ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1556/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Data on road safety in Greece

The Easter holiday exodus in Greece once again resulted in some 50 dead and 450 injured in various types of road accident. This is by no means a first-time occurrence; whenever people take to the roads in large numbers in Greece, such as at weekends and the main public holidays, the death toll is always high.

Provisional figures would indicate that Greece is one of the few Member States of the Union if not the one and only in which the number of people killed and injured in car accidents is not only not falling, despite all the efforts of recent years, but is steadily rising. Will the Commission, therefore, say whether it has any comparative data concerning road safety and its development in the various Member States? To what does it attribute the steadily rising trend in Greece?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The Commission is sending what figures it has directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. They confirm that, while the trend in the Community is one of improvement, Greece's road safety record is worsening.

The Commission does not possess detailed analyses of the situation in each Member State.

Factors contributing to Greece's particular situation include mass movement around major urban centres at the beginning and end of holiday periods, and the growth in the number of vehicles on the road, which is outstripping the road improvement programme.

Other factors include user behaviour (few Greeks wear safety belts or motorcycle helmets).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1395/00

by Hans-Peter Mayer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2000)

Subject: Investment subsidies for on-site cold stores

Pursuant to the Commission Decision of 22 March 1994 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products (94/173/EC)(1), certain sectors listed in an annex enjoy special priority, while other sectors are excluded from receiving subsidies.

Pursuant to the third indent of point 1.2 in the Annex, investments in cold stores for frozen or deep-frozen products, unless required for the normal operation of processing installations are expressly excluded from receiving investment subsidies. It therefore follows that, in the case of what are referred to as on-site cold stores, it is very likely that investment subsidies are actually made available.

Because such investment subsidies exist, it happens in practice that cold stores connected with the processing installations are deliberately constructed with a cold storage capacity which considerably exceeds the basic idea behind and the purpose of the said investment subsidies. This vast surplus storage capacity is then offered to third parties as commercial storage for frozen and deep-frozen products. The subsidies granted enable prices to be kept to a minimum, and that results in a substantial competitive disadvantage for commercial cold stores.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

What steps are planned to eliminate this distortion of competition?

(1) OJ L 79, 23.3.1994, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2000)

The respect of the selection criteria for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products pursuant to Commission Decision 94/173/EC of 22 March 1994 is part of the Commission Decision on the approval of single programming documents for Community structural measures for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products.

The recitals include the following obligation for the Member States: Whereas, during the implementation of the single programming document, the Member State will ensure that the individual projects included therein will conform with the selection criteria for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products currently in force, in application of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 951/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products(1).

The implementation of the aid scheme by the Member States includes the examination of the project proposals and the respect of the selection criteria by the authorities in the Member State or region.

If the Commission receives information which demonstrates that the approved conditions to grant aid are not respected, the Commission can take the appropriate measures foreseen in Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 which provides the modalities of the application of Article 88 (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty(2).

(1) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997.

(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1597/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Milk quotas

The basic principle underlying all Community rules on milk quotas is that the purchaser is to all intents and purposes the main actor in the system and is required to keep analytical accounts enabling each Member State to quantify quickly and accurately the production marketed during a given period and thus meet its commitments to the European Union. Does the Commission not think it would be useful to suggest a technical solution to Member States whereby intelligent accounting could be used to enable purchasers to notify an information system of each milk delivery made by producers?

The existence of surpluses would become apparent in real time enabling the administration to open the levy procedure so as to discourage production surpluses.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

Community legislation on milk quotas leaves it to Member States to select where certain matters are concerned the procedures most appropriate to their specific production conditions and administrative systems.

The Honourable Member's suggestion of imposing intelligent accounting (direct purchaser inputting to the Member State's central information system of each producer's delivery figures) would certainly be advantageous for rapid and reliable determination of the national delivery figure but clashes with operation of the subsidiarity principle as indicated above.

Community legislation does however require Member States to take all necessary action to ensure collection of the levy on quantities in excess of the guaranteed total quantity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1625/00

by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Civil war in Sudan

Various recent agency reports have indicated that the activities of foreign oil companies in the Sudan are exacerbating the civil war in that country, as government troops and allied militias are being deployed to protect the oilfields. These militias have been responsible for driving tens of thousands of villagers from their homes and for the abduction and murder of many men, women and children.

1. Can the Council confirm these reports, and what is its own assessment of these developments?

2. Would the Council state whether, to the best of its knowledge, any European oil companies are also operating in the Sudan, and if so, which ones?

