ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0507/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Measurement of regional living standards

Further to the answer to Written Question E-2223/99(1) in which the Commission detailed real per capita gross domestic product and real per capita gross regional product figures for the Union, is it convinced that these figures represent the best guide to regional living standards that is available? Is there a means of taking into account the income earned in one region by a resident of another for example, a commuter from South East England working in London to produce series based on personal incomes rather than gross regional product?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 150.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

Gross domestic product (GDP) is the value of the production generated by resident production units. The production value is equal to the sum of the incomes (salaries, rents and profits) generated by the production activity. Regional GDP is therefore an overall indicator of the production activity in a region and is well suited to measuring a region's level of economic development.

However, it is true that income from production is not the same as citizens' disposable income: the difference results from taxes and transfers. In addition, regional GDP is estimated at the place of production, while disposable income should be estimated for the households' place of residence.

The Commission does not yet have information on households' disposable income at regional level. However, as part of the 1995 revision of the European System of Accounts (ESA), methodological principles for the drawing up of regional household accounts have been established. This work, carried out with the assistance of the national statistical institutes, will produce the first data in this area from 2001. The data will be published regularly and will provide users with an additional indicator to measure regional differences.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1903/00

by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: The Adnan Oktar case

Science Research Foundation (SRF) is a non-governmental organisation which was established under Laws 743 and 903 and has been active in Istanbul since 1990. Adnan Oktar is the Honorary President of the SRF. With 90 other persons, he was arrested on 12 November 1999, and he is still in prison awaiting the end of the trial. A big police operation was carried out at around 3 a.m. in 48 different houses, as a result of which all these people were taken into custody, including Mr Adnan Oktar. On the basis of our information, there were several human rights violations during this police operation, as well as the use of violence during the arrest and afterwards. The police allege that the NGO is a criminal organisation. In the past, two other accusations had been made against Mr Adnan Oktar, but he had been cleared both times. The trial of Mr Oktar is under way. During the first hearing on 7 April 2000, the public prosecutor called for the detained SRF members to be released by the public prosecutor because not a single shred of evidence was found. The second hearing will be on 2 June 2000.

Given that Turkey is an applicant country, I should like to know if the Commission is aware of this case and, if it considers that this constitutes a human rights violation, what measures it intends taking to prevent the recurrence of such events?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1020/00 by Mr Manisco(1)

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 144.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0587/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

What is the Commission's view of the inherent tension between the desire to see the economic benefits of T-TEN arrive speedily and concern that enviornmental issues should be properly addressed?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

Article 6 (ex Article 3c) of the EC Treaty requires that environmental considerations be integrated into all aspects of Community policies in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development. Integration of environmental considerations is also called for under Article 2 of the Community guidelines for the development of the Trans European transport network (TEN-T) adopted by the Parliament and Council by co-decision in 1996(1). This sets out that the network should be developed to ensure the sustainable mobility of goods and people to help achieve the Community's objectives particularly in regard to the environment and competition, and contribute to strengthening economic and social cohesion. Article 2 further sets out that development of the network should take full account of the comparative advantages of all modes of transport and allow the optimal use of infrastructure capacities.

The guidelines set 2010 as the time horizon to complete the TEN-T. The Commission is working with Member States and all concerned to ensure that this target is met and that in so doing long term sustainable benefits are achieved for the Community's citizens and businesses. Where applicable, projects of common interest for development of the TEN-T are subject to environmental impact assessment under Community legislation. The Commission has also adopted a proposal for a directive on strategic assessment of the environmental impacts of certain plans and programmes(2). The Council reached unanimous political agreement at first reading on this proposal in December 1999. The Commission considers that the use of strategic environmental assessment from the earliest stages of national planning processes involving the consideration of different policy and infrastructure development options could significantly enhance the integration of transport and environmental considerations and help reduce the need for environmental mitigation measures at project level.

The Commission is currently considering how best to take forward these issues in its report on the revision of the TEN-T guidelines that will be submitted to the Council and Parliament this summer.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(2) OJ C 83, 25.3.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0776/00

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Subsidised filling station prices in the Dutch border region

1. Is the Commission aware that in the area of the Netherlands bordering Germany there are state subsidies for a two-stage reduction (between 0 and 10 km and between 10 and 20 km from the border) in fuel sales prices?

2. What is the Commission's view of the fact that these subsidies mean that in some cases the fuel sales prices are below the delivered price of wholesalers on the German side of the border?

3. Is it true that these subsidies were abolished on 1 March 2000?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

1. The Commission has already taken a decision on the aid referred to by the Honourable Member.

On 3 June 1998 it launched an investigation under Article 88(2) (former Article 93(2)) of the EC Treaty into the state aid granted by the Netherlands to Dutch filling stations in the region bordering on Germany(1). It took its decision on 20 July 1999(2).

The decision stated that the aid provided to 450 filling stations was incompatible with the common market and must be repaid. Subsidies to 183 smaller filling stations were covered by the de minimis rule and did not constitute s aid.

For further details, the Commission would refer you to the published texts.

