ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1311/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Grants for town twinning

In May 1999 The Dorchester Bayeux Twinning Society in the UK applied to the Commission for a grant for a twinning event. It was not until well after the event that they were informed that they had been awarded a grant of 1 200 towards expenses.

The Society was told to re-submit its application in order to receive payment of the grant. Four months later the Twinning Society had still heard nothing back from the Commission. Upon contacting the relevant Directorate-General directly, they were informed by a female official there that she did not have sufficient staff to make out the cheque, or the authority to appoint anyone to do this.

Will the Commission look into this matter and subsequently indicate what measures it intends to take to improve the efficiency of its facilities for awarding grants for twinning?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The Commission acknowledges that it has failed to answer within a reasonable deadline.

However, a contributing reason for the delay was technical difficulties in transferring the grant to the applicant.

The account number indicated by Dorchester was not suitable to receive electronic payment. Thus, the procedure had to be carried out through another bank, which meant an additional delay.

Now, the Commission is glad to inform the Honourable Member that the payment has been executed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2060/00

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Subject: Contracts under the TACIS, PHARE, MED, FED and AL Asia and Latin America programmes

In view of the significance of the EU's development cooperation with a large number of third countries, can the Commission provide information on the evolution

of the award of contracts to undertakings by EU Member States over the last five years under the TACIS, PHARE, MED, FED and AL Asia and Latin America programmes, both broken down by year and for the entire period and specifying the following in each case:

1. number of contracts;

2. total value of the contracts?

On each of the above points, can the Commission provide information on the component allocated by direct award and the component allocated by tender, as well as indicating the awarding bodies (i.e. the Commission or the beneficiary states)?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Until the Common Service for External Relations (SCR) was effectively set up in 1998, the external aid programmes were administered by five Directorates General in the Commission with particularly complex rules and procedures applied to each of the programmes.

The fragmented management structure of aid to non-member countries made it impossible to set up a computer system that could provide the information on contracts and financing sought by the Honourable Member, with the exception of contracts financed under the European Development Fund (EDF). The Commission has begun to develop a computer system that meets this requirement.

Already the Calls for tenders Calls for proposals page of the SCR's Web site(1) gives details of pre-information notices, procurement notices (setting out the selection and award criteria) and subsequent notices on selection procedures, calls for tender and calls for proposals.

The Commission is sending the Honourable Member (and Parliament's Secretariat) copies of the annual reports available on contracts financed under the EDF.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/scr/tender/index_en.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2473/00

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 July 2000)

Subject: Information or knowledge society?

In the English language versions of the Commission's documents the two terms information society and knowledge society occur. In Finnish, both are translated by the same word tietoyhteiskunta. It is not possible to tell from the translation that different things are being referred to. Or does the Commission consider that information is really the same as knowledge? If they are not, the translators have been neglecting their duties.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2000)

The Honourable Member states that in Commission documents in Finnish, the English terms information society and knowledge society have both been translated by the same Finnish word tietoyhteiskunta. He asks whether the Commission considers that information is really the same as knowledge.

The Commission does not consider the concepts information and knowledge as synonymous, nor are they treated as such in Finnish translations of Commission documents.

An analysis of the English and Finnish versions of several hundred Commission documents in which these terms occur, reveals no case where the two terms have been treated as synonymous.

In almost all cases information society has been translated into Finnish as tietoyhteiskunta and knowledge society as osaamisyhteiskunta. This is also the agreed current standard for translating these words into Finnish in Commission documents. The practice may be slightly different in other Community institutions.

In a few older Commission documents, other Finnish translations may have been used inadvertently, but the two terms have never been treated as synonymous.

If the Honourable Member has found Commission documents where the contrary is true, they are exceptional and not representative of the Commission's current translation practice.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2160/00

by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 June 2000)

Subject: Proposed allocation of shrimp catch possibilities in Svalbard waters

The Commission's proposal for the management of the shrimp fishery in Svalbard waters changes the reference period for allocation of catch possibilities from 1990-1995 to 1995-1999. It so happens that 1999 was a completely untypical year for this fishery, characterised by quite particular circumstances.

