ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1818/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Withdrawal of funding from the agricultural sector

The Commission's proposal to reduce agricultural spending in order to fund aid for the Balkan countries devastated by war has already provoked reactions in the farming sector in various countries.

Whilst applauding the decision to promote the recovery of those areas both politically and financially, one is bound to ask the Commission whether it does not consider that:

1. to withdraw funding from the agricultural policy would jeopardise the decisions taken in Berlin only a year ago in the context of Agenda 2000;

2. this reduction in appropriations would jeopardise the implementation of the forthcoming reforms in the rice, oil and fruit and vegetables sectors;

3. the major reform of the seed sector would suffer the same fate and the overall development of the European agricultural sector would be penalised?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

The support for democracy, peace and stability in the Kosovo region is a major challenge for the Union. For 2001 and 2002 the Commission has proposed a decrease of 300 million in the existing annual financial perspective ceiling for sub-heading 1a of the Community budget concerning common agricultural policy (CAP) excluding rural development, with a corresponding increase in heading 4 concerning external relations.

The most recent forecasts of agricultural expenditure have revealed an unused margin of 400 million for 2001. The new forecasts are based on present legislation and proposals already presented by the Commission. It is important to distinguish between the level of the financial perspective ceiling and the real funding requirements of the CAP. Since the proposal of the Commission is based on a revision of the budgetary previsions, the reduction of the level of the ceiling for sub-heading 1a does not imply a decrease of support to farmers nor a questioning of the CAP reform decisions taken in Berlin. In the Commission's view, the real budgetary needs of the CAP in 2001 will be below the existing ceiling by an amount which is sufficient to accommodate the reduction of 300 million. Planned reforms in the sugar sector should achieve an equivalent effect for 2002.

Based on the agreement reached at the Berlin European Council, any additional spending due to a reform or revision of a common market organisation until 2006, for instance for rice, olive oil, fruits and vegetables, would have to be financed by savings within the agricultural ceilings of the financial perspectives. Thus, the Commission's proposal concerning assistance for the Balkans does not alter the financial opportunities for further reforms or revisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2698/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Romania

1. What is the Commission's estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support policies were extended to Romania on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2692/00, E-2693/00, E-2694/00, E-2696/00, E-2697/00 and E-2698/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

To estimate the extra annual cost of agricultural support resulting from the access to the Community of Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania it would be necessary to know with a reasonable degree of certainty the date, the terms and conditions of the accession. These aspects will have to be defined in the accession negotiations with these countries, the agricultural chapter of which has not yet been opened for negotiation. Consequently, any cost estimate made on the basis of assumptions indicated by the Honourable Member would necessarily be of a highly hypothetical, speculative and uncertain nature. At the present stage of the negotiating process the Commission is therefore, not in a position to answer the questions asked by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2330/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: German backdated pensions tax

The German Government has recently requested of freelance teachers that they backpay 19,5 % of their income for the past four years into the state pension fund.

While recognising that it should be up to Member States to determine their own tax rates, can the Commission confirm whether in its opinion:

1. freelance teachers have been discriminated against unfairly in this process, and

2. retrospective taxation rises are not in breach of Community law?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 2000)

The Commission was not aware of the issue raised by the Honourable Member.

However, there is no prima facie evidence that Community law has been infringed. This could be the case if this request for contributions was discriminatory, either on the grounds of nationality or of sex.

It should be noted that the German authorities are requesting the payment of pension contributions which should give rise to benefit entitlements.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2247/00

by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Council

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Opus Dei and European officials' right to exercise discretion

On 19 June the secretariat of the Council of Ministers refused to allow the holding of a meeting on its premises organised by an association of officials, the Amicale de la pensée critique, on the question Do sects in general, and Opus Dei in particular, represent a threat to a democratic and pluralist Europe? on the grounds that it was incompatible with European officials' duty of discretion.

As, hitherto, European officials' duty to exercise discretion has been applied in relation to the protection of the interests of Member States of the Union, could the Council clarify which country's or countries' interests would have been adversely affected by holding the meeting in question?

Does the Council have a policy with regard to sects in Europe? If so, what is it?

Does the Council have a list of the organisations that are regarded as sects in the various Member States?

