ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0232/00

by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety

Why does the White Paper take a more cautious approach to health claims than the more flexible national arrangements? Why does the Commission not propose a precise framework enabling health claims to be put to reasonable use?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Article 2 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs(1) for sale to the ultimate customer states that the above must not attribute to any foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease, or refer to such properties. The claims regarding the reduced likelihood of contracting an illness derive from that ban.

As stated in the White Paper on Food Safety(2), the Commission feels that no changes to the principle of that provision are called for.

As provided for in the White Paper the Commission will, however, examine whether it is appropriate to introduce into Community law any specific provisions governing nutritional and operational claims concerning the beneficial effects of a given nutrient on certain normal bodily functions. Laying down a stringent framework for this type of claim will constitute an initial stage in an overall commitment to provide consumers with reliable science-based information that is appropriate to the nature of those products, thus enabling them to make choices that are beneficial to their health and general welfare.

(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979. Directive as last amended by Directive 97/4/EC OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2) COM(1999) 719 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0328/00

by Georges Berthu (UEN) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Courtesy titles conferred by non-member countries on European officials

In its reply to Written Question P-0224/99(1) concerning the title of Ambassador assumed by certain Commission heads of delegation, the Commission states that it is customary (in view of the delegations diplomatic privileges and immunities) for the accrediting State to accord the head of delegation the rank, and courtesy title, of ambassador'.

Does the Commission consider it normal that foreign countries should be the ones to confer titles on European officials, rather than the EU Member States? What action is it planning in order to ensure that European officials, in the course of their duties, do not make official use of titles (even courtesy ones) conferred by non-member countries?

(1) OJ C 289, 11.10.1999, p. 143.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

It is in the nature of diplomatic practice that the accrediting State requests from the host State the level of accreditation it wishes for its diplomatic agents there. It is in this sense that the accrediting state grants the title to the official.

This rule also applies to heads of the Commission's delegation, representation or office who are accredited at head of state level. Member States are informed by the Commission of its intention to appoint a head of delegation and are informed of the rank and courtesy title which will be sought in the country of accreditation.

Commission heads of mission receive guidance as to the occasions when it is appropriate to use the courtesy title.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0157/00

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Modernisation and business incentive plan for Andalusia

On the scale of per capita wealth covering the autonomous communities of Spain, which is calculated as a percentage of Spain's average per capita GDP, the region of Andalusia scores a disappointing 72,26 %, compared with 154,48 % for the Balearic Islands, the region which tops the rankings.

For Andalusia to close the gap that currently separates it from both the rest of Spain and the remainder of the Community regions amongst which it sadly finds itself towards the bottom of the rankings 80 000 businesses would have to be set up there over the next four years as a means of bringing full employment to the autonomous community.

Can the Commission say whether it takes the view that, over and above existing Community policies which foster economic development in Andalusia, it ought to help launch a modernisation and business incentive plan for the region to boost the creation of enterprises in deprived areas and provide small businesses with access to more attractive sources of funding enabling them to expand and prosper?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

In its draft guidance for programmes(1) adopted on 1 July 1999, the Commission underlined amongst other things the importance that it attaches to support measures for small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs), both setting them up and developing them, by focusing on the information society, networking and the aid services which will be open to SMEs.

The Commission received Spain's regional development plan for the regions eligible under Objective 1 in the 2000-06 programming period on 29 October 1999. We are currently analysing this proposal in order to finalise, in partnership with the Spanish authorities, the Community support framework which will lay down the conditions for implementing the programming. The Commission will try to ensure that the priorities identified by the Spanish authorities are taken into account in an appropriate manner in the ensuing measures and forms of assistance.

(1) Commission staff working paper SEC(1999) 103 final: The Structural Funds and their coordination with the Cohesion Fund Draft guidance for programmes in the period 2000-2006.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0150/00

by Emmanouil Mastorakis (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Community Interreg Initiative

Despite the increase in Interreg funding for the period 2000-2006 compared with the previous period, efforts have clearly been made not to alter the list of Group A recipients, with very few exceptions, the obvious aim being to concentrate the funds as effectively as possible. However, the fact that exceptions have been made prove that there was a need to remedy previously existing injustices and omissions. Notable omissions from the list of recipients in Greece are the prefectures of Arta and Ilia and this despite the inclusion of neighbouring prefectures which could be regarded as falling within the same category.

Can the Commission show understanding in this matter and reconsider the possibility of including these two prefectures, which were unjustly omitted?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0150/00, E-0229/00 and E-0336/00 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 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-0415/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Copyright

On the basis of the Berne Convention and Council Directive 93/98/EEC(1) harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights will the Commission please state:

1. To what extent the lawful reproduction of an original work, regardless of the method used to reproduce it, influences the term of protection enjoyed by the work under EU rules?

2. Whether the lawful reproduction of a work, regardless of the method used, means that other reproductions may be made against the interests of the rightholder before the end of the term of protection enjoyed by the work under EU rules?

