ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2842/99

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

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Including research tasks 2.1.3 Climate change prediction and scenarios in the Second Call for proposals

Can the Commission confirm that it has no immediate plans to include research task 2.1.3 Climate change prediction and scenarios in the Second Call for proposals under the Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development research programme, and, if so, explain whether this is for administrative reasons, budgetary reasons, or because it believes that all necessary research in this field is now being undertaken?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2832/99 and E-2842/99 given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

The work programme of the first two calls has been meticulously designed and formulated in consultation with the expert advisory group and the programme management committee. Further discussions will be undertaken with these bodies in the light of the calls.

Mainly due to budgetary reasons, but also following the advice of the above mentioned bodies, the sub-theme 2.1.3 Climate change prediction and scenarios was opened in the first call and is not included in the second call, but will be opened in the 2001 call.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2562/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Deposit insurance

Would the Commission please tabulate the existing provisions for insurance or guarantee of deposits with banks in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The provisions for deposit guarantee schemes in Member States are tabulated in the annex to the Commission report(1) on the Directive on deposit guarantee schemes (94/19/EC). This report was adopted by the Commission on 22 December 1999 and will shortly be sent to the Council and the Parliament.

Directive 94/19/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes(2) stipulates that from 1 January 2000 the minimum level of deposit guarantee is 20 000 within the Community. According to national laws, deposit guarantees are in the range of 20 000 to 25 000 in most Member States. Only three Member States have higher national guarantee levels (Denmark, France and Italy).

The Commission report offers information on deposit guarantee levels in all Member States and Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. In addition, the report states the scope of the guarantee, offers reference to the different national laws establishing the deposit guarantee schemes and lists the institutes issuing the guarantee.

(1) Commission report on the application of the export-prohibition clause, Art 4(1) of the Directive on deposit guarantee schemes (94/19/EC), COM(1999) 722 final.

(2) OJ L 135, 31.5.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2421/99

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: New directive on honey that penalises beekeepers

The Commission is preparing to adopt a new directive on honey to replace Regulation No 74/409(1). As drafted, this directive would seriously penalise those working in the sector.

Does the Commission not consider it should postpone adoption of the provision so that it can examine more thoroughly the justifiable demands made by Italian and European beekeepers, which focus in particular on:

1. reconsidering the production of honey as an agricultural activity and not yielding to the lobbying of the preserved food industry, which as always is concerned with reducing the product's quality specifications and making the compulsory wording on the label obscure;

2. recognising individual countries' rights to safeguard the definition of honey as a product obtained exclusively from flower nectar and to prevent honey and mixtures from outside the Community coming onto the European market, as often happens with the complicity of Member States?

(1) OJ L 221, 12.8.1974, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2000)

In 1996 the Commission presented a proposal for a Directive(1) designed to simplify and replace Council Directive 74/409/EEC of 22 July 1974 on honey(2). When drafting the proposal and in the discussions that followed, the Commission took account in accordance with the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council of the Community interests of all parties concerned.

1. The proposal for a Directive on honey defines honey and lays down certain compositional criteria which all Community and non-Community honey must meet in order to be marketed under the name of honey.

2. It would therefore be against the rules governing Community and international trade to oppose the import of honey from outside the Community when the product complies with the rules laid down in the Directive on honey. However, after Parliament delivered its opinion in May 1999, the Commission decided to amend its proposal to make it compulsory to indicate the country of origin of non-Community honey on the label. At the Council meetings, some Member States raised the question of the labelling of mixtures of Community and non-Community honey. However, this question has not yet been resolved.

(1) OJ C 378, 13.12.1996.

(2) OJ L 221, 12.8.1974.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2332/99

by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Innovative actions increasing transactional business by European SMEs accessing third markets (call for proposals 98/C 219/13)

Would the Commission provide the following information on the above topic(1):

- total number of projects subsidised in 1998 and 1999,

- identity of the beneficiaries,

- amount of funding made available,

- the European participants in the consortia,

- the third countries involved,

- date of the next call for proposals.

