ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3020/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Anti-dumping duties on ammonium nitrate imports

Is the Commission taking into account the injury that will be imposed on EU farmers and the mandatory requirements of the CAP spelled out in Article 33 of the Treaty establishing the European Community if it continues to impose anti-dumping duties on ammonium nitrate imports from Poland and the Ukraine?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2000)

One precondition for the imposition of anti-dumping measures is the Community interest test. Indeed, according to the provisions laid down in the basic Regulation (EC) No 384/96(1), the Community institutions are obliged to assess the economic situation of the economic operators concerned (i.e. the Community industry, users and consumers). Even if injurious dumping is established, measures shall not be imposed if there are compelling reasons of the Community interest against such measures, i.e. when the negative economic effect to be expected would be disproportionate by comparison to probable beneficial effects. In this context, as in the current proceeding, the possible effects on farmers would thus be evaluated taking due account of all economic interests involved. In the current proceeding, no findings have been made which would indicate any contradiction with the spirit of Article 33 (ex Article 39) of the EC Treaty.

Indeed, after the opening of the current anti-dumping case concerning ammonium nitrate, questionnaires have been sent, inter alia, to the European farmers' organisations. The Commission did not receive any reply to these. Therefore, the Commission provisionally concluded there were no compelling reasons of Community interest not to impose provisional measures. On the basis of the best information available, the Commission reached the provisional conclusion that fertilisers appear to represent a small part of total production costs of farmers so that the possible negative effects on farmers through increased ammonium nitrate prices are unlikely to offset the positive effect of measures against injurious dumping.

After the imposition of provisional measures the National Farmers Union (NFU) of England and Wales made itself known and expressed its views on the case. The NFU attended a special hearing organised by the Commission and subsequently submitted data on the importance of fertilisers in the production cost of farmers. The Commission is currently analysing this submission.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a detailed explanatory note on the technicalities of the anti-dumping procedures.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 56, 6.3.1996), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 905/98 of 27 April 1998 (OJ L 128, 30.4.1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2241/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 July 2000)

Subject: Increasing the maximum speed of wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors

The framework regulation, 74/150/EEC(1), introduced EEC type-approval for agricultural and forestry tractors. Directive 97/54/EC(2) increased the maximum speed of the latter from 30 to 40 km/h. Directive 2000/1/EC(3) made provision for other types of mechanical links and couplings than those that had received Community type-approval, thus removing the final obstacle to increasing the speed of agricultural and forestry tractors.

The Economic and Social Committee, in its Opinion 97/C56/14, and the Council, in its Common Position (EC) No 17/97, came out in favour of a maximum speed of over 40 km/h for agricultural and forestry tractors.

In view of the foregoing, does the Commission intend to increase the maximum speed of wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors?

(1) OJ L 84, 28.3.1974, p. 10.

(2) OJ L 277, 10.10.1997, p. 24.

(3) OJ L 21, 26.1.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

Since the adoption of Directive 97/54/EC(1), which increased the maximum design speed of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors from 30 to 40 kilometres per hour (km/h), the Commission has been examining the circumstances and the types of tractors to which higher maximum speeds could apply.

Although under certain circumstances a road speed higher than 40 km/h could increase the productivity of these vehicles, which are primarily designed for working in the fields or forests, account needs to be taken of safety components such as braking devices and lights, in addition to environmental protection.

It should also be borne in mind that increasing the speed of tractors may have other repercussions. The approval of faster tractors could lead to competition with conventional hauliers, which are subject to stricter rules governing driving licences and higher rates of taxation.

Increasing the maximum speed presupposes the revision of framework Directive 74/150/EEC(2) on agricultural or forestry tractors, firstly to extend the scope of this Directive to other types of tractors and their towed or driven trailers, machines and tools and secondly, to take account of all safety and environmental components.

