ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0956/00

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

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Abandonment of cultivated land

The gradual loss of income which has been affecting nut producers in Catalonia has resulted in an ongoing process of abandonment of cultivation in the countryside of the region, amounting over the 1990s to 39,4 % of all cultivated land. This process of rural dereliction is creating social and economic problems and increasing fire and soil erosion risks.

What measures does the Commission intend to take for repopulation and conversion of production in the rural areas of Catalonia and to ensure that cultivated land is no longer left abandoned? Does the Commission intend to dedicate structural measures to this end?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2000)

The new rural development policy adopted by the Council in June 1999 has become the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. An essential element of the European model of agriculture, it aims by promoting job maintenance and creation to provide a solid and sustainable framework securing the future of rural areas. The main policy foci are a stronger agriculture and forestry sector, greater competitiveness on the part of rural areas, and protection of the environment and rural heritage.

Among the structural measures included in Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(1) are aid for afforestation of agricultural land, compensatory allowances in less favoured areas and areas with environmental restrictions, and agri-environmental aid. These should help meet the Honourable Member's concerns. Agri-environmental measures for the period 1995-1999 presented by Spain and approved under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of protection of the environment and maintenance of the countryside(2) already permitted aid to nut growers on the terms set in the relevant programmes.

As is fully consonant with the subsidiarity principle, it falls to Member States to present their rural development programmes. For non-Objective 1 zones such as Catalonia EAGGF Guarantee aid may be requested for structural action as indicated above. In addition to the action envisaged, programmes must describe the situation in the zone, its specific problems, and the proposed strategy and its priorities.

Spain's proposed rural development programmes, presented on 30 December 1999, are under examination in the Commission. Early approval is expected.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1698/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Number of civil service committees

In 1997, the Commission calculated that 424 civil service committees took between 4 000 and 5 000 decisions per year.

How many civil service committees does the Commission have at present and how many decisions does the Commission estimate that they took in 1999?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

There are currently 242 committees, made up of representatives of the Member States, which assist the Commission in exercising its executive powers.

In 1999, these committees gave more than 2 500 opinions on draft implementing measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2110/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Item A-3027

Item A-3027 allocates 1 500 000 of Community funds to the International Centre for European Training.

Could the Commission specify what this training entails and who receives it?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

The budget line A-3027 covers a financial contribution to the training programme (courses, seminars, study sessions, colloquia and conferences), to publications and to research in the field of European integration, according to an action plan established by the Centre International de Formation Européenne (CIFE), 35-37 Rue des Francs-Bourgeois, F-75004 Paris whose directorate general is located at 10 Avenue des Fleurs, Nice.

The programme comprises principally European study sessions at different universities, summer courses, international seminars, new sessions of European studies, colloquia and conferences on European current affairs. Students, teachers and professionals participate in this training programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1886/00

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Discontinuation of the ECIP programme

The Commission submitted a proposal for a regulation to Parliament and the Council for the discontinuation of the financial instrument ECIP as of 31 December 1999.

Can the Commission explain why applications submitted before that date have not been considered?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

While recognising the success of the European Community Investment Partners (ECIP) instrument in recent years, its closure has been judged necessary

in view of the need to rationalise the system of rules underpinning various instruments (Al-Invest, Meda-Invest) and the reforms embarked on by the new Commission to ensure the sound management of Community resources and reduce the risks and complexity of the programmes financed.

To cover the management and technical assistance costs arising from the closure of existing ECIP operations, the Commission has proposed that the Council and the Parliament adopt a legal basis in the form of a regulation. That regulation is intended to confine the budget's use for the financial supervision of operations specifically covered by contracts concluded before 31 December 1999, technical assistance and the audits necessary for the closure of the ECIP. This means that no operation has been appraised, approved or contracted since 31 December 1999. By the same token, projects submitted prior to that date, but for which no contracts were signed, have had to be abandoned. The Commission has formally notified the financial institutions and other beneficiaries directly concerned by the decision.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1504/00

by Ilka Schröder (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Entry into force of EU-Mexico trade agreement

The EU-Mexico trade agreement, signed on 23 March 2000 in Lisbon, is to enter into force on 1 July 2000. In Mexico, presidential elections are to be held on 2 July 2000.

