ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3617/00

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Import tariffs on fisheries products imported into Poland from the European Union

Can the Commission outline a predicted timetable for its stated policy of negotiating reduced import tariffs on fish and fishery products to the ten Central and Eastern European countries, including Poland?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

Following the mandate given to the Commission contacts have been made with the ten Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) with which accession negotiations have been opened.

The Commission has carried out a first round of negotiations with eight of them. A second round of negotiations, resulting in agreed minutes to be put forward to the respective authorities, was carried out late November, covering four of the CEECs, including Poland.

If Member States agree to the Commission proposals, trade arrangements could enter into force early in 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2887/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Dangerous dogs

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce legislation on dangerous dogs in the EU?

If so, on what grounds does the Commission justify action at Community rather than at Member State level? Should not the principle of subsidiarity dictate that this should be left to Member States to decide?

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce EU rules to ban Staffordshire bull terriers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it currently has no plans to propose Community harmonisation designed to ban dangerous dogs. It therefore has no intention of proposing any rules banning Staffordshire bull terriers.

In this case, the Commission believes that it is up to the Member States to adopt the appropriate national measures, while complying with the rules of the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 28 and 30 (ex Articles 30 and 36) thereof.

Indeed, although Article 28 stipulates that Member States may not adopt national measures that create restrictions on the free movement of the animals concerned, Article 30 authorises them to do so if such measures are justified on grounds of the protection of the health and life of humans, provided that the restrictions concerned are proportionate to the objective to be attained and are applicable without distinction.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3000/00

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Common standards for tunnels in the European Union

The recent accidents in the Mont Blanc road tunnel between Italy and France and the Tauern tunnel in Austria have raised at European level the delicate issue of safety standards and prevention measures in the various types of tunnel in operation, but the legislation in each country appears to be different and non-uniform.

Can the Commission say whether it intends to ascertain the advisability of drawing up common standards laying down general rules aimed at achieving uniformity throughout the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Several international organisations, and in particular the World Highways Association (AIPCR) and the United Nations' Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE), are actively and efficiently working in order to improve tunnel safety, more especially by pooling experience and listing the various techniques and procedures. The Commission does not intend to duplicate or repeat the work in progress, especially since very long road tunnels differ too widely in geometry, location and age to justify the application of a traditional standardising approach to them.

However, tunnel safety, and that of the oldest in service must be routinely re-assessed in order to gain the greatest benefits from innovations and technical progress. Each individual set of equipment can be assessed on the basis of common criteria that are intended to raise the level and consistency of the transport system and to promote cooperation among Member States. The Commission's intention is to provide itself with an assessment tool that has been harmonised throughout the Community.

The advanced techniques applying to traffic management, signalling and communication between drivers and tunnel operators require a higher level of interoperability, such as the development of protocols that can be understood by users regardless of nationality. There is also a preferred area of activity for the Community, while applications aimed at tunnel safety must be consistent with general applications on open roads in order to avoid any need for specific user training.

In parallel to this, as part of the Nedies (Natural and environmental disaster information exchange system) project, the Commission is organising feedback from the civil defence services on action by the emergency service during all of the major incidents taking place in recent years in tunnels on Community territory. The final report will be available on the Internet, just like all of the other feedback reports already written (http://nedies.jrc.it/).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3441/00

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Union structural policy measures in the period from 2000 to 2006

On 24/25 March 1999 the Berlin European Council decided to earmark 260 billion for the Union's structural policy measures in the period from 2000-2006.

The Council issued the regulations on the various Funds on 21 June 1999.

The Structural Funds are used to finance programmes to promote economic and social development in the fifteen Member States. The activities financed under them are intended to make for relatively high concentration of resources in financial and geographical terms, decentralised management, more effective supervision, and greater efficiency.

Especially in the light of the last point, can the Commission say:

- what assistance operations are already under way; and

- which areas have yet to receive payments?