(1) OJ L 290, 24.11.1993, p. 9.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Council Directive 93/98/EC harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights not only defines the Community terms for each category of works or subject matter protected, but also specifies the event which gives rise to the start of this term in each specific case. In fact, in order to fulfil the task of completing a true internal market within which there is free movement of goods and services protected by intellectual property rights, total harmonisation has been achieved, with all the factors which may affect the terms of protection being taken into consideration.

The lawful reproduction of a work is a normal act of exploitation which has no influence on the term of protection. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which the lawful reproduction of a work could lead to other reproductions being made against the interests of the rightholder, as such reproductions should also be subject to the rightholder's authorisation or fall into one of the categories of legally authorised use. In any case, a situation of this nature does not in any way affect the term of protection.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0349/00

by Rosa Díez González (PSE), Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Public aid and the reinforcing of a dominant position on the Spanish electricity market

In view of the duopoly in the Spanish electricity market and in connection with the State aid provided for the CTC (costs of transition to competition), will the Commission abide by its policy of ensuring that public aid is not used to reinforce a dominant position?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Commission monitoring of state aid involves checking the extent to which the distortion of competition necessarily engendered by the aid is offset by its contribution to the common interest, as seen in Community terms. Against this background, in examining cases of state aid associated with stranded costs, the Commission will apply a methodology the basic principles of which were discussed in June 1999 with the Member States. This takes account in particular of the level of competition in the market concerned. The aid must therefore serve to offset eligible stranded costs that have been clearly specified and identified, and the arrangements for payment must allow account to be taken of actual future developments in competition, as measured by quantifiable factors.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0352/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Italian economic initiative in Serbia

The Saturday, 22 January 2000 edition of the Italian newspaper La Stampa carried the following report: Italian firms are breaking the NATO embargo on Serbia Italian-made goods on sale in Belgrade From February, a range of products will be available in the telecommunications, metallurgy, food and clothing sectors. The Consorzio Europeo Italia comprises not only Italian but also French firms: Paladini, Bigelli Marmi, Santo Galeazzi Pagassus, Bulbarelli, Atb, Elf Aquitaine, Cacciamali, Samco, Inside International, Il Ponte, Ato Findley and Fineca. The sectors covered range from food to metallurgy, telecommunications and furniture (mldr)

Does the Commission not consider that the economic initiative in question flies in the face of the decisions taken by the European Union and confirmed at the meeting of Monday, 24 January 2000, at which the EU Foreign ministers decided to maintain intact the economic sanctions imposed on the government in Belgrade? What action do the President of the Commission and the Commissioner responsible for competition policy intend to take in their respective fields to oppose any initiative that breaks the embargo on the Miloseviç regime, while also protecting the market and competition from triangular economic and commercial operations that infringe Community rules?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1294/1999 of 15 June 1999 concerning a freeze of funds and a ban on investment in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1295/98 and (EC) No 1607/98(1) concerns a prohibition to make funds available to the governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and that of the Republic of Serbia.

The initiative of Consorzio Europeo Italia is said to be intended to promote the sale of Italian and other Community products, in a tax free zone near Belgrade, primarily to customers from Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia, who would need visas for Italy but not for Yugoslavia.

The Commission and the Italian authorities are currently examining whether the above mentioned initiative, which is apparently not yet implemented to date, would result in investments in the Republic of Serbia or funds being made available to the governments mentioned above and will keep the matter under review.

(1) OJ L 153, 19.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0112/00

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

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Diversion of a high voltage power line in the locality of Merza (Galicia)

A 400 kv high voltage power line between Mesón del Viento in Galicia and the locality of Lindoso on the Portuguese border, which was included in an operational programme in Galicia for the period 1990-1993 and received funding under the ERDF, was diverted from the route approved by the Commission on the initiative of the publicly-owned company Red Eléctrica de España S.A. and following a decision by the Galician Government with the result that, counter to the project which was originally approved, it now passes through the locality of Merza, which has 800 inhabitants. The Galician Government's decision, taken in 1996, is also in breach of EU regulations on combating the harmful effects of non-ionising radiation, which recommend that such power lines should pass through corridors which have no permanent activity or dwellings and stipulate that prior impact assessments must be carried out and that, at all events, compensation and expropriation schemes must be set up. Moreover, an action under the Leader programme is currently underway in Merza, which has been seriously affected by the existence of an unauthorised high voltage power line. Even though they have been approached on many occasions, neither the Galician nor the central Spanish authorities have taken the necessary measures to remedy this situation. Can the Commission report on the action it will take to remedy all the infringements of EU regulations which have been committed in Merza, thus giving its inhabitants the satisfaction which they deserve?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 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-0066/00

by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Commission delegation in Ecuador

What budget obstacles are there to the opening of a Commission delegation in Ecuador?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

There are no extra human resources foreseen for opening delegations in the 2000 budget. The available resources are committed to the existing external representation of the Commission.