1. Does the Commission consider that fixing the entry into force of the EU-Mexico trade agreement for that date will influence the outcome of the Mexican presidential elections?

2. Was the date of entry into force deliberately fixed so that the agreement would enter into force immediately before the Mexico elections?

3. Will it be possible for the date of entry into force of the EU-Mexico agreement to be postponed to prevent the agreement from being abused by the Mexican party of government as an electioneering ploy?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

1. The Commission considers the presidential elections in Mexico to be an internal matter of Mexico.

2. The rhythm of negotiations and conclusion thereof depends on the possibility of both parties involved to find a mutually satisfactory package, and not on internal political considerations of one of the parties. In the case of Mexico, a rapid entry into force is clearly in the Community's interest and will allow the Community to swiftly restore the competitiveness of its products on the Mexican market. It should be noted that the internal approval process in the Community depends on the appreciation of the negotiating results by the Council and the Parliament. This internal approval process is bound to pre-set procedures with their own timeframes.

3. As mentioned above the presidential elections are an internal matter for Mexico. The Decision adopted on 23 March 2000 by the Community-Mexico Joint Council, which is based on the interim agreement, provides for the entry into force on 1 July 2000. Since this is a legally binding Decision, the entry into force will take place automatically.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2030/00

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Plant health measures

Although they are treated like one of the poor relations of the agricultural provisions of the Poseidom programme for agriculture (Article 11), plant health measures to combat organisms harmful to plants are of major importance for extremely remote areas.

Under these circumstances, the inadequacy of the funding currently provided and the excessive delays between completion of measures and release of funds due is all the more regrettable.

What specific measures will the Commission take in response to these two problems?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 August 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the phytosanitary situation of the French overseas departments has received particular attention since 1993. Indeed, since 1993, a very high number of action programmes presented by France for its overseas departments have been cofinanced from the Community budget, enabling these departments to cope effectively with specific phytosanitary problems which are inherent to their remote and partially insular nature. In 1999, the cofinancing of the phytosanitary subprogramme covering at least three different categories of projects for each part of the overseas departments amounts to 700 000.

The Commission will be vigilant to avoid unnecessary delays in the administrative procedures for the payment of the Community financial contribution as granted. Moreover, the Commission will examine, on the basis of the budgetary orientations laid down in its report of 14 March 2000 on Article 299§2 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 227)(1), the possibilities for stabilising the co-financing of appropriate action programmes for phytosanitary improvement.

(1) COM(2000) 147 final This report indicated, in its conclusions, that The Commission's proposals with budgetary implications will receive special attention, pursuant to Article 299(2), under the financial perspective included in the interinstitutional agreement of 6 May 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2063/00

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Specific measures to improve budgetary implementation for external policy

On 5 June last, Commissioner Patten presented the European Parliament with statistics in the form of graphics highlighting the existing imbalance under heading 4 between the political decision-making which leads to budgetary allocations and the implementation thereof, where both commitment appropriations and payment appropriations are concerned.

What specific measures have been introduced to remedy these shortcomings in respect of the Commission's working methods, the rules applicable to the programmes concerned, and the staff who manage them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

The member of the Commission responsible for external relations has presented statistics on the unexpended balance of the various external cooperation programmes. The unexpended balance is the difference between budget commitments and payments for a programme. It is one of the indicators used to gauge a programme's progress on the ground. A relatively high or steadily rising unexpended balance may be a sign that a programme is having absorption problems.

Absorption problems vary in their causes and can be attributed to donors or recipients: excessive red tape, lack of suitable human resources, external factors (natural disasters) and political or organisational changes by the recipients.

