ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0352/01

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: Cooperation agreement between Lufthansa and SAS

The cooperation agreement between Lufthansa and SAS was originally approved on condition that it would benefit consumers financially. This has not happened, however, and it has instead substantially restricted competition, as the two airlines, which formerly competed against each other, have eliminated competition as a result of their close cooperation.

The agreement has had two disadvantages in particular, namely higher fares and fewer departures, both of which are bad news for consumers, and thus conflicts with the whole underlying aim of the special authorisation granted by the Commission six years ago.

Will the Commission therefore explain:

1. What its views are regarding the way cooperation between the airlines has turned out and the patently obvious disadvantages the cooperation agreement between Lufthansa and SAS has had for consumers?

2. Whether, in the light of the disadvantages of such cooperation for consumers, it should not have intervened long ago (even though the formal conditions of the authorisation have not been infringed)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

On 16 January 1996, the Commission took a decision granting an exemption under Article 81(3) (ex Article 85) of the EC Treaty for the co-operation agreement between Lufthansa and SAS until 31 October 2002. The exemption was granted under a number of conditions as set out in this decision. These conditions were meant to facilitate entry into the routes operated jointly by Lufthansa and SAS and included, for instance, the obligation to freeze the number of frequencies on certain routes in the case of entry and to make sufficient slots available for new entrants.

The Commission closely follows the implementation of the co-operation agreement and the parties are required to provide annually a number of data and other information to the Commission. Such information includes the number of frequencies, the average price charged and the capacity at which parties operate on a number of routes. The overall picture resulting from these data is rather mixed. While, for instance, on some routes the number of frequencies operated by the parties have increased, on others they have been reduced.

The Commission has no indication that the parties have not complied with the imposed conditions. The Commission is also unaware of any change in the facts which formed the basis for deciding to grant an exemption. Thus, there are no justifications for the Commission to withdraw the exemption.

However, the Commission takes note that so far no new entry has taken place on the routes in question. After the expiry of the six-year period in 2002, the Commission will have a new opportunity to investigate the effects of the co-operation agreement. The alleged effects on departures and fares and the fact that so far no new competitor has entered the market, will certainly be taken into account in such an investigation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0145/01

by Toine Manders (ELDR) and Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Inflammable clothing

A terrible fire at a cafe bar in Volendam in the Netherlands recently cost ten people their lives as well as endangering the lives of dozens of others or leaving them permanently disfigured. One of the causes of the fire was the presence of dangerous, inflammable products, including clothing. In response to the incident, the Dutch clothing industry announced that it would be taking voluntary steps to indicate on the labels of clothing the inflammability of the material used.

1. Could the Commission examine the feasibility, and desirability, of European legislation laying down a requirement throughout Europe for the inflammability of clothing to be indicated on the label, in order that consumers are aware of the risks?

2. Following on from question 1, could the Commission look into whether it is feasible, and desirable, for all consumer products which may be inflammable to carry similar warning labels for consumers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Clothing is not subject to specific Community legislation as far as its inflammability is concerned. It falls under the scope of Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety(1), which imposes a general safety obligation. This Directive refers to European standards, conformity with which confers presumption of conformity with the general safety obligation in the new version of the Directive which is currently being revised.

In December 2000, the Commission issued a mandate to the European Committee for Standardisation, with a view to creating European standards concerning the inflammability of night-dresses in response to statistics demonstrating the particular risk associated with this item of clothing. The Commission now intends to study the need for a new mandate covering the inflammability of other types of clothing. To do this, it will initiate consultation with Member States and other interested parties, such as consumer associations and industry federations, to gather their opinions on this subject and to obtain data and statistics on accidents that have occurred over the last few years.