To clarify the previous question, can it supply tables indicating:

- when the Member States submitted their draft operational programmes; and

- the time taken for the Commission to reach the necessary decisions?

While the Commission was taking its decisions, were there any instances of failure to meet the five-month time-limit laid down in Article 15 of the general Structural Funds Regulation? If so, why?

Could the Commission also supply tables specifying:

- when the Member States submitted their draft national guidelines; and

- when the Commission took the necessary decisions?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1739/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council. Funding of the pre-accession procedure for Cyprus and Malta.



Official Journal 113 E , 18/04/2001 P. 0039 - 0039



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1739/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council (5 June 2000) Subject: Funding of the pre-accession procedure for Cyprus and Malta What action does the Council intend to take to ensure that the appropriations provided for the applicant countries Cyprus and Malta are moved from chapter B4 of the budget, concerning external aid, to Chapter B7, concerning pre-accession aid, in accordance with the guidelines for the 2001 budget that Parliament has already voted on (paragraph 48)? Reply (20 November 2000) In its first reading of the preliminary draft general budget for the financial year 2001 the Council has provided for those appropriations to be entered under Title B7-0 (Pre-accession strategy) with the other budget entries concerning the applicant countries. The Council would stress that it considers that the financing of the budget entries for the pre-accession strategy for Cyprus and Malta ought at this stage to come under heading 4 (External action) of the financial perspective. The Budget Council discussed the matter at its meeting on 20 July 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2558/00

by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Hemp production

How much hemp is now produced in the European Union, and how much of it is used in the manufacture of rope? Does the Commission have any information regarding the uses to which the hemp not used in rope manufacture is put?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2000)

The Commission has no official figures on the volume of hemp grown. The acreages declared by Member States and indicative average yields give a figure to be treated with caution, of around 30 000 tonnes of hemp fibre.

Strong competition from synthetic fibres means that very little hemp fibre is used to make rope. At present most is used for making paper. A whole range of niche outlets is being researched or developed, e.g. in the vehicle and building industries, but markets are limited for the moment.

Other parts of the plant are sold, in particular the shives (woody matter), often used as bedding for animals, and the seed, frequently used as bird food.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3565/00

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: ILVA S.p.A., Taranto, Italy

Given that:

- the Italian State is giving up its holdings in the iron and steel industry and selling ILVA S.p.A. to ILVA laminati piani S.p.A., a company which is to be formed in the near future and will be owned by a private syndicate;

- other iron and steel undertakings in which the State has a shareholding such as Gescon 90, Icrot and Sidermontaggi are closing down and being sold to ILVA laminati piani S.p.A. As a result, that company will acquire their workforce and capital;

- the deed of sale of these companies in which the State has a shareholding provides that the workers will first be dismissed and put on mobility lists for temporarily laid-off workers awaiting redeployment pursuant to Law No 223/91, then re-employed by ILVA laminati piani S.p.A. after remaining on these mobility lists for one year;

- this scheme means first of all that the Italian social security institution, the INPS, will pay ILVA laminati piani S.p.A. a sum of money for every worker who is re-employed (equal to half the remaining mobility payment not paid to the worker) and secondly that the company employing the worker will not pay contributions in respect of the latter for a period of 36 months.

Can the Commission:

- ascertain whether the foregoing is true?

- establish whether the procedure of dismissing the workers, putting them on mobility lists and then re-employing them is contrary to Italian Laws Nos. 164/75 and 223/91 on the Wages Guarantee Fund and collective redundancy and the legislation implementing the Community directives on surplus labour?

- ascertain whether the mobility procedure used by ILVA laminati piani S.p.A. is in breach of the Community competition rules?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

The case referred to by the Honourable Member concerns the restructuring of the firms ILVA SPA, Gescon 90, Icrot and Sidermontaggi, which was carried out in accordance with Italian law.

