ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1211/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Deutsche Post and the German Government

The German Government has granted a legal monopoly to Deutsche Post and fixed stamp prices, resulting in Deutsche Post gaining a substantially higher income than is necessary to ensure universal service. Deutsche Post has been able to use this financial advantage to subsidise Deutsche Post's commercial parcel delivery services (putting competitors of this service at an immediate disadvantage) and also to make acquisitions throughout the EU (e.g. Deutsche Post has acquired 50 % of Securicor Distribution and has also purchased Herald International Mailings).

The Commission has already indicated that the support given by the German Government to Deutsche Post seems to involve state aid. Will the Commission now state clearly whether or not this is actually the case, and if so what action the Commission intends to take to prevent this infringement of EU legislation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2000)

The Commission decided on 20 July 1999 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88 (2) (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty in respect of possible state aid granted to Deutsche Post AG.

The procedure covers the whole range of state aid allegations concerning Deutsche Post AG: use of revenues of monopoly letter service to cover losses of parcel activities, use of such revenues for acquisitions, use of proceeds from real estate transferred to Deutsche Post AG to finance acquisitions, state guarantee for debts, and coverage of pension obligations by state.

The Commission is currently examining the observations received from the German Government and interested parties. Since the examination is still pending no indications about the possible outcome of the investigations can be given at this stage.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0091/00

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

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Milk production surpluses and quotas allocated to the Member States

Does the Commission consider it reasonable and in accordance with what the European Union needs in order to be able to develop evenly (particularly in view of the increasing openness of its markets to outside economies) for there to be continued discrimination in the allocation of milk quotas to the Member States? The quotas allocated bear no relation to domestic consumption, as demonstrated by the fact that, in recent years, countries such as the Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark have had surpluses for export of 6 746, 4 301 and 2 507 tonnes per year whilst Spain had a shortage of 1 004 tonnes, a quantity which it could perfectly easily have produced itself, especially in regions with the appropriate skills and capacity and, in particular, in Objective 1 regions such as Galicia.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Milk quotas were allocated on the basis not of consumption in geographical zones but of each farmer's production over a reference period. This was the only efficient way of acting. If the production quota in each Member State had been restricted to its probable consumption the farmers concerned would have been seriously wronged, it would have been impossible to allocate quotas fairly and a substantial section of European agriculture would have been destroyed. In addition a full milk supply for the Community would no longer have been certain.

It is likewise for reasons of efficiency that farmers' individual quotas are established and administered at Member State level. Community-level management would require a large staff and have numerous drawbacks, with cumulated errors and delays in the Member States eventually paralysing the system.

Moreover, the free circulation of goods means that any regional imbalance between production and consumption can easily be remedied and is in line with the single market principle that ensures best distribution of the factors of production.

In Spain in 1999 there were 1 150 tonnes of skimmed milk powder in intervention storage and 12 631 tonnes of butter were bought in by intervention. Thus even before entry into force of the Spanish quota increase decided on under Agenda 2000 the Spanish market was in surplus for these products. By comparison for the same period in Denmark, to which the Honourable Member refers, there were no intervention stocks and no milk products were bought in.

Lastly, it should remembered that since introduction of the quota system the reference quantities allocated to the Member States mentioned by the Honourable Member have been either left unchanged (Ireland) or reduced (Denmark, Netherlands). By contrast those assigned to Spain have been substantially increased, by 17 % between 1986 and 1999 and 29 % between 1986 and 2001. For these periods the European average fell by 4 % and 2 %. Distribution of the quota between regions and farmers is in each Member State a national responsibility using impartial criteria.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0096/00

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

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Comprehensive plan to clean up the Vigo ria

A comprehensive plan to clean up the Vigo ria, which is being financed jointly by the Cohesion Fund (80 %) and the Galicia Regional government (20 %), is currently under way. However, poor implementation of the plan, leading to a deterioration of the facilities provided, is causing a number of problems such as the leakage of household waste water and the presence of highly toxic and hazardous industrial waste which is affecting beaches of significant value from both the wildlife and the recreational points of view, according to the residents of Alcabre (a district of Vigo).

Those residents have already brought this state of affairs to the attention of the Commission and the European Ombudsman and have asked for an inspection to be carried out of the section of the ria between rua Corunha and the mouth of the river Lagares (also in Vigo).

In view of the situation, is the Commission going to inspect the installations of the drainage facility on the bank of the ria and those of the EDAR company along the river Lagares, as requested by the residents?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

The Commission recently became aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member and asked the Spanish authorities for information in order to verify that the Community provisions applicable to the project in question were being complied with. Moreover, at the next meeting of the monitoring committee planned for April 2000, the Commission will ask for a more precise description of the project content. It will keep the Honourable Member informed of developments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0436/00

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

(23 February 2000)

Subject: The Commission's position regarding the United Kingdom's attempts to regionalise fisheries in Community waters

The United Kingdom is consistently expressing its intention to regionalise fisheries in Community waters, thereby seeking to break up the European fisheries area and to extend the exclusive fishing zone of the State concerned from 12 to 24 miles. According to press reports, Mr Franz Fischler, member of the Commission responsible for agriculture and fisheries, is considering endorsing this claim.