(1) OJ C 219, 15.7.1998, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Following the call for proposals (98/C 219/13), the Commission awarded subsidies to four proposals namely the proposal by EIC-CRCI Orleans (FR) regarding a Firmenpool action France-Israel (subsidy of 80 000), the proposal by Excal (Spain) regarding a Firmenpool action Spain-Mexico/Argentina (subsidy of 75 909), the proposal by Lisburn Enterprise (United Kingdom) regarding a Compagnonnage action N.Ireland/United States (subsidy of 80 000), and the proposal by MLIP (Germany) regarding a Firmenpool action Germany/United Kingdom and United States (subsidy of 80 000).

The call for proposals did not request proponents to set up consortia. Nevertheless MLIP has associated to the development of its action Business Link from Thames Valley, Greater Nottingham and Isle of Wight (United Kingdom), three German Chambers of Commerce (Magdeburg, Leipzig, Dresden) and AFG Mecklenburg.

Due to the experimental nature of the programme Innovative actions, the Commission will take a decision on the possible launch of a new call for proposals after the results of these four projects have been evaluated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2781/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Support measures for the marketing of oranges in Greece

It is expected that the large increase in orange production anticipated this year in Greece will create additional problems in finding market outlets for the product. The difficulty in exporting to central and eastern European countries, because of the bureaucratic and economic problems in certain countries and also because of the destruction of key roads due to the Yugoslavian war, is aggravating the market problem with the result that producers' incomes are in danger of falling dramatically.

What measures does the Commission intend to take (subsidising transport costs, increasing the quantities supplied as food aid, particularly in the Balkans, etc.) in order to facilitate the disposal of produce?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The Commission has recently extended their qualifying destinations for orange export subsidies. All countries outside the Community now qualify (Regulation (EC) No 67/2000 of 12 January 2000 fixing export refunds on fruit and vegetables(1)). This considerably simplifies the administrative procedures on payment on the refund.

Refund rate for lemons has been increased from EUR 35 to EUR 45 per tonne because of the current difficulties in exporting from the Community.

On surplus production the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's replies to his questions E-393/99(2) and E-2327/99(3).

(1) OJ L 9, 13.1.2000.

(2) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999.

(3) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 147.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2731/99

by Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(13 January 2000)

Subject: Nicaragua: corruption and EU aid

Following the arrest of the President of the Nicaraguan Court of Auditors, Mr Agustin Jarquin, who had spoken out against serious financial irregularities committed by the present government, does the EU intend to review its programme of aid to the country without delay, pending Mr Jarquin's release, the reestablishment of proper institutional controls on the activities of the government and a thorough investigation of the above allegations?

Reply

(10/11 April 2000)

1. As the Honourable Member is probably aware, Mr Agustín Jarquin, Comptroller General of the Republic of Nicaragua, was released from prison on 24 December 1999. This liberation is no doubt the result of, on the one hand, the support given by numerous political personalities, the media and part of Nicaraguan public opinion and, on the other, international pressure, including démarche carried out by the European Union during the month of November 1999.

2. On that occasion the Union expressed its deep concern about the events which led to the arrest and imprisonment of Mr Jarquin and the institutional repercussions on the country's governability. It is true that the consolidation of the rule of law, which involves, inter alia, a balance of powers and the existence of an independent, professional justice system, is a lengthy process in a country deeply scarred by civil war and a culture of confrontation. However, the imprisonment of the Comptroller General looked like a sanction centred chiefly on his attitude of independence vis-à-vis the executive power and on his fight against corruption.

3. The EU underlined that rule of law, transparency and respect for the independence of democratic institutions were of primary importance for any country and formed the foundation of development efforts. The European Union further underlined that these were important conditions in reaching the decision and the completion point of the initiative for Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC).

4. Nicaragua has since decided to revise its Constitution. It is clear, as regards some aspects of the institutional reforms under way, that the problem does not lie in the structures, whether or not collegial, of the Controlaria, but rather in the need to prevent the independence of that institution from being limited, to ensure that those structures are free from politics and that they can carry out their respective duties fully and with complete transparency. Through the European Union, the Group of Five and international financial institutions, the international community is keeping up a dialogue with the Government of Nicaragua with a view to bolstering the necessary independence of the institutions.