Firstly, it should be recalled that Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 amending Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses(1) and Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(2) were correctly transposed into domestic law as regards the circumstances referred to in this particular case. For this reason, any dispute arising in this connection should be brought before the national courts.

In these circumstances it is for the Member States to take appropriate measures with a view to improving the performance of the labour market.

As regards the possible breach of competition rules referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission intends to enquire about the facts described and, if appropriate, will examine them in the light of the rules governing state aids.

(1) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998.

(2) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2598/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Community funding of the fisheries sector in Portugal

Bearing in mind:

- the reply to Written Question E-1525/00(1);

- the hearing organised by the Court of Auditors on the Propesca Programme in Portugal and the implementation of the PESCA initiative which, according to reliable sources, came to the conclusion that the EU withdrew more than ESC 3,5 billion from Portugal owing to delays in the assessment of applications and allocation of funding; and

- the importance of the fisheries sector for Portugal;

Can the Commission say:

1. What, in the Commission's view, are the reasons for the low level of implementation of the PESCA initiative and of programmes financed under the FIFG in general and those for Portugal in particular?

2. What measures did the Commission take during the period 1994-1999, and what action will it take in future, in order to guarantee the correct implementation of funding under the PESCA initiative and the FIFG in the previous financial period, particularly with regard to Portugal?

3. What consequences will this low level of implementation have with regard to discussions on the allocation of FIFG funding for the new financial period?

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 49.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

1. The main reasons including with regard to Portugal for the delays and low implementation rates in respect of the Pesca Community Initiative (CI) and the operational programmes (OPs) funded under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) are the late publication of national framework legislation, the restructuring of the relevant administrative departments (Directorate-General for Fisheries and Aquaculture), and the shortage of human resources for managing and monitoring operational assistance at national level.

2. During Community support framework (CSF) II, the Commission adopted a number of measures designed to ensure that Pesca CI and FIFG appropriations were applied correctly in the various Member States. With regard to Portugal, inter alia during the implementation phase a number of warnings were issued at Monitoring Committee level and letters were sent pointing out to the national authorities that the accumulated arrears needed to be made up. In response, from the second quarter of 1998 onwards the situation returned to normal.

3. The national authorities' effort to make up the arrears meant that it was possible for the entire FIFG budget available to be committed at the end of CSF II's term and for the objectives to be achieved satisfactorily. Discussion of the FIFG appropriation for CSF III (2000-06), inter alia as regards Portugal, was therefore not adversely affected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3733/00

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Birre to Areia extension to the Lisbon-Cascais motorway

It is reported in the local press that Cascais council is paying landowners PTE 10 000 per square metre to buy their land for the construction of this motorway, while normally land in the area would not fetch more than PTE 500 per square metre.

Can the Commission state whether this motorway extension is being built with the help of funding from the EU budget, and if so what steps it is taking to ensure that the money is not being used to pay inflated prices to landowners?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2362/00

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Guidelines for the negotiation of the agriculture chapter of the free-trade agreement with the Maghreb

The Commission has submitted its proposal for guidelines for the negotiation of the free-trade agreement with Morocco, Tunisia and Israel in the Council's Maghreb Group. The proposal contains every possible liberalisation measure, ranging from increased quotas to reduced tariffs, and including various approaches to managing entry prices.

Is it standard practice for the Commission to ask the Council for a negotiating mandate amounting to a blank cheque for all negotiations with third countries, or does it do so only when agricultural production is the main interest at stake?

What does the Commission consider to be the advantages of a negotiating strategy which may raise great expectations in the Mediterranean countries, thus making subsequent negotiations more awkward, and which is already causing alarm amongst tomato producers in southern areas of the EU?

In the specific case of tomatoes, given that the Kingdom of Morocco has consistently exported excessive quantities of tomatoes to the EU, how does the Commission intend to apply its guidelines without sparking off a new crisis amongst producers in southern areas of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The proposal for negotiating instructions which the Commission presented recently to the Council was drawn up within the context of a renegotiation of the agriculture protocols to the association agreements with Morocco, Tunisia and Israel, in accordance with the provisions of those agreements.

