ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1632/99

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(15 September 1999)

Subject: Abuse of a dominant position on the sugar market in the Autonomous Region of the Azores

The sugar-producing undertaking situated in the Autonomous Region of the Azores accounts for a very modest and declining portion of the sugar quotas allocated to Portugal by the European institutions.

In recent months sugar produced by mainland-based refineries has been supplied to shops in the Azores at prices well below those charged in mainland shops, in spite of the cost of transport to the Azores.

Does the Commission not believe that the fact that the leading firms on the market are charging different prices for sugar on the mainland and in the Azores could constitute an abuse of a dominant position?

What will it do about the matter?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 1999)

The market for sugar in the Azores forms part of the Community market and so is open to supplies from other regions. This is not, however, the case for sugar produced in the Azores since it enjoys specific preferential conditions, the benefits of which go to the local production of sugar beet, the processing industry and consumers in the region in accordance with the objectives of the Poseima programme. If sugar is supplied to the Azores from the mainland, it is because prices in the Azores enable the firms in question to make a profit comparable to what they can make on the mainland.

Normally, the specific conditions enjoyed by the sugar industry in the Azores should enable it to supply the local market at competitive prices, since these conditions enable the sugar refinery to buy raw sugar at the world market price and sell the refined sugar at the Community price.

Because local production of beet sugar is currently at a very low level in the Azores, this high margin on refining is obtained on the bulk of the sugar produced. The Commission does not therefore think that it should intervene in the way suggested by the Honourable Member.

The Honourable Member is also requested to refer to the Commission's replies to his Written Questions E-1630/99(1) and E-1631/99(2).

(1) See page 56.

(2) See page 57.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1684/99

by Reino Paasilinna (PSE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Retirement age for fire fighters

The retirement age for fire fighters is 65 in Finland, while in other European countries it is set by each country's legislation. At the Conference on the Conditions of Employment and Work of Fire-fighting Personnel, which was held in Geneva from 9 to 16 May 1990, the International Labour Organisation recommended a substantial lowering of the retirement age for fire fighters. It is common knowledge that the work of fire fighters is tough and dangerous and it would be justified to follow the ILO recommendation in all EU countries.

Does the Commission intend to draw up legislation or, at least, a recommendation concerning lowering the age of retirement for fire fighters in all EU countries?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1999)

The Commission does not intend to propose any harmonisation of the retirement age for firefighters in the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1458/99

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Functional foods

Does the Commission believe that the Finnish brand of cholesterol-lowering margarine, produced by Raisio, should be investigated further now that concerns have been raised over the launch of Unilever's equivalent brand?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1455/99, E-1456/99, E-1457/99 and E-1458/99 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1999)

The Commission does not intend to propose new Community provisions for the labelling of so-called functional foods. This category does not currently exist in Community law, and the products concerned are therefore subject to the general provisions of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978(1) on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer.

In 1997, Unilever submitted in the Netherlands a request for placing on the Community market a yellow fat spread with added phytosterol-esters, under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients(2). Unilever must have considered that its product was not substantially equivalent to the product made in Finland by Raisio, as it did not invoke Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 which lays down an abbreviated procedure for products which are substantially equivalent to existing foods or food ingredients.

The Commission itself did not formulate objections to the initial assessment report of the Dutch authorities concerning the Unilever product. Reasoned objections were however presented by several Member States; hence an authorisation can only be granted under the procedure laid down in Article 13 of

Regulation (EC) No 258/97. As the objections presented by the Member States related to public health, the Commission consulted the scientific committee for food, in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97. The opinion of the scientific committee for food is currently awaited.

As far as the Raisio product is concerned, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer given by the Commission to written question P-1506/99 by Mr Mulder(3).

(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.

(2) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(3) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 4.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1654/99

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Use of agricultural products for non-food purposes

If oil seeds are sown in the European Union on set-aside land, there is a hectare premium of EUR 68,83 per tonne. However, this premium is paid only for oil seeds listed in Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1586/97(1). Oil seeds not appearing on the list are not eligible for a premium. This means that it is difficult to introduce new crops for non-food purposes.

