ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1693/99

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 September 1999)

Subject: VEBA AG real estate affair EU Balkan representative Bodo Hombach

1. Before appointing ex-minister Bodo Hombach as the EU representative in the Balkans, was the European Council aware of his possible involvement in the VEBA AG real estate affair, which had been alleged in the German press?

2. Before Hombach's appointment, did the President of the European Council, a member of the Council or a Council representative consult about the accusations concerning the building of Hombach's private house? If so, what was the outcome?

3. Is the Council aware that on 13 August 1999, as anticipated, the 12th criminal division of Bochum Regional Court (Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany) convicted Hombach's former building project manager of perjury? Is the Council aware that the conviction was based on the fact that the project manager had initially denied under oath having illegally charged to VEBA AG payments for Hombach's house in Mülheim an der Ruhr, but subsequently admitted that VEBA had paid a six-figure sum towards Hombach's construction costs?

4. In the light of this judgment and of the new code of honour for EU Commissioners, which is applicable mutatis mutandis, does the Council consider that Hombach can continue to perform his duties as EU coordinator for the Balkans and remain in office?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1693/99, E-1694/99 and E-1776/99

(14 February 2000)

The Council is aware of the allegations made in the German press on the activities undertaken by Mr Hombach prior to his appointment as EU Special Representative and Special Coordinator of the Stability Pact.

In light of the clarifications given by Mr Hombach to the Presidency on the questions concerning him and in the absence of any conviction by a court of law, the Presidency and the Council continue to support him in performing the role entrusted to him.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2256/99

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Horse wrestling

Would the Commission indicate whether it finds it acceptable that, in Spain, the spectator sport of horse wrestling is allowed to continue?

Constituents of mine have been shocked to see images on British television of wild horses being wrestled to the ground in the name of entertainment as they are broken in.

Is there any action the Commission is able to take to prevent such cruelty taking place in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2000)

The Commission is very concerned about the welfare of animals and gives it a high priority.

Community rules exist in respect of the protection of horses when they are kept for farming purposes, during transport and at the time of slaughtering.

In accordance with the new protocol on the protection of animal welfare annexed to the EC Treaty, the Community and Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in formulating and implementing the Community's agriculture, transport, internal market and research policies.

On the other hand, and in particular with reference to animal welfare, Community competence does not at present extend to the use of horses in historic and traditional events within a Member State, and as a consequence, this is a matter within the sole jurisdiction of the Member State concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1664/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Disputes in France concerning US demands to force the country to accept its beef

The French trade union Coordination paysanne européenne has organised a number of peaceful demonstrations outside the French branches of the US firm Macdonald's to protest against the US Administration's measures, which heavily tax a number of European products because the Union, quite rightly, refuses to import American beef produced in a way which does not comply with public health requirements in European Union countries.

1. Does the Commission not consider that the symbolic acts by the French trade union the distribution of products hit by the US measures, such as Roquefort and foie gras, outside the symbol of the antithesis of European culinary culture Macdonald's are worthy of support?

2. What steps does the Commission intend to take to oppose the orders of the WTO an organisation under US control concerning imports of foodstuffs, in this specific case beef treated with substances harmful to human health?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1999)

According to Community law as stated for example in Articles 95(3), 152(1) and 153(1) EC Treaty, the Community has to ensure for consumers a high level of food quality and safety. Therefore, following the findings and recommendations of the World trade organisation (WTO) dispute settlement body, the Commission asked its scientific committee on veterinary matters relating to public health (SCVPH) to deliver an opinion on the potential for adverse effects to human health from the administration of the six hormones for animal growth promotion.

At the end of April 1999 the SCVPH delivered its opinion on the assessment of potential risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products. Based on this scientific advice the Commission decided that it could not propose to the Member States to lift the ban.

The United States and Canada initiated WTO procedures to suspend concessions because the period of time to conform with the WTO findings expired on 13 May 1999. The Community asked for WTO arbitration on the amount, as a result of which the United States were authorised to suspend concessions for US$ 116 million, instead of the US$ 202 million they had requested. The Canadian authorisation was limited to CAN$ 11 million instead of the CAN$ 75 million requested by Canada.

