ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2288/99

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Exotic animals

Council Regulation (EC) 338/97(1) of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein contains provisions governing the trade in and transport of species of wild fauna and flora. The number of animals which die during transport is to be monitored by the Community, and where appropriate import restrictions may be imposed.

How many animals of what species have died during transport since the entry into force of Regulation 338/97?

Have import restrictions been imposed in this connection?

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Under Article 39 3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 939/97 of 26 May 1997 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of

wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein(1), Member States maintain where possible records of the percentage of specimens of species listed in Annexes A and B to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, which were dead on arrival in the Community.

The establishment of these percentages has appeared to be difficult at Community level. However, most of the Member States, in order to improve the monitoring of the mortality rate of live animals concerned, are participating now in an investigation programme proposed by the CITES animal committee by which customs involved in inspection of live specimens have to declare mortality at the time of import for a selected number of more frequently traded mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Information provided under this monitoring system should be available as from this year.

Information gathered by the Belgian customs authorities during the period 1994-1996 revealed a mortality percentage for all bird species of 3 % (with a mortality rate for parrots of 1 %) and mammals near 0 %.

No import restrictions based on the criterion of mortality during transport have been envisaged up to now.

(1) OJ L 140, 31.5.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2227/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Purchasing power parities

Using the latest available Eurostat data, what are (a) the GDP purchasing power parities in euros for each of the EU Member States and (b) the tradeable sector purchasing power parities in euros for each of the EU Member States (using, if no better measure is available, the PPP figures for manufacturing).

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The purchasing power parities (PPPs) resulting from price comparison between the Member States and other participating countries are finally expressed in such a way that the total Gross domestic product (GDP) of the 15 Member States, or of whichever sub-GDP aggregate is being compared, is the same whether it is expressed in euro or in standardised parities. The standardised parities reflect the price level differences in relation to the average of the 15 Member States.

PPPs are calculated on the basis of the classification of final expenditure. Consequently, there is no set of PPPs available particularly for the tradable sector or for the manufacturing sector but the PPPs for individual household consumption expenditure and for gross fixed capital expenditure may give an indication of the magnitude of the PPPs for these sectors.

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

Price level indices which are based on PPPs indicate the price level in each Member State relative to the average of the 15 Member States.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2004/99

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(9 November 1999)

Subject: State aid to the Terra Mítica theme park in Benidorm (Alicante) and its compatibility with the common market

In 1997 an organisation known as the European Theme Park Association, of which the company which runs Port Aventura was a principal member, lodged a complaint against the construction of the Terra Mítica theme park in Benidorm on the basis that the project was receiving state aid from the Valencian government.

Despite the fact that a considerable period of time has elapsed, no notice of any decision has been received.

Does the Commission believe that state aid incompatible with the common market has been granted to the Terra Mítica project in Benidorm?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 1999)

The Commission has examined closely the complaint referred to by the Honourable Member. It has held several meetings with the complainant, the Spanish authorities and representatives of Terra Mitica. In addition, it has written eleven letters to the Spanish authorities and the complainant and has received twenty-eight replies. This extensive correspondence and the considerable period of time that has elapsed are attributable, on the one hand, to the number of objections notified and the complexity of some of them (valuation of capital contributions and promotion of the theme park, for example) and, on the other, to the fact that the objections have been notified by the complainant over time.

The Commission has not yet come to the conclusion that aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) (former Article 92(1)) of the EC Treaty has been granted by the Valencian government and the municipality of Benidorm to the Terra Mitica association. A final decision on this matter will be taken as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1998/99

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(9 November 1999)

Subject: Cyprus and EU accession

Cyprus is an applicant country: its economic performance is enviable and its per capita GNP can compare with that of the most advanced countries in the Union. On 31 March 1998 the EU began accession negotiations with this country. Given that 18 months have now elapsed since that date, will the Council

say what progress discussions have made so far as regards the incorporation of the acquis communautaire in the legislation of Cyprus and Cyprus' position compared to that of the other five applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe? When are the accession negotiations due to be completed? Finally, if it deems that Cyprus meets all the preconditions, will the Council give assurances that it will be accepted as a full member, even if the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey continue to refuse to contribute to a solution to the Cyprus problem?

Reply

(31 January 2000)

Progress with Cyprus in the accession negotiations has been above average so far, with around a third of the total negotiating chapters not requiring further negotiations for the moment. Furthermore, the European Council in Cologne expressed its firm resolve to open negotiations in all chapters as early as possible next year.

As is the case for the other candidates, the date for the conclusion of the accession negotiations and the subsequent accession of Cyprus depends on its progress in preparing for membership and on the Union's ability to assimilate new members.

Finally, the Council reiterates its belief that Cyprus' accession to the EU should benefit all communities, including the Turkish Cypriot community, and help bring about civil peace and reconciliation on the island. It trusts that progress towards accession and towards a just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem will naturally reinforce each other.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2444/99

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Early retirement scheme

Has the Commission made a decision as to when farmers will be paid compensation following the 5,055 % reduction in the Early Retirement Pension Scheme arising from the introduction of the Euro in January 1999 to participants who joined the scheme prior to 1998?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question No E-2170/99 by Mr McCartin(1).