Is the Commission prepared to take action so that all oil seeds are eligible for the same subsidy, thereby giving every opportunity for agricultural products to be developed for non-food use?

(1) OJ L 215, 7.8.1997, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1999)

It is true that, for the purposes of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1586/97 of 29 July 1997 laying down detailed implementing rules for the use of set-aside land for the provision of materials for the manufacture within the Community of products not primarily intended for human or animal consumption, the so-called non-food Regulation, the compensatory payment provided for in Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops(1) was granted exclusively for the raw materials listed in Annex I or, as appropriate, Annex II to the aforementioned Regulation.

However, with the recasting of the non-food Regulation following the adoption of Agenda 2000, the subsequent repeal of Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 and the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999(2), the classification of the various raw materials in the two annexes was also re-examined.

Thus, in Annex I to the draft Regulation concerning the use of set-aside land for non-food raw material production, the combined nomenclature (CN) code ex 1205 00 90 for rapeseed is now worded to take account of the fact that, for reasons of consistency, simplification and sound management, in order to determine the eligible varieties reference should be made to the common catalogue of agricultural plant species, as specified in the new draft Regulation laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999.

Consequently, in the case of certain oilseeds, the development of new crops for non-food purposes will be encouraged by the granting of the area aid.

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1823/99

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

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Exercise of the political and legislative powers of regional authorities within the European Council of Ministers

In view of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference to review the Union's treaties, and the Commission's powers of initiative, could the Commission table a reform ensuring the direct presence within the Council of Ministers of regional political bodies (autonomous communities, federal states, etc.) endowed with specific powers (political, economic, social and cultural), when the Council is dealing with matters of particular concern to such regional authorities?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1999)

Member States differ widely in their internal structures.

Under Article 203 (formerly Article 146) of the EC Treaty, they are free to choose their representatives in the Council to suit their own particular circumstances.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1457/99

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Functional foods

Does the Commission feel that it is justified to delay the launch of the Unilever cholesterol-lowering margarine, considering that a similar product made by Raisio in Finland is already on the market in Finland and will be marketed in several EU countries by McNiels?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1455/99, E-1456/99, E-1457/99 and E-1458/99 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1999)

The Commission does not intend to propose new Community provisions for the labelling of so-called functional foods. This category does not currently exist in Community law, and the products concerned are therefore subject to the general provisions of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978(1) on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer.

In 1997, Unilever submitted in the Netherlands a request for placing on the Community market a yellow fat spread with added phytosterol-esters, under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients(2). Unilever must have considered that its product was not substantially equivalent to the product made in Finland by Raisio, as it did not invoke Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 which lays down an abbreviated procedure for products which are substantially equivalent to existing foods or food ingredients.

The Commission itself did not formulate objections to the initial assessment report of the Dutch authorities concerning the Unilever product. Reasoned objections were however presented by several Member States; hence an authorisation can only be granted under the procedure laid down in Article 13 of

Regulation (EC) No 258/97. As the objections presented by the Member States related to public health, the Commission consulted the scientific committee for food, in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97. The opinion of the scientific committee for food is currently awaited.

As far as the Raisio product is concerned, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer given by the Commission to written question P-1506/99 by Mr Mulder(3).

(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.

(2) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(3) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 4.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1907/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Action programme for AIDS prevention (1996-2000)

Will the Commission state what agencies (public or private), institutions, companies, cooperatives and individuals have been allocated funding (specifying whether payments have already been made) under the action programme for AIDS prevention (1996-2000) (Community funds available for the period as a whole: ECU 49,6 million, equal to approx. Lit. 96 billion) and how much each of them has been granted?

Has it checked how the amounts have actually been used and whether the proposed measures have been successfully implemented?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1999)

In the context of the programme of action on the prevention of AIDS and other communicable diseases, adopted on 29 March 1996 by Parliament and the Council by means of Decision No 647/96/EC(1), projects which meet the objectives of the programme and provide Community added value may receive financial backing.

In accordance with the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, a complete list of the funding applications received (including those which may receive funding) is forwarded to Parliament annually.

