ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1591/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Canary Islands transport network project

Was consideration given to the Canary Islands' status as an outermost region, as provided for in Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, when the Canary Islands transport network project, submitted by the Directorate-General for Transport of the Government of the Canary Islands, was examined?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The 1999 call for proposals in order to obtain transport subsidies(1) aims at the selection of the most promising projects submitted for joint financing by the Commission. In this connection, that call sets out a certain number of practical aims to be met by such projects, and these include, in particular, safety promotion, providing the Commission with deeper knowledge, acquiring statistical data in all areas of transport, etc. The call (for proposals) also describes in detail the practical scope of those projects, the results anticipated and the conditions under which they are eligible.

Outermost location is well represented in several European transport policy activities, such as the Community approaches to trans-European networks. However, in this call outermost location is not a principal selection criterion. Conversely the wording of the call stresses that, in order to be eligible, projects must possess a significant European dimension and value. When the project submitted by the Canarian authorities was assessed it was considered to be attractive, but its European dimension was considered to be inadequate.

(1) OJ C 41, 16.2.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2024/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Fishing grounds

Can the Commission indicate what percentage of the Community's fishing grounds are British assuming:

(a) a 12-mile limit and

(b) a 200-mile limit, and what percentage of the fish landed in the last annual period for which figures are available was landed by British-registered boats as measured either by value or weight?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The Commission is unable to provide an indication of the percentage of the Community's fishing grounds that are British as the delimitation of exclusive economic zones is a matter of Member State competence. The common fisheries policy is concerned with the management of fish stocks over the entire area in which they occur, which is quite unrelated to areas of national jurisdiction.

As far as fish landings are concerned, British registered boats accounted for 13,03 % of total landings by Community vessels in 1997 by value and 13,16 % of landings by weight.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1127/00

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.

The Commission seeks to restore and maintain a high level of consumer protection and consumer confidence (section 29 ff.). Establishing a European Food Authority is intended to help. The Commission has not opted for an American-style agency. The regulatory committees with representatives of the Member States will continue to be responsible for drafting and taking decisions. Decision-making on food safety will therefore continue to be influenced by considerations other than scientific ones.

Should the regulatory bodies, i.e. the committees with representatives of the Member States, be obliged to account for their decisions if such decisions depart from scientific advice? If so, how does the Commission feel they should account for their actions? If not, why does the Commission not feel it necessary for the regulatory committees to account for public decisions?

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

(9 June 2000)

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

It would be inappropriate at this stage to anticipate the details of each proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2049/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Subject: Ban on the use of mobile phones during flights

According to an article in the British magazine Flight, the British Civil Aviation administration has carried out a detailed and exhaustive study of the consequences of the use of mobile phones on board aircraft. The findings of this study are that mobile phones definitely have adverse consequences for the operation of the electronic instruments and cause various kinds of interference (both when passengers make and receive calls) and that for safety reasons measures should be taken to impose a complete ban on mobiles both during flights and when aircraft are on the ground.

Does the Commission intend to promote an initiative of this kind as a matter of urgency in order to ensure the greatest possible safety of flights from this point of view? Will it also say whether it might be useful to organise and coordinate a public opinion campaign to make the travelling public aware of this issue?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

The Commission is fully aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member. The same applies to the entire aviation community. Moreover, it recently sent a proposal for a Parliament and Council Regulation(1) which is intended to amend Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation(2) which is intended to lay down common requirements concerning the commercial operation of aircraft which, inter alia, contains provisions banning the use of portable electronic equipment that is likely to affect the proper functioning of aircraft equipment and systems (cf. SPG 1.110 in the annex to this proposal for a regulation).

(1) COM(2000) 121 final.

(2) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1355/00

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

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Need for accurate diagnosis of the technology gap between Europe and America

A recent report claims that the rapid growth of certain information technology industries hides the fact that, overall, Europe's competitiveness is continuing to fall vis-à-vis other regions, such as North America and Japan.

The widening gap between the New World and Europe, and the splits which the new economics are creating within Europe itself is frankly alarming.

Does the Commission believe that it should therefore propose setting up a Committee of Wise Men who could establish an accurate diagnosis of just how far behind Europe is actually lagging, and put forward a range of proposals for overcoming the technology gap, which is unquestionably the major challenge facing Europe today?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2000)

The competitiveness of the European industries making up the information society is of prime importance for the whole of Europe's economy. Indeed, those individual components are responsible for a large proportion of economic growth and thus in the current rise in the number of jobs.

It is against this backdrop that the Commission has launched the eEurope initiative and the jobs strategies within the information society which have, in particular, succeeded in drawing the attention of the political decision-makers to this matter. Owing to that initiative the Lisbon European Council noted the changes taking place and asked for appropriate action in order to promote the expansion of the new economy.

