ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3006/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Milk quotas

Can the Commission say why is continuing to impose fines on Italy for surplus milk production? In the 2000-2001 marketing year many Italian farmers were fined a total of LIT 280 billion (approximately EUR 142 million), whereas total fines imposed on all European farmers amounted to LIT 750 billion (EUR 380 million). It has been decided that Italy cannot be granted higher quotas than those now in force which are highly penalising: there is an imbalance compared to a number of States which the Commission is continuing to afford preferential treatment (Germany, France, the Netherlands). The quotas are not in proportion to the number of inhabitants, the number of livestock farmers, the areas farmed, or the number of dairy cattle. Among Italian farmers there is growing distrust of the Commission, which is guilty of bias, and of the European Union.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2001)

The milk quotas were introduced by the Council in 1984 to reduce the imbalance between supply and demand for milk and milk products and to cope with the huge cost to the budget of the structural surpluses that built up in the late 1970s.

National reference quantities were established without discrimination for all Member States, on the basis of existing producers' historical production figures.

The Commission does not discriminate for or against any Member State. It has always been mindful of Italy's problems, but it insists on the full and proper application of the scheme, which would be ineffective otherwise. Italy has made efforts to apply the arrangements properly in recent years. Though progress has been made, the biggest problem is still unsolved, i.e. the failure of producers to pay the substantial levy amounts involved. To date the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) has been credited with only 5,15 % of the levy payable for the 1995/96 to 1999/2000 milk years.

The Commission wishes to stress that all decisions concerning the level of the quotas and the scheme itself are taken by the Council. To improve Italy's structural situation, the Council increased the Italian guaranteed national quantity by 900 000 tonnes from the 1993/94 quota year and by 600 000 tonnes in two tranches (a further 384 000 tonnes from 2000/01 and another 216 000 tonnes from 2001/02) under Agenda 2000.

The Commission also wishes to point out that, for the 2000/01 quota year, Italy exceeded its guaranteed total quantity of 398 698 tonnes for the quota for deliveries (despite the additional 384 000 tonnes), which is equivalent, under the Council Regulation(1) establishing the milk quota system, to a levy of 142 million. The total levy for all Member States, including Italy, amounts to 289 million for that period.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector OJ L 405, 31.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2187/01

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Subject: Censorship at libraries

Books are the crucible of our history. They serve to prevent people forgetting the past, to develop cultural diversity and to foster open-mindedness, all of which are good reasons for ensuring that everybody has access to them. It is therefore important that libraries' collections and the works they contain should be varied. Complete impartiality and neutrality should be their hallmarks.

Every citizen has a duty to protect libraries against acts of censorship. Yet in recent years works in municipal libraries have been more or less flagrantly censored, particularly in municipalities governed by the extreme right. This is the case in a number of French towns.

Has the Commission taken note of such deplorable developments in the measures for which it is responsible? Has the problem arisen in other Member States? Has the European Union responded in any way to such assaults? If not, will the Commission initiate an event in support of libraries within the Union which have been victims of such practices?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2001)

The Commission is concerned at the situation to which the Honourable Member refers, namely the censorship of books in municipal libraries in certain French towns. However, it does not have sufficient information on the subject as regards either France or other Member States.

Article 6 (formerly Article F(2)) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law. These general principles include freedom of expression and information. Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, formally proclaimed at Nice on 7 December 2000, also enshrines the right to freedom of expression and information.

However, legislation or internal measures within Member States relating to the censorship of books in municipal libraries do not fall within the scope of Community law. The Commission is therefore unable to take a stance on this issue or, as the Honourable Member suggests, to initiate an event in support of the libraries concerned.

However, if the situation in question constituted a violation of a right or freedom, a case could be brought in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg once internal remedies had been exhausted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3109/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Procedures for awarding European Social Fund grants to universities

Under the current procedure for the European Social Fund (ESF), grants are awarded to students on a calendar year basis from January to December, although the academic year runs from September to July and notification of funding is not received by the university until the preceding October/ November. Students who are dependent on this funding therefore start a course in September in the knowledge that resources are guaranteed only until December, with funding from January dependent on a successful ESF bid.