With regard to the years 1996, 1997 and 1998, files containing all essential information relating to funded projects are available to all interested persons and bodies. The documentation relating to 1999 will be finalised in the course of November 1999.

Moreover, general information concerning funded projects may also be consulted on the Internet(2).

All projects funded under the programme are assessed by the Commission from both a scientific and a financial point of view.

With regard to evaluation of the programme, the Commission presented an interim report(3) to Parliament and the Council, relating mainly to the implementation period from 1996 to 1997. In this report, the Commission underlines the degree of cohesion and complementarity achieved between this programme and related Community policies, programmes and initiatives. It also evaluates the measures undertaken in order to enhance the significance and impact of the programme. To this end, the Commission drew on the opinions of a group of external experts and on those of the representatives from the Member States who are involved in the management committee.

(1) OJ L 95, 16.4.1996.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg05/phealth/aids/projects.htm.

(3) COM(1999) 463 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1947/99

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Kosovo

An increasing number of voices are coming out in favour of independence for Kosovo, particularly, but not only, including those of well-known US politicians. At the same time, in Europe we are seeing, on the one hand, a legalistic offensive reaffirming the concept of the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia and, on the other, policy being implemented on the ground in a way which is obliged to take account of the new reality of the situation in Kosovo.

Does the Council agree that this ambivalent approach on the part of Europe risks ultimately undermining the issue of determining the final status of Kosovo?

Does the Council agree that the Union should swiftly put forward a political approach to resolving the issue of the final status of Kosovo? Does it agree that such an approach should differ both from the ambivalent positions seen, with the risks which these pose in the medium term, and from positions favouring independence, which would only further increase the fragmentation of the Balkans, by proposing right now the reunification of Kosovo and Albania?

Irrespective of the adoption of such an approach, is the Council ready to allocate a substantial part of the resources under the reconstruction programme to building new communication routes and improving existing routes between Albania and Kosovo?

Reply

(31 January 2000)

EU policy on Kosovo is firmly based on the full implementation of UNSCR 1244 in all its parts and by all parties involved. Therefore, the Council does not see the EU's approach as being ambivalent. Rumours about the inevitability of independence for Kosovo are counter-productive and are firmly rejected by the Council, which continues to uphold the principle of the territorial integrity of the FRY.

Just recently, all participants in the Stability Pact in which the EU plays a leading role solemnly reaffirmed their commitment inter alia to all the principles and norms enshrined in the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris and the 1990 Copenhagen document.

The Council would like to inform the Honourable Member that the question of building new communication routes in South Eastern Europe is also on the agenda of the Stability Pact's Working Table on economic reconstruction, development and cooperation. At the inaugural meeting of that Working Table in Bari on 9 October, several countries of the region and the EIB have tabled infrastructure projects, the feasibility and financing of which are currently being assessed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2042/99

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Killing of cows in Sweden

On 7 October, six healthy cows were killed in Ljungskile, southern Sweden, because their owner had not marked them in accordance with the EU rules that have been in force since 1 January 1998. The cows were shot in a meadow and then taken to a destruction facility. The Swedish National Board of Agriculture takes the view that, under the EU rules, unmarked animals must be killed on the spot and that it is not possible to move them even to a slaughterhouse. Nor can any exceptions be made. Is it the Commission's intention that the rules should be interpreted in this way?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

The Commission does not have any specific information relating to the particular case mentioned by the Honourable Member. Generally, however, it is important to recall the rules which apply in this matter, as provided by Commission Regulation (EC) No 494/98 of 27 February 1998 laying down detailed rules for

the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 as regards the application of minimum administrative sanctions in the framework of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals(1). Article 1 provides that If one or more animals on a holding comply with none of the provisions laid down in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 820/97, a restriction shall be imposed on movement of all animals to and from that holding. If the keeper of an animal cannot prove its identification within two working days, it shall be destroyed without delay under the supervision of the veterinary authorities, and without compensation from the competent authority.

