ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2830/99

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Annual review of the implementation of the subsidiarity principle

As guardian of the Treaties, could the Commission provide a complete list of EU measures which have been eliminated or withdrawn as part of the Commission's annual review of the implementation of the subsidiarity principle? Could the Commission describe how it intends to further improve the application of the subsidiarity principle in its work?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

As the Commission's annual report to the Council on Better Lawmaking indicates(1), the Commission each year withdraws the proposals which have become obsolete, including for reasons of subsidiarity (in 1999 it withdrew 90 proposals). It proposes the simplification of a number of existing Community rules, largely in application of the proportionality principle. Since the 1992 Edinburgh European Council, the Commission has presented some 60 simplification proposals, 30 of which have been adopted by the legislative authority.

The Commission is also striving to improve the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles by strict application of the protocol annexed to the EC Treaty. Specifically, it proposes Community action only where this is necessary or more effective than action by the Member States; it uses alternatives to legislation and leaves scope for self-regulation, for example in the fields covered by the social protocol; it proposes measures which leave as broad as possible a decision-making margin at national level; it chooses as simple a form of action as possible; it is revising its system of evaluating the impact of proposals and strengthening the cost/benefit analysis of its initiatives; it has improved the arrangements for prior consultation of the parties concerned.

(1) Better Lawmaking 1996 CSF(96) 7, Better Lawmaking 1997 COM(97) 626 final and Better Lawmaking 1998, COM(98) 715 final and COM(1999) 526 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2617/99

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Environmental effects of growth in UK sheep numbers

What is the Commission's assessment of the growth in UK sheep numbers, and of the consequent effects upon habitats and species diversity, since Britain joined the former European Economic Community and became subject to the common agricultural policy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Sheep numbers in the United Kingdom remained fairly stable in the first years following accession to the Community in 1973 but began to rise steadily in the 1980's after the commencement of the sheepmeat regime. This period saw a significant development in export opportunities due to easier access to the French market. Between 1980 and 1993 sheep numbers rose by 40 % in the United Kingdom. Following the reform of the sheep regime and introduction of individual limits for producers in 1993, numbers stabilized although they have risen again in 1997 and 1998 in the wake of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis and the resulting increase in demand for lamb. Sheep numbers are expected to decline in 1999 and 2000.

Article 5d of Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 of 25 September 1989 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat(1) has provided a mechanism for the United Kingdom to link the payment of direct support to respect for the environment in so far as sheep production is concerned.

The British authorities have indicated that they have made use of this provision in order to avoid problems of overgrazing. This provision has now been greatly strengthened in Article 3 of Regulation 1259/99 in the recent common agricultural policy reform.

Community nature conservation legislation(2) also provides a relevant framework for ensuring that sheep stocking levels do not lead to ecological damage in areas of high nature conservation value, included in the Natura 2000 network of protected areas.

(1) OJ L 296, 14.10.1989.

(2) Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2778/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Failure to maintain current job levels at a subsidised plant owned by pasta-producer MISKO

MISKO, the pasta-producing subsidiary of the Italian company Barilla, has received funding under Greek development law 1892/90 to set up a new production plant at Thiva on condition that it maintains the present number of 275 permanent jobs. Before completing construction of the new plant, the company closed down its pasta factory in Patras, compelling the current workforce either to resign or agree to being transferred to other company plants. However, the company has not informed those workers who agree to a transfer of the exact place or starting-date of their employment, the type of work, level of pay or the cost of relocating. It did not even inform them of where they would be employed after the closure of the Patras factory which occurred on 10 September 1999 until the new plant was opened at Thiva.

Since the company's decision to close down the Patras factory is in breach of the requirement to maintain the present number of jobs and was taken without prior consultation of the workers, which is expressly prescribed by Directive 94/45(1):

Will the Commission say:

1. whether it will check that the company has complied with the condition of maintaining the present number of jobs in receiving subsidies for its new plant, and

2. whether it will examine whether there has been compliance with the provisions laid down in Directive 94/45 concerning the obligation to inform, consult and negotiate with the workers, and the participation of the MISKO workers' union in the European Works Council of Barilla, MISKO's parent company?