(1) See page 110.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2471/99

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Agencies for European programmes in Belgium

1. Is it correct that the Commission is planning to merge the three agencies in Belgium responsible for implementing European programmes in the areas of education and training and further training (for the Flemish-, French- and German-speaking communities respectively) into a single agency which will be responsible for the whole of the country?

2. For how much longer will the system involving the three agencies definitely remain in place?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

A draft Commission Decision on the provisions relating to the responsibilities of the Member States and of the Commission vis-à-vis the national agencies has been prepared and will shortly be submitted to the College for adoption. This instrument aims to establish a single Community framework for implementing the three Community action programmes in the fields of education, vocational training and youth for the period 2000-2006. In particular, it lays down the principles concerning the responsibilities of the Commission and of the countries participating in the programmes involving the national agencies.

The instrument indicates clearly that the national agencies will be created and appointed by the authorities in the participating Member States, as the Commission has no jurisdiction in this area. While it is true that the Commission encourages Member States to set up a single national agency, the decision concerning the number of agencies and the form they take remains fully within the competence of the participating Member States.

Moreover, the particular institutional characteristics of Belgium, in particular the fact that the areas relating to the programmes fall exclusively within the competence of the federal bodies, have been fully recognised, and an explicit derogation has been provided in the text.

In view of these facts, if the Honourable Member would like further information concerning the future organisation of the agency or agencies in Belgium, he should contact the Belgian representatives in the programmes' committees, who are appointed by the national authorities. The Directorate-General for Education and Culture will be happy to provide the addresses of the members of the committees.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1867/99

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Norwegian tariffs on processed reindeer meat

Traditionally, reindeer meat has been exported from Finnish Lapland to Norway. From the point of view of the development of the industry, it would be desirable for some of the meat to be exported in processed form and not simply as meat.

Norway protects its meat-processing industry by means of high customs and import duties. Those on unprocessed meat are temporarily reduced when the Norwegian meat-processing industry requires raw materials. As a result, processing of reindeer meat is not viable in Finland.

What will the Commission do to prevent such selective imposition of duties being used to distort competition within the EEA?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Trade in agriculture and fisheries products (defined as products falling outside chapters 25 to 97 of the Harmonised commodity description and coding system) is excluded from the scope of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement by its Article 8.

The EEA is not a customs union, so there are no common rules on the alignment or harmonisation of customs duties or practices. There is therefore no legal basis under which the Commission can take measures to persuade Norway to alter its tariff structure.

There is a possibility within the EEA Agreement (Article 19) for the negotiation of supplementary bilateral liberalisation in agricultural trade. However, a request for reform of the Norwegian tariff structure would undoubtedly result in a reciprocal demand from Norway for a reduction in the Community tariff. The Commission therefore does not consider that this course would be wise at present.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2161/99

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) and Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Reimbursement of travelling expenses of representatives of twinned communities in Europe

When local authorities in different European countries enter into a partnership, for example to put across the European idea and to get to know each other's habits and customs, representatives of the towns and cities involved regularly visit each other. If two local authorities take part, under the present system their representatives' travelling expenses are reimbursed at the rate of EUR 0,03 per kilometre if at least 10 representatives per local authority take part and if the distance travelled is at least 250 kilometres. If more than two local authorities are involved, the requirement is still that there should be at least 10 representatives of each local authority.

What is the Commission's view of the value of cooperation between more than two European local authorities, rather than between two?

Why does the Commission impose the requirement of 10 participants per local authority even if the partnership is between more than two local authorities?

To what extent does the Commission intend or is it prepared to review the system of reimbursing the travelling expenses of representatives of partner communities and, if so, in what way?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 1999)

The memorandum concerning Financial assistance from the European Commission for town twinning indeed stipulates that exchanges involving fewer than 10 participants from the invited local authority are not eligible. This condition applies regardless of whether one or more local authorities are invited.

For 1999, the grant for travel costs has been set at a maximum of EUR 0,04 per person and per kilometre (return journey).

A minimum number of participants from the local authority or authorities invited is required in order to ensure that meetings between twinned local authorities are open to as many of the local population as possible. For the same reason, it is required that the exchanges do not involve mainly local councillors or local officials.

The Commission is aware that it is more difficult to meet these conditions when several local authorities are invited by the host town.

However, it cannot take responsibility for discarding the fundamental aim of greater involvement of European citizens in the meetings of twinned local authorities. Otherwise, it would not be possible to achieve the aim of the programme of assistance for town twinning, taken up by the Honourable Members, to put across the European idea and to get to know the habits and customs (of the different countries) mldr
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2719/99

by Ieke van den Burg (PSE), Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou (PPE-DE), Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE), Jo Leinen (PSE), Colette Flesch (ELDR), Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE), Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE), Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE), Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE), José Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado (PPE-DE), Sylviane Ainardi (GUE/NGL), Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE), Graham Watson (ELDR), Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos (PPE-DE), Gérard Deprez (PPE-DE), Martine Roure (PSE), Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), Marie-Hélène Gillig (PSE) and Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Poverty and social exclusion

Article 137 of the Treaty of Amsterdam provides for the establishment of a programme to combat poverty and social exclusion. When will the Commission adopt such a programme? How does the Commission plan to prepare such a programme in conjunction with the NGOs concerned? How does the Commission propose to ensure that everybody has equal access to basic human rights?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

The Commission intends to present a Community action programme to support the efforts of Member States to promote social inclusion, based on the provisions in Article 137 (ex Article 118) EC Treaty, during the first half of 2000.