This work is now nearing its conclusion with a rewritten draft framework Directive to be sent to the Parliament and the Council at the beginning of 2001. The issue of increasing road speed is currently under consideration and it is too early to take a final position. However, it should be stressed that it is sometimes difficult to harmonise Member States' policies on issues relating to the use of agricultural vehicles on the road and that at present there is no consensus on the subject.

(1) OJ L 277, 10.10.1997.

(2) OJ L 84, 28.3.1974.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1279/00

by Emmanouil Mastorakis (PSE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Development of island regions

Parliament has adopted a resolution on the guidelines for the 2001 budget procedure Section III Commission (A5-0070/2000 the Haug report), paragraph 33 of which, entitled New Policies, underlines the importance of appropriate funding for the areas newly introduced or reinforced by the Amsterdam Treaty, such as the development of island regions.

What measures will the Commission take to implement this new policy of developing the island regions?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

Sardinia, Sicily, all the Greek islands and the outermost regions will be eligible under Objective 1 for the Structural Funds' 2000-2006 programming period. In addition, as a result of the Commission's decisions in the case of eleven out of the twelve Member States concerned, a great many islands will be covered by Objective 2 on the basis of the proposals put forward by the national authorities.

On 1 July 1999 the Commission approved the guidelines for the Structural Fund programmes for 2000-2006. They set the Community priorities for the new programming period. Some of these priorities concern very directly the problems facing the island regions: the need to improve access; the use of renewable

sources of energy, particularly with reference to the White Paper for a Community strategy and action plan(1); the promotion of new services in the field of new communications technology; the economical management of water resources; and support for a sustainable and high-quality tourist industry, taking capacity into account.

Moreover, the guidelines for the Interreg Community initiative, approved by the Commission on 28 April 2000(2), explicitly state that integration of the island regions is a priority area in the field of transnational cooperation. This means that adequate finance will have to be assigned to these regions. Furthermore, in the context of interregional cooperation, particular attention will be paid to participation by the island regions.

Lastly, to take more account of the natural handicaps specific to the small Aegean islands, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 of 19 July 1993 introducing specific measures for the smaller Aegean islands concerning certain agricultural products(3) provides for specific instruments to assist them.

Some islands belong to a special group, known as the outermost regions, which share a set of handicaps defined in Article 299(2) (former Article 227) of the EC Treaty. For these regions, on 14 March 2000(4), the Commission adopted a report on the implementation of the new Article.

(1) COM(97) 599 final.

(2) COM(2000) 1101 final.

(3) OJ L 184, 27.7.1993.

(4) COM(2000) 147 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2274/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Construction of the high-speed Rome-Naples railway line and laying of a second Rome-Lunghezza FM2 track

Is the Commission aware of the alarming and discriminatory situation to which the construction of the high-speed Rome-Naples railway line and laying of a second Rome-Lunghezza FM2 track could give rise, to the detriment of the people who will have to live right next to railway lines along which it is planned that some 300 trains a day will travel at speeds of up to 200 km/h?

How does it intend to address the problems affecting the future quality of life in whole districts of Rome?

How does it intend to ensure compliance with the relevant EU directives?

What action will it take to protect these areas in terms of town planning?

Finally, how does the Commission intend to ensure, just before work starts on the La Rustica-Rome stretch, that there will be no discrepancies in the provision of assistance and no unequal treatment in relation to the hundreds of citizens affected, who all live in comparable districts?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

With reference to the project mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission would stress that it does not have competence either for the protection of town areas in terms of town planning or for preventing discrepancies in the provision of assistance and unequal treatment to citizens living in comparable districts.

The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law, in the light of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty. As the guardian of the EC Treaty, it does not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

In the specific case, Community directives on environmental impact assessment (Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) and Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, amending Directive 85/337/EEC(2)) constitute the possibly relevant Community law. The Commission assesses the situation on this legal basis.

The issue concerning the correct application of directives on environmental impact assessment in relation to the project mentioned by the Honourable Member has been already dealt with by the Commission in 1997/1998. Since the Honourable Member's Written Question does not contain any new relevant element, he is kindly requested to refer to the reply given by the Commission to Written Question E-578/98 by Mrs Angelilli(3).

