ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2277/00

by Gianfranco Fini (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Measures to protect European hazelnut production

World consumption of hazelnuts is around 600 000 tonnes, most of which comes from Turkey (550 000 tonnes), while 90 % of the rest is produced by Italy and 10 % by Spain and France.

In view of the current privatisation of the sector in Turkey which, in addition to nullifying the agreement with the EU stipulating the stockpiling of a third of its output, will enable Turkish hazelnut production to invade the world market, and also in view of the forthcoming expiration of the Common Organisation of the Market in nuts:

1. Could the Commission list the measures to be taken to protect European hazelnut production, particularly the Italian product grown mainly around Viterbo, and to guarantee producers' income?

2. Could the Commission announce the renewal of the Community rules providing for support for Italian, Spanish and French producers?

3. Could the Commission announce the granting of urgent aid to the sector, recognising the special features of nut production?

4. Could the Commission announce a requirement for the confectionery industry to state on their products the origin of the hazelnuts used to make them?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2277/00 and E-2386/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

Financial support for Community nut production under Title IIa of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(1) was discussed at the Council meeting (agriculture) of 17 July 2000. In their conclusions, the Ministers stated the following:

The Council invites the Commission to propose that the payments to nut growers be continued within the budget for 2001 for those programmes which would otherwise expire in 2000.

Moreover, in the context of the report which it will submit on the fruit and vegetables regime before the end of 2000, the Commission will study the situation of the nut sector.

As regards declarations of origin of raw materials used by the processing industry, there are no specific rules for nuts and there are no plans to introduce any such rules.

(1) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2826/00

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Construction, with European financial aid, of a factory manufacturing concrete in an agricultural area in Portugal

It is reported that Gonçalves e Filhos Lda, a Portuguese company manufacturing concrete, has bought a wooded nature reserve covering several hectares in the district of Oliveira do Hospital. This in an area which is ecologically very valuable and principally devoted to agriculture. No environmental impact assessment has been drawn up in respect of this project. Apparently, the trees and undergrowth have already been cleared, and work to level the site has now begun.

Is the Commission aware of this project? If not, can it investigate it? If it is so aware, is it true that the project is being carried out with European financial aid? If so, does that not breach the basic rules governing the Structural Funds which stipulate that any aid granted must be used in the context of a comprehensive and integrated strategy for sustainable development and emphasise that an improvement in the quality of the environment must be the objective?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) does not list as a separate category of projects concrete manufacturing companies.

In general, depending on which elements are used for the manufacture of concrete, such as using asbestos for producing soft concrete, a concrete manufacturing installation could become an installation for the processing and transformation of asbestos and products containing asbestos which would be covered by annex I of Directive 85/337/EC and in such case require an environmental impact assessment (EIA).

Another scenario could be that an integrated plant (encompassing raw material production and the concrete manufacturing process) is constructed near to the sources of the raw material. Depending on the environmental significance of such activities, an EIA might be required for the extraction of minerals.

The Commission is, however, not in the possession of more detailed information about the project in question which would give reason for such conclusions.

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member does not receive finance under the structural funds.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2050/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Subject: Substances banned in the production of wine, spirits and other alcohol

Would the Commission please provide a list of substances banned in the production of wine, spirits and other alcohol for consumption and the legal instruments under which the ban operates?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2000)

The rules concerning the production of wines and grape must are laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), and in particular Chapter I of Title V on Oenological practices and processes. The processes authorised are listed in Annexes IV and V to the Regulation, including in particular the additives and technological aids permitted in the production of wine. All other substances not mentioned in these Annexes are not permitted in the manufacture of wine products.

In spirit drinks which have to comply with the definitions laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks(2) only the substances specified in the definition of products can be used, as well as the additives permitted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Council Directive 89/107/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning food additives authorised for use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption(3).

As regards colouring matters, the substances permitted must be authorised in accordance with European Parliament and Council Directive 94/36/EC of 30 June 1994 on colours for use in foodstuffs(4).

Finally, for flavouring these products, only the natural flavouring substances and preparations or flavouring substances and preparations identical to natural ones, as defined in Council Directive 88/388/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to flavourings for use in foodstuffs and to source materials for their production(5), may be used.

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.

(2) OJ L 160, 12.6.1989.

(3) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

(4) OJ L 237, 10.9.1994.

(5) OJ L 184, 17.7.1988.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3650/00

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(23 November 2000)

Subject: City guides

Is the Commission aware of the scam being carried out by a company based in Spain and promoting the European City Guide? Small traders are sent a misleading form asking for company details to be included in the European City Guide. This form, once signed and dated, commits the trader to an expensive entry in the European City Guide for which they are then billed. For those traders who do not read all the small print on the form, this comes as a complete surprise.

If the Commission is aware of this matter, what measures has it taken to combat this?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the promotion of the European City Guide in Spain. It is not within the Commission's competences to treat this question as only national law applies. Appropriate measures can only be taken by the competent national authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3084/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Assessment of MAP IV

The current fisheries guidance programme (MAP IV) clearly has done little hitherto to reduce overcapacity; indeed, fisheries activity has if anything intensified in some areas.

