ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0386/00

by Vasco Graça Moura (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Payment to the European Journalism Training Association (EJTA)

Why has the Directorate-General for Education and Culture not yet paid the European Journalism Training Association (EJTA) 50 % of the cost of projects for 1998 and 1999, contrary to the commitments given?

When will these payments be made?

What type of support will be considered for the EJTA from the year 2000 onwards?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

The Commission has a good relationship with the European Journalism Training Association (EJTA) and values its programme for the training of future European journalists. The Commission has given annual financial support to a series of Euroreporter projects amounting to some 200 000 per year for the past decade. Late payments from the Commission are mainly due to the late submission of the final reports from the EJTA secretariat, without which no commitments for new applications can be made.

The EJTA's final report for 1997 and the application for 1998 arrived too late to ensure a financial contribution from the Commission for 1998. The Commission is prevented from giving retroactive support to projects.

As for Euroreporter 1999, the first 50 % of the contribution has already been paid and the remaining balance will be paid as soon as the Commission receives the final 1999 accounts from EJTA.

No formal request has yet been submitted by EJTA to the Commission for the year 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0127/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Exclusion of the Italian Council for the Disabled Relations with the European Union from the Italian representation on the European Disability Forum

Is the Commission aware that the Italian Government has appointed as Italy's representative on the Disability Forum the National Council on Disability (CND), an association representing only 10 % of the disabled, yet has excluded the Italian Council for the Disabled Relations with the European Union (CID.UE), which, by contrast, represents 90 % of the disabled?

Does it not consider that both associations are entitled to be represented at European level?

What steps does it intend to take to reinstate the criterion of objective representativity for Italian disabled people?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

The European Disability Forum is an independent organisation consisting of European disability NGOs and national councils for the disabled representing each Member State.

The Forum works together with the Commission in implementing policies in favour of the disabled; its operating costs are funded by the Commission.

The decision as to the membership of NGOs and national councils for the disabled is a matter for the Forum, whose procedures, notably as regards affiliation, are governed by its articles of association and house rules.

However the Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern to ensure the representativeness of the affiliated organisations, in particular the Italian National Council. To this end the Commission will contact the Forum in order to clarify the situation as regards the representativeness of its Italian member.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0413/00

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 February 2000)

Subject: French lorry drivers' industrial action

Industrial action by French lorry drivers is severely threatening Scottish fishermen, as the goods need to reach their market in fresh condition, preferably within hours of being caught. Once again, however, the French Government seems to sit idly by while the British rural community suffers.

Would the Commission consider action against the French Government for tolerating what has been going on for months now and is clearly a hindrance to the functioning of the single market, is a breach of competition rules and could be considered as blatant protectionism?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission's attention to the serious economic impact on Community businesses of the border blockades by French lorry drivers, particularly during the last few weeks.

The Commission would like to stress that under Community law it is the responsibility of the Member States to take all necessary and proportionate measures to restore the free movement of goods in their territory when events of this nature take place.

With regard to the measures the Commission is entitled to take, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States(1), which allows the Commission to take rapid action in this type of situation.

This action can, initially, take the form of a request for information sent to the Member State on whose territory the obstacles occur. Indeed, the Commission used this option when hauliers took action on 10-11 January 2000 and from 31 January 2000 to 1 February 2000. On each occasion, the Commission received information from the French authorities on the state of the dispute and on the measures taken to avoid blockades within the given time limit of two days.

Subsequent Commission action can take the form of a notification requesting the Member State to take all necessary and proportionate measures to restore the free movement of goods within a given time limit. The Commission has not yet made use of this second option. During the recent disputes, it was not needed because the border blockades were lifted. However, the Commission reserves the right to use this option whenever warranted by the situation.

The Commission would like to stress that it would not take any action other than that provided for by Regulation (EC) No 2679/98, since it is not within its remit to intermediate in any social problems within the Member States which might result in action of the type causing the obstacles to which the Honourable Member refers.

(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0965/00

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Community aid to scrapyards

Automobile scrapyard owners are asking for information on the real scope of the new Community legislation concerning their sector. While they welcome the idea of legislation for the sector, they feel they are insufficiently informed as to how they will be affected, how much time they will have to adapt their facilities to the new directive, and whether or not public funding will be available for adaptation.

Can the Commission explain in what fashion it intends to inform undertakings in the sector of the new EU legislation concerning automobile scrapyards?

How much time will undertakings have to adapt?

Will aid be made available to undertakings for this purpose?

Does the Commission intend to establish any kind of criteria relating to excellence, exchange of experiences or best practice, or systems of approval at EU level?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2000)

The proposal for a Council directive on end of life vehicles(1) like all Community directives is addressed to the Member States. The Member States are obliged to comply with the objectives established in directives, while they remain free to choose the appropriate instruments to reach such objectives. It is primarily a task of the Member States to make sure that the concerned economic operators are sufficiently informed and assisted where necessary in order to comply with the requirements of directives.