Can the Commission, accordingly, specify the grounds which led it to change the reference period, and explain why it included 1999 when it was aware that in that year the historically active fleet fished less than normal, as the vessels abandoned the fishery on a request from the Commission itself, which did not wish to disturb relations with Norway?

Can the Commission also explain on what possible grounds, if the reference period is to be changed to 1995-1999, substantial catch possibilities can be allocated to Denmark, a country whose relevant fisheries activity relates only to 1990 and 1991, and even then at extremely low levels?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

The Commission has not yet made such a proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1352/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Spanish olive oil and the EU

The current stagnation of Spanish olive oil exports means that the industry's producers have been holding a whole series of meetings to assess the situation and find new ways of boosting foreign sales of olive oil from the world's largest producer.

The producers claim that massive investment in a single brand, so as not to confuse consumers is required, in tandem with a new strategy that will prevent things from going from bad to worse, with production increasing while exports remain static.

Given the Commission's key role in the common agricultural policy, would it be prepared to commission as detailed and precise a study as possible of the situation with a view to seeking appropriate solutions for the Spanish olive oil industry at this difficult crossroads in its history?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

The Commission does not agree that olive oil exports are in stagnation. Compared with the same period of the 1998/1999 marketing year Community exports have more than doubled: on 31 March 1999 they stood at 35 648 tonnes but 80 812 tonnes were exported between 1 November 1999 and 31 March 2000.

The type of study requested by the Honourable Member (in this case analysis of the situation and a strategy for the Spanish olive oil industry in the face of an unfavourable export market) is outside the Commission's competence. The primary purpose of such marketing studies is furtherance of private sector interests and their execution therefore falls to that sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1661/00

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

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Euro 2000 football tournament

Can the Commission confirm whether it has been contacted by any competent authority involved in the organisation of Euro 2000 expressing concern about the safety of the stadium in Charleroi for the match between England and Germany on 17 June?

Not only have experts in stadium safety voiced grave reservations about the size and capability of the stadium to cope with emergencies, but the Head of the Belgian Police Federation has also said that the narrow streets around the stadium will severely hamper crowd control.

Whilst the responsibility rests quite rightly with the Belgian authorities, football supporters from many other Member States will be attending; would the Commissioner with special responsibilities for Sport therefore agree, given the potential for spectator violence and in order to put safety first, that the match should be moved to the more suitable location of the King Baudoin Stadium in Brussels? If so, could the Commission raise its concerns with UEFA while there is still time to change the arrangements for the match?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the Honorable Member that it has not been contacted by any competent authority expressing concern about the safety of the stadium in Charleroi for the match between England and Germany.

The responsibility for ensuring adequate safety to spectators and players during the matches held during EURO 2000 lies with the national authorities and football associations. On the basis of the information available, the Commission has good reasons to believe that these authorities and associations will be able to ensure adequate safety. In this connection it should be mentioned that according to the Union of European football associations (UEFA) the Charleroi stadium is safe and in conformity with UEFA rules.

The Commission therefore does not see the need to ask the organisers to have the match played at a different location.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1479/00

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Investigation of the energy drink Red Bull

It has been reported by Denmark's Veterinary and Foodstuffs Directorate that the Commission has shelved the Red Bull case in the light of the conclusion reached by its Scientific Committee on Food when asked to evaluate the use of glucuronolactone, taurine and caffeine in energy drinks.

The Scientific Committee stated that there was not sufficient information to assess whether it is acceptable in health terms to employ the substances mentioned in the quantities in which they are added to energy drinks.

Can the Commission state whether it is correct that there is not sufficient information available to assess whether it is acceptable in health terms to add glucuronolactone, taurine and caffeine to energy drinks? Can it also state whether the Red Bull case has been shelved as a result of the conclusion reached by its Scientific Committee on Food?