(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2778/99 and E-2779/99 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 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-2700/99

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Torben Lund (PSE) and Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC

Article 6(3)(b) of Directive 94/62/EC(1), adopted in 1994 after lengthy negotiations, reads:

No later than six months before the end of the five-year phase referred to in paragraph 1(a) the Council shall, acting by qualified majority and on a proposal from the Commission, fix targets for the second five-year phase referred to in paragraph 1(c). This process shall be repeated every five years thereafter.

Article 6(1)(c) reads:

No later than 10 years from the date by which this Directive must be implemented in national law, a percentage of packaging waste will be recovered and recycled, which will have to be determined by the Council in accordance with paragraph 3(b) with a view to substantially increasing the targets mentioned in paragraph (a) and (b).

Given this clear legal commitment by the Council and the EP to increase substantially the targets in a proposal to be published by the end of 1999 or early 2000, when will the Commission present its proposal for a revision of the Directive to the EP and the Council?

With more specific respect to the targets, will the Commission include a common objective for recycling and reuse?

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

The obligation to revise substantially the recovery and recycling targets is provided in Article 6.3(b) and Article 6.1(c) of Directive 94/62/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. The compromise reached by the Parliament and the Council, after lengthy discussions in the conciliation committee, consisted of a first range of quantified targets for recovery and recycling, to be achieved by mid-2001 and a commitment by the Community legislator to significantly increase these targets in a second phase to be concluded by mid-2006.

Many people and organisations are involved in the packaging chain including economic operators, consumers, environmental organisations and authorities. They have a wide variety of different interests. This makes it necessary to set up a framework for dialogue in order to ensure a balanced approach. This process is enabling the Commission to evaluate the situation correctly and to develop possible solutions to make the Directive more effective. Several options have been presented to and discussed with interested parties and the Member States, but the measures to be finally proposed by the Commission are still under consideration internally.

The revision process is taking more time than initially foreseen. However the Commission intends to present a formal proposal for the revision of the Directive to the Council and the Parliament, in order to for them to adopt the measures in due time.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2711/99

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Noise pollution

Everybody who lives near noise sources run risks to his or her health. The effects may vary according to the physical characteristics of the noise, the times when and the way in which the noise is emitted, and can be classified as causing damage, nuisance or annoyance. Exposure to noise can have serious effects on the hearing, as well as causing light-headedness, speech difficulties, memory problems, fatigue, violent headaches, general exhaustion, irritability and anxiety. Sleep disturbances caused by noise lead to problems and personality changes.

Can the Commission therefore say what has been and is being done in Europe to safeguard the health of all citizens and what measures have been put into effect to mitigate the problem and reduce noise levels?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2000)

The effects of noise pollution on health, for example memory loss, fatigue, irritability and others, have been widely documented in medical literature. They have been a public health concern for some time. The reduction of noise in the environment, in the home and in the workplace is a long-term task. Several European legislative texts regulate noise by limiting emission levels. The most important of these are Council Directives 86/594/EEC of 1 December 1986 on airborne noise emitted by household appliances(1) and 86/188/EEC of 12 May 1986 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to noise at work(2). The latter will shortly be revised within the process of revising the Directive on protecting the health of workers from exposure to vibrations, noise and electromagnetic fields(3). This Directive has now been split, and only the vibrations aspect is currently being discussed in the Council.

A Green Paper has been published on exposure of the public to noise: the Commission Green Paper of 4 November 1996 Future noise policy(4). The Commission is also working to reduce noise emissions from aeroplanes by using silencers, and is funding research and noise prevention work via the programme of Community action on pollution-related diseases(5).

As a result of these factors the noise levels to which the public is subjected will be progressively reduced and public health will therefore improve, in accordance with the competence conferred on the Commission by Article 152 (ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 344, 6.12.1986.

(2) OJ L 137, 24.5.1986.

(3) COM(94) 284 final.