As regards the time available for complying with the directive, this will only be known once it is finally adopted. At present, the legislative procedure has not yet finished. The Commission reasonably expects that the directive will be adopted before mid-2000. At the moment, the common position(2) foresees that the directive will enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official journal, and that Member States will have an extra transitional period of 18 months for transposing the Directive into national law.

According to the EC Treaty, the financing of Community environmental measures is the prerogative of the Member States. No specific Community financial aid is foreseen in the common position.

Finally, concerning excellency parameters and good practices, the common position, besides setting out minimum treatment requirements in Article 6 and Annex I, in its Article 5(5) refers to the introduction of certified environmental management systems in relation to establishments which carry out vehicle treatment operations.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997 as amended, OJ C 156, 3.6.1999.

(2) Common Position 39/1999, OJ C 317, 4.11.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0111/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Environmental deterioration of the river Tea in Galicia

Ecological organisations have complained that the river Tea, which flows through south-western Galicia and joins the river Miño, is suffering serious environmental damage due to work linked to land

consolidation in the municipality of Covelo, which has not been subject to any kind of environmental assessment. The regional government of Galicia, which is responsible for the works, itself proposed the river Tea for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. Given that the consolidation works are being financed from the EAGGF, will the Commission carry out an investigation into those responsible for the ecological damage caused?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

The site Río Tea, of 88 hectares, has been proposed by Spain as a site of Community importance (SIC) to the NATURA 2000 network, under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1).

In response to the Honourable Member's Written Question and a petition to the committee of petitions of the Parliament(2), the Commission is conducting an investigation in order to assess whether the relevant Community environmental legislation has been complied with in this case. As further information is required, the Commission has sent a letter requesting the observations of the Spanish authorities on this issue.

The Commission will not hesitate to take all the necessary steps, including recourse to the procedure set out in Article 226 (ex article 169) of the EC Treaty, to ensure full compliance with this legislation.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) 365/99.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0199/00

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Unfair competition in prices on Danish export markets due to EU subsidy for feta cheese products

Is the Commission aware that its subsidy policy towards feta cheese is giving an unfair price advantage to producers of ultra-filtrated feta at the expense of equal and competing products, thereby seriously distorting competition? Does it not accept that the subsidy rate for Combi White which corresponds to the quantity of skim milk used should be reconsidered, a development which would also reward innovative companies? Finally, will the Commissions state what has become of the proposal put forward about three years ago aimed at introducing minimum prices as a condition for obtaining restitution, a requirement which would ensure that the subsidy would not distort competition?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Export refunds are fixed at the same amount for Feta cheese made from cow's milk irrespectively of the production process used.

Refunds are fixed for each cheese according to the fat and the moisture content and the Commission takes into account the market situation for each individual product and the respect of the ceilings fixed by the World trade organisation (WTO) agreement.

The Commission is not acquainted with a product called Combi White. Some information indicates that it would be a brand name of a product made with vegetable fat and protein. Such a product is not a dairy product and is to be treated, for export refunds purposes, as a product outside Annex I competing with cow's milk Feta. The amount of the refunds for the non Annex I products are calculated on basis of the recipe for each product. The export refunds for the dairy products, when used as components of non Annex I products, skimmed milk powder and butter, are currently 4,5 % lower than for the same dairy products exported in natural state. This difference is necessary at the moment for budgetary reasons.

There is a minimum free-at-frontier price, 230/100 kg, to be respected for cheeses falling under combined nomenclature (CN) code 0406 in order to benefit from a refund. This minimum price was set at this level in 1996 to limit the export of cheeses from the Community applying the WTO restrictions on export of cheeses with subsidies.

Within the framework of traditional trade practices Feta made from cow's milk, falling under CN-code heading 0406 9033 9919, is currently exempted from the requirement to meet the minimum price.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1419/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Fixed investment

Would the Commission list the latest percentage share of gross domestic product each Member State is spending on fixed investment?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0460/00

by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Animal welfare issues raised by the production of pâté de foie gras

Since the end of 1999 Member States have been required to implement in full Council Directive 98/58/EC(1) concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, which provides that such animals must not be

caused any unnecessary suffering or injury on account of the way in which they are fed or watered. The report on animal welfare issues raised by the production of pâté de foie gras commissioned by the Commission in 1998 reaches the conclusion that the usual methods of production are in breach of the principles laid down in the directive.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to enforce Directive 98/58 in respect of the production of pâté de foie gras?

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

The aim of Council Directive 98/58/EC is to lay down the main principles for the protection of all species of animals kept for farming purposes. It constitutes a legal instrument for the elaboration of future proposals in the field of animal welfare ensuring the uniform application of the Council of Europe Convention on the same subject in the Community.

