ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2127/00

by Benedetto Della Vedova (TDI) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Liberalisation of airport services

The Italian Government transposed Directive 96/67(1) on the liberalisation of airport services in Legislative Decree No 18 of 3 January 1999.

ADUC (an association representing the rights of users and consumers) lodged an appeal against this decree (Community reference number 99/4472/, SG(99)A7228), pointing out that the decree allows the upholding of monopolistic positions to the detriment of consumers, as regards the cheapness, efficiency and quality of services.

DG VII, responsible for transport, in a letter dated 7 September 1999 (D899/gb/ass/150 290IT) echoed ADUC's observations and called on the Italian Government to amend its decree, saying that otherwise it would bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

Since the Italian Government has still not amended its decree and the Commission has not brought proceedings for infringement of the Community directive, can the latter say why, eight months after DG VII sent the above-mentioned letter, it has still not brought proceedings against the Italian Government and whether it does not consider that the Italian Government's behaviour is objectively aimed at safeguarding the interests of airport companies at the cost of the consumer, in violation of freedom of competition?

(1) OJ L 272, 25.10.1996, p. 36.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2000)

In its letter dated 7 September 1999 the Commission informed the Italian authorities of the incompatibility with the provisions of Community law of certain clauses of legislative decree No 18 of 13 January 1999 transposing into Italian law Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports(1). Indeed, those clauses are intended to prevent the full implementation of the Directive by restricting the right of access to the market, more particularly by requiring that staff be retained or that existing contracts continue.

The Commission would like to stress that an infringement procedure has been introduced. After various exchanges of views with the Italian authorities, the Commission has now sent a warning letter dated 3 May 2000 asking the Italian authorities to pass on their comments within two months.

In accordance with the rules laid down by the EC Treaty, the Commission has the option, in the absence of any reply by a Member State, or where that Member State gives an unsatisfactory reply, to deliver a reasoned opinion urging it to adhere to the Community principles within the given deadline. The matter may only be laid before the Court of Justice at a subsequent stage of the procedure.

That information had already been covered by a Commission letter to the ADUC (Associazione per i diritti degli utenti e consumatori) on 30 May 2000. Moreover, that association had been kept informed of developments in the procedure.

(1) OJ L 272, 25.10.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2729/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Commodity prices

Will the Commission indicate the average rise in world commodity prices (taking as a basis the five most significant commodities produced in the EU) if there were to be a gradual alignment of EU farm prices with world market prices?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

The gradual alignment of Community farm prices with world prices and its impact on world market prices were a long-debated issue in the 1980's, when the gap between Community internal agricultural prices and world market prices was relatively high for several products. At that time, several analyses were published showing that, in general, the effect of a unilateral alignment of Community prices on world market prices, other things being equal, would generate a significant fall in the Community agricultural production and a sharp increase in world market price levels. The implementation of a series of reforms by the Community during the 1990's, implying a strong fall in the Community support prices for several products (cereals, beef and dairy products) has considerably reduced this gap and will continue to reduce it over the next few years.

An estimation of the impact on world market prices of the alignment of Community internal agricultural prices towards world market prices would necessitate the use of a complex modelling framework covering a whole range of aspects (including supply and demand as well as domestic and trade policy instruments for the key producing and trading regions). At present, this framework is not available within the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2712/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Companies in the EU

Will the Commission provide estimates of the number of new companies, failed companies and net new companies in each Member State for each of the last five years?

Will it also provide the figures for the annual stock of companies and describe the main features of each national definition if there is no common standard for the EU?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Statistics of the number of new enterprises, failed enterprises and net new enterprises are not available at the European level.

However, certain unharmonised data of a provisional nature are available and sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. There are important differences in some cases, between definitions and means of collection.

Some limited data on the annual stocks of enterprises is available for the years 1995-1998, for most sectors of the market economy and is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. This is derived from the structural business statistics harmonised data collection, based on Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 58/97 of 20 December 1996 concerning structural business statistics(1) that will be fully implemented by the end of 2001.

A development project for statistics on business demography is underway. It is hoped to develop harmonised data by 2002.

(1) OJ L 14, 17.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2284/00

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Killings at Racak

On 19 April 2000, I tabled a number of questions for Question Time (H-0404/00(1)) on the killings that took place at Racak on 15 January 1999 and the investigations carried out for the EU by Dr Helena Ranta, a Finnish forensic expert.

Not all of those questions were answered, and the unanswered questions are set out again below.

- Is it true that Helena Ranta's autopsy reports of March 1999 in no way substantiate allegations of executions, torture and shooting at close range?

- On what grounds have Helena Ranta's reports of March 1999 been kept secret?