Since sustainable fisheries are a matter of fundamental public interest, the Commission is asked:

1. How does the Commission assess MAP IV's successes hitherto?

2. Can it provide figures in support of its assessment?

3. To what extent do figures derived from the assessment made hitherto impact on future allocations of Structural Fund appropriations?

4. What approaches is the Commission adopting to ensuring MAP IV's eventual success?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2000)

The Commission's assessment of the current Multi-annual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV) was outlined in a recent report(1).

1. The Commission considers that the MAGP's have not succeeded in reducing fleet capacity to bring it into line with the available resources. However, the programmes have been largely effective in preventing an increase in capacity.

2. The MAGP III (1992-1996) is acknowledged as representing a significant step in the right direction by requiring an overall reduction in capacity of about 10 % for the European fleet. The MAGP IV (1997-2001) is less ambitious, however, calling for an overall reduction in fishing effort of 5 %. This contrasts with the conclusion of the Lassen report, named after the chairman of the independent group of experts set up to advise the Commission before the start of the MAGP IV, that fishing effort is currently on average about 40 % too high in European waters. A report of the scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries, issued in May 2000, endorsed this view. In terms of capacity the MAGP IV calls for a reduction of just 3 % in 5 years. The remaining 2 % reduction in fishing effort is to be achieved by reducing activity.

3. This assessment of the performance of the MAGP will have no immediate influence on the distribution of structural fund credits. However, this does not preclude an adjustment of the credits to reflect changes in the fleet policy in the future.

4. The Commission considers that the MAGP IV should be strengthened by applying larger reduction rates for the remainder of the period and by requiring that the additional reductions be achieved purely in terms of capacity. It also advocates the extension by one year of the period of the MAGP IV in order to allow the future of the fleet structural policy to be considered in the context of the reform of the common fisheries policy during 2002. These proposals are currently the subject of discussion with the Member States.

(1) COM(2000) 272 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3216/00

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Council

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Maryam Arubi sentenced to death by stoning for adultery

Is the Council aware that Maryam Arubi (30), found guilty of adultery, was sentenced to death by stoning under the Iranian penal code based on the Islamic sharia? Could EU representatives and representations abroad take this serious human rights situation in Iran into account when the forthcoming UN resolutions are being prepared and adopted, including those being drawn up at this moment for the Millennium Summit?

Reply

(20/21 December 2000)

The Council was not aware of the case referred to by the Honourable Member.

Abolition of the death penalty in all countries is a principle which is stoutly defended by all the Member States of the European Union. Moreover, the Council would point out that stoning is prohibited under the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. Executions by stoning are now rare in Iran, but unfortunately they do still take place.

The European Union has made its position clear to the Iranian authorities at meetings which have taken place in the framework of the political dialogue and has urged that steps be taken to abolish the death penalty. The European Union has asked Iran, as a first step, to declare a moratorium on executions, with a view to eventual total abolition, and to step up the progress being made on human rights.

Over the last few years the European Union has taken initiatives within the UNO to secure the adoption of resolutions on human rights in Iran, including the death penalty. The European Union has therefore decided to submit a proposal for a resolution to the current session of the General Assembly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2211/00

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

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Freedom of association

Freedom of association is a fundamental right, recognised and protected by the Member States and by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The existing text of TEU Article 6 states:

The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (mldr) and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.

Does the Council recognise the existence of a serious and repeated breach of the right of freedom of association in any Member State?

Reply

(7 November 2000)

The Council has not discussed any situation such as the one mentioned by the Honourable Member and is therefore unable to answer his question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2921/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Preservation of fishing stocks

In the light of the Ospar Report findings, has the Commission plans to take steps to ensure the protection of deep-sea fishing stocks?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

The Commission intends to take immediate measures to help protect fish stocks in the deep sea.

These stocks are widely distributed in Community waters, international waters and also in the waters of other countries in the Northeast Atlantic, and so it is important that a co-ordinated approach should be taken by the relevant states. As a first step, the Commission has tabled a discussion of the management of the deep-sea resources at the next meeting of the Northeast Atlantic fisheries commission. It is hoped that substantive progress on agreeing common courses of action will be achieved.

Notwithstanding the outcome of these discussions, the Commission intends, as an interim measure, to propose catch limits total allowable catches (TACs) for deepwater species in the Northeast Atlantic area. These TACs would be proposed according to the most recent scientific advice available from the International council for the exploration of the sea (ICES). The Commission also notes the need for equitable allocations of resources between Member States, and will make appropriate proposals to that effect.

The Commission is aware that ICES has recommended that for many species the directed fishing effort should be reduced. The Commission will therefore consider such measures for future application. Consultations will be held with interested parties before specific proposals are made in this context.

The Commission will also examine measures to improve scientific knowledge of these resources and consider appropriate proposals.