This applies to bovine animals which do not have any of the elements provided for in the identification system (eartags, entry in the computerised database, passport, record in the individual register to be kept on each holding). In this exceptionally serious case, following expiry of the given period, slaughter is justified particularly in the light of infringements committed which may constitute a risk to human and animal health.

This Community legislation (Regulation (EC) No 494/98) was adopted in the form of a regulation. An act of this type is binding in its entirety and is not compatible with a more flexible national law.

Moreover, the Commission has not received a request from the Swedish authorities to amend the rules which apply in this area.

(1) OJ L 60, 28.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2050/99

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

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Expenditure eligible for public aid in respect of construction of vessels with wooden hulls

The shipwrights' trade, involving the construction of fishing boats with wooden hulls, is a traditional industry in Galicia as in a number of other EU regions. This sector has modernised and remained dynamic, competing with yards which build vessels with steel and glass fibre hulls. In Galicia, which is an Objective 1 area of the Structural Funds and is covered by the FIFG, of which small inshore fishing is an extremely important element, there are currently 65 undertakings which construct vessels with wooden hulls and supply a significant proportion of the national fleet, help to extend the country's market beyond its borders and to maintain a high level of skilled workmanship.

The proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, of 21 January 1999 (COM(1998) 728 final(1)), takes no account of the above considerations. Article 10(2), on public aid for fleet renewal and for vessel modernisation, maintains the discrimination against vessels with wooden hulls since it states that expenditure eligible for public aid in respect of construction of fishing vessels may not exceed the scales set out in Table 1 in Annex IV, increased by 92,5 % for vessels with a hull in either steel or glass fibre, but by only 37,5 % for vessels with wooden hulls.

Will the Commission indicate whether it plans to apply the same percentages to the different categories and thus put an end to this unacceptable discrimination against the shipwrights' trade?

(1) OJ C 16, 21.1.1999, p. 12.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 1999)

At the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 22 November 1999 the Regulation laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector was the subject of a political agreement. It will be formally adopted as an A item at the Council meeting on 16 December 1999.

The new Regulation, which will enter into force on 1 January 2000, contains many innovations compared to the Regulation in force until the end of 1999. In particular, the scale of costs eligible for public aid for boat building will no longer depend on the material used.

Thus, all fishing vessels with the same tonnage, whether made of wood, metal or fibreglass, will be able to receive the same amount of public aid for their construction.

The conditions laid down in the Regulation for the grant of public aid for building fishing vessels will of course have to be complied with.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1897/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Leader II (1994-1999)

The total amount allocated to Italy from the Community's structural funds for the Leader II Community initiative on rural development for the period 1994-1999 is ECU 282 million (equal to approx. LIT 546 billion).

Will the Commission state what agencies (public or private), institutions, companies, cooperatives and individuals have been allocated funding under Leader II (specifying whether payments have already been made) and how much each of them has been allocated?

Has it checked how the amounts have actually been used and whether the proposed measures have been successfully implemented?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 1999)

For the period 1994-1999 an overall Community contribution of329 million was allocated to Italy for the purposes of the Leader II Community Initiative.

A notable feature of Leader II is its decentralised implementation (in line with the competences of each local collective body) under the subsidiarity principle.

As indicated in the Notice to Member States on Leader II(1) each rural innovation programme of each LAG (local action group: combination of public and private partners implementing a multisectoral development strategy in a rural area forming a local community) can span a number of fields of action and categories of recipient.

The Commission does not take part in selection of the LAGs, in Italy numbering 200, and approval of the local action plans to be implemented by them falls to the Member State, specifically to the decision-making partnership at regional level. The individual projects are selected by the LAGs with due respect for Community policies and the eligibility criteria set in the Structural Fund provisions.

The detailed information sought by the Honourable Member cannot therefore be provided at this time.

The recipients under Leader II programmes are for the most part rural SMEs, agricultural enterprises, local communities (notably communes) and the LAGs themselves as promoters of the innovation with which Leader II is concerned.

It will be possible to provide the Honourable member with very detailed information on the full range of assistance granted once Leader II has come to an end.

(1) OJ C 180, 1.7.1994.