Reply

(26 September 2000)

The Council remains convinced that a political solution to the conflict in southern Sudan must be found in the framework of the ongoing IGAD peace process. In its renewed political dialogue with the Government of Sudan, the European Union continues to urge the Sudanese authorities to fully respect the rules and principles of international humanitarian law and it encourages them to create an atmosphere conducive to substantial progress towards a negotiated and lasting peace in that country.

With regard to the activities of foreign oil companies in Sudan, the Council is aware of reports on this matter, such as the one issued by Amnesty International on 3 May 2000, but it has not yet made its own assessment of the issues at stake. The Council notes that, according to Amnesty International, several European oil companies are to various degrees involved in oil extraction in the Sudan, but for the reasons indicated above, it is not in a position to confirm or deny this information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1715/00

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Difficulties experienced by the Community fleet in Brazil

The Spanish national deep sea longliners' association (ANAPA) claims that Brazil is breaking World Trade Organisation rules by refusing to allow Community vessels to unload in its ports or to enter its ports, even to take on supplies or to seek medical assistance. Using ports in other countries costs the Community fleet an additional 12 million.

What are the Commission's views on these measures? What steps does it intend to take to put an end to such malpractice?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Commission notes ANAPA's claim but the information relayed by the Honourable Member is insufficient to enable it to assess the compatibility of the Brazilian authorities' prohibition with World Trade Organisation rules.

To allow the situation to be examined more closely and assessed in the light of WTO rules, ANAPA is invited to lodge a detailed complaint with the Commission under the procedure laid down in the Regulation on obstacles to trade (Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure exercise of the Community's rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation(1)).

(1) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2725/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Milking machines

What is the number of milking machines per hundred cows in each of the Member States?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2723/00, E-2724/00, E-2725/00, E-2726/00 and E-2728/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1016/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Access to essential drugs in developing countries

Does the Commission agree that dealing with complex issues, such as access to essential drugs, within the framework of the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), requires substantial technical knowledge at national level?

What plans does the Commission have to improve the capacity of, for example, the WTO to enable it to support those governments that lack the necessary technical expertise and require support in order to improve their negotiating capacity?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

The issue of access to medicine is indeed complex and covers a wide variety of aspects, such as development, health care, funding, transfer of technology, production capacity, and education. Intellectual property rights, and in particular the Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) continue to be given a prominent place in this debate.

The Commission considers that the issue of access to medicine has evolved towards a much wider issue of access to health. This problem can only be considered as a general health problem and not as a pure intellectual property rights issue. The key is probably the lack of purchasing power in developing countries.

The Community recognises the need to address the issue of access to medicine in a broad context and to promote a broader dialogue aimed at enhanced action which will have direct impact on the availability and access to essential medication for developing countries. It is also important that both the research and development (R&D) based pharmaceutical industry and generic producers are involved in finding solutions.

The Commission believes that in order to develop access to medicinal drugs for developing countries a global strategy should be considered including innovative financing mechanisms for drugs, more investment for R&D for diseases most affecting developing countries, and technical assistance to attain full benefit of the TRIPs provisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2564/00

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Abolition of visas for Bulgaria and Romania

On 26 January 2000 the Commission recommended the abolition of the requirement that Bulgarian and Romanian citizens be in possession of a visa in order to enter the fifteen EU Member States.

What practical measures have since been adopted in order to implement that proposal?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-2061/00 by Mr Gahrton(1).

(1) See p. 174.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1944/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Compatibility with the single European market of the golden share retained by the Spanish Government in the merger between Telefónica and KPN

The Spanish Government has made frequent use of the so-called golden share to prevent Spanish firms merging with foreign firms. Recent cases have included Telefónica and KPN and the block on the acquisition

of Hidrocantábrico by a company in which EDF (Electricité de France) was involved. The Court of Justice recently penalised Italy for use of the golden share. In the Commission's opinion, has the Spanish Government engaged in the same practices for which Italy was penalised in its use of the golden share?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

While according to the information supplied to the Commission, the Spanish government did not formally adopt any measure aiming at blocking the merger mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that the rights given to national authorities to veto certain major company decisions are, as a rule, not compatible with the EC Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital. The Court of justice has consistently maintained, that national measures liable, as it is the case for the right of veto in question, to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty must fulfil four conditions: they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; they must be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective they pursue; and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.