The Commission considers that warning labels could supplement the available technical solutions, if these solutions do not completely eliminate the risk. The standards body could provide for warnings in the absence of any other satisfactory solution.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0060/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Economic aid to Montenegro

Before Montenegro's local elections in June, the EU decided to accord 15 million in economic aid for the administration of the republic. To the Commission's knowledge, for what purposes has this aid been used, and has the aid been properly administered in Montenegro?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

In reply to the question asked by the Honourable Member regarding the assistance provided by the EC to Montenegro:

- In 2000 the EC approved substantial assistance to the Republic of Montenegro. This included more than 9 million for humanitarian support, up to 20 million for macro-financial assistance, 11 million for food security and a total of 20 million (in two phases worth 5 million and 15 million respectively) for reconstruction. This is in addition to bilateral assistance provided by the Member States, mainly in the areas of infrastructure, public administration reform and economic reform. This level of support reflected the priority attached by the General Affairs Council, and indeed the European Parliament, to supporting Montenegro in withstanding considerable and economic pressure from the Milosevic regime, and to help it on the path of democracy and reform.

- The humanitarian aid and macro-financial assistance has since been disbursed. The latter was subject to conditionalities which the Government respected in order to receive payment of the second tranche. The 11 million for food security is yet to be converted into a financing agreement as the Government has only just received the last tranche of a 1999 food security support programme, which also had stringent conditionalities attached.

- The amount of 15 million cited by the Honourable Member refers, the Commission believes, to the second phase of the 2000 20 million reconstruction programme. This programme, approved in Commission Decisions in November and December 2000 for amounts of 1 million and 14 million respectively, included support to the areas of transport infrastructure, education, agriculture, finance and administrative and technical assistance. Whilst first phase infrastructure package ( 5 million committed in May 2000) is well under implementation, the second phase is yet to get off the ground due to the commitment of funds only late on in 2000 and the transfer of the dossiers and implementation responsibility to the European Agency for Reconstruction. However, with this Agency now in place in Podgorica the Commission hope to be able to move ahead with implementation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0078/01

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

(29 January 2001)

Subject: 'Purchase for destruction' of cattle aged over 30 months to prevent possible consumption of BSE-infected meat and the implementation of this rule in Galicia

What is the general scope of the rule concerning the purchase for destruction of cattle aged over 30 months adopted by the Agriculture Council at its meting of 4 December 2000 with a view to preventing possible consumption of meat from cattle infected by BSE ('mad cow disease')? When will this rule be implemented in the EU, and how? How will it be applied in Galicia? How many cattle will be affected, and what technical and budgetary resources will be used?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2001)

A purchase for destruction scheme as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market(1) was adopted by the Commission and entred into force on 1 January 2001. This is an exceptional market support measure intended to withdraw beef from the market until 30 June 2001, when testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) of all slaughtered animals above 30 months (OTM animals) becomes obligatory.

In the meantime, under that Regulation, only OTM animals having tested negative for BSE can be sold for human consumption while animals which have not been tested should be purchased by Member States with the view to removing them permanently from the market through a destruction process.

Although the Regulation concerned is applicable in all Member States some of its provisions permit, nevertheless, certain derogations. Consequently, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden are not actively participating in the scheme whereas Germany and Luxembourg are buying OTM animals despite full testing capacity for all their OTM animals presented for slaughter.

Spain is participating fully in the application of the Regulation but internal problems of technical capacity, staff training, logistics, etc. have delayed the physical start of the operations.

No upper limit has been fixed with regard to the number of animals which could be covered by the scheme. However, under the agricultural budget 700 million has been earmarked for Community co-financing of such purchases (70 % of the purchase price).

Apart from this co-financing provision, Member States are responsible for providing the necessary financing and technical capacity to assure the proper functioning of the scheme.

(1) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0287/01

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Subject: The welfare of broiler chickens

On 21 March 2000, the Commission's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare adopted a report The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers), which concluded that the broiler industry's determination to achieve fast growth rates leads to many broiler chickens suffering from painful leg disorders and to broilers dying of heart failure. The Scientific Committee also indicated that the stocking density must be 25 kg/m2 for major welfare problems to be largely avoided and that above 30 kg/m2, even with very good

environmental control systems, there is a steep rise in the frequency of serious problems. The committee also concluded that the severe feed restrictions to which broiler breeders are subjected result in unacceptable welfare problems and that the welfare of breeding birds must be improved.

Moreover, at the November 2000 meeting of the Agriculture Council, several delegations urged the Commission to prepare as quickly as possible a proposal for a Directive on the protection of broiler chickens.

