criteria set by the Member State, whether the project is to be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. The EIA legislation of Regione Toscana (Legge Regionale 3 novembre 1998, n. 79) is stricter than the directives and provides that borrow pits are automatically made subject to an EIA procedure. An EIA procedure covers and assesses the environmental aspects mentioned by the Honourable Member. Given the lack of specific grounds of complaint on the application of the EIA procedure to the specific case, no breach of the two mentioned directives can be identified at present. (1) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14. 3. 1997. (2001/C 26 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0564/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (29 February 2000) Subject: Tax on profits Will the Commission indicate the percentage rate on company profits in each Member State and also indicate any estimates that have been made recently of the effective rate of such tax after allowing for exemptions and allowances in each Member State?