Does the Council believe that one or more countries regard Opus Dei as a sect?

What is the Council's policy with regard to officials who are members of sects?

Is the Council taking any action to prevent sect members organising inside the European institutions?

Who took the decision to prohibit the holding of the meeting in question?

Reply

(7 November 2000)

The first four questions raised by the Honourable Member have never been brought up before the Council.

The last three questions are obviously matters for the internal organisation of the General Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2555/00

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Council

(31 July 2000)

Subject: Mont Blanc tunnel

The Mont Blanc tunnel between Italy and France has been closed to traffic since 24 March 1999 following a tragic accident inside the tunnel which had terrible consequences.

According to recent reports, the supposed date for the completion of the work needed to reopen the tunnel with new safety standards, so as to prevent any repetition of serious accidents of this kind, is March 2001.

This road route, with the planned completion of the motorway being built on the Italian side, is already included in the trans-European road transport network, underlining its importance as a crossing through the Alps.

With a view to the reopening of the tunnel, and following the wide-ranging debate on the excessive amount of road traffic in the Alpine region fuelled by the tragic consequences of the fire in the Mont Blanc tunnel, two different positions have emerged. Some favour a total ban on heavy goods vehicles using the tunnel, while others are proposing a strict quota for such vehicles.

Furthermore, the Valle d'Aosta autonomous region and the Valais region have decided to relaunch the project to build a rail tunnel between Aosta and Martigny on the rail line from Milan (it has been included in the annex to the Italian finance bill for 2000), although it does not form part of the European transport priorities laid down so far.

Can the Council therefore confirm that the tunnel will reopen in March 2001? What improved safety standards will be introduced and what steps will be taken to control heavy goods traffic through the tunnel in the form of either a ban or the introduction of quotas?

Reply

(10 November 2000)

The Member States concerned have the information and are competent to answer the questions put by the Honourable Member. However, it should be borne in mind that the safety measures to be applied for the movement of lorries in the Mont Blanc tunnel will in any event still have to comply with Community law and in particular the principle of non-discrimination.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2128/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Reimbursement of medical expenses for Italian nationals abroad

The Ministerial Decree of 3 November 1989 (published in the Italian Official Gazette No 273 of 22 November 1989) concerning the criteria for using highly specialised health care facilities abroad makes provision for the partial reimbursement of expenses incurred by Italian nationals resident in Italy for health care which is unavailable in Italy.

Article 6, paragraph 11 states that 80 % of the travelling expenses of the patient and a companion may be reimbursed if air travel was authorised beforehand.

However, Article 1 of the Regional Decree of 15 March 1990 issued by the Region of Sicily states that the flat rate reimbursement for the travelling and subsistence expenses actually incurred and documented is to be 60 % of the total cost for those with an income of up to LIT 20 million per year, 50 % for an income of up to LIT 35 million and 40 % for an income of up to 50 million.

Does the Commission not consider that the Regional Decree apart from discriminating against Sicilian citizens who, if they have to use health facilities abroad cannot benefit from the above-mentioned refunds conflicts with Article 2 of the EC Treaty?

Can it take steps to put an end to this regrettable situation?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The Honourable Member's question concerns the rate of reimbursement of travel expenses, under a Sicilian Regional Decree, for Sicilian citizens who travel abroad to receive health care that is unavailable in Italy.

According to the Ministerial Decree of 3 November 1989, which lays down the criteria for obtaining treatment at highly specialised establishments abroad, Italian citizens resident in Italy are entitled to partial reimbursement of air fares, subject to prior authorisation, for themselves and, where applicable, an accompanying person, at the rate of 80 %.

By contrast, the Sicilian Regional Decree of 15 March 1990, in similar situations, stipulates a rate which varies between 40 % and 60 % of expenses actually incurred and documented, depending on the income of the person applying for reimbursement.

The Honourable Member's question concerns Italian national and regional legislation. As the persons concerned are Italian nationals, neither the EC Treaty nor Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community(1) is implicated. The matter involves a conflict of Italian law, which can only be dealt with by the national courts.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971 (most recent consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997)).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2062/00

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Requirement to purchase a plant protection manual from a private firm

The Finnish Ministry of Agriculture has decreed that every farmer must buy a plant protection manual from a private firm called Kasvinsuojeluseura ry (The Plant Protection Association). A separate manual has been drawn up for each crop, even for similar types of crop such as barley and oats. The manuals cost FIM 35 each. According to a ministry announcement, purchase of the guide is compulsory for farmers who wish to receive the agricultural environmental subsidy.