In light of these developments, when does the Commission intend to prepare a proposal for a Council Directive to address the broiler health and welfare problems highlighted by the Scientific Committee's report?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the joint reply it gave to Written Questions E-1809/00 and E-1848/00 by Mrs McAvan(1) on the same subject.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 89.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0256/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Right of Resale

Does the Commission envisage the establishment of a centralised European register of all qualifying artists and their heirs under the draft Directive? If not, how are the natural or legal persons referred to in Article 9 supposed to determine the rights to a work in the event of a claim from two or more persons from outside the jurisdiction of the Member State concerned?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0256/01, E-0260/01, E-0262/01 and E-0264/01 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

On 13 December 2000, Parliament approved several amendments to the Council's common position of 19 June 2000 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art(1). Under Article 251(3) (formerly Article 189b(3)) of the EC Treaty, it is for the Council to decide on those amendments. The Commission will therefore take the common position as amended by Parliament as the basis for its answers to the Honourable Member's questions on certain specific provisions.

The Honourable Member is concerned about the obligations under which this Directive will place the persons mentioned in Article 9 who, under Article 1(4), will often be liable for the payment of the resale right if several persons think they are entitled to it, or if the resale right is not claimed.

The procedures for paying the resale right will depend on the way it is managed. According to the common position as amended, this question is a matter for the Member States, which may adopt specific solutions. For example, if a Member State opts for compulsory collective management of resale rights, it will be for the bodies responsible for collective management to deal with these questions.

In any event, the question of payment of a debt when the identity of the creditor is uncertain arises in many other areas apart from resale rights, and the Member States have well established rules. The persons referred to in Article 9 will therefore only have to follow the procedures prescribed in their national legislation.

Establishing a centralised European register of all qualifying artists and their heirs would therefore seem to be a pointless administrative formality, and the Commission has no such intention.

The Honourable Member also wonders about the scope of Article 5. The Commission confirms that the selling price taken as the basis for calculating the resale right must not include any of the taxes, such as VAT, normally added to the net price. This Directive is therefore without prejudice to the tax systems in force in the Member States.

(1) OJ C 300, 20.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0612/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: European political parties

What process is planned to stop money given to European political parties under the current proposals being used in domestic political campaigns and elections?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Article 4 of the proposed regulation(1) sets out the purposes for which funding under the regulation may be used. These do not include funding domestic campaigns or activities.

Qualifying parties are required to publish their budgets and accounts which are subject to the normal control procedures applying to all recipients of funding from the Community budget and, as set out in Article 5 of the proposed regulation, are subject to certification by an annual external and independent audit.

Failure to comply with the provisions of the regulation could lead to recovery proceedings and refusal of further funding.

(1) COM(2000) 898 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0171/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Consultation and the CFP review

What plans does the Commission have to consult stakeholders as widely as possible following publication of the Green Paper on the CFP review?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0171/01 and E-0211/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2001)

The intention of the Commission is to launch a wide ranging debate on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Green Paper will be made available to all interested parties. The main objective of the Commission is to involve as many stakeholders as possible and, as such, it encourages them to send proposals and comments on the Green Paper to the Commission.

Furthermore, the Commission will organise a public hearing in early June 2001 where all the interested parties will have the possibility to present their views, ideas and comments regarding the future of the Common Fisheries Policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0522/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Lower employers' contributions

A political party in Sweden has suggested that lower employers' contributions could be introduced for everyone over the age of 57 in Sweden. Employers' contributions for those over 57 could be lowered by 10 per cent to encourage employers to recruit older workers.