What is the Commission's official position on this serious issue?

Is the Commission prepared to support this claim made by the United Kingdom which could lead to the destruction of the Common Fisheries Policy and the disintegration of the European economic and monetary area?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the British government has not put forward any proposals for the regionalization of the common fisheries policy (CFP) nor for the extension of the current 12-mile limited access zone to 24 miles.

The above-mentioned ideas emerged during the consultation process on the CFP after 2002, organised by the Commission in 1998-1999. A detailed document on the regionalization of the CFP was presented by an English federation of fishermen's organisations. A resolution to create national exclusive zones of 24 miles was indeed adopted by the Parliament in February 1999.

The Commission is currently preparing a report on the fisheries situation in the Community, as foreseen in Article 14 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) no 3760/92, of 20 December 1992, establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture(1) to be issued during the first half of 2001.

This report will allow for the launching of the debate on the CFP after 2002 within the Community institutions, including a debate on the possible merits and disadvantages of the ideas to which the Honourable Member refers.

(1) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0255/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: McDonald report

What assessment has Commissioner Kinnock made of the McDonald report, as referred to in the Sunday Times of 3 October 1999, in formulating his reforms relating to the Commission, with particular reference to (a) the allegations of fraud (b) the working mentality and has any Communities money funded the research?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2000)

The work to which the Honourable Member refers was done as a follow-up to a similar investigation on the same matter in 1993, in order to evaluate whether, and how far, the intervening enlargement or other events had altered the perceptions of Commission staff about their employer, about their own roles, and about those of their colleagues. Assessments of that kind can obviously contribute usefully to reflections on how to manage recruitment from future new Member States, or to making productive changes in personnel policy.

The general conclusion from Dr McDonald was that there had been little change that was specific to Commission employees because most alterations in such perceptions are largely attributable to broad societal changes, for example on the duties of employers, the status of women in the workplace, and social norms.

However, the work was taken into account in the compilation of the White Paper on Reforming the Commission(1). One example concerns staff motivation or working mentality, an issue which the Honourable Member explicitly addressed in his question. The emphasis put on merit-based promotion and on improved management is, among other changes, specifically related to efforts to recognise meritorious performance and to achieve conditions similar to those recommended by Dr McDonald.

The allegations of fraud to which the Honourable Member refers in his question were described by the Sunday Times as dark but often unsubstantiated. Where allegations are made and suspicions are supported by reasonable evidence, they are invariably subject to proper investigation and proceedings.

Dr McDonald worked under contract and was paid accordingly by the Commission.

(1) COM(2000) 10 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0902/00

by Efstratios Korakas (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 March 2000)

Subject: Reform of the system of aid for cotton

Under Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1553/95(1), before the start of the 1999/2000 marketing year the Commission is required to present a report on the operation of the system of aid for cotton and to submit a reform proposal only if the report shows it to be necessary. However, the Commission has submitted a reform proposal directly. In its explanatory memorandum, the Commission acknowledges that this requirement [to draw up a report on the operation of the system as set out in paragraph 11 of Protocol 4 annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece] was partly anticipated mldr by the Report from the Commission to the Council on Greek requests in the cotton sector (COM(98) 10 final).

The Commission has failed to honour its obligations and, moreover, has put forward arguments in the explanatory memorandum to its reform proposal which, in the absence of a thorough analysis, paint a distorted picture of the operation of the sector. The cost of the cotton scheme depends largely on the price of cotton on the world market. The Commission contends that expenditure could exceed EUR 900 million. It chose to submit its proposal at a time when world prices were at their lowest since the previous reform of the cotton scheme. Furthermore, the world cotton price has risen by 48 % since the date of adoption of the Commission proposal barely three months ago. In fewer than three months the reform proposal has become outdated and irrelevant.

As a result, the institutions required to adopt a position on the Commission proposal have three problems to contend with: the Commission's failure to honour its obligations, the lack of a reliable analysis, and the use of economic arguments which could prove misleading. Will the Council demand that the Commission honours its undertakings under Regulation (EEC) No 1553/95? Will it ask the Commission to submit a new, updated proposal which takes account of the report on the operation of the system of aid for cotton?

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 45.

Reply

(25 May 2000)

After submitting its report on Greek requests regarding the cotton sector to the Council in February 1998, and in accordance with the invitation addressed to it by the Council in June 1998, the Commission submitted to the latter in December 1999 two proposals for reform of the system of aid for cotton.

While retaining the thrust of the current aid system, the Commission proposals concern, as the Honourable Member will certainly have noted, a number of important economic, technical, budgetary and environmental aspects, which indicate the complexity of the analyses which the Commission undertook in preparation for drawing up its proposals.

These are currently being studied in detail within the Council's working parties.