The Commission regrets that the United States and Canada have chosen to impose 100 % duties on a number of European products, which not only affects the export business of several companies, but also deprives American consumers of high quality goods produced in Europe.

Meanwhile, the Commission will continue to study the recent scientific data, in order to evaluate on this basis, and in the light of any new relevant information, the steps which are necessary to be taken in the light of the Community's WTO rights and obligations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2385/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: German assistance in constructing a laboratory for chemical weapons

The German Ministry of Defence has recently admitted that it intends to help Turkey build a laboratory for chemical weapons. The project is allegedly purely defensive in nature. However, the Kennzeichen D programme on the ZDF television channel recently quoted military sources as claiming that on 11 May 1999 the Turkish army was using chemical weapons against the Kurdish PKK movement. Apparently twenty Kurds were killed. Research carried out by the University of Munich also shows that the heads on the Turkish chemical shells were supplied by the German firms Buck and Depyfag.

1. Is the Commission aware of German help in building a laboratory for chemical weapons in Turkey?

2. Is this German-Turkish cooperation in line with international and European obligations and undertakings on disarmament and arms control, with particular regard to chemical weapons?

3. Will the Commission oppose German help in building a new laboratory for chemical weapons in Turkey now that it is aware of the facts? If so, in what way will it make its opposition known to the German government? If not, why not?

4. Is the Commission aware that on 11 May 1999 the Turkish army used chemical weapons against the PKK movement? If not, why is the Commission not aware of this violation of the UN convention on chemical weapons by a candidate Member State?

5. Has the Commission made known to Turkey its displeasure at this violation? If so, what was the Turkish government's response? If not, will the Commission do so, now that it has been informed of this fact? If not, why not?

6. Will the Commission conduct an inquiry into the use of German warheads for an assault using chemical weapons in Turkey, given that the equipment was supplied by an EU Member State and that this involves an act by a candidate Member State in violation of the UN convention on chemical weapons? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2000)

The Community is not a party to the Chemical weapons convention (CWC) and has no legal competence to take position on issues related to chemical weapons.

The issues raised by the Honourable Member should be presented to the Organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons, responsible for the implementation of the CWC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1650/99

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Dutch government's assessment of European development aid

Is the Commission aware of the very critical report on the quality of European aid which has been presented by the Dutch government to the Dutch parliament?

Were the Dutch government and the Commission in contact prior to the publication of the report?

Does the Commission broadly agree with the criticism made in the report? If so, which specific criticisms does it agree with, and which does it consider irrelevant or inappropriate?

What, in general, is the Commission's response to this report?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1999)

The Commission noted with interest the existence of the Dutch report on the quality of European aid, which was first brought to its attention by the Honourable Member's written question. Although the Commission did not have any direct contact with the Dutch government on this particular report, there has been a long-standing discussion with Member States on the improvements to be made to European development aid, following four global evaluations that were carried out earlier this year. At its May 1999 meeting, the Development Council adopted a set of conclusions that suggested areas for improvement in the development aid managed by the Commission. These conclusions were the result of a constructive collaboration between the Council and the Commission.

The Commission does broadly concur with the content of the report and is pleased to note that the Dutch government recognises the efforts that it is making to improve the management of development aid. It has already recognised that there are certain areas where its performance needs to be improved. Proposals to introduce improvements have either already been presented to the Council and Parliament, or are currently being developed, either within the context of the present regulations and the Lomé Convention, or in the framework of the negotiations that are on-going on the successor Convention to the Lomé Convention and the new regulations for MEDA and South Africa. The Commission is pleased to note that the Dutch government considers that there are grounds for optimism for the future, in terms of constructive co-operation and positive results.