5. The EU will continue to follow closely the situation in Nicaragua, and in relation to its aid to the country will abide by the principles mentioned above and as set out in the Stockholm declaration.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2158/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Regional development funding

1. Is it true that the Directorate-General for Regional Policy recently rejected the Italian Government's proposals concerning Objective 2?

2. If so, why?

3. Can the Commission state whether the new criteria for the utilisation of structural funds laid down at the Berlin summit, which are different from those in force during the period 1994-1999, are behind that rejection?

4. If so, which Member States would benefit from those new criteria, and which would be penalised?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

1. The proposed list of areas eligible for Objective 2 sent by the Italian authorities on 1 October 1999 was found by the Commission to be not acceptable.

2. The proposal was not in compliance with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), under which the areas that satisfy the Community criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) must contain at least 50 % of the population eligible for Objective 2 assistance in each Member State. The areas put forward by the Italian authorities in line with the Community criteria contained only 2,2 million people (i.e. only 29,6 % of the total eligible population).

3. The Regulation was adopted unanimously by the Member States and received the assent of the European Parliament. As explained above, the Italian proposal was considered inadmissible not because of the new criteria as such but rather because it was not in compliance with Article 4(4) of the Regulation.

4. The criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) of the Regulation do not penalise any Member State.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2724/99

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Aeolus project

As part of the Leonardo programme, the EU finances research and professional training in alternative energy sources under the Aeolus project. One of the sources concerned is wind power, which, as well as certain advantages, also has several drawbacks, including the high noise levels generated by the windmills and the visual impact of these large constructions on the countryside, frequently in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

In view of the Community requirement for at least 10 % of electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2010, and given the ubiquitous construction of wind farms, in increasing numbers each year, has the Commission considered making an environmental impact assessment obligatory for wind farms built using Community funds? Would the Commission be prepared to carry out a study into how their environmental impact could be kept to a minimum?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

Point 3i of Annex II to Council Directive 97/11/EEC amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1), provides for an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for installations for the harnessing of windpower for energy production.

Article 4 of the abovementioned Directive states that, for projects listed in Annex II, Member States may decide whether projects are to be made subject to an EIA, on the basis of a case by case examination or thresholds or criteria set by the Member State. It is therefore for the Member State to determine whether or not a project is to be made subject to an EIA. If it is, measures may be laid down to reduce its impact on the environment.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2556/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Transmission masts

In view of the scientific evidence of possible health effects from the use of mobile telephone handsets, is the Commission concerned that there may be health effects from the stationing of mobile telephony transmission masts near to groups of people, particularly on educational premises, and does it intend to propose any minimum standards or safeguards in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (O HZ to 300 GHz)(1) sets up a system of basic restrictions and reference levels to prevent the occurrence of established adverse effects on human health of fields such as those generated by mobile phone base stations.

The Recommendation is addressed to the Member States which should take the necessary steps to ensure the high level of human health protection under the exposure limitation system that has been recommended. It is expected that it will also lead to the establishment of standards for equipment emitting electronic radiation of the type covered by the Recommendation.

(1) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2463/99

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(16 December 1999)

Subject: EU rules and Sweden's restrictive drugs policy

In Sweden the rules heavily restrict the import of substances classified as narcotics, even when they are prescribed by doctors for medicinal purposes. For example, Medicines Regulation 1997/11 allows an individual to import amphetamines for no more than five days' personal use.

A Swedish doctor has now reported Sweden's actions and regulations to the Commission, maintaining that the rules applied in Sweden infringe EU rules on the free movement of goods and services between the Member States, and wishing the Commission to take action against Sweden and declare our rules to be illegal and in contravention of EC law.

If the Commission found that Swedish legislation did infringe EU law, would a Swedish citizen then be able to have drugs prescribed by a doctor in another Member State whose drugs policy is more liberal, and then import them into Sweden, with the Swedish Customs authorities powerless to act?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

On 22 December 1994 the Schengen Executive Committee approved a form for a certificate to carry narcotic drugs and/or psychotropic substances for the purpose of medical treatment(1).

The certificate, based on Article 75 of the Schengen Convention, allows residents of any of the countries applying the Schengen acquis to travel to other countries applying the Schengen acquis, lawfully carrying on their person a medically prescribed quantity of narcotic drugs and/or psychotropic substances for 30 days' treatment.