- As far as I understand, Dr Ranta has now presented her final report to the EU and to the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. Have they received the same version of the report? If not, what differences are there, and why can the EU and its Member States not receive the same report as the Tribunal, given that Dr Ranta conducted her investigations for the EU? Will the Council make the final report available to Parliament?

(1) Question answered in writing on 17 May 2000.

Reply

(9 November 2000)

Further to its replies to the previous question (H-0404/00), the Council would confirm that the final forensic experts' report was indeed forwarded by the Council, under the Portuguese Presidency, to the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, as the interim report had been beforehand. The EU thus fulfilled the obligation on States and organisations to cooperate fully with the Tribunal and provide it with any information at their disposal.

The Racak killings feature among the charges on the indictment against Miloseviæ and his henchmen for crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war in Kosovo, as confirmed by the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia on 24 May.

It is now for the Tribunal to draw what conclusions it considers pertinent from the reports it has received. The Honourable Member will readily understand that the Council does not wish to comment any further on a matter which is now clearly sub judice at international level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3010/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Bicentenary of the birth of Vincenzo Bellini

2001 will mark the bicentenary of the birth of the Italian composer Vincenzo Bellini, considered to be one of the greatest composers of all time.

The local authorities in the region where he was born will commemorate him with a series of events which will involve the principal places where he lived and worked (Italy, Great Britain and France).

Since Bellini's works can be considered as part of the world's cultural heritage, can the Commission say what moral and financial support it intends to offer to the planned celebrations?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

The Commission can support cultural initiatives as part of and according to the criteria of the Culture 2000 programme, the Union's only financing and programming instrument for cultural cooperation.

In this context, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that a call for proposals for projects taking place during 2001 will be published in the Official Journal before the end of this year and, consequently, actors in this field will then have the opportunity to submit projects for possible funding.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3639/00

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Child labour

Can the Commission state which European countries have not yet ratified the ILO Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour?

Can the Commission state which ACP countries have not yet done so?

What action will the Commission take to encourage ratification?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The latest available information shows 49 countries have ratified International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No 182 of 17 June 1999 concerning the prohibition and immediate action for the elimination of the worst forms of child labour. A complete list of all ratifying countries is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat.

As the Honourable Member was informed by the Commission in reply to her Written Question E-1612/99(1), the Commission strongly supports the principles underlying the Convention and hopes that the widest possible ratification will be achieved. To this end, on 15 September 2000, the Commission adopted a recommendation to the Member States on the ratification of ILO Convention 182 calling on Member States to ratify if they have not done so(2).

It is the Commission's consistent policy to promote respect for core labour standards which include the prohibition of child labour, including the worst forms of child labour in its external relations and development assistance policy. The new agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific states and the Community thus contains a reaffirmation by the parties of their commitment to fundamental labour standards, including the prohibition of the worst forms of child labour.

Moreover, the Commission funds projects in developing countries aimed at improving the situation of children including measures geared to providing legal protection, enabling children to go back to school or making society aware of children's rights. Since 1997, projects of this kind have been financed in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Togo, Nepal and Ghana.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000.

(2) OJ L 243, 28.9.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2403/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Subsidies to a Danish firm

What amounts were paid in 1997, 1998 and 1999 to the Danish Danisco group and its subsidiaries in the form of export refunds and other EU subsidies?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2000)

The Commission understands the request of the Honourable Member as dealing only with the financial transfers from the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) to Danisco in the framework of the common agricultural policy.

Information like this is collected only at the national level as Member States' paying agencies are primarily responsible for handling the EAGGF expenditure.

According to the relevant provisions of Community law(1), information forwarded to the Commission in the context of the clearance of accounts must be kept confidential and secure.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 of 25 October 1999 laying down detailed rules of the application of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 as regards the form and content of the accounting information that the Member States must hold at the disposal of the Commission for the purposes of the clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee Section accounts (OJ L 295, 16.11.1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2718/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Launch aid for Airbus Industrie's A3XX aircraft

1. What measures has the Commission taken to ensure that the launch aid proposed by the British, German, French and Spanish Governments for Airbus Industrie's A3XX aircraft does not distort competition for other segments of the EU civil aviation market?

2. Is the Commission concerned that the launch aid proposed for Airbus Industrie's A3XX aircraft may lead to retaliatory measures being taken by the United States which may affect other EU businesses?

3. Does it therefore regard the launch aid as a matter of common EU concern?

4. If so, how has it expressed this concern?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2000)

1. The fundamental position of the Commission is that the R&D aid for Airbus Industrie does not affect trade between Member States and so is not caught by Article 87(1) (former Article 92) of the EC Treaty (cf. most recently the Commission decision of 22 December 1998 concerning aid N 369/98 France Repayable advance to Aérospatiale for the Airbus A340-500/600(1)).