The Finnish agriculture ministry's requirement to purchase the manual seems pointless, since it would be quite possible for two or more farmers to use the same copy. It would also be possible to obtain the manual for public libraries and schools, which would make access to it cheaper for individual farmers. The information in the guide could further be placed on the Internet, where it would be easy for farmers to use it.

Because the requirement to purchase this manual seems to be no more than a way for a private firm to extort money from farmers with ministry support.

I should like to ask the Commission: can the receipt of agricultural aid, which is partly funded by the EU, be made subject to the condition that all farmers must purchase a booklet published by a private association?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

This action is part of the regional rural development programming document for areas outside objective 1 in continental Finland in the framework of agri-environmental measures, which is presently put to the Commission for approval on the 27 June 2000. The acquisition of the guide in question constitutes a useful and efficient component of the overall package of agri-environmental measures proposed in the programming document. The costs of the acquisition of these guide booklets are taken into account under the heading of the additional costs resulting from the commitment given. They thus constitute an integral part of the premium paid.

The body publishing these booklets is not a private enterprise, but a registered non-profit making organisation, the management board of which is composed of representatives from e.g. farmers' unions and rural advisory organisations. In addition, the sale price equals the production cost, i.e. there is no indirect subvention.

The Commission has therefore raised no objections to this proposal by Finland.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3024/00

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of safety standards in the field of decoration and dyeing

What measures does the Commission propose to take to harmonise safety standards in the field of decoration and dyeing?

Legislation in this area varies widely throughout Europe and is not always fully respected. The various solvents and colourings used can also trigger allergies or other medical problems.

Does not the Commission think that health protection standards at European level should be imposed in this field?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Dyes and paints used in decoration are normally mixtures of chemicals covered by Directive 1999/45/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations(1). Its predecessor Council Directive 88/379/EEC of 7 June 1988(2) remained in force in the national legislations of Member States until July 2000. These Directives harmonise the classification and labelling of preparations throughout the Community and thus provide harmonised standards regarding warning and safety advice for users of these products.

The Commission is aware of risks to health of certain dyes and is taking steps to reduce such risks in the framework of Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976(3) which provides for harmonised restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations. In that context the Commission presented in December 1999 a proposal to the Parliament and the Council for an amendment to this Directive introducing a ban on the use of certain azodyes that pose a risk of cancer(4). Such dyes would be banned in textile and leather articles that come in close and prolonged contact to the skin. In addition, the Commission is currently assessing the possible risks of cancer and allergy from other types of dyes.

In addition, the horizontal Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 harmonises the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work(5). It applies to all sectors and stipulates as one of the employers' obligations the evaluation of the risks to the safety and health of workers, inter alia in the choice of chemical substances or preparations used (Article 6.3).

(1) OJ L 200, 30.7.1999.

(2) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.

(3) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(4) OJ C 89 E, 28.3.2000.

(5) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2670/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Violation of press freedom in the Turkish-controlled northern part of Cyprus

The Denktash regime banned publication of the newspaper Avrupa two months ago and imprisoned the editor-in-chief, Sener Levent, along with five other Turkish Cypriot journalists, on charges of incitement to hatred of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the Turkish army, in violation of the principle of press freedom and human rights in the Turkish-controlled northern part of Cyprus. A further 75 charges were brought against them at the trial of 23 June, each bearing a five-year prison sentence. It might be recalled in this connection that, some time ago, the Turkish Cypriot journalist Kutlu Antali was murdered in the same area, and it might also be noted that all these incidents have occurred at a time when intense efforts are being made to achieve some progress in the procedure leading to Turkey's accession to the European Union, while at the same time involving the Turkish Cypriot side in the negotiations on Cyprus' accession to the EU.