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) OJ C 386, 17.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2008/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Environmental risk and cleaning up the Milazzo industrial area

In its reply to Oral Question No 53 H-0356/00(1), the Commission mentions that it is currently examining the proposal for (an) Operational Programme for Sicily, which allocates resources to provide for measures to clean up industrial areas.

What is the time-scale envisaged for approval of that programme?

Has the Commission received proposals from the Italian regional or national authorities?

Can the Commission provide a more explicit definition of the polluter pays principle?

(1) Written answer of 16 May 2000.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

The Commission is at the moment examining the operational programme for the Region of Sicily for 2000-2006 and will formally adopt it in the next few months.

Following approval the monitoring committee will adopt the programme complement. This will be the basis for the action necessary for adoption of projects (calls for proposals). The proposals for specific projects will have to be sent to the regional authorities responsible for programme management, who will decide what projects to include.

The polluter-pays principle is that those who cause environmental damage bear the cost of avoiding it or compensating for it. This means that reclamation of polluted sites should be financed by the polluters insofar as they can be identified. Structural Fund contributions to site reclamation work have to take account of this principle.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3074/00

by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Information about funding available for the Nordic dimension

Could the Commission compile a pamphlet about the funding available for the Nordic dimension?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2000)

The Commission does not at this stage plan to publish a booklet on the Community's northern dimension.

It should be pointed out that financial aid allocated to Member States, including the Nordic countries, is publicised in the monthly newsletter Inforegio News (produced in the eleven Community languages) and by means of specific information disseminated via the Inforegio Internet site (http://inforegio.cec.eu.int).

Also, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 of 30 May 2000 on information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds(1) requires Member States to inform potential beneficiaries about the opportunities offered by joint assistance under the Funds.

Lastly, the Commission's offices in each Member State also relay information on all Community activities.

(1) OJ L 130, 31.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2343/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Cuban membership of the ACP Group

What view does the Commission take of the application submitted by the Cuban Government to the ACP (Africa, Caribbean and Pacific) group requesting membership of that group outside the partnership agreement between the ACP and the European Union? What social and political consequences may be expected if such an application were to be accepted?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2000)

The Commission has not been informed up to now about any such application. In the event of that kind of request being submitted, the decision will be for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries to respond to the Cuban Government. Nevertheless, the Commission would like to point out that membership of the ACP group does not necessarily imply being automatically beneficiary of the Cotonou Agreement. As there is no precedent for a country being part of the ACP group without being part of the agreement of the ACP countries with the Community, the social and political consequences of such status can at this stage not be assessed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2556/00

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

(31 July 2000)

Subject: Stateless nations and the Member States' internal bodies vis-à-vis the reform of the treaties at the Intergovernmental Conference

Is the French Presidency of the European Council intending to ensure that the treaty reform carried out at the Nice Intergovernmental Conference specifically grants geographically-based political bodies with constitutional, executive and legislative powers (such as nations, Länder, autonomous communities and federated regions) a direct presence within the European institutions, thus enabling them to secure specific recognition of their political (and, in this particular case, national rather than local or regional) character?

Reply

(10 November 2000)

The Intergovernmental Conference is a temporary forum made up of the Representatives of the Governments of Member States and distinct from the Council. The European Parliament takes part in it through the attendance of two observers. The Council does not take part in the proceedings of the IGC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2433/00

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: Extension of the dock at Escombreras, Murcia (Spain)

Following its reply to Question P-0041/00(1), of 8 March 2000, on the scheme for extension of the dock at Escombreras and the rehabilitation of Portmán Bay, in which the Commission said it was conducting a detailed investigation of the problem:

- How does the Commission explain that no appropriate environmental impact assessment, containing binding recommendations, was carried out beforehand, given that the area is classified under Directive 79/409/EEC(2) on the protection of bird life?