This review of reciprocal concessions aims at pushing forward the progressive liberalisation of agricultural trade between the Community and these countries with a view to creating a free-trade area in accord with the Barcelona Declaration signed in 1995 by all the Member States and their 12 Mediterranean partners.

In line with Article 133 of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 113) on trade policy, the Commission has sent the Council a recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with these countries. This proposal for a negotiating brief outlines the measures which could be taken within the framework of the forthcoming negotiations for a reciprocal and progressive liberalisation of trade and stresses the importance to the Community of improved access for its agricultural exports to the countries in question in order to attain a better balance in mutual preferences.

On the issue of Community imports of tomatoes from Morocco and as noted in fact in the draft negotiating instructions the Community aims to achieve an unambiguous agreement so that trade can run smoothly over the next few marketing years.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2893/00

by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(6 September 2000)

Subject: Sex discrimination in relation to dress codes

Does the fact that in some places, without any justification on operational or practical grounds, men are required to dress in a certain way while women are not (or vice versa) constitute gender-based discrimination and thus infringe Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Article 13 of the EC Treaty authorises the Council, after consulting Parliament, to take appropriate action to combat discrimination based, inter alia, on sex. This article has no direct effect.

At present, Article 13 does not constitute the legal basis for any Community sex discrimination legislation.

On the other hand, Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex(1) gives the Community definition of indirect discrimination. Article 2.2 of this directive states that indirect discrimination shall exist where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice disadvantages (FR: affecte; IT: colpiscono) a substantially higher proportion of the members of one sex, unless that provision, criterion or practice is appropriate and necessary and can be justified by objective factors unrelated to sex.

For the difference in treatment referred to by the Honourable Member to be regarded as sex discrimination, it must be shown, on the one hand, to create a disadvantage and, on the other, to be neither appropriate and necessary nor justified by such objective factors as social custom.

(1) OJ L 14, 20.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3235/00

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: MEDIA Programme and financial support for festivals

The 26 September 2000 Council Meeting of Culture Ministers failed to reach an agreement on funding for the MEDIA+ Programme, the purpose of which is, inter alia, to encourage the inclusion of European audiovisual works in the programmes of European and international festivals this being part of a wider aim, namely to promote and improve the access of European works and programmes to European and international markets.

Increasing the funding for festivals by one million euros to a total of three million per year would enable the European dimension of such events to be enhanced (additional scheduling of European films, a higher percentage of European works, greater attendance by Europeans working in the audiovisual field, and so on) and more ambitious activities to be undertaken by the networks for the benefit of the European cinema, through the involvement of a larger number of festivals.

1. Does the Commission agree with this view, which in financial terms is highly reasonable?

2. May it be hoped that, irrespective of the final budget for the MEDIA+ Programme, the above-mentioned amount will be allocated to festivals?

Answer given by Mrs. Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2000)

The chapter on promotion in the proposal for a decision MEDIA PLUS explicitly mentions the programme's actions for festivals, in particular support for audio-visual festivals carried out in partnership and containing a significant proportion of European works in their programmes. It also mentions encouraging joint projects with a European dimension involving audio-visual events, with a common action plan for the promotion of European audio-visual works and their distribution.

The budget allocation for these actions in the MEDIA PLUS proposal is 10 million for the duration of the programme, i.e. an average increase of 10-15 % on previous years. This budget estimate is based on a sub-total of 30 million for the programme's promotion actions and on an overall budget of 400 million.

The Commission's proposed budget breakdown is based both on the specific estimates and forecasts regarding the budgets necessary for the implementation of the programme's various courses of action, and on the resources available.

In conclusion, the Commission is unable to comment definitively on the programme's budget at this stage in the negotiations.