ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2134/00

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

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Subsidies for travel firms

The travel firm of Eggeland Reisen organises tours to Sicily and claims to be subsidised by the European Union. During the tour a promotional sales display of craft textiles and household implements takes place. The firm advertises its headquarters as being in Leinefelde (Thuringia), but all tour arrangements are carried out through the firm of Hermes Verwaltungs GmbH in Stuckenbrock near Bielefeld (North Rhine-Westphalia).

In this connection I have the following questions:

1. Is either of these two companies in receipt of subsidies for tours to Sicily in particular?

2. If so, what is the amount of the subsidy?

3. What conditions must a travel firm fulfil in order to obtain a subsidy if it carries out promotions for products during the tour?

4. How does the Commission check whether these conditions are being met after the subsidy has been granted?

5. What measures does the Commission take against firms which falsely claim to receive subsidies from the European Union under false pretences?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2000)

1. and 2. On the basis of information available to the Commission no grants have been made to either the Eggeland Reisen or PHG Hermes travel agencies for any purpose, and certainly not to subsidise tours of Sicily.

Sicily is an objective 1 region which does receive support from the structural funds, including for tourism. However, that does not include subsidies to travel agencies promoting tours to Sicily.

3. and 4. No subsidies are available using Community finance to carry out product promotions of this sort.

5. It is the responsibility of the Member States to carry out any prosecutions which may be necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3431/00

by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE), Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE), Gianni Vattimo (PSE), Bruno Trentin (PSE), Elena Paciotti (PSE) and Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Floods in northern Italy

As a result of exceptionally bad weather in north-west Italy, extremely serious floods have occurred, especially in the regions of the Valle d'Aosta, Piedmont, Liguria and part of Lombardy. The number of casualties is very high: 23 dead, 11 missing and, according to newspaper reports, more than 40 000 evacuated. The floods have also caused extensive damage to agriculture and industry (amounting to ITL 3 450 billion, according to initial estimates).

In the light of the European Parliament's resolution of 28 January 2000 on storms in Europe and the statements made on 18 January by Mr Barnier, Member of the Commission, during the plenary debate on the subject, will the Commission consider making available to the regions concerned, in consultation with the Italian national and local authorities, resources from the Structural Funds and the EAGGF Guarantee Section with a view to facilitating reconstruction of infrastructure in those areas and speeding up work to bring the situation back to normal for all those hit by these disasters?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3431/00, E-3464/00, E-3475/00 and P-3583/00 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2000)

The Honourable Member should refer to the answer that the Commission gave to Oral Question H-0857/00 from Mr Ebner at question time during the November I 2000 part-session of Parliament(1).

The Honourable Member should also refer to the comments made by the Commission during the debate on climate change at the October II part-session on 25 October 2000(2) and the debate on floods in Europe at the November part-session on 16 November 2000(3).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 2000).

(2) Debates of the European Parliament (October II 2000).

(3) Debates of the European Parliament (November 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3762/00

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Additionality principle

The additionality principle, one of the basic rules governing the use of the Structural Funds, prohibits regional authorities and national governments from using Community resources as a substitute that dispenses them from their obligations to overcome regional imbalances and inequalities in development.

Only if European, national, and regional measures operate in synergy will it be possible to pursue a comprehensive, effective policy to promote cohesion and growth in the different parts of the Union.

The spirit and the letter of the additionality principle have not always been observed in the past, although it is only fair to recognise that almost all national, regional, and local authorities have taken an extraordinary qualitative leap forward and, in overall terms, improved the effectiveness of the operations financed in part by European resources.

Stricter procedures need to be laid down to ensure compliance with the additionality principle and incorporated into the implementing provisions for Community support frameworks and single programming documents.

Authorities should be punished if they fail to observe the additionality principle.

Can the Commission, and specifically its President, Mr Romano Prodi, say what steps the Community will take to deal with the points set out above?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2001)

On a Commission proposal the Council simplified verification of compliance with the additionality principle during the 2000-2006 programming period. Changes were made in both certain procedural rules and the monitoring timetable. Before launching the new programming the Commission drew up a working document setting out uniform criteria for use in additionality verification for Objective 1 and Objectives 2 and 3. This document is being sent to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) requires verification for additionality at mid-term (before 31 December 2003) and before 31 December 2005. The Commission will inform Parliament of the situation following each exercise.

The above Regulation does not include any specific penalty for failure to meet the additionality requirement. When it was adopted the Member States were strongly opposed to this. Article 11 does however impose obligations on Member States: no Community support framework (CSF) or single programming document (SPD) can be approved by the Commission unless an ex ante additionality verification has been carried out. The Commission has also when approving CSFs and SPDs stipulated that it will not approve mid-term reprogramming that includes assignment of the performance reserve unless the Member State has sent the data required for the mid-term additionality verification.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3981/00

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Import of dog and cat fur

An estimated 2 million dogs and cats are slaughtered and sold annually as part of the international fur trade. How much (a) dog and (b) cat fur was imported into the Community in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999?