2. As in the above-mentioned case, the Commission would point out that aid is incompatible with the common market if it distorts competition and affects trade between Member States. It noted the distortions of competition referred to by the Honourable Member in its decision and took them into account.

3. The Dutch Government has informed the Commission that the scheme was abolished on 1 February 2000.

(1) OJ C 307, 7.10.1998, p. 10.

(2) OJ L 280, 30.10.1999, p. 87.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1354/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Research on the work of Estanislao Sánchez Calvo

A century after the decease of the eminent philosopher and linguist Estanislao Sánchez Calvo, a native of the Asturias region in Spain, his work as a scholar and teacher is still remembered in Central European intellectual circles, especially in Germany.

In view of the modernity of his thought in relation to the European linguistic tradition as a whole, it would seem of major interest to promote a study, which should be as wide-ranging and extensive as possible, of the work of this illustrious citizen of Avilés, with a view to establishing which of the various facets of his thought are of relevance to the new linguistic realities generated, in the intellectual context of the European Union, by the Union's very existence.

Can the Commission state whether, if it endorses the interest of a detailed study of the linguistic and philosophical influence of this Asturian intellectual on the European dimension of contemporary thought, it would be willing to promote such a study with its support and cooperation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

The Commission can support cultural initiatives through patronage, which consists of moral rather than financial support, and through grants.

Commission patronage may be granted for an event that meets the criteria set by the Commission. It must be a European event dealing with a subject closely connected with Community priorities. It must not place the Commission under any financial obligation. It must be

for a single specific event. It may not be for commercial purposes. It should not offend Member States. It may not as a rule be a publication. Requests should be addressed to a member of the Commission, through Commission offices or delegations.

Alternatively, the initiative may qualify for a grant under a Community programme. In order to do so, an application would have to be submitted in response to a call for proposals published in the Official journal and the initiative would have to meet the selection and award criteria set out therein. The Culture 2000 programme (Decision No 508/2000/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000(1)) is the principal instrument for Community funding in the cultural field.

(1) OJ L 63, 10.3.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0287/00

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: EU number plates in Switzerland

In point 3 of his reply to my question E-4110/98(1) Commissioner Kinnock states that the Commission has asked the Swiss authorities to recognise the distinguishing sign. Member States will be informed as soon as the Commission gets a reply from the Swiss authorities. In the meantime I have learned through informal channels that about a year ago the Swiss authorities sent a letter to their police and customs services explaining that cars with EU number plates no longer require a separate country sticker.

1. Is the Commission aware of this letter, and does this constitute the recognition referred to in point 3?

2. Have the Member States been informed of this recognition?

(1) OJ C 325, 12.11.1999, p. 56.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

1. In their letter of 11 February 1999 the Swiss authorities informed the Commission that they were prepared to recognise the distinctive nationality marks issued by the state of registration of motor vehicles and their trailers in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2411/98 of 3 November 1998 on the recognition in intra-Community traffic of the distinguishing sign of the Member State in which motor vehicles and their trailers are registered(1).

2. The Member States were informed of that recognition by means of a letter to the offices of their permanent representatives dated 9 March 1999.

(1) OJ L 299, 10.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0378/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Review of EU sheepmeat regime

Can the Commission confirm whether it is carrying out a review of the current EU sheepmeat regime and its effectiveness and indicate when it is likely to publish its conclusions on the subject?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

An evaluation study is presently being undertaken into the sheepmeat common market organisation. On the basis of the findings of the study, which will be completed by about Easter, the Commission will draw its own conclusions concerning any possible reform or modifications to the regime and, if appropriate, present proposals to this effect later in the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0293/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Czech Republic's progress on the way to accession

Is the Commission aware that the German government considers the Benesch decrees, in so far as they relate to the deportation, revocation of citizenship and expropriation of Germans in former Czechoslovakia, as contrary to international law, and how in that connection does it view the possibility of those decrees continuing to remain in force in the context of possible accession by the Czech Republic to the European Union, having regard in particular to the Copenhagen political criteria?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0293/00, E-0294/00, E-0295/00, E-0296/00, E-0297/00, E-0298/00, E-0299/00, E-0300/00, E-0301/00, E-0302/00, E-0303/00 and E-0398/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The accession negotiations with the Czech Republic concern principally its acceptance of and alignment with the acquis of the European Union and its ability to satisfy the conditions for membership established by the European Council. As a Member State, the Czech Republic will have to adopt and implement all areas of Community legislation and policy, including the principles of free movement of people and freedom of establishment. The issue raised by the Honourable Member has to be seen foremost in that context, but obviously also the political criteria of Copenhagen play a role given the fact that they contain the protection of the human rights and the protection of the rights of minorities. The Commission is closely monitoring developments on these matters in all the candidate countries.

