ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1950/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Accreditation and operation of the EAGGF aid paying agency in Greece

The Court of Auditors' 1998 annual report states that the Greek paying agency (Gedidagep) which is responsible for managing Agricultural Fund aid had failed to meet the accreditation criteria and that budgetary discipline procedures and adjustments of the annual advances had therefore been initiated. In 1998 the Greek Government set up a new paying and audit agency for EAGGF funds (Opekepe) and an accounts certification organisation.

1. What progress have the procedures for the accreditation of the new paying agency (Opekepe) and the accounts certification organisation made so far? When are they due to become operational?

2. Does the present paying agency (Gedidagep) meet the accreditation criteria? Have fresh budgetary disciplinary procedures been initiated for 1999?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

1. The Commission is aware that a new paying agency and certifying body will be introduced in the future. However, it has no information on exactly when the new organisations will be put in place. Under Community legislation it is for the Greek authorities to nominate paying agencies and certifying bodies.

2. The Commission is not fully satisfied with the application of the integrated administrative and control system, or the application of the accreditation criteria in Greece.

The provisions of budgetary discipline were applied in 1999. This lead to reductions of advances of DRA 22 900 million ( 69,5 million) for non-application of the Integrated administrative and control system and DRA 12 100 million ( 35,7 million) for non respect of the accreditation criteria.

It should be noted, however, that these reductions in advances might be revised upwards or downwards, and even cancelled, during the clearance of accounts process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2588/00

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Stable currency markets

In the light of unwarranted speculation against the Euro and other currencies, what plans does the EU have to stabilise currency markets and make them accountable for their actions?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Article 111 (ex Article 109) of the EC Treaty stipulates that the Council may, acting unanimously on a recommendation from the European Central Bank (ECB) or from the Commission and after consulting the Parliament, conclude formal agreements on an exchange rate system for the euro. There are currently no plans to suggest such a formal arrangement between the euro and major international non-Community currencies. While such an arrangement might stabilise international currency markets, the monetary policies, as well as other economic policies of participants would be submitted to external targets which might interfere with the achievement of domestic objectives such as price stability and high employment.

In the absence of an exchange rate system, the Council may formulate general orientations for exchange-rate policy in relation to non-Community currencies. Such general orientations shall be without prejudice to the primary objective of the European System of the Central Bank (ESCB) to maintain price stability. Thus, exchange rate developments are taken into account to the extent they impact on the outlook for price stability. If the ECB considers that exchange rate developments could threaten the price stability objective (via their influence on import prices and export competitiveness), then it may counter these impulses through its interest rate policy and interventions on foreign exchange markets. Although in May 2000, the Euro 11 group of Ministers and the Commissioner responsible for Economic and financial affairs, and the President of the European Central Bank stressed a common concern about the level of the euro which did not reflect strong economic fundamentals of the euro area, neither the Council, the Commission nor the ECB has considered it necessary or desirable to issue such general orientations.

Other economic policies, in particular fiscal and structural policy, also have an impact on exchange rate. A well balanced fiscal-monetary policy mix, structural reform and a well-functioning labour market may raise the expected rate of return on investment in the euro area, thus attracting capital flows and strengthening the euro exchange rate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1877/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Progress on the Attica highway and the Athens suburban railway

The Attica highway, known as the Elefsina Stavrou Spata Airport freeway, is a major project which is closely associated with the operation of the new airport in Spata and the 2004 Olympic Games. The original budget of this project was Drs. 450 billion, and it was due to be completed and gradually handed over between 2001 and 2002. Recently a number of airlines have been threatening to boycott Spata airport if the above highway leading to the new airport has not been completed. There are also signs that the suburban railway linking the new airport of Spata and Athens will not be ready for the Olympic Games in 2004, since the competition for the choice of consultant for the project will be invalidated.

Will the Commission say:

1. What is the overall take-up rate of appropriations for the project so far, what is the delay in the handover of the project and has any provision been made for the payment of compensation for this delay?