(4) COM(96) 540 final.

(5) OJ C 219, 30.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2643/99

by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Rules and regulations for inspection of abattoirs in the United Kingdom

Is the Commission satisfied with the UK Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulation 1995 which purports to put into effect Directive 93/119/EC(1) on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing?

How many complaints has the Commission received from British farmers about the implementation of this Directive?

In the Commission's view, why does the slaughter of a lamb cost approximately EUR 17 in the UK and less that EUR 5 in France?

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter and killing was transposed into United Kingdom law and the Commission is not aware of any current problems with regard to the implementation and enforcement of the relevant national legislation in that Member State.

The Commission has not received any complaints from United Kingdom farmers or their organisations with regard to this Directive. The Commission is, however, aware of the report of a working group on regulation in the meat sector which was recently presented to the British authorities.

The costs of slaughter include both the normal commercial costs of abattoirs and the fees imposed for official veterinary control. These costs are not identical in the Member States(1). Commercial costs, in particular, may vary even within Member States according to such factors as the ownership of the abattoir (private, municipal or co-operative), local labour costs, taxation and various other factors.

The Commission is unable, therefore, to comment on the particular figures which have been quoted.

If more detailed information about the alleged difference in costs and the basis on which they have been calculated were to be supplied by the Honourable Member, the Commission would be prepared to consider the matter further.

(1) Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 as amended and consolidated by Council Directive 96/43/EC (OJ L 162, 1.7.1996) makes provisions for the harmonisation of rules on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls. However article 5(3) there of enables Member States to charge fees exceeding the costs of Community fees providing that the total fees charged do not exceed the costs of inspection.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2404/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Uptake of funds for the RETEX Community Initiative

Under the most recent Community support framework (1993-1999) Portugal was to benefit from the RETEX Community Initiative for diversifying regions heavily dependent on the textile and clothing industry.

- What were the amounts allocated to Portugal and the other Member States and what are the figures for funds actually paid out, broken down by Member State, under the RETEX initiative in 1993-1999?

- What projects were funded in Portugal during this period under RETEX? What was their duration and what funding did they receive?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

In respect of the 1994-1999 programming period, the amounts allocated and paid out to each Member State under the RETEX Community Initiative are as follows:

>TABLE>

In the case of Portugal, an additional amount of EUR 30 million was granted under RETEX in 1993, a sum already paid out in its entirety.

A list of projects part-financed in Portugal under RETEX is being sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's General Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2672/99

by Jürgen Zimmerling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Objective 2 support

On 24 November 1999 the Commission identified the regions of West Germany to be supported by the EU in the 2000-2006 support period. The new German Objective 2 regions includes parts of the Ruhr district in North Rhine-Westphalia.

1. What objectives has the Federal Government submitted for support in the Ruhr district?

2. What parts of the Ruhr district are to receive support?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

On 15 September 1999 the German Federal Ministry of Economics transmitted an admissible proposal for an objective 2 list for the period 2000-2006. On the basis of this proposal and the rules of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999(1), the Commission took a decision in principle on the German objective 2 list on 24 November 1999. The Commission has subsequently consulted the relevant committees. The final decision on eligibility will be taken by the Commission in the near future.

Regarding the new objective 2 areas of Nordrhein-Westfalen, only one minor change has been introduced into the German proposal of 15 September 1999 upon Commission request: a small isolated area in the city of Bochum of 235 inhabitants which had been originally proposed by the Geman authorities was not considered significant by the Commission. The German authorities thus withdrew the proposal for this area.

