ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3111/00

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 September 2000)

Subject: Commission proposal for an egg classification system

At the beginning of September, the Commission submitted a proposal for compulsory indication of the farming method on eggs as of 1 January 2001. This proposal radically alters the existing classification system for eggs. The preparation time seems rather brief if the new system is to enter into force on 1 January 2001. The first question, therefore, is: when does the Commission intend to consult the European Parliament about the proposal?

It is very important that such a radical change in the classification system should have the support of operators in the industry. The second question is: has the Commission consulted the industry while drafting the proposal, and if so, how and with what outcome?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

The proposal(1) for amending Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs(2) would introduce compulsory labelling for all methods of egg production, not only for battery-laid eggs.

The common organisation of the market in eggs stipulates that marketing standards are to be adopted by the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission (Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75)(3), but does not refer to Parliament being consulted. Parliament was nevertheless informed of the proposal.

The Commission informed the public of its intention to introduce compulsory production-method labelling in its March 1998 communication to the Council on the protection of laying hens(4). While the majority of producers and consumers are prepared to accept the principle of compulsory labelling,

at an initial meeting of experts in March 1999 producers' representatives nevertheless expressed reservations about the technical details. The October and November 2000 meetings of the Advisory Committee's standing and ad hoc groups are due to continue discussing the technical details, which would have to be stipulated in a Commission Regulation in accordance with the management committee procedure.

(1) COM(2000) 522 final.

(2) OJ L 173, 6.7.1990.

(3) OJ L 282, 1.11.1975.

(4) COM(98) 135 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2765/00

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Integrated Coastal Zone Management Programme

Can the Commission comment on the progress of the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Programme and indicate when it intends to adopt it?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2000)

The Commission's Demonstration programme on integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) was completed last year. Its final phase included a broad consultation concerning a possible European strategy for ICZM. Respondents were asked, in particular, to address the question of what actions needed to be undertaken at the European level.

A summary of this consultation, as well as all of the technical outputs of the demonstration programme, is available on the Commission's Web page at: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/iczm/home.htm

On the basis of the lessons of the demonstration programme, and the responses received during the consultation, on 27 September 2000, the Commission adopted a communication to the Parliament and the Council describing the conclusions of the demonstration programme and outlining a European strategy for ICZM(1).

As a component of this strategy, on 8 September 2000, the Commission also adopted a proposal for a Parliament and Council recommendation to the Member States, concerning the implementation of ICZM in Europe(2).

(1) COM(2000) 547 final.

(2) COM(2000) 545 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3015/00

by Lord Bethell (PPE-DE), Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) and Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Gibraltar's access to telephone networks in Spain

Prior to December 1995 the Spanish telephone operator Telefonica (at that time the only GSM operator offering a service in Spain) refused to conclude a roaming agreement with GIBTEL, in apparent violation of competition and single market rules. As a consequence once GIBTEL GSM customers cross into Spain and move outside the area of coverage of their own base stations, they are not able to use their GIBTEL mobile phones until they cross into Andorra, France or Portugal, despite the fact that GIBTEL has concluded roaming agreements with GSM operators in every other EU Member State.

In June of this year it is our understanding that a letter signed by Commissioners Bolkestein, Liikanen and Monti was sent to the governments of Spain and the United Kingdom instructing them to arrive at a solution to both the numbering and the roaming complaints by the end of July 2000, the deadline later being extended to the end of August 2000. This second deadline has now expired with the problem unresolved.

Spanish territorial claims to Gibraltar notwithstanding, could the Commission indicate whether it believes that the citizens of Gibraltar are entitled to equal protection under the European treaties as every other citizen of the European Union, and whether the discriminatory treatment of GIBTEL by Telefonica is legal, and, if so, what measures the Commission proposes in order to uphold the treaties?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2000)

The question raised by the Honourable Members concerns the inability of Gibtel, the mobile telephone operator in Gibraltar, to sign a roaming agreement with a telecommunications operator in Spain, in particular Telefónica.

The Commission is looking at this question in the broader context of Spain's refusal to recognise Gibraltar's international prefix, 350. As the Honourable Members point out, one of the consequences of this refusal is that Gibtel is unable to sign a roaming agreement with a Spanish operator.

The Commission confirms that letters were sent to the Spanish and United Kingdom authorities in June, urging them to seek an amicable solution to this dispute as quickly as possible. As the Honourable Members are aware, Article 299(4) (former Article 227) of the EC Treaty stipulates that the provisions of the Treaty apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible, and hence to Gibraltar. Other pieces of primary and secondary legislation have defined the extent to which Community law applies to Gibraltar.

At this stage the Commission must maintain a reservation pending its examination of the matter. It will make its conclusions public as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2854/00

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(5 September 2000)

Subject: Infringement proceedings against the Kingdom of Spain for pollution of aquifers

In its answer of 3 May 2000 to my Written Question E-0738/00(1) concerning the pollution of aquifers in certain areas of Catalonia, in particular Baix Empordà and Osona, and the failure on the part of the administration of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Executive Council of the Generalitat) to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-71/97 of 1 October 1998, the Commission said that infringement proceedings had been opened against the Kingdom of Spain in connection with this matter.