These are very special situations involving a limited number of people whose state of health is such that they have to take medicine on a regular basis. Such medicine is prescribed by a doctor in their country of residence, who uses for that purpose the special certificate provided for in Article 75 of the Convention. The authorities in each country applying the Schengen Convention can check up on the certificate by contacting the central office in the country in which it was issued.

Once the Schengen acquis, now incorporated into Community law, becomes applicable in Sweden, these arrangements will apply there.

(1) SCH/Com-ex (94) 28 rev. and SCH/Stup (94) 21.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2767/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Support for inland waterways vessels under 1 000 tonnes

If used to the full by inland navigation, Europe's network of waterways could make a major environmentally compatible contribution towards solving the problem of mobility. A properly developed, well maintained network of waterways could be the trump card in diverting some transport from roads to water.

In addition to a proper infrastructure, however, what is needed is a substantial fleet. The main approach adopted by the European Union has been to increase scale following a 10-year major modernisation programme (the scrap and build scheme). In addition a directive in 1996 abolished the queuing system which resulted in a sharp drop in freight rates. Despite the increase in productivity, freights on vessels under 1 000 tonnes no longer covered costs.

Nevertheless, proper attention should be paid to maintaining a sufficiently large fleet of vessels of up to 1 000 tonnes. Vessels of 350 to 400 tonnes and small river craft are ideally suited for supplying large parts of the hinterland of some ports via smaller waterways. This is also true of relatively small consignments of goods.

1. What is the Commission's attitude towards the upkeep of a sufficiently large fleet of vessels of less than 1 000 tonnes?

2. What efforts is the Commission prepared to make to ensure the viability of this form of inland navigation and to make this policy part of an endeavour to reduce the problem of mobility by road?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

1. Maintaining a fleet of inland waterway vessels of up to 1 000 tonnes is the responsibility of the operators in the sector and the Commission does not have a view on the matter. The Commission nevertheless observes that the fleet of small vessels of under 650 tonnes still represents 40 % of the Community fleets.

2. The Community's new capacity policy which has operated since April 1999 favours the construction of the smallest craft if that is what the market decides. The Commission will continue to take action in favour of transport by inland waterway so that it can offer competitive alternatives to other modes of transport.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2630/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Granting of protected designation of origin to the traditional balsamic vinegars of Modena and Reggio

The regulatory committee has refused to grant protected designation of origin to the traditional balsamic vinegars of Reggio and Modena.

According to the farmers and producer's associations that have taken an interest in the matter, the protection and exploitation of quality agricultural and food products are being undermined by exclusively commercial interests and this, in their view, is why the committee has refused to grant protected designation of origin to the above product.

These vinegars, produced in the provinces of Modena and Reggio, in Emilia-Romagna, date back to the Renaissance and the Middle Ages. The balsamic vinegar of Modena has been famous since 1508, and the Reggio vinegar since the 12th century.

For centuries they have been aged for over twelve years in small barrels made of the finest wood. On the European market and elsewhere producers of the traditional balsamic vinegars of Modena and Reggio have to continually guard against imitations.

Italian government experts in agriculture and gastronomy unanimously believe that these vinegars are a typical and unique product and should not be confused with mass-produced vinegars.

Given the above, does the Commission not consider that the traditional balsamic vinegars of Reggio and Modena meet all the necessary requirements for being granted a protected designation of origin?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

The Commission considers that the requests to register aceto balsamico tradizional di Modena and aceto balsamico tradizional di Reggio Emilia as products with a protected designation of origin do indeed meet the conditions laid down in 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(1).

Accordingly, it presented a draft Regulation on awarding these products protected designation of origin status to the regulatory committee on geographical indications and designations of origin. The vote in this committee resulted in no opinion being delivered.

In such circumstances, Article 15 of the Regulation requires the Commission to submit to the Council, without delay, a proposal on the measures to be taken. The Council votes on this proposal by qualified majority. If, however, it fails to produce a ruling within three months of the matter being referred to it, the proposed measures are adopted by the Commission.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.