An early opening of additional delegations would have to be the result of the redeployment of staff. Priorities will have to be set. This is to be decided in the framework of the exercise which is underway to assess the needs of the external service over the lifetime of this Commission. A communication to the Council and the Parliament on the development of the external service, the best use of its existing means and, if it is found to be necessary, proposals for extra resources should be presented later in the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0043/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Cologne process: Milk quotas in ultraperipheral regions

At the 23 November 1999 partnership meeting between the Commission and the ultraperipheral regions, at which views and information were exchanged in connection with drawing up the report on the regions concerned, Commissioner Fischler's representative, Agriculture Director-General Guy Legras, referred to the need for a more flexible application of the milk quotas in the Azores, given the need to prevent market imbalances.

Unlike Réunion, Guyana, Martinique and Guadalupe, milk quotas in the Azores Autonomous Region are applied without any special exemptions whatever.

Can the Commission therefore explain why the report on the measures to implement Article 229(2) of the treaty in the ultraperipheral regions fails to mention this fact?

How and when does it intend to give practical expression to the remark made by Commissioner Fischler's representative?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0038/00, E-0043/00, E-0044/00, E-0045/00, E-0046/00, E-0047/00, E-0048/00, E-0049/00, E-0050/00, E-0051/00 and E-0052/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Honourable Member has put a whole series of questions regarding the Poseima Programme for the Azores.

The Commission is currently drafting a report on the measures to implement Article 299(2) (ex Article 227) of the EC Treaty.

At this stage, before the Commission has adopted that report, it is not able to reply to the Honourable Member's questions concerning its content.

Lastly, the Commission's Work Programme for 2000 provides for a report to be presented to the Council and Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products(1) (Poseima), together where appropriate with proposals for any adjustments that prove necessary to achieve the programme's goals. The set of measures relating to agriculture in the Azores will be considered in that connection.

(1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0247/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Withholding of the premium for tobacco producers for the Community Tobacco Fund

In its resolution of 17.7.1997(1) on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco, the European Parliament called on the Commission to supply information on the activities so far of the Tobacco Research and Information Fund as a precondition for any agreement to increase the resources available to it.

1. Has any information been published about the use of the resources withheld between 1993 and 1988 by the Tobacco Research and Information Fund? Which programmes have been funded for Greece so far?

2. Given that no implementing regulation has been issued to increase the deduction decided by Council Regulation 1636/98(2) on the Community Tobacco Fund, does the Commission intend to examine the possibility of not withholding the premium for tobacco producers for the above Fund in 1999?

(1) OJ C 286, 22.9.1997, p. 237.

(2) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 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-0014/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Breach of Directive 89/391/EEC on the improvement of health and safety of workers

Following complaints to the responsible Greek and Community bodies from the Works Council of Andersen (Consulting) B.P.M. Hellas S.A. in Greece that the company was in breach of the basic provisions of Framework Directive 89/391/EEC(1), the competent Greek authorities carried out an investigation which established that such breaches had occurred.

In view of the fact that the company has failed to resolve the problems and that no review has been carried out, as requested by the Works Council, will the Commission say what measures it will take to ensure effective monitoring and compliance with the provisions of the Directive in order to protect the health and safety of workers employed by the company concerned?

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2000)

In accordance with Article 4 of the Council Framework Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989, on the introduction of measures to improve the safety and health of workers at work(1), it is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure adequate control and supervision of the national provisions implemented by this directive. Consequently, any possible breach of the provisions of Directive 89/391/EEC must be brought to the attention of the Greek authorities.

In this particular case these authorities must be informed once again by the parties concerned if the health and safety conditions at work are not remedied in the company in question.

The Commission would not hesitate to take necessary action if it was given reliable information that the Greek authorities were not monitoring the implementation of the provisions of Directive 89/391/EEC.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0444/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Support for the press

Thank you for your answer (E-1876/99)(1) of 5 January 2000. I still have a number of questions regarding the criteria for selecting newspapers for support set out in the reply.

1. What objective criteria are used to assess the credibility of a medium to receive financial support from the Commission representation?

2. Are statistics yet available on the Commission's 1999 expenditure on the Austrian media?

3. What financial support does the Commission plan to provide to the Austrian media in the year 2000?

4. On what basis is this support calculated, and can the Commission predict at this stage which Austrian newspapers will be receiving support in 2000?

(1) OJ C 203, 18.7.2000, p. 78.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

1. The credibility of a medium is assessed on the basis of continual monitoring over many years of the factual accuracy of its reporting of Community affairs.

2. In 1999 the daily Der Standard received a grant of 23,982 (after the final calculation) specifically for a five-part series on Agenda 2000 and the future development of the Community. The Commission Representation in Austria did not make any other payments to newspapers or magazines.

3. So far, the Commission Representation in Austria has no plans to commission any articles against payment in 2000.

4. Payments for commissions in the printed media are calculated on the basis of the demonstrated additional costs linked to producing a special report on a subject specific to Europe and, according to the rules, may run to 50 % of those costs.