Will the Commission say when exactly the proceedings were opened, what stage has been reached and what results it expects?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 21.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2000)

In respect of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources(1), the Commission has instituted two infringement proceedings against Spain, in the course of which it has brought actions before the Court of Justice.

In the first judgment of 1 October 1998 in Case C-71/97, the Court declared that Spain had failed to comply with the provisions of Directive 91/676/EEC. It found that Spain had failed to designate vulnerable zones and to establish codes of good agricultural practice pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of the Directive. Following the judgment, Spain forwarded information on the designation of vulnerable zones for the whole of its territory. It also notified its codes of good agricultural practice.

In the second judgment of 13 April 2000 in Case C-274/98, the Court declared that Spain had failed to establish action programmes for the vulnerable zones, as required by Article 5 of the Directive. The Commission is currently examining the Spanish authorities' compliance with this judgment.

The Commission has, in addition, instituted infringement proceedings against Spain following a petition made to Parliament's Committee on Petitions regarding the nitrate pollution of drinking water in the Osona area of Catalonia. Following an official notification, the Spanish authorities informed the Commission that a plan covering all the municipalities in the area had been adopted and was being implemented to resolve the problem.

The Commission hopes these procedures will help resolve the problem the Honourable Member is referring to. The Commission will in addition take any useful step to ensure that Spain completes a full designation of vulnerable zones in all provinces where nitrogen from agricultural sources is threatening the quality of fresh or sea water and that it acts rapidly to set up action programmes.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3543/00

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 November 2000)

Subject: Labelling of beef tending to disrupt the market

In the recent discussion on the compulsory labelling of beef the Commission has said that the new directive in this field must not result in disruption of the market.

1. Is the Commission aware that German buying associations have largely stopped buying meat not emanating from Germany?

2. Does the Commission intend to tackle this unacceptable protectionism and obstacle to intra-Community trade?

3. Is the Commission prepared to subject the compulsory labelling to a critical review?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

The Commission is aware that the indication of origin on beef labels can and will have an effect on commercial decisions. These decisions, taken by individual traders, cannot be considered as illegal measures of protectionism.

Already in the past, the Commission noticed a certain national reflex in some Member States where beef is labelled with full origin. This is the main reason why, in its proposal for a Council regulation providing for the general rules for a compulsory beef labelling system(1), the Commission had included also the possibility of EU origin labelling.

However the Council (unanimously) as well as the Parliament (by a very large majority) decided to limit the origin indications on beef at the level of the name of the Member States concerned.

In conformity with its declaration made in Council on the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 2772/1999 of 21 December 1999 providing for the general rules for a compulsory beef labelling system(2), the Commission will continue to follow closely the evolution of intra-Community trade in the beef sector.

(1) COM(1999) 664 final.

(2) OJ L 334, 28.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3535/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Free movement of labour for all industries.



Official Journal 151 E , 22/05/2001 P. 0187 - 0187



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3535/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 2000) Subject: Free movement of labour for all industries In view of the response to my question No E-2823/00(1) on the free movement of labour by Commissioner Diamantopoulou, which seems to indicate that the free movement of labour is set at the minimum age of each Member State, will the Commission not confirm that this provision will apply across all industries in the European Union including the football industry? (1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 101. Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (19 December 2000) The Community law provisions on the free movement of workers apply to all Union citizens who have reached the minimum age fixed by the host Member State for access to its labour market including sports activities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3472/00

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Health Observatory monitoring

What monitoring is the Health Observatory planning to carry out on epilepsy, Parkinson's disease and other neurological conditions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The present action programme on health monitoring and the future action programme on public health aim at developing and making available adequate, reliable and comparable data sets and indicators of public health in order to report on the health status within the Community. The Commission foresees that neurological conditions will be part of the European health monitoring system when this system is put in place.

A project entitled Monitoring neurological diseases in Europe has already been completed and the Commission will provide the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat with a copy of this report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3133/00

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Community aid to the non-fishing industry affected by the tying-up of the Moroccan waters community fleet

The Community fishing fleet which operated in waters under Moroccan administration has been tied up since the agreement expired on 13 November 1999. The European Community is making Community funding available to the fishermen affected to offset the damaging effects of the fleet's being tied up.

However, this long period of inactivity is also causing major losses to non-fishing fisheries-related industries, and indeed other economic sectors in districts which depend on the agreement and indirectly linked with fisheries. The regional governments of Andalusia and the Canaries, but not the Xunta de Galicia, are assessing the losses suffered by the non-fishing fisheries sector as a result of the tying-up of the fleet.

To what extent can the Community co-fund aid to the non-fishing sector, and which Community funds would it draw on? What steps should the government of the Member State concerned be taking?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

No provision is made in Community legislation for specific aid to any part of the fishery sector other than fishermen themselves in cases where a fishery agreement is not renewed or is suspended.