In case of doubt as to whether the abovementioned additives in the energy drink are acceptable in health terms, will it then explain why Red Bull is still to be found on the market alongside other beverages?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the reply the Commission gave to Oral Question H-323/00 by Mr Cashman during question time at Parliament's April 2000 part-session(1) on the same subject. In addition it should be clarified that the Commission has for the time being decided to postpone the infringement proceedings.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (April 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1596/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Pre-trial detention

On 6 July 1997 Jean-Jacques Pitalugue, Gilles Benhayoun, Jean-Luc Della Justina and Maxime Briat were arrested for having produced colour photocopies of banknotes to a value of FF 20 800, some of which were put into circulation (to a value of FF 3 500) despite their poor quality.

The men were arrested and charged and are currently being detained at Fresnes remand prison under a detention order of limited duration dated 6 July 1997 and an order of 30 June 1998 extending their pre-trial detention as from 6 July 1998, renewed again on 4 January 1999 as from 6 January 1999.

On 6 January 2000 all four accused were committed for trial at the Assize Court in the department of Loiret on charges of forgery or counterfeiting of banknotes that are legal tender in France, by order of the Orleans Indictments Division, although they were discharged on the count of conspiracy. The four accused are now in their thirty-fifth month of pre-trial detention.

Does the Commission not consider that the criteria generally applied as regards the length of pre-trial detention have not in fact been complied with in this case? If this is so, does it not consider that it should intervene, within the framework of its new powers in the area of justice under the Amsterdam Treaty, to secure compliance with reasonable periods for pre-trial detention and judgments or, failing that, the release of defendants under Article 5(3) of the European Human Rights Convention?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that preventive detention should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary for reasons such as ensuring the accused's presence at his trial. However, there is no Union legal instrument that lays down generally recognized criteria regarding the duration of preventive detention.

If the rules the Honourable Member has in mind are those laid down in the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Article 5(3) of which the Honourable Member indeed mentions, it must be pointed out that it is not for the Commission to take action in cases of alleged violations of this Council of Europe Convention by a Member State of the European Union unless the disputed act of the Member State has been taken within the scope of application of Community law and therefore equally constitutes an alleged violation of fundamental rights as general principles of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1673/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers

Further to Ms Schreyer's answer to my Written Question No E-0505/00(1), will the Commission please indicate the cost of interest paid on late payments by the Commission in each year since its change of policy in 1997, together with the amounts claimed in each year?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

The Honourable Member is informed that the Commission only has data for 1999.

In its communication of 10 June 1997, the Commission decided to change its policy on contracts by introducing a clause formalising the maximum period of 60 days within which payment must be made and allowing creditors to claim interest on expiry of that period, unless payment was suspended at the Commission's initiative. This measure was indeed put into practice since, in 1999 alone, 41 proposals for commitments in respect of interest on late payment were introduced by the Commission, for a total of 1 114 870, of which 932 289 had been paid by the end of the year by means of 282 individual payment orders.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1840/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Damage to tomato crops in Portugal

The unusually bad weather conditions which have affected Portugal since the beginning of the year, with a long period of drought followed by a period of hail storms and torrential rain, have caused damage to various crops and been extremely costly to farmers. Tomatoes have been particularly hard-hit, with serious consequences for the processing industry. The hardest-hit regions are Alentejo and Ribatejo, where tomato production is of special economic and social importance. The figures given by the association of Portuguese tomato growers (APTI) suggest that production will be at 40 % of the normal annual rate. According to the organisation, less than half the fields have been planted as a result of rain, at a time when they should have already reached a rate of 45 %. The APTI reckons that 25 % of crops will be lost.

The Santarém farmers' federation, in the Ribatejo region, has stated that 50 % of the area under crops has been affected and that 25 % is likely to be lost. The 50 % of the land that has not been planted, i.e. some 4000 ha, will represent an average loss of Esc 600 000 per farmer, without any prospect of compensation. It points out that this could jeopardise the processing industry's supplies.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What action does the Commission intend to take to help the affected tomato growers?

2. Will it take account of their difficulties when calculating Portugal's tomato quota in its proposal for reform of the COM, so as to guarantee farmers' quotas and incomes?