Is the ESF grant procedure applied in every Member State in the same way?

Does the Commission intend to change or to review these procedures?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2001)

Procedures for awarding grants to universities depend upon the managing and paying authorities in each of the Member States and not upon the Commission. The problems referred to by the Honourable Member should therefore be addressed to the responsible authority in the Member State.

Commitments for assistance over a period of two or more years are usually effected annually, and pluriannuel grants may therefore be applied pro rata to the corresponding academic year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2760/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Mandatory local authority waste plans and noise mapping

In November 1999 it was reported Örkelljunga and Perstorp local authorities might be hauled before the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The two local authorities were the only ones in Sweden which had not yet submitted a waste plan as detailed as required by the EU directive. The two local councils were expected to adopt their waste plans in January 2000. The first waste plans they submitted to the EU were described as too brief as long ago as 1998. In Sweden it is not enough simply to draw up a plan. Before the Commission receives the plan, under the Swedish procedure it has had to be posted locally and put through both the executive board and the Council. The Perstorp and Örkelljunga waste plans were drawn up by a local authority sanitation company. According to the managing director of the company the plans had been ready since summer of 1999 but had not actually been sent to the communes for further processing. The head of the Örkelljunga environment department said that there had been other matters which were regarded as more urgent than the waste plan. In other countries waste management is reported on a national basis, but in Sweden the Environmental Protection Agency sends local authority waste plans to Brussels. The local authorities can then be responsible for providing all the information the EU wants within the deadlines.

In November 1999 it was not however clear how the Commission was going to react to the failure by the two local authorities to meet their obligations. What action has the Commission taken in response to the failure of Örkelljunga and Perstorp local authorities to produce their waste plans?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2001)

The Swedish Government has notified to the Commission a national waste management plan and municipal waste plans in order to fulfil the requirements under Article 7 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(1), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991(2), Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste(3) and Article 14 of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste(4).

The municipal waste plans for Örkelljunga and Perstorp, to which the Honourable Member refers, were notified by the Swedish Government after the Commission had dispatched a reasoned opinion. Following the notification of those waste plans, Sweden has notified plans covering the entire Swedish territory. In December 2000, the Commission therefore decided to close the case concerning failure to notify the waste plans in question.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(3) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(4) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2990/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Increased cost of the Attica Highway

The original agreement, signed in 1996, for the construction of the Attica Highway (73 kilometres in length) anticipated a total cost of the order of 480 billion drachmas, funded by the second and third CSFs. Five years later the final cost is calculated at over 1 trillion drachmas.

The Greek Ministry for the Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works and the contracting firm's representative believe that the cost overshoot is due to the parallel projects, the changes which were added to the original plan, and the doubling in the cost of estimates for compulsory purchases.

1. Can the Commission give details, for each of the parallel projects, of the additional amounts which have increased the cost? Is the enormous increase in the project's budget justified?

2. Was the direct awarding of additional parallel projects conducted in accordance with the legislation in force?

3. For the self-financed section, the yield on private capital has been estimated at 11 %. Do European data on self-financed projects indicate that this yield should be considered reasonable?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2001)

For the first part of the question, the Commission would like to refer to its answer to written question E-2894/01 by Mr Hatzidakis(1).

According to the Greek authorities additional parallel projects were assigned to the concessionaire in conformity with national and European legislations.

The 11 % rate of return referred in the question is not a guaranteed rate. It is the maximum rate provided in the bid and the contract. When, and if ever, this rate of return is achieved, the concessionaire should give ownership of the project back to the Greek State.

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 189.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2629/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 September 2001)

Subject: Distribution of Spanish milk in France

Recent reports suggest that an agreement has been reached in France between industrial producers, stockbreeders and the distribution sector to deny Spanish milk access to the national market.