In the light of previous discussions in Sweden when employers in northern Sweden had their reduction of contributions withdrawn as it was considered detrimental to internal market competition, will the Commission say whether it is possible for a Member State unilaterally to lower employers' contributions for a particular age-group on its national labour market?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

The Commission is in favour of the objective to increase labour market participation for so called older workers and to promote active ageing. This objective has also been enshrined in Council Decision 2001/63/EC of 19 January 2001 on guidelines for Member States' employment policies for the year 2001(1), guideline 3 of which stipulates that Member States will develop policies for active ageing with the aim of enhancing the capacity of, and incentives for, older workers to remain in the labour force as long as possible, in particular by reviewing tax and benefit systems in order to reduce disincentives and make it more attractive for older workers to continue participating in the labour market. Furthermore, guideline 12 asks Member States to reduce non-wage labour costs for specific target groups. The measure described by the Honourable Member appears to be in line with these objectives provided that it is implemented horizontally across all sectors of the economy, so as not to favour specific sectors or companies.

In its notice on monitoring of State aid and reduction of labour costs(2), the Commission has clarified that measures targeted at certain categories of employees do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87 (ex-Article 92) (1) EC Treaty, provided that they apply automatically over the whole Member State without discrimination between firms. Under the latter conditions, a reduction of employer's contributions for older workers would therefore not fall under the State aid rules.

Finally, the Commission reiterates that responsibility for the design and financing of social protection systems lies with the Member States (Council Recommendation 92/442/EEC of 27 July 1992 on the convergence of social protection objectives and policies(3)).

(1) OJ L 22, 24.1.2001.

(2) OJ C 1, 3.1.1997.

(3) OJ L 245, 26.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0093/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Dumping of cattle carcasses in Mesía (Galicia, Spain)

In the first days of 2001 more than 300 cattle carcasses were discovered in a disused open-cast quartz mine in Galicia, having been secretly dumped there. Those responsible for this dumping appear to have been employees of the enterprise entrusted by the regional government with the task of incinerating these carcasses, considered unsuitable for the food chain.

In view of the reasons given by the Galician regional authorities and the Spanish national authorities in justification of this act of dumping:

Can the Commission state whether and if so, through what mechanisms it is monitoring the implementation in the Member States of the measures adopted by the Council for the eradication of BSE and the protection of consumer health in Europe?

Can the Commission state what penalties it intends to apply to acts such as the above?

Can the Commission state what measures it intends to take concerning this particular case of dumping of cattle carcasses in Galicia?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

In relation to matters relating to public and animal health, the Commission's policy is to maintain a high level of vigilance in order to ensure that Member States fully comply with their obligations under Community law.

Commission experts carry out regular on-the-spot checks in all Member States to verify the correct implementation of Community legislation on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and related matters.

The specific matter raised by the Honourable Member is being investigated by the Commission.

In cases where, after establishing the facts, it appears to the Commission that Spain is not fulfilling its obligations, the Commission is prepared to take all necessary action within its power ensure that Community law is respected. In appropriate cases this action would include the opening of infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0443/01

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Activities of the Racine association

The French private-law association Racine (Network for the Support and Capitalisation of European Innovations) which is active in the areas of employment and professional training has as its aim helping to ensure that Community guidelines are given practical effect in the French context by providing technical assistance to project organisers. It receives considerable support from the ESF which seems to provide 90 % of its operating budget.

Is the Commission in a position to assess the contribution the association actually makes, which certainly does not appear to have a high profile among those active in social affairs? Are details of how it uses its funds and full accounts publicly available?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Racine (an association within the meaning of the 1901 Act on the creation of non-profit associations) makes an active contribution to the implementation of various employment and social policy programmes.

Its tasks include the following:

- work connected with the Community initiatives Adapt and Employment;

- operations under Objectives 3 and 4 of the Structural Funds;

- the surveys and analyses strand of the first phase of the Leonardo da Vinci programme (1995-1999);

- for the French State: organisation of study visits under the Leonardo da Vinci programme managed by the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP);

- strategic monitoring of new provisions;

- for the Délégation interministérielle de la ville (interdepartmental office for urban matters): specific activities targeting local committees;

- Racine is also involved in PHARE activities.

In connection with project monitoring, Racine is in regular contact with social players, who are also represented in one of the management board's three constituent groups (public institutions, social partners and qualified experts).

As Racine is an association under the 1901 Act, its accounts are subject to scrutiny by an auditor.

The association is also under state surveillance in that a financial controller appointed by the French Budget Ministry performs this function and attends meetings of the association's management board.