3. Does it intend to revise the method for calculating tomato quotas in the future reform of the COM?

4. What is the Commission's view on the establishment of reference thresholds for tomato production in each Member State, as proposed by the European Parliament? Does it intend to include this proposal in the future reform of the COM?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Weather conditions were very bad throughout the Iberian Peninsula in the first four months of this year. A lack of rain up to the end of March was followed by torrential rain in April and up to 10 May. Since then the weather has been normal.

The Commission's information at the moment is that the production year is normal except for a three to four week delay owing to the poor weather.

As regards modification of the present processing tomato arrangements, the Commission is examining the situation of the sector and will make its proposals in due time.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1322/00

by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 April 2000)

Subject: Failure to pay grants promised to B'Tselem

In April 1998, the Commission decided to support a project devised by B'Tselem (The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories) entitled Generating Commitment for Human Rights (project number 98mas15 B7-7050 in the MEDA democracy programme). In 1999, B'Tselem was granted a further amount in its capacity as participant in a project with four other Israeli human rights organisations (project number 1998/281A B7-7050 in the MEDA democracy programme). In response to several MEPs' questions concerning B'Tselem's 1998 grant, Commissioner Manuel Marín replied that the contract for the amount would be formally drawn up in early 1999. To date, no contract has been forwarded for either of the two projects.

Will the Commission say when B'Tselem will receive the promised contracts in respect of the grants for their two projects?

Will the Commission say why the grants have not yet been paid?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2000)

All 1998 MEDA-Democracy contracts, around 40 projects, including that with B'Tselem, have now been signed by the Commission and sent to the respective beneficiaries for counter-signature. In spite of their infortunate delay, these projects including that with B'Tselem will mostly go ahead as planned.

The 1999 MEDA-Democracy grant to four Israeli non-governmental organizations including B'Tselem, was approved by the human rights management committee in October 1999. The contract will be signed by the Commission and sent to the beneficiary as soon as possible.

Finally, counter-signature by the beneficiary will mark the start of the project and the disbursement of the allocated funds in compliance with all contractual conditions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2199/00

by Frédérique Ries (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin

When the report by Mrs Buitenweg (A5-0136/2000) on equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin was discussed by the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights,

my colleague Willy de Clercq and I table Amendment 72, stipulating that for the purposes of this Directive, the principle of equal treatment shall mean that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, including incitement to discrimination, or incitement to hatred or violence based on ethnic, religious or racial origin, such as denial of the Shoah.

During discussions in committee the Commission did not question the actual substance of the amendment but put forward legal arguments to the effect that such a provision would need to form the subject of a separate piece of legislation.

Will the Commission explain in what way it intends to take action on the substance of this amendment and, in particular, on laying down the principle that denial of the Shoah is an incitement to discrimination? What will be the broad lines of the separate piece of legislation which the Commission referred to during the discussions in committee? What timetable has it established for this purpose?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

Article 13 of the EC Treaty enables the Council to adopt measures to combat discrimination. The Commission's proposal for a directive, based on Article 13, establishing the principle of equal treatment between people irrespective of racial or ethnic origin(1), prohibits discrimination based on those grounds in a number of areas of individual cases of discrimination. The Commission believes that the amendment proposed by the Honourable Members to the draft directive since adopted by the Council on 29 June 2000(2) dealt not with individual cases of discrimination falling within the material scope of the directive, but rather with wider forms of racist behaviour beyond the scope of Article 13.

For that reason, the Commission was unable to accept the proposed amendment. However, it noted that Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union provides powers to act against wider forms of racism and xenophobia. The Commission recalls that the Council adopted in 1996 under (then) Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union a joint action(3) on police and judicial co-operation to combat racism and xenophobia, including incitement to racial hatred and violence and the denial of the Holocaust. This implementation of the joint action is due to be reviewed for the second time this summer. In the light of that review, the Commission will consider what further action may be appropriate under Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union to tackle the issues raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) COM(1999) 566 final.

(2) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.

(3) OJ L 185, 24.7.1996.