The Commission's proposals will be intended to achieve long-term sustainability of the deep-sea fisheries, concomitant with precautionary and rational exploitation of the fish stocks and the ecosystems on which they depend.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2440/00

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

(19 July 2000)

Subject: European subsidy rejected

In August 1999, the Galician Women Shellfish Dealers' Association (Agamar) asked for a subsidy from the Xunta de Galiza's Department of Fisheries, Shellfish and Aquaculture, as part of its programmed development of the Community PESCA initiative, with particular reference to the section covering creation of jobs for women. The scheme submitted by the shellfish dealers was to cultivate quick-growing Japanese mussels, rotating the crops and reinvesting the profit in fresh seed.

The Commission granted the subsidy, but the Department of Fisheries, once the decision had been taken, demanded that Agamar return the subsidy, claiming that the association had failed to meet the conditions under which it had been granted.

Is the Commission aware of this situation, and does it intend to seek information from the Galician Department of Fisheries, Shellfish and Aquaculture as to the reasons for this apparently arbitrary behaviour?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

Following the inclusion of fisheries structural policy in the reform of the Structural Funds, it is the responsibility of the authorities designated by the Member States to take appropriate measures for selecting and granting Community aid to projects in the context of their operational programmes, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1263/1999 of 21 June 1999 on the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance(1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(2).

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that pursuant to Article 87 (former Article 92) of the EC Treaty the Spanish authorities submitted state aid schemes to the Commission for approval which are in accordance with Community legislation on the conditions for granting Community aid.

In this context, the Spanish authorities must ensure that the regulations, including the conditions for granting aid in the state aid scheme approved by the Commission, are complied with.

So far the Commission has not been approached by the beneficiaries of this project about any problem. Consequently, the Commission is unable to reply to the Honourable Member as regards the appropriateness of the action taken by the Galician authorities.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2292/00

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE), Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) and Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: United States Missile System

What is the opinion of the Council about the new United Nations National Missile Defence System (NMD)? Would the Council agree that the NMD contravenes the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, could cost as much as USD 240 billion, will trigger a new global arms race and completely ignores the EU's interests in disarmament?

Does the Commission know of US efforts to influence EU Member States such as Denmark and the United Kingdom into allowing installations for the NMD on their respective territories?

Has the Council been in contact with the Heads of State of EU Member States in order to coordinate European cooperation to counter United States pressure to install the system?

Reply

(20 November 2000)

The European Union has reaffirmed the importance of the 1972 ABM Treaty as one of the mainstays of strategic stability. The EU wishes to see that Treaty preserved. This Union position was voiced, inter alia, at the year 2000 review conference of the Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2413/00

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

(18 July 2000)

Subject: Landfill for waste from the city of Logroño (Spain)

Some years ago, the landfill for waste from the city of Logroño was redesigned using European funds. This landfill is currently a source of leachates, which are contaminating the waters of the Ebro aquifer.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? What measures can it take so as to be able to assess whether the competent authorities are fulfilling their obligations in this case and ascertain whether Directive 75/442/EEC(1) on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC(2), is being enforced correctly?

(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

(14 September 2000)

The Commission is unaware of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member with regard to the possible pollution of the waters of the Ebro aquifer caused by the landfill for waste from the city of Logroño.

Waste treatment is currently regulated by 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 4 of the aforementioned Directive says that Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and in particular without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals, without causing a nuisance through noise or odours, and without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.

Under Article 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC, any installation or undertaking carrying out waste disposal operations must obtain authorisation from the competent authority.

In any case the Commission as guardian of the Treaties will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is complied with in the case in point.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3622/00

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Women clergy

Through its Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs, the Commission seeks to promote equality between men and women. Perhaps the one field in which there is no such equality

is the conducting of religious service in the various faiths which totally exclude women from their holy orders. Women may not perform religious ceremonies which are reserved for men, they may not be ordained and are excluded from the one field in which surely everyone should have the same rights.

What is the Commission's view on this matter? Does it intend to adopt initiatives to strengthen equality between men and women in this field? Will the framework strategy for gender equality (2001-2005) it has announced perhaps include some encouragement to the religions and faiths practised in the countries of the European Union to admit women to holy orders on an equal footing with men?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

It is not for the Commission to comment on the issue raised by the Honourable Member, as the conducting of religious ceremonies is not a Community matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3258/00

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Revision of the postal directive price increases

Sweden is often cited as a evidence that, taken as a whole, the impact of liberalisation of the postal market has been positive.

However, if one looks at the trend in the prices paid by Swedish consumers, one finds that there has been a significant increase since 1993:

- prices rose by 25 % between 1993 and 1995,

- by 6 % in 1996,

- by 30 % in 1997.

Can the Commission confirm that it will give priority to competition even at the expense of maintaining a quality service at a price that is affordable for all?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

The Commission considers that opening up to competition means improving the quality of the universal service. The two are not mutually exclusive.

This is the case in Sweden where citizens enjoy a very high quality of service (97 % of mail delivered the following day) in a Member State with a very low population density.

The increase in tariffs in Sweden is linked mainly to the introduction of VAT on postal services.

The Swedish Government points out that every year private individuals receive a number of stamps at a reduced price, which covers most of their needs.