The special meeting organised in Lisbon by the Portuguese Presidency in March 2000 on economic reform, employment and social cohesion will create an opportunity to reaffirm at the highest political level that the Community is entering the new century with renewed ambition to build a more inclusive society. The Commission will contribute to this meeting, and will subsequently present a proposal for an action programme.

The Commission has already launched a broad consultation with Member States (through the high level group on social exclusion) and civil society organisations during 1999. In May, the Commission organised a round table conference Towards a Europe for all: how should the Community support Member States in promoting social inclusion? In this two-day conference, nearly 200 participants, including non-governmental organisations, were able

to express their views and make proposals. Copies of the background document and the final report of the conference are sent directly to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat general of the Parliament.

The consultation process also confirmed that action to combat social exclusion is seen as an important means for improving conditions of access of fundamental rights. It is the Commission's intention to reflect this in the aims of the programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2086/99

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Irregularities in the European call for tenders by the Rome municipal authority for the supply of uniforms for the municipal police

In February, the Chinese company YuYi won the European bidding for the supply of uniforms for the municipal police in Rome. Despite the presence of textile experts and production test samples and despite the impartial opinions of the Chamber of Commerce, the fabric of the sample uniform was found to be different from that described in the procurement order, which, it would appear, is impossible to create! Furthermore, other swindles have been uncovered, such as the 90 % price increase for the reams of paper and the 80 % increase for staples. The matter is all the more cause for concern in that the Chinese company is a front for the much better-known company Balloon, in which the former brother-in-law of the Mayor of Rome, Mr Rutelli, is a partner.

Can the Commission intervene in order to investigate the irregularities in the above procurement procedure and subsequently inform Parliament of its findings?

Can the Commission adopt the necessary measures for monitoring European tenders to ensure that they are conducted in compliance with the rules and to ensure that the contracts are awarded to specialist firms rather than firms that are unable to carry out what is required of them?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1999)

As a result of the honourable Member's information, the Commission plans to ask the Italian authorities for all relevant information in order to assess the compatibility of the supply contract for police uniforms for the City of Rome with Community law on public contracts. With this in mind, the Commission is preparing a letter to be sent to the Italian authorities requesting clarification of the exercise.

If, in the light of this information, it turns out that the procedures applied are incompatible with Community law, the Commission could start the proceedings for failure to fulfil an obligation laid down in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

At any rate, the Commission will of course inform the honourable Member of the outcome and of the conclusions it might reach after considering the information provided by the Italian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2072/99

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Ban on tobacco advertising, freedom of the press

Is it true that, in connection with the transposition of the directive concerning the prohibition of tobacco advertising, the two Member States Britain and France intend, once this directive has been transposed in their countries, to prohibit the distribution of magazines originating from countries in which there is no ban on tobacco advertising or where the directive has not yet been transposed if these publications carry tobacco advertising?

How does the Commission view this against the background of the guarantee of the freedom of the press?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 1999)

The Commission is not aware of the intentions of two Member States to restrict circulation of press carrying tobacco advertising.

If such cases were brought to its attention, they would be considered in the framework of Directive 98/43/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products(1).

However, concerning the press, this Directive has only to be transposed into national law until 30 July 2002.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1564/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Commission recovery orders

For years the Commission has been requesting reimbursement from recipients of Community funds who have not complied with the rules on the use of such funds.

Can the Commission say how many recovery orders per project are pending and how long each recovery procedure has been going on?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 1999)

In the revenue and expenditure account and balance sheet the Commission provides information about debt recovery in relation to sundry debts, i.e. all debts other than own resources. An extract from the revenue and expenditure account (pages 38 to 43 of Volume I, Part 1) is being sent to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

As there are a great many debts outstanding, this information can only be taken as an overview, with a breakdown by major area of activity.

Sundry debts comprise general debts and debts giving rise to a recovery procedure for failure to comply with the rules on the use of Community funds. As regards the second of these categories, a distinction needs to be made between debts arising out of direct Commission expenditure (managed directly by the Commission), where recovery is carried out by the Commission's own departments, and debts arising out of other expenditure, where recovery is initiated by the Member States.

With the present reporting system under Sincom2, there is no way of conducting an individual and ongoing analysis of progress on all the Commission's projects and the debts associated with them.

The Commission is able to trace the history of each debt and identify the debts associated with each particular project. The amount of research needed to answer the Honourable Member's questions in detail, however, would be out of proportion to the result which they seek to achieve and would go beyond the limits of a reply to a written question.