2. When is the project expected to be opened to traffic given the present rate of construction?

3. What are the consequences likely to be for the operation of Spata airport if the Attica highway is not completed in time?

4. What exactly is to be done to link the centre of Athens by rail to the new airport of Spata?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 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-1710/00

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Arms exports

Is the Commission aware that concern has been expressed within the Union about evasion of restraints on arms exports to countries such as Sudan? The problem concerns licensing of arms manufacture to third country producers. Is the Commission taking steps to keep itself informed about this risk and to forestall it? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Member States have up to now, on the basis of Article 296 (ex-Article 223) of the EC Treaty exempted trade in arms from the scope of application of treaty rules. Therefore, the Commission possesses neither the authority nor the means to monitor the export of armaments or licensing of arms production.

Arms trade is currently dealt with in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), to which the Commission is fully associated. Under the CFSP the Union adopted a Code of Conduct on arms exports in June 1998 the criteria of which the Member States are pledged to respect.

The Commission is conscious of the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member regarding licensed production agreements in third countries. In fact, such exports could at times amount to exports in disguise to countries where existing export controls would normally not allow them to take place. However, at this time, on the basis of the Union Code of Conduct on arms exports, it is export licences rather than licensed production agreements which are precluded.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1811/00

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Climate-change levy

Does the Commission consider hydrogenerated electricity to be electricity generated from a renewable source? If hydroelectricity is a renewable energy, is there any reason to discriminate against it in the context of climate-change policy?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Honourable Member inquires about discrimination against hydroelectric power in the context of climate change policy. In this context it should be mentioned that the Commission on 10 May 2000 adopted a proposal for a directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market(1). This proposal reflects the Commission's traditional position on the role of hydro power: it is clearly a renewable energy source, but electricity from large hydroelectric installations (i.e. with a capacity above 10 mega watt (MW) is in general competitive and does not need particular support. Member States thus can include electricity produced from large hydroelectric stations for achieving their national target for consumption of electricity produced from renewable energy sources as indicated in the annex to the proposal. All forms of hydropower are therefore also included in the provisions on certification of origin, as consumers should have the right to know if their electricity is produced from renewable sources of energy. However, in the case of hydroelectric installations, guarantee certificates have to specify whether the capacity is above or under 10 MW. Furthermore, large hydro does not benefit from the more technical provision

of the proposal, e.g. priority access to the grid, as this is not needed to assure its economic viability on the market. In sum, the Commission does not discriminate against hydropower in its energy policy, but tries to focus public support on the types of renewable energy sources where it is most needed and justified in economic terms.

(1) COM(2000) 279 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1779/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: EU fishing agreements with Morocco

Is the European Commission aware that the coastal waters south of 27°4 parallel lie off disputed territory?

Does it therefore acknowledge that it is neither right nor proper to include these off-shore waters in any fisheries agreement with Morocco?

Will it therefore accept that the territorial waters south of the parallel 27°4 should not constitute part of the current EU fisheries agreement being negotiated with Morocco?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2000)

In the possible negotiations with Morocco, the Commission will refer to the fishing zone of Morocco, this area being defined by the waters falling within sovereignty and/or within the jurisdiction of Morocco.

This definition does not prejudge in any way the status of the waters to the south of parallel 27°4, this question being governed by international law, and more particularly, by the various resolutions of the United Nations, to which the Community has constantly given its support.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0878/00

by Ole Krarup (EDD) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: EU defence aspirations

At the Helsinki EU Summit in December it was decided to equip the Union for civilian and military crisis management by measures including the establishment of a 50 000-60 000-strong rapid reaction force. The Portuguese Presidency has said in this context that building up the EU's future capabilities will affect both our defence budgets and our public opinion (Presidency invitation to the governments of the Member States for the discussion of the Union's defence policy aspirations, 28 February 2000).