However, in view of the analyses already carried out jointly by the industry and the Commission particularly via several consultative groups such as the high-level group on the social dimension and on employment within the information society, the Information Society Forum or the Global business dialogue, which, in particular, enable a contribution to be made by the operators in the field, there are no plans at this stage to set up a further Committee of Wise Men. The aim is to avoid any overlapping and duplicating of existing structures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2085/00

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2000)

Subject: Testing of functional foods vs. testing of pharmacological compounds

Has the Commission undertaken any review of the ways in which testing of GM foodstuffs regarded as functional foods differs from the testing of pharmacological compounds in Member States, and is it able to say in which respects the systems are significantly different?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Under Community legislation there is no distinct category of functional foods or functional food ingredients. Some foods may bear functional claims on their label. In the White Paper on Food Safety the Commission has announced its intention to put forward relevant proposals on harmonising rules for the making of such claims.

Products that consist of, contain or that are derived from genetically modified organisms are considered to be novel foods or novel food ingredients. They require pre-market authorisation based on a safety assessment according to Regulation (EC) No 258/97.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1624/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Austrians at the European Commission

Austria has been a member of the European Union for the last five years. A few Austrians have moved to the Commission in that period. However it appears that Austria, which accounts for 2,15 % of the EU's total population and makes a disproportionately high contribution to the EU budget (2,65 % of the total), provides only 1,93 % of the top officials at the Commission. This 1,93 % figure amounts to 127 posts, which suggests that Austria is under-represented on the Commission staff.

Is the Commission aware of this state of affairs, and if so, are any other countries in addition to Austria similarly under-represented in relation to the size of their population and their contribution to the EC budget?

What does the Commission intend to do in future to make up this shortfall or to ensure that similar situations do not arise in future?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

According to the most recent official figures (28 April 2000), there are 200 officials of Austrian nationality in the A grades of the Commission, i.e. 2,3 % of all A officials. Among these, 2 were A1's (out of a total of 54, i.e. 3,7 %) and 6 were A2's (out of a total of 195, i.e. 3,08 %).

Of the 15 Member States 5 have a proportion of A grade officials that is lower than their share of the total Community population. Germany has 12,4 % of A officials and 21,8 % of Community population; Spain has 9,5 % of A officials and 10,5 % of Community population; France has 13 % of A officials and 15,8 % of Community population; UK has 11 % of A officials and 15,8 % of Community population; Italy has 12 % of A officials and 15,3 % of total Community population.

The Commission is bound by Article 27 of the Staff Regulations to recruit officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of Member States of the Communities. Promotion takes place after consideration of the comparative merits of officials who are eligible (Article 45 of the Staff Regulations). The Commission will continue to respect these provisions fully.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2090/00

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 June 2000)

Subject: Euromed

Is the Commission aware of the project for a high-speed train link (Euromed) to Almería (Spain)?

Will this project be funded partly or wholly by the EU?

If there is to be EU funding, to which of the Community funds will it be charged and what sum will be involved?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The extension of the so-called Euromed railway line to the city of Almería through the region of Murcia is mentioned in the Spanish regional development plan for objective 1 regions and is one of the most important projects for the period 2000-2006 in the region of Andalusia. The project is also scheduled in the Spanish infrastructure plan for the period 2000-2007. However, as negotiations on the Community support framework for objective 1 structural fund support to Spain are still under way, it is not possible to state yet whether the project will be supported in this context.

On the other hand, this line is not defined as Trans-European rail network (TEN) and is therefore not eligible for funding under the Cohesion fund or the TEN-transport budget line.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2216/00

by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Formal investigation concerning planned factory outlet mall in Zweibrücken, Saarland (Germany)

In September 1997 Helwin Peter MEP put a question (E-2966/97)(1) to the Commission asking if it intended to initiate a formal investigation into the planned factory outlet mall in Zweibrücken.

In his answer of 15 December 1998 to a further written question (E-3497/98)(2), Commissioner Van Miert said that the Commission would address to the complainants (Europaverband der Selbständigen Bundesverband Deutschland e.V. German branch of the European association of self-employed persons) a letter stating what further action the Commission would take.

No such letter has yet been received.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is the matter ready for a decision?

2. If so, what decision has been taken?

3. When will the complainants receive a communication on the subject?

(1) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 46.

(2) OJ C 289, 11.10.1999, p. 53.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

During the investigations of the case by the Commission it emerged that the facts as presented by the complainants, which are either based on an article in the press or have been given without providing any source, are incorrect. The correct presentation of the facts gives the Commission no reason to raise any doubts concerning state aid.

The Commission has already informed the complainants on 14 July 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1599/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2000)

Subject: Construction of a thermal power plant in Montalto di Castro

Given that the district of Montalto di Castro already has a large energy production facility (7400 MW, equal to 14 % of total national production), which has a considerable impact

on the coast of Latium, will the Commission say whether the building of a thermal power plant at Pian dei Gangani (Montalto di Castro) proposed by Elettro Ambiente spa, a member of the Enel group, a project overwhelmingly rejected by the Latium region, would be in breach of EEC rules on the subject?