The new objective 2 list of Nordrhein-Westfalen will consist of parts of the cities of Duisburg, Krefeld, Oberhausen, Gelsenkirchen, Bottrop, Dortmund, Hamm, Bochum, and Herne as well as parts of the Kreise of Wesel, Reckinghausen, Unna, Warendorf, Ennepe-Ruhr, and Heinsberg. The population eligible for support under objective 2 in Nordrhein-Westfalen will total 2 888 229 inhabitants. The detailed list of areas eligible under objective 2 is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament. Even though the Ruhrgebiet does not correspond to the NUTS classification of the Commission it is appropriate to say that the objective 2 list of Nordrhein-Westfalen will comprise a significant part of the population and of the area of the Ruhrgebiet.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2559/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Shipping flags

Would the Commission please describe the principal criteria applied by each Member State before it accepts that a vessel is able to sail under its flag? Would the Commission confirm that both Greece and Italy (and maybe other Member States) apply as one criterion the employment of their nationals? Would the Commission please state whether this is consistent with the provisions on non-discrimination and free movement of labour for European Union nationals?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

The principal criteria or conditions required by each Member State before it accepts that a vessel is able to fly its flag are those related to the ownership and management of the vessel, to its technical or safety specifications and to the nationality of the captain and the first officer of the vessel. However, such conditions are not harmonised at Community level and differ considerably from Member State to Member State. As far as the ownership and management of the vessel are concerned, most Member States' regulations on the registration of vessels require that at least a certain share (usually at least 50 %) of the vessel be owned by Community nationals or by Community companies and that the vessel be managed from their territory. Some Member States require that the technical or safety specifications of the vessel be recorded in the registry and others require that vessels fulfil certain requirements such an age limit for certain types of vessels in order to be registered. Finally, most Member States require that the captain and the first officer of a vessel to be registered should be nationals of the Member State of registration. This condition is compatible with Community law since under international law the flag state is obliged to exercise authority over the ships which it registers and to which it grants its flag, and this authority is exercised through the captain or his first officer. The captain also exercises powers of public authority on board the ship which must be carried out necessarily by a national of the flag state of the vessel.

In conformity with the above, the Greek and Italian legislation require the captain and the first officer of a vessel flying their national flag to be Greek or Italian respectively. The Commission can also confirm that both Member States require that the rest of the crew be Community nationals and not Greek or Italian nationals and this condition is also compatible with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0099/00

by Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: The situation in Croatia following the elections on 3 January 2000

In view of Croatia's strategic importance because of its potential role as mediator in stabilising the region, and its pro-European attitude, can the Commission answer the following questions, in order to clarify the position it intends to adopt vis-à-vis the new government in Croatia?

Does the European Union intend to set up the consultative Task Force so as to speed up the preparations for closer relations between the Union and Croatia?

What approaches will the European Union make to the new Croatian Government, which has already shown itself to be receptive?

Will Croatia be granted full access to the Phare programme?

Will the European Union act swiftly to back the new political majority at this delicate transitional stage?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2000)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's views on the geopolitical importance of Croatia and its key role in stabilising the region as a whole. The Commission considers that the outcome of the election and the way in which consultations were held marks a new departure in the democratisation of Croatia. The new leadership's statements and initial commitments are very encouraging. The Commission is sure that if the new government follows them up with action this new direction will quickly lead to the end of Croatia's international isolation and hopes that the strong message of democratisation given by the Croats may serve as an example to other countries and peoples in the region.

The EU has already begun to give the first political signals of encouragement with a view to improving relations with Croatia and will show its willingness to cooperate with a fully democratic Croatia. The President of the Commission visited Croatia on 14 January 2000 and the Member of the Commission responsible for external relations plans to visit shortly. The Council (General Affairs), meeting on 24 January 2000, invited the new Croat Prime Minister to the next Council meeting on General Affairs on 14 February 2000 and decided to set up a joint Community-Croatia consultative task force, a technical body which will appreciably improve communication with Croatia and will be an initial instrument of assistance with a view to establishing closer relations between Croatia and the Community. The Council is currently discussing the mandate of this task force and will soon decide on the date of its first meeting.

In terms of Community assistance, the Commission intends to conduct an evaluation mission in February 2000 which will enable it to identify needs and priorities. Changing policy on Phare assistance (which will in any event be substantially amended for countries in the region in 2000) and establishing contractual relations will depend solely on the attitude of the new government and its practical progress on outstanding political issues. The Commission is prepared to make the necessary proposals when the time comes.