2. In 1992 the Community and the United States concluded a bilateral agreement on trade in large civil aircraft which governs public support for the European and US aerospace industries.

The Member States and the Commission intend to abide strictly by the conditions laid down in that agreement, as they have done in the past.

The Commission assumes that the United States too is determined to abide by the agreement.

3. and 4. Even assuming that the launch aid planned by a number of Member States for the A3XX is regarded asbeing caught by Article 87(1), such aid should normally qualify for the exception under Article 87(3)(b) in respect of important projects of European interest.

(1) OJ C 52, 23.2.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2333/00

by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Transport of animals

In its reply to my former colleague, Ivar Virgin (Question H-0324/97)(1), the Commission admitted that animals were not being protected during transport. The Commission indicated that it was considering asking the Court of Justice to examine whether certain Member States were not implementing directives as required. What measures has the Commission taken against those Member States who are not complying with Community directives? Can the EU not terminate payment of subsidies to the offending carriers who mistreat animals and fail to abide by EU legislation?

(1) Debates of the European Parliament 4-500 (May 1997).

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty requires the Commission to give a Member State alleged to have committed an infringement of Community law the opportunity of submitting its observations before the Commission issues a reasoned opinion in accordance with that article. It is only after the failure of a Member State to comply with the Commission's reasoned opinion within the time specified that the matter may be taken before the Court of Justice.

The Commission has already opened infringement proceedings against several Member States for inadequate enforcement of the requirements of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC(1) as amended by Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995(2) The Commission will need to take a decision in the near future on the issue of a reasoned opinion in these cases.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport(3) implementing Article 33 (9) of Council Regulation (EC) 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal(4) does link the payment of export refunds on live cattle to the observance of Council Directive 91/628/EEC during the journey up to the first place of unloading in the country of destination.

If exporters fail to respect the provisions of Regulation 615/98 in respect of specific export consignments, it is for the Member States to take the appropriate action in relation to any claims for export refunds.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(3) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.

(4) OJ L 160, 20.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3115/00

by Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Studies on EC enlargement

Could the Commission state whether it has carried out, or intends to carry out, a general survey of the prospects for and problems associated with EU enlargement? Could the Commission also state what vertical or horizontal studies have been carried out by its directorates-general?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3983/00 by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Community subsidies for the Midi-Pyrénées Region: amounts and allocation.



Official Journal 151 E , 22/05/2001 P. 0210 - 0210



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3983/00 by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission (20 December 2000) Subject: Community subsidies for the Midi-Pyrénées Region: amounts and allocation What are the figures for Community subsidies, distinguishing where necessary between commitment appropriations and payment appropriations, for Toulouse and the Midi-Pyrénées Region in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, and who were the beneficiaries, under the heading of: - the ERDF - the EAGGF-Guidance - the ESF - research programmes - environment programmes - SME programmes - education, training and youth programmes - decentralised cooperation? Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (11 January 2001) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2620/00

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Unauthorised dumping of waste in Bañeza (Léon, Spain)

There is an unauthorised waste tip in Bañeza which is posing serious problems for local residents. Waste is being burnt in a dangerous manner and the situation is becoming worse every day.

What initiatives can the Commission take to guarantee that the management of waste in the municipality of Bañeza does not endanger public health or the environment and to ensure that relevant Community legislation is complied with, particularly the provisions laid down in Articles 4 and 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC(1) on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC(2)?

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2000)

The Commission had not been aware of the situation referred to by the Honourable Member.

Council Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 on waste provides that Member States shall take any action needed in order to ensure that waste is either disposed of or recovered without posing a threat to human health and without using methods that are likely to have an adverse effect on the environment. In order to implement that provision any establishment or undertaking involved in waste disposal operations must obtain a permit from the authority responsible for implementing the Directive.

As the guardian of the Treaty the Commission will take any action needed in order to ensure compliance with Community law in this particular instance.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3213/00

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Innovative actions unit (DG-REGIO)

Can the Commission confirm that it intends closing down the Innovative Actions Unit in DG-Regio, which is responsible for small projects under Article 10 of the European Regional Development Fund, without any cost/benefit analysis? If so, can the Commission justify this decision?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

The Commission can confirm that it does not intend to close down the Innovative Measures Unit in DG Regio. The mission of this unit, on the one hand, is implementing and closing the innovative measures decided under the previous rules of the Structural Funds(1) and, on the other hand, of launching the new pilot projects and exchanges of experience as laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999, on the European Regional Development Fund(2).

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 laying down provisions for the application of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 on the European Regional Development Fund published in OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(2) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.