The Directive currently addresses the welfare requirements to be applied for the protection of animals kept for the different types of production, including the production of foie gras. The Directive also imposes a responsibility on the owner or keeper of the animals to ensure that their welfare respects the minimum requirements provided.

Two Recommendations for the protection of ducks and geese bred for the production of foie gras were adopted in June 1999 in the framework of the above mentioned Convention. The Commission and the Member States of the Union actively participated in the process of drafting and adoption of these recommendations.

The report produced by the scientific committee on animal welfare concerning the Welfare aspects for the production of foie gras in ducks and geese was used as reference for the finalisation of the above mentioned recommendations.

The recommendations recognise the necessity to keep the birds in social groups and prohibit the use of small individual cages which are currently used. This prohibition will come into effect on 31st December 2004 for new or replacement accommodation and for all the accommodation on 31st December 2010 at the latest.

The recommendations also call for further research to develop alternative techniques that do not require force feeding for the production of foie gras. It has been agreed that until new scientific evidence on alternative methods and their welfare aspects is available, the production of foie gras shall be carried out only where it is current practice and then only in accordance with standards laid down in domestic law.

If necessary, in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of Directive 98/58/EC, the Commission will submit to the Council further appropriate proposals for the uniform application of the above mentioned recommendations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0961/00

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

(29 March 2000)

Subject: A favourable climate for EU inventors

One of the most productive features of our economy is that of invention. However, inventors are not only faced with multiple challenges relating to their own inventions: they have to confront a veritable forest of red tape.

At a moment when the Community is endeavouring to take a major step forward to catch up on lost ground in the technological field at planetary level, it is essential that inventors should be offered a new climate enabling them to develop their inventions in comfort and patent them in secure and reliable conditions, without being overwhelmed by bureaucracy.

Can the Commission state whether it believes it should promote an in-depth study to ascertain the real situation of inventors in the Community, the nature of their concerns, their difficulties in relation to the two poles of Munich and The Hague, and, in general, all the factors that can make the difference between success or failure, across the range of activities in which inventors can contribute to the Community's economic activity as a whole?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

The Commission agrees with the honourable Member regarding the need to ensure that inventors in the Community benefit from a climate conducive to the development of their activities.

Innovation has, indeed, become a major vector of lasting growth for businesses and of economic prosperity for society as a whole.

With a view to defining the suitable framework for the development of inventions and innovative actions in Europe, the Commission has consulted a number of interested circles, especially through its Green Papers on Innovation in Europe(1) and on the Community patent and the patent system in Europe(2). Following these consultations, it submitted ambitious action plans containing concrete measures in order to meet the needs of industry and independent inventors.

Among the more important initiatives, the Commission announced that it would make legislative proposals for creating a Commuity patent, producing the same effects throughout the Community, which would be simple to administer, easily accessible and reasonably priced. The Community patent was also described by the Commission, in its January 2000 communication entitled Towards a European Research Area(3), as a powerful lever for the development of research in Europe.

Furthermore, innovation should also be boosted thanks to other measures, such as the development of the role of national patent offices towards encouraging innovation, improving access to patent information or introducing the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Help Desk, which is a service designed to help those involved in innovation and to familiarise them with intellectual property.

(1) COM(97) 736 final.

(2) COM(97) 314 final.

(3) COM(2000) 6 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0668/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Legislation to implement Article 299(2) in the framework of the common agricultural policy

With reference to the undertaking given by the Commission to include in its work programme for 2000 measures to accord special status to the outermost regions, what measures will the Commission adopt in the framework of the common agricultural policy to introduce legislation to implement Article 299(2) of the Treaty on European Union?

Given answer by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2000)

On 23 November 1999, on the initiative of the President of the Commission, a partnership meeting was held bringing together Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the seven regions and three Member States concerned to discuss implementation of the new Article 299(2) (formerly Article 227) of the EC Treaty. In the light of this meeting and the memoranda presented by the regions and Member States, the Commission is now preparing the report called for by the European Council of Cologne.

In the spirit of Article 299(2), the Commission intends to continue its policy of taking account of the specific characteristics and constraints of the outermost regions, particularly as regards farming. Thus, as indicated in its work programme for 2000, once it has adopted its report the Commission will submit a draft to Parliament and the Council of any amendments of the Council Regulations on the agricultural sections of the POSEI programmes which might prove necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0917/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(24 March 2000)

Subject: Qualified majority voting

Can the Council state on how many occasions each year for the last five years each Member State has been outvoted in the Council when a decision on a legislative proposal (directive, regulation, decision) has been taken by qualified majority voting?

Reply

(26 June 2000)

The Honourable Member will find below a summary of the abstentions and votes against cast by delegations on the adoption of legislative acts by the Council.

It should be noted that this information was compiled from the monthly summaries of the Council's activities drawn up and published by the Council General Secretariat.

>TABLE>

>TABLE>