Is the Commission aware of the above incidents? Will it take steps to secure the release of the six Turkish Cypriot journalists and the resumption of publication of the newspaper Avrupa and, more generally, will it exert pressure on Turkey and the Denktash regime to respect press freedom and human rights in the Turkish-controlled part of Cyprus?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The Commission is following closely the developments mentioned by the Honourable Member, as already indicated in its answer to Written Question P-1802/00 by Mrs Giannakou-Koutsikou(1). It is likely that the events in question will be considered in the forthcoming regular report of the Commission on Cyprus, due to be published in autumn 2000. This report, which reviews progress in the light of the Copenhagen criteria, including human rights, will include a special section dealing with the situation in the northern part of the island.

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 121.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2287/00

by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Illegal arms dumps and armed incidents in Kosovo

Having regard to the continuing uncertainty in Kosovo one year after the start of Operation Allied Force and subsequent to my recent visit to Kosovo, the Council is asked to answer the following questions:

1. How many illegal arms dumps have been discovered by UNMIK or KFOR since June 1999 in Kosovo:

- on the Albanian side, with what numbers of what weapons or other military equipment;

- on the Serb side, with what numbers of what of weapons or other military equipment?

2. What intelligence has been gathered on the existence of yet other illegal arms dumps in Kosovo?

3. How many armed incidents resulting in woundings and killings have been registered:

- on the Albanian side;

- on the Serb side;

- on the side of other ethnic minorities?

Reply

(20 November 2000)

The Council thanks the Honourable Member for his question and shares his concern at the discoveries of illegal arms dumps and the number of armed incidents.

The Honourable Member is doubtless aware that the EU has no direct responsibility with regard to respect for order and public safety in Kosovo. That is the task of the UNMIK Police Force and of KFOR, the international armed force led by NATO on the basis of the mandate given by Security Council Resolution 1244. However, the EU Member States make an important contribution to both forces in terms of both human resources and financial and technical assistance.

KFOR claims that, from its deployment to 25 April 2000, it collected more than 13 000 rifles, almost 2 500 pistols, 1 100 support weapons such as machine guns and mortars, more than 500 anti-tank missiles, a number of anti-aircraft weapons, some 30 000 explosive devices and more than 7 500 000 rounds of ammunition. Each day it destroys some 200 weapons. Since that date there have been repeated discoveries and confiscations of weapons, including inter alia the major discoveries made in four bunkers near the village of Klecke on 21 June and in the Ferizaj/Urosevac region on 31 July.

The Council welcomes those successes, which will help to increase security in a region where attacks on properties and persons are still frequent. The Council condemns the persistence of ethnic violence and urges the leaders of all the communities to commit themselves wholeheartedly to combating that violence.

However, the Council does not have the aggregate figures which the Honourable Member has requested of it for the total number of weapons confiscated or armed incidents.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3006/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Football

In view of the current interest in exempting football from some of the provisions of the Union Treaties, would the Commission care to offer a definition of the game, one which might exclude rugby football and American football from being able to introduce a transfer system?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

Sport is subject to Community law in so far as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 2 of the EC Treaty. The Court of Justice has pointed this out on several occasions since 1974(1). Sport therefore does not benefit from any general exemptions from the rules of the EC Treaty.

However, the Commission recognises that sport has certain specific characteristics, as it pointed out in the Helsinki report(2). This means that the rules of the game and, in a general sense, the purely sporting rules do not come under competition law. In the Helsinki Report, the Commission gave some indications of what is covered by the laws of the game.

As far as the transfer system is concerned, the Commission would point out that, following the receipt of complaints, proceedings are under way concerning FIFA's transfer system. It should be stressed that the Commission's objective is not to abolish the system completely, but rather to make it compatible with Community law, which means making certain changes.

In this context, football is not being given any special treatment, and the principles applied to it are also valid for all other sports. Consequently, any international sporting organisation may introduce rules concerning its sport, provided that they are in keeping with Community law. A transfer system is therefore not, in itself, incompatible with the rules of the Treaty. However, there is a need to examine the implementation arrangements on a case-by-case basis.

(1) Judgment of 12 December 1974, Walrave and Koch (Case 36-74, ECR p. 1 405) and Judgment of 14 July 1976, Gaetano Dona (Case 13-76, ECR p. 1 333).

(2) Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework The Helsinki Report on Sport (COM(1999) 644 final).