What increases in the Member States' defence budgets is the build-up of EU military capabilities expected to entail? Please show the overall percentage increase and a breakdown with the extra spending for each Member State.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

The military headline goal announced at the Helsinki European Council will certainly require a concerted effort on the part of the Member States. It should be noted, though, that military expenditure is the sole responsibility of Member States themselves. Questions concerning national defence budgets should therefore rightfully be addressed to the Member States.

For its part, and within its specific areas of competence, the Commission will contribute fully to the achievement of the objectives of ESDP, including the realisation of the headline goals. This is right and proper, since there is clearly an umbilical link between the military and non-military dimensions of conflict prevention, conflict resolution and crisis management. The Commission has considerable experience and extensive responsiblities in the non-military field.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2308/00

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

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Levels of commitment and implementation of budget line B7-546

What are the latest figures the Commission has available concerning the level of implementation of commitment and payment appropriations under budget heading B7-546?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The situation at 9 July 2000 regarding the use of appropriations under budget heading B7-546 (Aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo) was the following: 95 % of the available commitment appropriations (carryovers included), and 71 % of the payment appropriations for the financial year had been used.

As had been agreed with the budgetary authority when the 2000 budget was adopted, the Commission will be shortly preparing a transfer request to complete the mobilisation of the extra 40 million commitment appropriations announced at the beginning of the year. A further transfer request will be proposed to make good the shortfalls in payment appropriations, which are due to run out before September.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1757/00

by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Aid to the dried fruit and carob sector

The Commission has acknowledged that, in view of the continuing impact of imports, there is a need for aid to be provided for the dried fruit and carob sector using the instruments referred to in the Rural Development Regulation. This does not meet the needs of the dried fruit and carob sector since the Member States have already drawn up their RDPs and the latter do not have the necessary budgetary means to assure the survival of the sector. Moreover, it is a problem affecting the market and should be dealt with using market related measures which are equally applicable throughout the regions concerned so as not to lead to distortions of competition between producers.

Therefore, does the Commission not consider that there are sound reasons for maintaining the aid provided for the dried fruit and carob sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions E-524/00 by Mr Pittella and others(1), P-989/00 by Mr Martinez(2), E-1356/00 by Mr Hernández Mollar(3) and to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-428/00 by Mr Esteve during question time at Parliament's May 2000 part-session(4).

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 57.

(2) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 50.

(3) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 29.

(4) Debates of the European Parliament (May 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0862/00

by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Commission view on the introduction of advertising into state educational establishments

For several years now, companies have been insinuating themselves into state educational establishments through advertising, sponsorship, brand-names and distance teaching. This practice, which seeks to turn schoolchildren into consumers, is now taking on worrying proportions in France and in a number of other EU countries and is consequently undermining the established principle of equality in state education. All too often, these private companies take advantage of the lack of resources available to teachers to do their work.

As this phenomenon is becoming increasingly widespread and commonplace throughout the Union, I would like to ask the Commission to outline its view on this matter and to reveal whether any legislation to limit the introduction of commerce into state schools is in the pipeline.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The Commission is aware of the importance of the issue raised by the Honourable Member, and of the positive and negative aspects of these commercial practices, as can be seen from the study entitled Marketing in schools, which was financed by the Commission and has been available on the Internet(1) since late 1998.

Where the use of such practices results in misleading advertising or hidden advertising messages, the provisions of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising(2) apply.

However, in line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the Commission does not believe that adopting more specific legislation at Community level is the best solution to this problem. The Commission has therefore already contacted the parties concerned, including consumer organisations, to encourage them to start talks on a set of non-binding rules for commercial practices which target children and young people.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/surveys/sur03_en.html.

(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1690/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Cost of the drink milk campaign

Can the Commission provide details of the budgeted costs for the trendy girls drink milk campaign, which was launched in November 1999 to increase milk consumption in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

The Community did not finance the campaign with the title trendy girls drink milk.