The Commission is preparing an action plan of measures to respond to the recommendations of the various evaluation reports, as well as the follow-up proposed in the Council conclusions on evaluation, including a strategic framework for all Community development policy. This action plan will be communicated to the Parliament after its adoption by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2121/99

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(22 November 1999)

Subject: Air ticket sales

Rail, road (bus and coach) and sea travellers in the European Union can buy single or return tickets from public or private companies.

However, for air transport, most companies with a few notable exceptions offer single tickets only to business or first-class travellers, which means that economy-class travellers have to buy the return part of the ticket, even though they know that they will not be able to use it.

Does not the Commission think that this constitutes an abuse of power by the airlines, as it obliges air travellers to purchase a service that they will not be able to benefit from?

What action has the Commission taken or what action will it take to end this practice?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 1999)

The fact that airlines often charge less for their cheapest return tickets than they do for a standard fare single ticket is not contrary to Community rules on pricing as set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services(1). Under that Regulation, airlines have the freedom to set both the level and structure of their fares, thereby allowing them to react swiftly to the market. This has lead to more vigorous competition and, in particular, to lower leisure fares on many routes. Most airlines offer their lowest fares in the form of return tickets only, because it would be simply uneconomic to split them and sell them for half the price as single tickets. Often, these leisure tickets represent good value, even if only one half is used.

The benefit of Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92, however, is that it permits airlines to react constantly in order to compete with rivals. A number of the new low-cost carriers are now offering very low single fares and transparent pricing structures based on the cost of each leg of the flight. This shows that airlines are capable of reacting to their customers and it is important to preserve their flexibility to do so.

Taking account of the benefits of giving airlines the flexibility to set fares and rates in reaction to the market, the Commission has no plans to introduce any additional restrictions or requirements on airlines to address the issue of single tickets.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2197/99

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(30 November 1999)

Subject: Combating world hunger

The first report recently published by the UN Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) paints a bleak picture of the world situation since the target set in 1996 to halve the numbers suffering from hunger by the year 2015 does not seem to be materialising. 204 million people in India, 164 million in China, half the population of North Korea and Mongolia, 1/3 of the peoples of Cambodia, Laos and sub-Saharan Africa are suffering from hunger, while two in every five children are undernourished. Bearing in mind that the UN had decided that the developed countries should spend 0,7 % of their GDP on humanitarian aid to the developing countries, will the Council say whether that decision is being implemented and by which Member States of the European Union?

Reply

(31 January 2000)

The final declaration of the World Food Summit held in Rome in November 1996 fixed the long-term objective of eliminating hunger in all countries and in particular halving the numbers suffering from hunger by the year 2015.

Meeting this target would constitute a tremendous advance for humanity. For its part, the Council has given high priority, in the framework of the measures to reduce poverty, to activities aimed at increasing food security. In this context, the Council intends to study closely the results of the evaluation shortly to begin of the working of the June 1996 Regulation on food aid and food security. It hopes to be able to draw conclusions which will lead to an increase in the quality and efficiency of operations to ensure food security in developing countries.

The Council has no precise information on the progress made by Member States towards achieving the target of providing 0,7 % of their GDP as development assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2049/99

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Current position of Mr van Buitenen

Can the Commission state when Mr van Buitenen, who correctly reported on huge levels of corruption, fraud and nepotism within the European Union, will be fully reinstated in his post?

If he has not yet been fully reinstated, can the Commission explain why?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1999)

Mr Paul van Buitenen was fully reinstated at his continued grade and salary, on 16 April 1999, in a post corresponding to his qualifications and training. Since then, he has worked in the Personnel and Administration Directorate General. He was also subsequently informed, in keeping with the Regulation, that he would be entitled to apply for any post for which he is qualified in the Commission or any of the other European Institutions if he wished to at any time in the future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1981/99

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Utilisation of Structural Fund appropriations in Belgium

1. How far have the Structural Fund appropriations allotted to Belgium been utilised:

(a) by objective, and

(b) by region, showing the current state of provisional commitments and funds not yet requested?

2. How far have the appropriations under Community initiatives been utilised? Please show the current state of provisional commitments and funds not yet requested.

