WRITTEN QUESTION E-2436/99 by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission. Data-Protection Directive.
1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/161 Furthermore, the General Affairs Council has repeatedly called for intensified efforts by the Kosovars and the international presence to fight against organized crime in Kosovo. In this context, the Council welcomed, in its meeting on 6 December, the intention of the Commission to include the fight against organized crime in its programming for assistance to Kosovo in the year 2000 and invited member States to identify appropriate assistance in this field. (2000/C 219 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2432/99 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Reintroduction of wolves, bears and lynx Will the Commission say whether there are any specific measures in progress (co-financed or not) to reintroduce wolves, bears and lynx? Have any measures been co-financed in the past for this purpose and are there any plans to do so in the near future? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (11 January 2000) Many projects have been financed under the financial instrument LIFE-Nature and its predecessors since 1988 aiming either directly or indirectly at the conservation of wolf, brown bear and lynx. In particular the wolf has been one of the species targeted in 21 projects, the lynx in 14 and the brown bear in 17. These projects certainly represent the major Community investment for the protection of these species. Further to that, Member States may have taken similar or complementary initiatives in the framework of other Community funds. Other projects for the conservation of these species may be financed in the future under LIFE III, provided good quality projects are presented for this purpose. (2000/C 219 E/205) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2436/99 by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Data-Protection Directive Is the Commission aware that, owing to disparities in implementation at national level of the 1995 EU Data-Protection Directive, national data-protection laws are prejudicing cross-border trade and that this will have a considerable impact on the development of e-commerce within the EU? One example is the extension of the scope of data-protection laws to cover not only personal data, as envisaged by the Directive, but also the processing of corporate data. Does the Commission plan any action to limit the damage to the principle of the internal market caused by excessive ágold-platingí of the Directive on its transposition by the Member States? C 219 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (28 January 2000) The Commission takes the view that Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1), to which the Honourable Member refers, is of key importance to the development of electronic commerce. The Directive is designed to enable personal data to move freely between Member States whilst ensuring throughout the Community a high level of protection for individualsí fundamental rights, including their right to privacy. Such protection is necessary if consumers are to have confidence in the use of on-line services and if electronic commerce is to expand accordingly. The Commission is therefore keeping a close watch on the transposal of the Directive into national legislation. As transposal has not yet been completed in several Member States, the Commission has initiated proceedings against them for failure to meet their Community obligations. As things stand, the Commission does not have any information on the disparities to which the Honourable Member refers. Such disparities may arise from the fact that the Directive has not been transposed. If the margin for manoeuvre which the Directive leaves to Member States, particularly as regards the extension of protection to corporate data as referred to by the Honourable Member, were to present obstacles to the proper operation of the internal market, the Commission would not fail to draw the necessary consequences. (1) OJ L 281, 23. 11. 1999. (2000/C 219 E/206) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2438/99 by W. G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission (13 December 1999) Subject: Consequences of the rejection of the French Electricity Bill for the internal market After the French National Assembly had passed the Electricity Bill at first reading on 2 March 1999, the Senate rejected it on Thursday, 18 November 1999. Formally, the European electricity directive ought to have been transposed into national law as of 18 February 1999. In view of the Commissionís reply to previous questions by the undersigned, what implications is the 1. rejection of the legislation likely to have for the liberalisation of the European electricity market? 2. The rejection of the Electricity Bill in France will distort the internal market for electricity in the European Union. Bearing in mind, inter alia, that the European directive ought to have been transposed into national law by 18 February, and that France is the only EU Member State which has not yet complied with this requirement, legal proceedings against France would be appropriate. However, such proceedings are likely to be protracted, and will not, therefore, remedy the situation in the near future. What will the Commission do in the short term to prevent distortion of the internal market for electricity? 3. Has the French Government informed the Commission of the situation, and has the Commission been informed how the French Government intends to prevent any obstacles to the internal market as soon as possible and what practical measures the French Government intends to take, in consultation with the Commission, to reduce the distortion of the internal market to a minimum?