WRITTEN QUESTION E-1201/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Construction of residential tower blocks on the Ijmeer.
C 53 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 The proposal provides, under its article 7, a reduced minimum rate of excise duty to be applied Community-wide on diesel used as propellant in agriculture, the level of which should be fixed at first stage at 32 € per 1000 litres. This proposal should contribute considerably, if adopted, to the approxima- tion of taxation levels applied by individual Member States in the area of fuels used for agricultural purposes. This proposal has not yet been adopted by the Council. The Commission has made a considerable effort so far to make this adoption possible and has declared its willingness to examine compromise solutions aimed at reducing the economic effect on certain Member State economies. These may include provisions providing for arrangements such as reduced minimum rates of taxation for certain energy products, transitional periods or tax exemptions or reductions for energy intensive industries. Finally, on the issue of VAT, given the current conditions (no approximation of tax rates, numerous special arrangements, options, derogations), it is unlikely that any significant progress towards a single rate to be applied Community-wide will be made in the immediate future. VAT rates currently applied on diesel used for agricultural purposes vary between 12 and 25 %. (1) OJ L 316, 31. 10. 1992. (2) OJ C 139, 6. 5. 1997. (2001/C 53 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1200/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission (12 April 2000) Subject: The commune of Casarano On 21 March 2000 a demonstration was held in the commune of Casarano (in the province of Lecce), called Fifth day of remembrance and commitment in honour of the victims of Mafia-type organisationsí, sponsored principally by the European Commission. Can the Commission say how much and what form of aid it used to support this initiative? Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (27 June 2000) The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it provided no moral, financial or logistical support to the demonstration in question. Acting in a personal capacity, however, the Commission President lent his patronage to the event. (2001/C 53 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1201/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission Subject: Construction of residential tower blocks on the Ijmeer (12 April 2000) Luxury tower blocks are under construction in Almere in the area beyond the dyke along the Ijmeer. The Ijmeer is covered by the wild birds directive and the habitats directive and it is also part of the national ecological network. the Commissionís view that Is it demonstrated) building plans of this nature cannot go ahead? there is no overriding interest if (or at least if it has not been 20. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53 E/99 Is the Commission of the opinion that an overriding interest has not been demonstrated in this instance and that there are no plans for compensation? Does the Commission think that the plan in question should at least be frozen by the Dutch authorities until an overriding interest has been demonstrated and sufficient compensation is offered for loss of natural areas? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (17 May 2000) The Commission has not been informed about the project concerned including the construction of tower blocks in the municipality of Almere in the area beyond the dyke along the IJmeer. The IJmeer has been designated by the Dutch authorities as a special protection area (SPA) as defined in the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1). As an SPA the IJmeer is protected by Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2), in particular by Article 6(2), 6(3) and 6(4). According to Article 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC these provisions also apply to SPAs as defined in Directive 79/409/EEC. The construction of tower blocks near or within an SPA could be a project within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC that is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA. In that case the project has to be subjected to an appropriate assessment of its implications on the IJmeer, especially on the habitats and the species that are protected by Directive 79/409/EEC. If the conclusion of the assessment is that there will be negative implications, Article 6(4) applies. The responsibility for applying Article 6(4) lies primarily with the Member State. On the basis of the present information, the Commission cannot judge if there is an infringement of Directive 79/409/EEC or Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore it has sent a letter to the Netherlands asking for information about the project and its implications under Directive 79/409/EEC and Directive 92/43/EEC. The Commission will not take other steps at the moment, since interested parties can initiate legal proceedings against the municipality of Almere and additionally, the national authorities have legal instruments in the relevant national legislation to prevent the construction of the tower blocks if necessary. (1) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979. (2) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992. (2001/C 53 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1202/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (12 April 2000) Subject: Crisis in the apple-growing sector Cultivation of Jonagold apples is currently undergoing a crisis. Fruit growers in Limburg have been forced to sell below cost price. The problem is not confined to growers in the Flemish province of Limburg, but is apparent in other regions, too. Is the Commission aware of the crisis in the apple growing sector, with particular regard to 1. Jonagold? If not, will the Commission seek detailed information on the apple crisis? 2. Will the Commission take action to provide a solution to the apple crisis? If so, what action, and will it involve structural or emergency measures? If not, why is the Commission unwilling to take action?