The plant would be fuelled by biomass and CDR with a power of 14 MW, a fuel derived from waste which could produce dangerous emissions.

What will the Commission do to protect public health and the environment and safeguard business and tourist activities in the area, while ensuring that the region of Montalto di Castro is not further exposed to harmful emissions, in line with the appeals made on various occasions by the Province of Viterbo to different Community bodies?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2000)

The aspect concerning the prevention of air pollution from a plant which is still at the project stage is to be considered in the framework of the Community environmental impact assessment (EIA) legislation Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC(2). In particular, Article 1 of Directive 97/11/EC provides that Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Air pollution is among the impacts to be assessed.

The project to which the Honourable Member makes reference appears to be one of the classes listed under Annex II of Directive 97/11/EC. Article 4, paragraph 2, of this directive states that subject to Article 2(3), for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States shall determine through a case-by-case examination, or thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

However, as reported by the Honourable Member, the regional authorities have rejected the project. Therefore, the Commission considers that, at present, there are no grounds for intervention in this specific case. Should the project be approved in the future without taking appropriate account of the Community EIA directives, a breach of Community law will occur and, according to the EC Treaty, the Commission will be entitled to intervene.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1633/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Withholding tax

Following the 1999 Helsinki Summit, the UK press reported that the Commission had agreed to a sequencing model for the withholding tax, namely that the withholding tax would not be implemented in the EU without agreement by other countries such as Switzerland and other OECD members. Sources in the UK Government also suggested that this concession had been secured by the UK Government from the Commission.

In a letter to UK Conservative MEP Charles Tannock, dated 21 March 2000, Commission Bolkestein wrote that The EU simply cannot allow itself to become paralysed in an area which is of vital importance to the proper functioning of the single market, because of fear that other countries may not follow its example.

Could the Commission please clarify which of these views is correct? Specifically, are there any circumstances in which it would press ahead with the imposition of a withholding tax in the EU without obtaining undertakings from other leading OECD countries to impose identical or similar arrangements?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2000)

The sequencing approach to which the Honourable Member refers is set out in paragraph 18 of the report on reinforced tax policy co-operation, as tabled by the Finnish Presidency at the Ecofin Council on 29 November 1999. At this Ecofin Council all Member States agreed on the need to conclude on the basis of this report. The conclusions of the Helsinki European Council on 10 and 11 December 1999 also refer to the approaches set out in the report.

The recent Santa Maria da Feira European Council endorsed a report on the tax package agreed by the Ecofin Council on 20 June(1). It also endorsed the timetable set out in this report, which foresees a step-by-step development towards realisation of the exchange of information as the basis for the taxation of savings income of non-residents. Point 2 (c) of the report by the Ecofin Council sets out a timetable for discussions with key third countries and dependent or associated territories which are to take place prior to the adoption and implementation of the proposed directive(2).

The Commission is fully committed to this timetable and will assist the Ecofin Council in meeting the request from the European Council to pursue with determination work on all parts of the tax package so as to achieve full agreement on the adoption of the directives and the tax package as a whole as soon as possible and no later than by the end of 2002.

(1) The report by the Ecofin Council is attached to the Presidency conclusions of the Santa Maria da Feira European Council of 19 and 20 June 2000 (Annex IV).

(2) Proposal for a directive to ensure a minimum of effective taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments within the Community (OJ C 212, 8.7.1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1785/00

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Designation of origin for medlar fruit grown in Axarquìa (Malaga region, Spain)

The recent holding of the sixteenth Medlar Day in Sayalonga (Axarquìa district, Malaga province, Spain) has once again drawn attention to the fact that the local authorities in Sayalonga have opened negotiations with the Andalucia Regional Government's Agricultural Quality Department with a view to securing a designation of origin for medlars grown in Axarquìa.

In this connection it should be pointed out that, with production totalling 600 000 kilos, Sayalonga is the biggest producer of medlar in Malaga province. This also makes it, together with the town of Estepona (also in the Malaga area), Andalusia's main medlar producer.

What is the Commission's view regarding the application for a designation of origin to be applied to the Sayalonga medlar, and what aid and protection can it provide for this unusual fruit, which is unique and of particular importance amongst the exotic fruits grown within the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The system for protecting geographical names of individual agricultural products having a clear link with a precisely defined area is an arrangement open to Community producers who are prepared to define their product and become involved in such a system on a voluntary basis. It entails an obligation to undergo monitoring and comply with the product specification.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, under which this system was set up, was adopted in order to support individual agricultural products that meet certain criteria through protection of the name. The authorities of the Member State concerned must in any case first examine the application for registration, which will, if justified, then be forwarded to the Commission.

The approach could be in line with the policy followed by the Community in this connection. It is impossible, however, to give an opinion on the possibility of registering the name Níspero de Axarquía without having access to the requisite details.