The Council will, in good time, take an appropriate decision on this file. In making its decision, the Council will not fail to examine closely the Parliament's forthcoming Opinion on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1102/00

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Promotion of quality beef in Spain

In connection with the European campaign to promote quality beef and in view of the fact that on 25 January last the Commission approved 14 programmes to promote quality beef in the 1999/2000 marketing year submitted by eight Member States Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom can the Commission say what decision it reached regarding Spain, after studying the programmes submitted by that country?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

The Commission's decision approving part-financing of Spanish promotional measures for quality beef, delayed by the need to obtain more information on regional quality marks, was taken on 28 April.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0464/00

by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Must-carry rules for cable networks and their impact on the EU's policy on Television without Frontiers

Must-carry rules imposed on cable networks pose a problem in several Member States. Such rules oblige cable operators to transmit a number of mostly national broadcasts, including in some cases pay-television services. Cable capacity is scarce and only a limited number of broadcasts and services can be transmitted. Must-carry rules reduce the transmission capacity available to meet customer demand.

Such rules have an adverse impact on the functioning of the internal market, the freedom to provide services and on the retransmission of transborder television services. In addition, they discriminate in favour of national broadcasts, to which they grant privileged access to cable.

I refer to my previous parliamentary question E-2006/98(1) and ask the Commission to state what steps it has taken in the meantime and what further steps it plans to take in the near future. A time schedule in this respect would be welcome.

(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 134.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

In reply to the Honourable Member's previous written question E-2006/98(1), the Commission indicated that a questionnaire was under preparation for circulation to all interested parties. Such a questionnaire was sent to Member States, cable operators, broadcasters, consumer organisations and copyright organisations throughout the Community. The Commission has also issued a communication reviewing regulation in the communications sector(2), which considered the economic impact on cable operators' ability to compete in convergent communications markets. On the basis of a substantial number of replies received, in the context of both initiatives, the Commission is examining whether a horizontal initiative in this area is necessary.

The need for such an initiative also has to be examined in the light of the growing number of complaints in this area, which shows the importance of this issue for the functioning of the internal market.

(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 134.

(2) COM(1999) 539.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1013/00

by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(6 April 2000)

Subject: Fatalities and injuries at the European Union's external borders in 1997-1999

According to investigations by the non-governmental organisation UNITED for Intercultural Action, nine hundred people died while attempting, in some cases illegally, to enter the European Union between 1 January 1997 and the end of 1999. Comparable figures were provided by other non-governmental organisations (Antirassistische Initiative, Forschungsgesellschaft Flucht und Migration), although it should be noted that they do not claim to be comprehensive.

In view of the fact that the number of fatalities has risen since the beginning of the 1990s and in the knowledge that most EU Member States are increasing their (financial and technical) efforts to strengthen protection at the relevant borders,

the Council is asked:

1. According to the Council's information, from 1997 to 1999, how many people were found dead at the land borders, coasts, ports and airports and in the border regions of the EU Member States, how many inquests were opened on them and what were the findings of these inquests (please give details)?

2. According to the Council's information, from 1997 to 1999, how many people were picked up with physical injuries (frostbite, hypothermia, suffering from hunger or thirst) sustained during their, in some cases illegal, border crossing (please give details)?

3. According to the Council's information, from 1997 to 1999, how many people were injured in the process of their, in some cases illegal, border crossing because of the use of direct force or physical violence and how many inquiries or disciplinary proceedings were opened as a result and what was the outcome in each case (please give details)?

4. According to the Council's information, from 1997 to 1999, how many people died during their attempt (in some cases illegal) to enter the European Union (lack of oxygen, hunger, thirst, cold, excessive heat during transport)?

Reply

(8 June 2000)

The Council has no statistics enabling it to answer the Honourable Member's questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0214/00

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: The wreck of the Erika and compensation for the fisheries and aquaculture sector from the Structural Funds

The wreck of the Erika resulted in serious economic damage to the fisheries and aquaculture sector, one already hard hit by various crises. Some fishermen have lost their fishing grounds around the sunken parts of the Erika's hull, which constitute veritable delayed-action bombs. Others have lost the tools of their trade, which have been polluted by fuel oil. They have all refused to put to sea for some time and have lost valuable fishing days.

As for the oyster farmers, some have paid dearly for the disaster: oils slicks have penetrated their oyster farms and destroyed not only the oysters themselves but also the equipment used in oyster farming.

Finally, consumer confidence in these seafood products has dwindled away, with falling sales the likely outcome.

Faced by this economic catastrophe, persons who have suffered damage may apply for compensation from FIPOL (International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund). However, no emergency aid is granted within the European Union.

Press releases dated 4 and 13 January 2000 indicate, however, that the European Commission takes the view that the Structural Funds might be used to assist victims of the storm.

Is the European Union also contemplating using these Funds to aid the fishermen and oyster farmers who were victims of the oil spill? If so, what will it do if some regions which are dependent on fishing are not eligible under Objective 2?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) may contribute towards compensating the losses suffered by fishermen and oyster farmers as a result of the oil slick under the next French single programming document (SPD) on structural assistance in fisheries and aquaculture 2000-06, in accordance with the FIFG implementing Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1).

The French SPD, which has not yet been submitted to the Commission, will cover the whole of France apart from Objective 2 areas. Thus the regions affected by the oil slick may benefit from all the measures provided for under the FIFG Regulation.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.