The Commission has recently approved a paper setting out measures to reform the management of aid to third countries with a view to improving the performance and efficiency of aid programmes(1). The paper contains an action plan, complete with a timetable, setting out all the measures to be taken by the Commission. They include the conversion of the Common Service for External Relations into an Office and increased recourse to devolved and decentralised management. The question of human resources, including staff currently provided by technical assistance offices, will be covered in the letter of amendment to the preliminary draft budget for 2001, which the Commission will be presenting in September. Further devolution has implications for the budget and will not succeed without the requisite funding.

(1) SEC(2000) 814.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1162/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

Some consumers want to know where their food comes from (section 103). Little is known about the costs of systems guaranteeing this or about the practical possibilities.

1. Will the Commission propose labelling identical ingredients derived from GMOs? If not, why does the Commission not think it necessary to include on labels identical ingredients derived from GMOs in view of their relationship to GMOs and in view of consumers' right to be informed? If so, in what way will the Commission make this a legal obligation?

2. What labelling does the Commission want for additives and flavourings produced by GMOs in addition to the labelling rules for such substances which were adopted in January 2000?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1122/00, E-1127/00, E-1128/00, E-1140/00, E-1141/00, E-1142/00, E-1143/00, E-1144/00, E-1145/00, E-1146/00, E-1147/00, E-1148/00, E-1150/00, E-1151/00, E-1152/00, E-1153/00, E-1155/00, E-1156/00, E-1157/00, E-1158/00, E-1160/00, E-1161/00 and E-1162/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member are being studied with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislation according to the time scale set out in the white paper on food safety.

It would be inappropriate at this stage to anticipate the details of each proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1702/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Declaration of contents for perfume

There are approximately 2500 different aromatic substances that can be combined to produce fragrances for shampoo, perfumes and toothpastes etc. In early 1999, the German health and environment magazine, OKO-TEST, claimed that their analyses showed that many of the best known perfumes in the world contain substances which, when used in experiments on animals, had produced indications of liver damage.

Is it not reasonable that the declarations of contents for such goods should state which aromatic substances are used?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any aromatic substances that cause damage to the liver in humans when used as fragrance compounds in cosmetic products on the European market. As its main objective is to protect public health, Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products(1) the Cosmetics Directive, states as a general principle that only cosmetic products that do not cause damage to human health can be put on the market. Therefore cosmetic products can only contain safe ingredients. An ingredient which cannot be safely used should be banned because the cosmetic product would not be safe anymore.

Under the Cosmetics Directive, the safety of ingredients, even those used only as fragrance compounds, can be evaluated by the scientific committee. If, based on scientific data, the scientific committee is of the opinion that the substance submitted is toxic for the human liver when used as a cosmetic ingredient, it should be banned and to this end put in Annex II of the Directive. If the scientific committee considers that such ingredient is safe up to a certain level, then its use should be restricted and this ingredient put in Annex III. An ingredient which has been shown to cause damage to the human liver should be banned or its use restricted to a level which ensures its safety and not merely declared on the label.

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1831/00

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Consequences of enlargement

Objective 1 regions are defined as regions whose per capita GDP in terms of purchasing power parity is less than 75 % of the European average.

That average is calculated on the basis of the current 15 Member States.

What is the Commission's view on the way in which the average should be calculated after the planned enlargement, and indeed in the first phase of enlargement, given that the GDP of the countries involved stands between 30 % and 40 % of the Community average?

Is it possible that a region of the European Union in its present form could become statistically rich solely as a result of the enlargement effect, without there having been any change in its economic and social position?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The list of regions of the 15 Member States covered by Structural Fund Objective 1 for the 2000-2006 programming period was decided by the Commission on 1 July 1999 under Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1).

This list is valid for seven years even if the Community average per capita gross domestic product falls on the accession of new Member States.