This agreement appears to have been tacitly endorsed by the French government. Similar measures have been taken in France in the past against other Spanish products, such as fruit and vegetables.

Should this information prove correct, what action will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2001)

The Commission does not currently have at any concrete information to suggest that an agreement exists between French milk producers and distributors to restrict the marketing of Spanish milk in France or to give priority to sales of French milk.

Rather, the available statistics show that French imports of milk from Spain have increased very markedly since 1998.

Imports into France of Spanish liquid milk in containers of more than two litres increased from 25 132 tonnes in 1998 to 94 589 tonnes in 2000. The quantity for the period from January to June 2000 was 23 087 tonnes and rose to 39 875 tonnes in the period from January to June 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2032/01

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: EC membership of UPOV

At this moment, the European Community has the status of observer at meetings of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). In April 1998, the 1991 UPOV Treaty was ratified, which allows for full UPOV membership for intergovernmental organisations such as the European Community.

Is the Commission aware of the fact that the Committee on Plant Variety Rights stated in the minutes of its meeting of 1-2 July 1998 that UPOV is dealing with matters containing elements both of national and of Community competence, and that all Member States have stressed the importance of Community accession to UPOV?

Does the Commission agree with those statements?

Is the Commission thus planning to put forward a proposal, in the short term, to change the Community's observer status into full UPOV membership?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2001)

The Commission confirms that the Union for the protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) deals with matters relating to plant variety rights, a specific form of intellectual property protection in respect of new varieties of plants. As the Community system on plant variety protection coexists with the national systems on plant variety protection in most of its Member States, UPOV is indeed dealing with matters which fall under both Community and national competence. This has been confirmed in the meeting of the Standing Committee on Plant Variety Rights held on 1-2 July 1998.

The Commission also confirms the importance of the Community accession to UPOV, as stressed by all Member States in the same meeting.

Reference to a proposal for a Council Decision approving the accession of the Community to the UPOV is made in the Commission's Work Programme for 2001(1). The proposal will likely be finalised by October 2001, after clarification of the financial and other implications of the accession of the Community to UPOV.

(1) COM(2001) 28 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2047/01

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

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Information and public relations

How much of the budget for Commission programmes is spent on information and public relations?

Are any journalists employed in the promotion of any of these programmes?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

Title B3-3 of the Community budget is dedicated to Information and Communication and provides for 86,6 millions in commitments in the 2001 budget. Additional 16,5 millions of commitment credits have been put into the reserve (chapter B0-40) by the Budget Authority. It must be stressed that this money is dedicated to Information and not to public relations.

Title B3-3 includes the lines B3-300 General information work concerning the Community ( 13,8 millions and 12,9 millions in reserve), B3-301 Information Outlets ( 13 millions), B3-302 Information programmes for third countries ( 5 millions), B3-303 Communication work ( 11,9 millions and 3,6 millions in reserve), B3-304 European Integration in universities ( 4 millions), B3-306 Information programme for European citizens Prince ( 37,6 millions), B3-309 Special Annual events ( 1,25 millions).

Title B3-3 ( 86,6 millions) represents 1,39 % of the Internal policies ( 6 232,2 millions).

The Commission naturally wishes to ensure that this work is executed in a professional way with a view to reaching the maximum number of people and securing value for money. Some of the work is undertaken by people who are expert in communication and this may include journalists who have the necessary specialist skills.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2322/01

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

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Pesticides directive

What percentage of pesticidal products currently authorised to be sold in Europe have not been registered according to the requirements of Directive 91/414/EEC(1)?

Can the Commission provide details of the pesticides review that is currently taking place? Which Member States are participating in this exercise, and has it yet been decided what the cost of reviewing a data package will be in each country?

What is being done to ensure that the costs of the review will be affordable to small and medium-sized businesses?