Aid can however be given for fishing port facilities and fishery product processing and marketing installations under restructuring programmes for the sector for the period 2000-2006 in both Objective 1 and non-Objective 1 regions. Decisions to grant aid, which must be covered by a programme approved by the Commission and conform with common fishery policy aims, are taken by the Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3167/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Cyprus and the Loizidou case

1. Will compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey be a condition laid down in the EU's accession partnership agreement with Turkey?

2. Will any reference be made to Cyprus in the EU's accession partnership agreement with Turkey?

3. In the opinion of the Commission, has Turkey, since the Helsinki Summit, made any progress

(a) towards fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria, and

(b) towards complying with the preconditions laid down in the communique issued by the European Council in Helsinki?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

The Commission is very much aware of the Loizidou case. It has mentioned this issue in the regular report for Turkey in 1999(1) and it intends to raise the matter again in the framework of the report for 2000, which will be published on 8 November 2000.

The Commission also intends to publish the accession partnership for Turkey on 8 November 2000. Its content will be presented to the Parliament on the same day. The drafting of this document is currently part of the Commission's usual internal deliberations.

(1) COM(1999) 513 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3694/00

by Mario Mastella (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 November 2000)

Subject: Protection of workers at the work place

Directive 2000/54/EC(1)of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 places special emphasis on the protection of workers from health and safety risks related to exposure to biological agents at work.

In this connection, specialists in hygiene and preventive medicine are specifically trained to deal with health surveillance of workers who are or may be exposed to such agents in their work, especially as regards adopting all possible preventive measures such as vaccinations.

Once again the question arises, then, of whether specialists in hygiene and preventive medicine can be employed as medical officers responsible for health and safety at the workplace, thereby taking advantage of the adoption of the EU directive by all Member States.

Will the Commission therefore say whether it intends to take specific measures to enable specialists in health and preventive medicine to act as medical officers with responsibility for health and safety at the work place?

(1) OJ L 262, 17.10.2000, p. 21.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

The qualifications required to deal with health surveillance of workers are not referred to in Directive 2000/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work, which was mentioned specifically by the Honourable Member, or in any other directive on the safety and health protection of workers, as per Article 16(1) of the framework Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work(1).

In defining the medical officer as the person responsible for the above surveillance, the secondary Italian legislation determined the qualification required and, as a result, it is within the competence of the Italian legislature to broaden the range of qualifications, as requested by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1707/00

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Tendering

Over a four year period Danish local and district authorities have multiplied sevenfold the number of tasks performed by one public authority for another for payment. This steep increase has occurred even though the Danish Government has on several occasions assured the Commission that local and district authorities would perform tasks only where there was no or no more than restricted competition with private undertakings.

On the basis of the Danish Ministry of the Interior's statement to the Commission of 31 March the Danish Trades Council has ascertained that some 90 % of the work carried out for a total of Kr. 174 million could have been carried out by private firms. The work involved included gardening, care of green spaces, street sweeping, laboratory work and analyses, delivering food, sale of frozen meals, laundry services, minor landscaping and building work, painting, blacksmith's work, transport services, cleaning, computer services etc. Since 1997 activities as a whole have increased from scarcely Kr. 250 million a year to Kr. 174 million in 1999 (including tenders not yet carried out) and there are strong indications that the proportion of work which could also have been carried out by private undertakings has also risen.

What is the Commission's attitude towards this increase in activity in relation to Law No 378 of 14 June 1995 on local and district authorities' performance of work for other public authorities and the Danish Ministry of the Interior's statement to the Commission of 31 March 2000, in the light of the fact that the vast majority of this work could also have been carried out by private undertakings?

Does the Commission intend to put a stop to those activities mentioned in Law No 378 of 14 June 1995 on the performance of work by local and district authorities for other public authorities which are carried out in competition with private undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

Member States are free to buy products and services where and from whom they want, as long as they respect the Community rules on public procurement.

Member States must make sure that undertakings, private or public, do not receive overcompensation for any service or product of general economic interest, which they are requested to provide under Article 86(2) (ex Article 90) of the EC Treaty, in order to avoid the use of such overcompensation to cross subsidise their other commercial activities. As long as the above principles are respected the Commission has no power to intervene.

The Commission is currently examining the implications under the Community rules on public procurement of the law and the examples of its concrete application mentioned in the Danish Ministry of Interior's statement to the Commission of 31 March 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2487/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Behaviour of Dutch police officers on the final day of the European football championships

Judging by the treatment of Italian TV cameramen by Dutch police officers on the final day of the European football championships the Netherlands appears to be suffering from a democratic deficit.

What sanctions will the Community adopt, after having informed the Dutch Government and Queen of such a decision, given the fact that the latter had banned an Austrian diplomat from attending an official lunch for far less?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2460/00 and E-2487/00

(7 November 2000)

The situation described by the Honourable Member does not fall within the sphere of competence of the Council.