Complete information concerning promotional campaigns for milk and milk products funded by the Community can be found on the following Commission web-site address:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg06/prom/index_en.htm
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1882/00

by Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: Conflicts in Africa

At its meeting in Brussels on 22 and 23 May 2000 the General Affairs Council rightly stressed the complexity of the factors involved in the conflict in the Great Lakes region of Africa.

The provisional version of the Council press release mentions political, economic and social factors.

Does the Council not take the view that in considering the factors determining the conflicts which are tearing Africa apart it should take cultural factors into account?

Reply

(10 October 2000)

The Council's conclusions would not claim to be comprehensive, listing all the factors which contribute to the conflicts in question. Cultural factors of course also play a role.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1215/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Parliamentary dependants

How many British politicians, excluding members of the European Parliament, are in receipt of monies from the European Communities, be they pensions or otherwise sourced?

Who are they? What level of finances are involved in each case? What requirement remains on such individuals to support the policy of their former employers?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 2000)

The Commission takes the Honourable Member's reference to British politicians to refer to former Members of the Commission.

The following former members of the Commission of British nationality currently benefit from a pension which commenced when they reached retirement age: George Thompson, Roy Jenkins, Stanley Clinton Davis, Francis Cockfield, Ivor Richard, Bruce Millan, and Ralf Dahrendorf. The total cost involved is currently of the order of £ 245 000 net per annum. The transitional allowance to which Sir Leon Brittan was entitled was suspended, at his request, from 1 January 2000.

There is no requirement that former Members of the Commission support the policy of their former employers. Ex-Members of the Commission are bound by the provisions of Article 213 of the Treaty and by their Oath of office to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits. In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned be, according to the circumstances, mldr deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its stead. There is also an obligation to inform the Commission of all changes that might modify the level of entitlement (Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of the Council of 25 July 1967 determining the emoluments of the President and members of the Commission and of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice(1)).

(1) OJ L 187, 8.8.1967 and amendments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1941/00

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

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Budget Item A-3025

Journalists in Europe are allocated 250 000 from Item A-3025. Could the Commission indicate exactly how these funds are used and to whom it is allocated?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The funds provided under Item A-3025 are intended to cover the Commission's financial contribution to the association Journalists in Europe.

The aim of this association is to help journalists from various countries throughout the world to get to know Europe, the various countries of which it is made up, its common institutions and its history.

To this end, the association organises study programmes and courses providing a knowledge and understanding of Europe, not only of its economic and social characteristics but also of its cultural and political aspects. It organises meetings and publishes documents relating to its aims. It also awards grants to allow journalists to take part in its activities.

Since its foundation in 1974, Journalists in Europe has received 707 journalists from 98 countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1938/00

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

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Budget Item A-3022

European study and research centres are allocated 1 500 000 from Item A-3022. Could the Commission indicate how these centres are selected and what study/research activities they carry out?

What specific targets does the Commission set for the centres in order for them to qualify for a Community grant?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

Item A-3022 of the Community's general budget provides for subsidies for European integration activities organised by university study and research centres with a view to raising public awareness.

To guarantee the quality of the result, every effort was made to take all aspects into account when developing the selection procedure. The text of the call for proposals was published in the Official Journal(1) and disseminated widely, primarily via the Internet. During the selection procedure, the projects were assessed by a group of independent experts made up of university teaching staff.

The Commission's objective is to support the European integration activities organised by academic institutions and study centres.

The call for projects also contains several more specific objectives, one of which is the multiplier effect sought by funding quality activities and activities involving reflection and debate which are organised by universities and are open to the public. The priority areas agreed on (enlargement, the euro, the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) and the Union and world trade) were chosen with effective budget expenditure in mind. Other objectives were the selection of applicants with the technical and financial capacity to manage projects and to develop and support networks of teachers, students and universities with the potential to reach a wide national or international audience.

(1) OJ C 61, 3.3.2000.