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market,

provides that no plant protection product can be placed on the market in the Community unless the Member State in whose territory it is to be marketed has first authorised it. Member States have had to apply, since the entry into force of the Directive in July 1993, in particular Article 4 of the Directive when granting authorisations.

Full details of the review that is taking place are given in the Report from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council on progress in the evaluation of the active substances of plant protection products(1). All Member States participate in the exercise. The cost of the review in each Member State is for the Member States themselves to decide and these costs will vary depending on the complexity of the dossiers to be evaluated.

The Directive does not provide for any specific measures to be taken to ensure that costs of the review are affordable. Rather, it provides that products or substances placed on the market have to be demonstrated to be safe in the first place. The Commission recognises the possible problems that smaller companies may face in demonstrating the safety of their products and has addressed the issue and possible solutions in the above-mentioned report particularly in relation to data sharing.

(1) COM(2001) 444 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2224/01

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Netherlands state aid for the American computer firm SCI System

The Commission is currently investigating the Netherlands state aid to the American computer firm SCI System. According to reports in the Dutch newspaper Financiële Dagblad of 9 July 2001, the Netherlands Government provided the Commission with incorrect and incomplete information.

1. Is the Commission aware of this article in the Financiële Dagblad, and can the Commission confirm that in the Netherlands state aid report to the Commission on SCI System the item relating to NLG 800 000 for security services to be paid by the province of Friesland was missing?

2. If this item is missing, what steps will the Commission take to check the veracity of the report in the Dutch newspaper?

3. If the Netherlands Government has provided the Commission with incorrect and incomplete information regarding state aid to the American computer firm SCI System, what effect will this have on its relations with the Commission and what steps might the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2001)

The Commission is aware of the newspaper article that is referred to.

The case to which the questions refer has been the subject of an investigation by the Commission. The Commission initiated the procedure of Article 88(2) by its decision of 6 February 1999(1). It took a final decision on 13 February 2001(2).

The Commission's investigations started when a third party alleged that State aid in various forms was given, going beyond the level that could be based on authorised schemes. The Commission subsequently asked the Dutch authorities for information on the aid measures in favour of SCI Systems.

The Dutch authorities originally held that some of the measures, including the payments for security services (NLG 778 552), did not constitute State aid. Nevertheless they provided detailed information, also with respect to the security services. The Commission therefore is confident that its final decision has been based on full information that is relevant to the case. In fact, the Commission concluded that the payment of the security services constituted incompatible aid, that subsequently has been recovered from the company.

(1) OJ C 144, 22.5.1999.

(2) OJ L 186, 7.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2996/01

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Identity papers

The answer to this Member's Written Question P-2506/01(1) quotes Council Directive 68/360/EEC(2), which refers to citizens travelling to a Member State other than their own in order to move and settle there and to the free movement of workers.

The question referred to people who find themselves in a Member State other than their own for any reason, not necessarily in order to settle and work there, and in any case the Commission's answer stated that it is compulsory to produce the papers stipulated by national legislation.

Once again, can the Commission provide a list of the papers, other than identity cards or passports, considered valid for the purposes of identification in the various Member States?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 246.

(2) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 13.

Joint answerto Written Questions P-2996/01 and P-3010/01given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

The Commission can only confirm that valid identity cards or passports are the only documents recognised by all Member States when Union citizens leave their own country for a Member State other than the one of which they are a national; the status of the citizen in question (employee or self-employed worker, student, pensioner, service provider, person receiving services, etc.) is irrelevant in this context.

However, under the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, the Member States also recognise the laissez-passer issued to members and employees of the European institutions.

Identity cards or passports are issued by the Member State of which the citizen is a national, as these documents are issued or renewed in accordance with national law and must indicate the citizen's nationality. Belgium's position is in accordance with Community law. The Commission has no plans to propose the adoption of a Community instrument on the issue to Union citizens of identity cards or passports or on the renewal of such documents.