You are on page 1of 2

C 137 E/132 Official Journal of the European Union EN 12.6.

2003

6. The problem referred to in the above questions was not covered in the evaluation made by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 3 March 2002 through 8 March 2002, that addressed
the reactor safety procedures and staff training in this respect. The IAEA recommendations do not address
the improvement of the safety system itself. The implementation of IAEA recommendations is progressing
according to plan and in close contact with the safety authorities. The ten year revision of the licence that
do include the re-assessment of the coolant leak scenarios, is not related to the IAEA evaluation and had
already been started more than a year prior to the IAEA evaluation.

7. The safety evaluation currently under way will be submitted to the competent safety authorities and
conclusions will be drawn. In addition, open consultations are held with the regional and local authorities.

(2003/C 137 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2899/02


by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Violations of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports

We have recently heard that the Belgian Delcredere service has granted a State guarantee for the contract
concluded between FN and the Government of Nepal to supply 5 500 mini-machine guns.

First and foremost, this violated the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, as the German Government had
not permitted this transaction, but the Belgian Government did. Moreover, the purchase price of
EUR 15,4 million will be paid even if the delivery does not go ahead.

Does this not constitute unfair preferential treatment of a private business and distortion of competition?

Does it not also undermine the agreements made in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports?

Reply

(18 February 2003)

The particular case raised by the Honourable Member has not been raised in the Council, but decisions
related to the granting of export licences are taken by each Member State individually taking full account
of the Code of Conduct and the criteria set out in it. The Code of Conduct does not provide for Member
States to give any information about the grounds on which export licences are granted or refused nor it
does not lie in the Council’s purview to pass judgement on any particular transaction. However, Member
States are required every year to inform the Council about their arms exports, on the basis of which an
annual report is produced. This allows for common assessment of the functioning of the Code.

(2003/C 137 E/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2908/02


by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Progress of infringement proceedings No 93/2212

With reference to the reasoned opinion (Article 226) on the failure to designate sufficient special
protection areas under Directive 79/409/EC (1).
12.6.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 137 E/133

Will the Commission say what progress has been made in the above proceedings?

Has it received any reply from the city of Madrid authorities on this matter?

What specific measures will it take to resolve this matter and ensure that Community law is observed?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission


(2 December 2002)

Following the Commission’s own-initiative institution of infringement proceedings and the sending of a
reasoned opinion to the Spanish authorities, the various autonomous communities have made a
considerable effort over the last two years to designate special protection areas for birds.

Examination of the designations notified to the Commission shows that a number of autonomous
communities have already complied with the requirements of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, others are close to complying and another group still
has a good deal of designation work to do.

The Madrid Community has already designated seven new special protection areas, with the result that
23 % of its territory now has special protection area designation.

The Commission will decide during this month what further action to take in these proceedings.

(2003/C 137 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2942/02


by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(18 October 2002)

Subject: Monitoring the implementation of rail projects in Greece

In reply to an earlier question of mine (P-3141/01 (1)) and a question by my colleague, Mr Folias
(P-3122/01 (2)), the Commission highlighted a number of problems encountered in carrying out projects
funded under the 2nd CSF to modernise the rail network in Greece and said that it would carry out checks
to ascertain whether Community appropriations had been properly used.

What stage has been reached with these checks and what conclusions have been drawn?

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 112.


(2) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 103.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission


(25 November 2002)

The Commission has not yet received the declaration and the related documents from the Member State
for the closure of the Operational Programme (OP) ‘Railways’ of the Community Support Framework
1994-1999 for Greece.

The Commission, assisted by outside experts, undertook an audit of ERGOSE in the period June-September
2002. As part of this, they also carried out a control of a number of projects financed by the OP ‘Railways’
1994-1999. A report on the results of this control will soon be sent to the Greek Authorities, which
should then communicate to the Commission their comments and observations. The Commission, after
having examined the comments of the Greek Authorities, will draw its final conclusions from the above
mentioned control.