The United States has recently adopted the Dog and Cat Fur Act which prohibits the import, export, manufacture and sale of dog and cat fur products. The US clearly believes that the Act is consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the rule of the World Trade Organisation. The Act's preamble states that the ban is consistent with provisions of international agreements to which the US is a party that expressly allow for measures designed to protect the health and welfare of animals.

Will the Commission now propose a ban on the import of dog and cat fur into the Community?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2001)

At this point in time, the Commission does not have exact figures for imports of dog and cat fur during 1998 and 1999.

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to the law enacted by the United States. A detailed analysis of this Act is now underway.

The commercial policy is simply an external projection of the Commission's domestic policies. According to the information currently available to the Commission, no ban has been introduced on trade in dog and cat furs in any of the Member States. Therefore, at this time, and in the absence of any internal ban, the Commission has no plans to propose a ban on the importing of dog and cat fur. Such a measure would be open to challenge as both discriminatory and an obstacle to the principle of national treatment.

Nevertheless, in the light of the concern expressed in certain quarters over trade (including international trade) in dog and cat fur, the Commission will pursue the question further, so as to determine whether, without contravening the principle of subsidiarity, it might not be appropriate to propose action in this area at the European level. The Commission will report to the Parliament on its progress in this respect.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3534/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Aid to countries of South and Central America

Can the Commission detail the financial assistance given to each of the countries in South and Central America over the last five years? What percentage of this money has been directed towards assistance to the African communities in each of these countries?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3473/00

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Lloyd's of London

When does the Commission expect to respond to the petitions and complaints, that it has received in and from 1997, about Lloyd's of London and under what European Union legislation are these matters being considered?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2000)

The Commission has received since 1999 a substantial volume of complaints from disaffected Lloyd's Names alleging that the British authorities have failed to properly supervise Lloyd's. The Commission has also received four petitions, one of them tabled in 1997.

The Commission is taking very seriously the matters identified by the petitioners and the large number of complaints it has received. As already explained in its response submitted to the petitions committee at its hearing on 27 and 28 September, 1999, the Commission confirmed that the United Kingdom has correctly implemented the first Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance(1) in British law. The Commission's current enquiries are therefore seeking to establish whether the implementing law has been properly applied.

(1) OJ L 228, 16.8.1973.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4026/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Remoulded and re-manufactured tyres

What is the Commission's view of the Brazilian Government's ban on the import of remoulded and re-manufactured tyres, particularly now that products enjoy EC type-approval?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3925/00, E-4014/00 and E-4026/00 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2001)

According to Brazilian national trade regulations, notified to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), imports of used equipment, machinery and consumer goods are expressly prohibited, with the sole possible exception of donations.

The Brazilian customs authorities referred the import of retreaded tyres to their judicial authorities which concluded that licensing such imports was inconsistent with local trade regulations. They therefore immediately suspended the granting of import licences for these products. In this context, the trade regulation Portaria MDIC/SECEX No 08, of 25 September 2000, has sought to implement the judicial ruling.

The Commission is aware of this issue and of the concern it has caused some European companies that produce and export retreaded and remoulded tyres. According to initial contacts with the Brazilian authorities, the Commission understands that the Brazilian government may have health or consumer protection concerns about the import of used goods and, because the aforementioned judicial decision stretched the scope of used goods to include retreaded tyres, the Brazilian authorities have enacted Portaria No 8, which blocks the import of such tyres. After further clarifying this issue with the industry, the Commission will approach the Brazilian government to set out the case for distinguishing these products from the general category of used goods and to explain the European system of type approval. In the absence of a positive solution, the Commission will consider what further action to take in the light of the Brazilian government's response.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3889/00

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

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Integrated policy against crime

The Council will be aware that individual criminal organisations are increasingly involved in a variety of crimes, including drugs trafficking, illegal immigration and fraud affecting the interests of the European Communities.

Does the Council not take the view that the European Union needs an integrated policy to combat this trend, rather than one policy to combat fraud against the European Community and another to combat other serious types of crime?

If so, does the Council not believe that it would be consistent for Eurojust to be created at the same time as 15 new magistrates' posts are created to perform similar functions for OLAF?

Bearing in mind the concept of the European institutions laid down in the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam and the legal consequences flowing from those Treaties, does the Council not believe that, in order to avoid duplication of effort, greater clarification is needed as regards competences under the first and third pillars with respect to application of the law and the fight against crime (OLAF, Eurojust and Europol)?

Reply

(12 March 2001)

The Council, knowing that criminal organisations engage in illegal activities in several areas, introduced an integrated policy to combat this phenomenon on the basis of the Treaty of Amsterdam by adopting the 1997 action plan of 28 April 1997 to combat organised crime (now replaced by the new millennium Strategy on organised crime). The subject continued to occupy the attention of Heads of State and of Government at the European Council in Tampere where the decision to create Eurojust was taken, with emphasis on the need to coordinate the work of this unit with that of Europol and European Judicial Network. The Nice European Council also took stock of the situation, establishing objectives for action to combat money laundering, trafficking in human beings and the control of illegal immigration, and decided to incorporate Eurojust in the Treaty on European Union.