As regards the period after 2006, the second report on cohesion to be adopted by the Commission at the end of this year under Article 159 (ex 130b) of the EC Treaty will analyse the situation of the regions in the context of an enlarged Union and propose certain orientations for future cohesion policy.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1917/00

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: European aid for Enschede

On 13 May the SE Fireworks factory in Enschede exploded, destroying or damaging a considerable proportion of the Enschede-North district. On 17 May Commission President Prodi went on a reconnaissance flight over Enschede and on his return said he would consider ways in which the Commission could contribute to repairing the enormous damage.

1. Can the Commission state what initiatives it has now taken and what other action it has taken to honour that undertaking?

2. Is the Commission prepared to treat any review of the Netherlands' proposals on the European structural funds as a priority matter so that the repair work can be carried out without any unnecessary delay?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2000)

1. Further to the visit of the President of the Commission to the damaged area, the Commission has together with the Dutch ministry of Interior Affairs and representatives from the municipality of Enschede, explored the possibilities of support to some of the actions for reconstruction. Different technical meetings have taken place with this regard.

This support for the damaged area should in the first place take place in the framework of the new urban plan that the Dutch authorities have recently (April 2000) submitted to the Commission for objective 2 of the structural funds. Support from other programmes such as the Community initiatives URBAN, Interreg and EQUAL, might take place on a ad-hoc basis. However, in financial terms this support would be more limited due to budgetary constraints and the specific restrictions for the eligibility of expenses.

2. The Commission is willing to accept modifications of the present Dutch objective 2 plan in favour of the Enschede area and is also giving the highest priority to this particular programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1277/00

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Taxation in Finland of pensions accrued in Sweden

It has come to my attention that when Finnish nationals who have worked in Sweden return to Finland, the pensions to which they have accrued entitlements in Sweden are also taxed by the Finnish authorities. The pensioners concerned consider that this constitutes unreasonable double taxation and is also an obstacle to the free movement of workers between two EU Member States.

Has the Commission noted the situation with regard to Finnish taxation of pensions accrued in Sweden, and is the Commission working on any plans which might lead to a change in it?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

In the absence of harmonisation at Community level, the allocation of taxation rights in bilateral relations is, as recently confirmed by the Court of justice(1), within the competence of Member States. The normal mechanism is conventions for the avoidance of double taxation. Although such conventions do not exist between all Member States, all those with a common border have concluded conventions. Relations between Finland and Sweden are governed by the Convention of 23 September 1996 concluded between the Nordic Countries, as modified by a Protocol of 6 October 1997.

According to Article 18(1) of this Convention, pensions paid from a Contracting State (Sweden) to a resident of another Contracting State (Finland) are taxable only in the first-mentioned State (Sweden). However, according to Article 25(3)(d), where a resident of Finland derives income which, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention is taxable only in another Contracting State (Sweden), Finland may include such income in the tax base but shall allow as a deduction from the Finnish tax on income that part of the income tax which is attributable to the income derived from that other State (Sweden).

Although the result of Article 25(3)(d) may be an increase in the progressive tax paid on other income in Finland, no double taxation would appear to arise on pensions paid to Finnish residents who have worked in Sweden. In the absence of indications that double taxation is actually arising, it is difficult to see what action the Commission could take in this specific instance. Nevertheless, it may be noted that the Commission is currently examining the tax treatment of pension arrangements.

(1) Judgement of 12 May 1998, Case C-336/96 Mr and Mrs Gilly, point No 30.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1200/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: The commune of Casarano

On 21 March 2000 a demonstration was held in the commune of Casarano (in the province of Lecce), called Fifth day of remembrance and commitment in honour of the victims of Mafia-type organisations, sponsored principally by the European Commission.

Can the Commission say how much and what form of aid it used to support this initiative?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it provided no moral, financial or logistical support to the demonstration in question. Acting in a personal capacity, however, the Commission President lent his patronage to the event.