3. Where appropriations earmarked for Belgium have not yet been committed, what are the deadlines for submitting projects using 1994-1999 appropriations?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

A table showing total commitments and payments under the programmes for Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(a), 5(b) and the Community Initiatives in Belgium as at 15 November 1999 is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Commitments in respect of projects under the current programming period 1994-1999 must be completed no later than 31 December 1999.

It should be noted that the period for implementing payments in respect of this assistance runs to 31 December 2001 and that expenditure for many programmes has been rescheduled so that all appropriations will be committed by 31 December 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2801/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: European study grants

In view of legislation currently in force in certain Member States that deprives students of access to grants when they have not been living within that Member State for a certain length of time, does not the Commission feel that it would be appropriate for it to initiate a transnational scheme to provide assistance for students who may not have been residing in the Member State for the required period but who, during that period, resided within the Community?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 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-1733/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Cost of missions to Strasbourg

About once a month, the institutional and administrative entity known as the European Parliament, plus significant contingents from the Council, the Commission and the other bodies comprising the European Union, transfers en masse for four to five days from Brussels to Strasbourg or, to put it another way, transfers for around 15 days from Strasbourg to Brussels.

What are the figures and costs involved in this operation?

How many people, apart from the 626 MEPs and their 1 000 or so assistants, commute between the two cities?

Exactly how many people are on mission?

What is the cost of the missions by employees of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and other internal and related bodies?

What is the overall expenditure on missions and the transfer operation as a whole (including means of transport, external firms etc.)?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 1999)

In 1998, Commission officials undertook 2 581 missions to Strasbourg costing a total of 1 242 602. Thus the average cost per mission amounted to 481,44.

From January until May 1999 Commission officials undertook 1 122 missions to Strasbourg. Total costs were 598 310, i.e. 533,25 per mission.

The Commission has no information on missions by staff of the Council and the Parliament, enquiries will have to be addressed to each Institution.

The above figures relate to necessary transport and accommodation costs. Figures for what the Honourable Member describes as the overall transfer operation including, for instance, a calculation of time used could not be obtained without the disproportionate use of public funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1873/99

by Margot Keßler (PSE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Designation as a conservation area pursuant to Directive 92/43/EEC (Fauna and Flora Habitat Directive)

What legal and technical stage has been reached in the efforts to have the Schmücke region in Thuringia (Germany) designated as a special area of conservation within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC(1)?

What steps has the Commission taken in this respect, or what steps is it planning to take in the future, to help bring this matter to an early conclusion?

The answer to this question should pay particular attention to the possibility of conflict arising from the potential mining of limestone at Gorsleben and the plans for the B 71 motorway route with respect, inter alia, to the importance of the area within the Wippertal-Wipperdurchbruch-Hainleite-Schmücke-Finne biotope system.

How does the Commission think the efficiency of the internal decision-making processes might be improved?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Germany has not yet proposed the area Schmücke in Thuringia to the Commission as a site of Community importance according to Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. However, the Commission has been informed of probable very high European interest due to the presence of different Annex I natural habitat types of Community interest and Annex II animal and plant species of Community interest including different priority habitat types. This high value was confirmed by the regional authorities of Thuringia, who are responsible for this and have already covered two parts of the Schmücke area by including them in a 1994/1995 scientific list for sites meriting a Natura 2000 proposal. However, no coherent list for this part of Germany has yet reached the Commission.

The Commission, on the basis of information put forward by third persons, is therefore in contact with the German government. The Commission invited the German authorities to take a position with regard to the site concerned as well as a view to two envisaged projects which might have a significant effect on the site, a limestone quarry and the construction of the motorway BAB 71. However, there is no reply yet. The objective of the Commission's intervention is to ensure that the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC are fully respected.

The efficiency of the internal decision making process of Member States falls under the auspices of the administration concerned. The task of the Commission in this respect is limited, according to the EC Treaty, to ensuring that Community legislation is respected.