- Has the Commission taken out infringement proceedings against Spain for failing to respect Community law in terms of environmental impact procedures, particularly as regards informing and involving the public, and taking due account of alternative solutions to the scheme under dispute? Has the Commission taken steps to improve the way in which the public is kept informed when projects involving the bay in question are being assessed?

- How is the Commission going to guarantee that the waste discharged into the bay is treated and got rid of on land, and that they are not used in the building of any port structures, given that the local authorities intend to carry out the extension of the Escombreras dock, despite the Commission's opposition? Can the Commission ensure that this controversial project does not receive money from other types of Community funds such as the ERDF?

- Does the Commission intend to link the scheme for the rehabilitation of the bay and the scheme to clean up the environment in the Sierra Minera, and thus give priority to funding via the Cohesion Fund or the Structural Funds?

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's replies to her Written Question P-41/00(1) and to Oral Question H-364/00 by Mr Carnero González at Question Time during Parliament's May 2000 part-session(2). As requested by them the Commission has stated its readiness to re-examine the situation in the context of any new proposal from the Spanish authorities. It is only in the light of the information provided in that context that the Commission would be able to decide whether to finance the project and on the terms of execution.

No application for part-financing from the European Regional Development Fund has been received for the project to extend the port at Escombreras and depollute Portmán Bay.

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001.

(2) Debates of the European Parliament (May 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3818/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Export of live cattle to third countries

In an answer given on 19 May 2000 [E-1015/00 EN], the Commission stated that 323 000 live cattle were exported from the Community to third countries in 1999. Furthermore, in an answer given on 25 October 1999 [1730/99 EN], the Commission stated that 266 256 live cattle were exported from the Community to third countries in 1998.

How many of the live cattle exported from the Community to third countries in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999:

1. were for (a) slaughter, (b) further fattening and (c) breeding;

2. how many in each of these categories were exported from each Member State;

3. how many in each of these categories did each exporting Member State send to each individual third-country destination?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2001)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2689/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Remuneration of Commission employees

What is the average post-tax and post-social security remuneration of a Commission employee in euros, and what percentage of the EU average post-tax and post-social security remuneration does that amount represent?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

The average post-tax and post-social security remuneration of a Commission employee is estimated at 65,000 per annum. The arrangements for remuneration of Community civil servants in all Institutions are, of course, the same.

The Commission does not have figures for average post-tax and post-social security remuneration across the Community.

However, a comparative study of the remuneration of officials of the European Institutions has recently been carried out by independent consultants(1). It was forwarded to the Parliament on 13 April 2000 and can be found at http://www.cc.cec/guide/remun/info.htm.

The study demonstrated that the net remuneration of the staff of the Community Institutions was lower than that of staff at the same level in multinational companies, similar to, and in some respects lower than, comparable staff serving in the Member States' Permanent Representations in Brussels, and close to that of comparable staff in other international organisations.

(1) Comparative study of the Remuneration of Officials of the European Institutions, carried out in 1999-2000 by PLS Consult A/S in co-operation with the Danish Management Forum and comparing the remuneration of staff of the European Institutions with the remuneration of a number of reference organisations including civil servants of five Member States, staff of three international organisations comparable with the EU and employees of five multinational companies located in at least five countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2694/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Malta

1. What is the Commission's estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support policies were extended to Malta on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2692/00, E-2693/00, E-2694/00, E-2696/00, E-2697/00 and E-2698/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

To estimate the extra annual cost of agricultural support resulting from the access to the Community of Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania it would be necessary to know with a reasonable degree of certainty the date, the terms and conditions of the accession. These aspects will have to be defined in the accession negotiations with these countries, the agricultural chapter of which has not yet been opened for negotiation. Consequently, any cost estimate made on the basis of assumptions indicated by the Honourable Member would necessarily be of a highly hypothetical, speculative and uncertain nature. At the present stage of the negotiating process the Commission is therefore, not in a position to answer the questions asked by the Honourable Member.