In this respect, the Commission opened infringement proceedings against Spain concerning the privatisation framework law (Law No 5/1995) and following the reasoned opinion delivered in July 1999, decided on 5 July 2000 to refer Spain to the Court of justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1333/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Commissioners' cabinets

Further to its reply to Written Question E-0254/00(1), will the Commission indicate the individual salaries of members of each cabinet and the tax rates paid?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 46.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

A table indicating, by grades, the distribution of staff (officials and temporary agents) in the current Commission's cabinets is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. As the Honourable Member will understand, for reasons of data protection it is legally not possible to publish the exact amount of salary in connection with the name of specific officials.

All Cabinet staff are paid in accordance with the salary scale of the Staff Regulations (officials or other servants). Full details of remuneration (including allowances, taxes and pensions) were provided in the the Commission's answer to Written Question E-2360/99 from Mr. Casaca(1) in January of this year. That answer includes a reference to a list of examples sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. Further information on the different allowances can be obtained from the Commission's answer in December last to Written Question E-2045/99 from Mr Titford(2).

As in the case of all officials and other servants of the European Institutions, the basic salary of the members of the cabinets is subject to a progressive tax. The maximum marginal tax rate is 45 %, and a temporary contribution of 5,83 % of a part of the salary is also levied.

The social security contributions which personnel are obliged to pay under the Staff Regulations are for pension: 8,25 % of the basic salary, illness: 1,7 % of the basic salary, accident: 0,1 % of the basic salary, and unemployment (for the temporary personnel): 0,4 % of the basic salary.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 53.

(2) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 76.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1704/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Ban on the docking of dogs' tails

Is the Swedish ban on the docking of dogs' tails consistent with the EU's internal market, given that there is no such ban throughout the EU?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

The Commission understands that the Swedish prohibition on the docking of dogs' tails is imposed for animal welfare reasons.

In the absence of Community legislation on this aspect of animal welfare Member States may in principle maintain their national rules subject to the respect of the general rules of the EC Treaty.

The Commission is currently not aware of any internal market problems resulting from the Swedish prohibition.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1835/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Trans-Pyrenean highway Navarre-Aquitaine

The Government of Navarre is studying the possibility of building a highway across the Pyrenees linking Pamplona/Iruña and Bayonne.

Does the Commission support this project, as is claimed by representatives of said regional government?

In view of the Navarre Government's failure to provide information, is the Commission aware of, or has it assessed, the enourmous environmental impact of said project?

Does the Commission not consider that there is a far greater need to improve the national highway N-121 and the railway connections?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

According to the information in the Commission's possession there is indeed a projected new highway linking Pamplona with Bayonne. However, this project does not form part of the trans-European transport network as defined in Decision No 1692/96 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. So far the Spanish and French Governments have not asked the Commission to alter the definition of network in order to add this project, which thus remains within the purview of the national authorities.

In accordance with the declaration made in 1996 the Commission is, at this stage, also analysing projected Pyrenean crossings using a central route and by reopening the Pau-Canfranc line with a view to including these in the trans-European network maps. The projected improvements to highway N-121 is a common-interest project within the trans-European network. That network must consist of high-quality roads. The Commission thus supports any project enabling that aim to be achieved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2314/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Seveso II directive

In answer to my oral question No 64 (H-0469/00)(1), the Commission stated that the scope of the Seveso II directive had been both extended and simplified. This means that the manufacture and storage of pyrotechnical substances, above certain threshold values, have been covered by this directive since 3 February 1999.

Are persons, organisations and/or firms which have been the victim of the non-adjustment of the Seveso directive within the deadline laid down by the Commission able to take legal proceedings against the Member State at fault with a view to obtaining compensation? If so, in what way should the persons or bodies concerned go about starting such proceedings? If not, why not, and what are the Commission's legal arguments for adopting this position?

(1) Answered in writing on 13 June 2000.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The right of an individual, an organisation or a firm, which has been damaged by late transposition of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances(1), to bring an action against and claiming damages from the respective Member State, is covered by the case law of the Court of justice on state liability.

The Court of justice has developed in its case law the principle that Member States are obliged to make good loss and damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which they can be held responsible under the conditions that the rule of Community law breached is intended to confer rights upon individuals, the breach is sufficiently serious and there is a direct causal link between the breach and the damage sustained by the individuals (cases 6/90 and 9/90, Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357, 5415; joined cases 46/93 and 48/93 [1996], ECR I-1029).

The means by which individuals may launch such a procedure, are also covered by the Court of justice's case law, according to which the individual may bring the claim before the national court in accordance with the national law on liability. However, the conditions laid down by the national laws must not be less favourable than those relating to similar domestic claims or framed in such a way as in practice to make it impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation.

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.