With regard to OLAF/Eurojust relations, previous initiatives as well as those under discussion provide for coordination between Eurojust and the Commission (OLAF), with particular reference to the protection of financial interests, it being a permanent concern of the Council to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure the best possible coordination between protagonists with the same aim, i.e. to create an area of freedom, security and justice. The creation of new posts at OLAF is the responsibility of the Director of OLAF.

The potential problems following from a division of responsibility between the first and third pillars, are, as the Honourable Member rightly says, a consequence of the Treaties of Maastricht and of Amsterdam.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3723/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Article 14 Committee

Will the Commission please indicate the remit of what is known as the Article 14 Committee (set up under Regulation 2092/91(1), and dealing with rules for the organic production of agricultural produce and list its members by name and function?

When and how often does it meet?

(1) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

The Committee set up under Article 14 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs is a regulatory-type committee referred to in Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EEC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(1). This Committee assists the Commission in preparing measures it is assigned to take under Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. The Committee's mandate is defined in several provisions in the Regulation and includes, in particular, advising on implementing arrangements and updating technical annexes to the Regulation. The Committee also discusses all questions referred by Member States or the Commission regarding the application of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91.

The Committee is made up of representatives from the Member States. These are appointed independently by each Member State. However, the representative may change according to the matter being discussed at the meeting. The Committee is chaired by the Commission, who for this purpose is represented by the Director of Directorate Agro-economic legislation of the Directorate-General for Agriculture.

The names of civil servants from Member States are not annexed to the short minutes that are sent out after each meeting. The Commission does not intend to change this practice.

(1) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3341/00

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Obstacle to the free movement of workers by car

Residents of the Netherlands are not permitted to drive a car with a foreign number plate. Eight weeks are needed to obtain a Dutch number plate.

Practical problems arise as a result. Anyone who goes to the Netherlands with the intention of becoming established there for any period of time is deemed to be a resident within the meaning of the law. In accordance with the Highway Code, a new resident in possession of a car is obliged to fit his car with a Dutch number plate.

Under European law job-seekers are permitted to spend three months, on full unemployment benefit, looking for a job in another Member State. If a European job-seeker goes to the Netherlands in search of a job he is deemed to be a resident pursuant to Dutch law and is therefore obliged to fit his car with a Dutch number plate. Until he has done so he is not allowed to use his car.

1. To what extent does the Commission regard the Dutch law in question as an obstacle to the opportunities available to job-seekers from outside the Netherlands for looking for work in the Netherlands?

2. Does the Commission believe that the Dutch law in question is an obstacle to the free movement of workers?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2001)

According to information provided to the Commission by the Dutch authorities, only persons who apply for enrolment in the Dutch Register of Population are obliged to change their licence plates. Consequently, as long as persons do not apply for such enrolment, they are free to use their cars with non-Dutch licence plates.

Furthermore, the Dutch authorities tolerate, in practice, that even persons enrolled in the Dutch Register of Population continue driving their cars with non-Dutch licence plates, provided that they prove that they have applied for Dutch plates.

Unless the Honourable Member provides the Commission with further information on specific cases, the Commission considers that there does not seem to be a practical obstacle to the exercise of the right of job seekers to freedom of movement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4122/00

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Tobacco products directive

The new tobacco products directive will shortly be coming before the Conciliation Committee. One of the subjects at issue will be the content and size of health warnings. In one EU Member State the sale of certain drugs in small quantities is not subject to criminal prosecution.

1. Is the Commission aware that the drugs being sold do not carry health warnings?

2. Does it intend to make provision for health warnings for these products?

3. Would there be an EU legal basis for doing so?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Drug policy and drug legislation in the Union are areas of shared competence between the Community and the Member States. All Member States have ratified the three United Nations Conventions (from years 1961, 1971 and 1988) that provide a common framework for drug legislation throughout the Union. European Councils have also endorsed the Union drugs strategy (2000-2004) in Helsinki (1999) and the Union action plan on drugs (2000-2004)(1) in Santa Maria da Feira (2000). These provide a common framework for all drug-related actions in the Union.

The Union action plan on drugs encourages the Member States to find new and effective ways in drug prevention and reduction of drug related harm. These activities are also funded through the Community programme on drug prevention that has just been extended for two years.

The Member States retain the right to certain flexibility on the national implementation of their EC Treaty obligations and ways to achieve the goals set in the Union action plan on drugs. Therefore, as the Honourable Member rightly points out, the possession and sale of small amounts of certain drugs does not always lead to criminal punishment even though the drugs themselves and trade in large quantities may be considered illegal. The Commission has the following answers to the specific questions made by the Honourable Member.

1. and 2. Unlike tobacco products and other legal products, illicit drugs are not covered by Community legislation on the Internal Market. In case a Member State allows the small-scale supply of these drugs, decisions on any health warnings fall under its competence.

3. There are no legal bases for Community rules on health warnings on illicit drugs.

(1) COM(1999) 239 final.