It is, however, important to notice that the issue put forward in these questions relates to events which took place before the entry into force of the EC Treaty. The so-called Benesch decrees will therefore play no role in the accession negotiations. Moreover, Article 295 (ex-Article 222) EC Treaty states that the Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership. The Commission is thus not in a position to intervene in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

However, the Czech Republic has been a party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) since 1992. The implementation of the ECHR is the responsibility of the Council of Europe. Questions concerning issues arising under this convention should therefore be best addressed to the Council of Europe.

The Commission would furthermore refer the Honourable Member to the relevant provisions of the Czech-German declaration adopted on 21 January 1997 on mutual relations.

It is for the several reasons mentioned above, that the Commission finds it difficult to take a position on the specific cases raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1136/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 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.

Identifying and utilising information from within and outside the Community will be a key activity of the Authority (section 49 ff). Information is important in order to identify potential problems as soon as possible. The Authority will act as a watchdog with regard to emerging hazards.

1. To what extent can the Authority advise the Commission on potential problems without involving the scientific committees?

2. Does not the existence of a twin-track system of advice the Food Authority and the scientific committees undermine the efficiency of the Food Authority? If not, what guarantees does the Commission have that duplication of advice does not inhibit the effectiveness of the Authority?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1121/00, E-1124/00, E-1126/00, E-1129/00, E-1130/00, E-1131/00, E-1132/00, E-1135/00, E-1136/00, E-1137/00, E-1138/00 and E-1139/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

In the White Paper on Food Safety(1), the Commission set out the general guidelines it intends to adopt concerning the future establishment of the European Food Authority and invited all the parties concerned to respond and contribute to the discussion during the consultation period. Regarding many of the points raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to finalise its proposals or fix the details of operational mechanisms until it has had an opportunity to consider the opinions expressed during the consultation procedure.

However, with regard to the question of responsibilities, the White Paper states that risk assessment, the gathering of data and providing information to consumers in areas for which the Authority is responsible should be a matter for that Authority. For legal reasons and reasons of democratic responsibility, the Commission believes that, under the current framework, the transfer of regulatory powers to an independent authority cannot be justified. However, any future extension of the Authority's powers would have to be considered in the light of the Commission's assessment of the Authority's performance and the degree of confidence that it has generated without ruling out a possible need to amend the Treaty.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0123/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Computer recycling

Because of the pace at which technology is advancing, many developed countries, companies, universities and even ordinary citizens replace their PCs frequently because they are no longer of any use for their new specialised requirements, while at the same time there is a new generation of electronic illiterates growing up who could put them to good use. At the recent Medi@terra Mediterranean and Balkan symposium at Athens, held under the patronage of the Council of Europe and the Ministry of Culture, a proposal was put forward to set up a scheme for recycling old computers, which would aim to channel them, after collection, valuation and any necessary modifications, to countries in need of computers, together with the provision of the necessary training and technical support.

Since, in the context of the Information Society, the European Union's interest in the dissemination of information and technology to as many sections of the public as possible can be taken as read, can the Commission say:

1. whether it agrees with the above suggestion,

2. from which EU programmes an endeavour such as this could be funded, and

3. what legal problems would be likely to arise in connection with the donation of computers and, particularly, software?

4. Could the Commission provide information on whether similar activities exist in other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

1. and 2. The Commission agrees that re-cycling old computers is in general economically and environmentally appropriate. It is in favour of improving information technology in developing countries, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have the possibility under cofinanced projects to include a computer recycling element.

Following a call for tenders, the Commission has signed a contract with an NGO for the removal of its own old computers. This enables this NGO to recycle these computers inside and outside the Community in the course of its activities. Further the Commission cooperates on request with this NGO in the preparation of computers for schools and associations in the community and for projects in third countries.

3. and 4. In the performance of its duties under the Treaties, the Commission does not acquire information of the kind requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1053/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Draft proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of pedestrians and other road users in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle

I understand that this subject was discussed at a meeting of the Working Group on Motor Vehicles.

What was the conclusion of these discussions, and when will the proposal for a Directive be forwarded to Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

The matter of pedestrian protection was tackled at the meeting of the working party on motor vehicles held in March 2000. A certain number of factors was examined at that time. Since no conclusion was reached the discussions will have to continue on 5-6 June 2000. The comments and suggestions concerning pedestrian protection made on that occasion will be taken into consideration when a text is finalised.

The Commission shall not fail to inform all involved of the long-term progress made, and thus of the timetable adopted for this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0622/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Ireland's implementation of EU environmental legislation

Would the Commission provide a summary of all the outstanding pieces of EU environmental legislation which Ireland has so far failed to implement in part or in whole, comment on Ireland's record in responding to Commission requests for information and outline any concerns it has about specific directives and their perceived non-implementation.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's annual reports on monitoring the application of Community law for an overview of the main issues of non-compliance with environmental legislation in the Member States, including Ireland.

As regards comments on Ireland's record in responding to Commission requests for information on environmental complaints, the Commission has since mid-1999 been making systematic use of letters of formal notice pursuant to Articles 10 (ex Article 5) and Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty in relation to Member States which do not provide timely responses to such requests. Two such letters have been addressed to Ireland.

The Honourable Member is requested to identify the specific directives she has in mind.