WRITTEN QUESTION E-0708/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Designation of the Danube water-meadows as a special conservation area under the flora and fauna habitats directive.
C 26 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 visit Moscow, where the EU Presidency will use the opportunity to express its views forcefully to the Russian side. And on 10 April the subject will be on the agenda of the Cooperation Council with Russia to be held in Luxembourg. The Council has repeatedly demanded that all human rights violations be investigated in a credible and transparent way, and that those implicated in atrocities be brought to justice. The President of the Council expressed deep concern about the situation in Chechnya in his statement on 29 March to the Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. In the Commission for Human Rights the Presidency, acting on behalf of the European Union, played an active part in the debate on human rights in Chechnya. It submitted a Resolution voicing deep concern at reports of gross, widespread and flagrant violations of human rights in Chechnya and calling for a national, broad-based and independent commission of inquiry to be set up. The Commission voted to adopt the Russian Presidential Special Representative for Human Rights. It expects him to contribute to bringing about justice in Chechnya, and restoring some faith in the law. The Council strongly calls on the Russian authorities to make this possible. is monitoring closely the work of Mr Kalamanov, the Resolution. The Council (2001/C 26 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0708/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (17 March 2000) Subject: Designation of the Danube water-meadows as a special conservation area under the flora and fauna habitats directive According to press reports, the Bavarian Government will only decide whether to designate the Danube water-meadows between Straubing and Vilshofen as a special conservation area for flora and fauna habitats once the question is settled of whether and how the Danube is to be developed. According to Court of Justice case-law, however, decisions on whether and within what boundaries special conservation areas are to be set up must be taken exclusively on nature protection (and not economic) grounds. 1. Is the Commission aware of the Bavarian Governmentís reprehensible attitude in this matter? 2. Does the Commission agree that the Danube water-meadows between Straubing and Vilshofen should be classified immediately as a protected area (under the EC directive on the conservation of birds) and designated as a special flora and fauna habitats conservation area? Is the Commission aware that the decision on the Danube development is to be taken this year, 3. when the current in-depth studies have been concluded? 4. Is the Commission aware that three of the four alternative Danube development plans that have so far been studied (Alternatives B, C and D) will destroy or seriously affect the áde facto protected area of the Danube meadowsí? 5. Is the Commission aware that, according to two new studies, Alternative A, which is environmentally acceptable and reasonably priced, will achieve comparable navigable depths to those in the central Rhine and the Wachau (with an almost constant channel width of 70 metres)? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (17 April 2000) 1. and 2. Considerable delays have been experienced in the designation by Germany, including Bavaria, of special protected areas according to Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and the proposal of sites of Community importance according to Council Directive 92/43/ EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The Commission has therefore launched infringement proceedings against Germany with regard to the correct application of both directives. In the first case an application to the Court of justice is currently under preparation, in the second the matter is already before the Court and a ruling is awaited. 26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/93 Furthermore the Commission is aware of the high value of the area concerned for nature conservation including the protection of wild birds as part of the important bird area (IBA) Donautal: Regensburg ü Vilshofení. This IBA has therefore been highlighted in the reasoned opinion sent by the Commission to the German authorities with regard to their failure to apply correctly Directive 79/409/EEC. The Commission is also aware of the outstanding Natura 2000 value under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC of the Alluvial plains of the Danube between Geisling and Vilshofení site. The information that the site is of particular importance for the priority habitat type of the alluvial forests and some non-priority fish species of the Danube is backed up by scientific studies. The Commission does not have the information to which the Honourable Member refers and is 3. to 5. therefore not in a position to comment further on the issue. The Commission takes the view that, once the Court has rendered its judgement, Germany is obliged to take the necessary measures to comply with the ruling. This includes ensuring respect of the procedures with regard to projects, which may have a significant effect on the area concerned. (1) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979. (2) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992. (2001/C 26 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0715/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (17 March 2000) Subject: Third-country resident ethnic entrepreneurs What steps is the Commission preparing to make it easier for third-country resident ethnic entrepreneurs to operate across the EU? Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (26 May 2000) The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that, as part of the Employment-Integra initiative, the Member States have implemented various projects aimed at nationals of third countries or persons belonging to ethnic minorities, who are resident in the Community and account for a dispropor- tionately high number of the unemployed and those in insecure and low-skilled jobs. Very few of these projects were, however, aimed specifically at entrepreneurial activity. Similarly, under the Employment- Now initiative, a number of projects have focussed on business start-ups by women, including those belonging to ethnic minorities. Furthermore, the purpose of the new Community EQUAL initiative (the guidelines for which were adopted on 14 April 2000 (1)) is to attack all forms of discrimination and inequality relating to the labour market. One of the major themes of the initiative is to open up business start-up procedures to all parties. On a more general between an enterprise acting as a legal person and an entrepreneur acting as a natural person. level regarding the activities of an entrepreneur, the distinction should be made When an entrepreneur who is a third country national has legally set up a company which has its registered office, central administration or principal place of business in a Member State, the company as such forms an integral part of the Member State under the terms of Article 48 (ex Article 58) of the EC Treaty, and benefits from the right of establishment (Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty) and the freedom to provide services (Article 49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty) within the internal market. However, the residence requirements for a third country national who is a manager or partner in such a company are not covered by Community law and are still governed by national legislation. On the basis of the new Title IV of the EC Treaty, it will be possible to adopt Community rules on the conditions of entry and residence for nationals of third countries for the purposes of paid employment or working in a self- employed capacity (Article 63(3)(a)), and on the rights under which nationals of third countries who are