ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2141/99

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Consulting operators in the AL-Invest Programme

On 23 September last the LAADC committee approved a new financial framework for the AL-Invest Programme covering the next four years. The programme's operators apparently had little opportunity to participate in the preparatory discussions. To be more precise, the European side was not consulted at all, whilst just one meeting was held with the Latin American side.

Does the Commission not believe that a system of communication ought to be set up to guarantee closer involvement for those concerned, with a view to enhancing the programme's effectiveness and guaranteeing the transparency in the Commission services called for by Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 1999)

As to the first part of the question, the Commission would emphasise that direct contact with the operators is paramount. To this end, meetings were held in London (1998) and Barcelona (1999) under the title Connect to enable operators to exchange ideas with the Commission over two days (in addition to the direct contacts between operators to prepare proposals for business encounters, which was the primary function of Connect). Each of these meetings enabled us to take stock of all the technical, administrative and financial aspects on which the success of the programme depends. Connect will be held in autumn each year between 2000 and 2004. In addition, direct and individual contact with operators takes place as necessary by e-mail and by post. Moreover a Web site has been set up, with a members only Intranet section reserved for operators (www.al-invest.org). The technical secretariat set up to support and advise operators will be maintained up to the end of 2005.

This demonstrates the extent of the communications system made available to operators.

As to the conferences organised in 1999 in connection with Phase 2 of Al-Invest, one was held for European operators (February 1999), one for Latin American operators (June 1999), and one for both European and Latin American operators (October 1999, Connect, Barcelona).

There was only one significant change to the timetable: Phase 2 was presented to the LAADC Committee on 23 September 1999 instead of 14 October 1999: this may perhaps have taken some operators by surprise. The reason was quite simply that this enabled Phase 2 to be financed from 1999 instead of from the 2000 budget as initially proposed, which obviated the need for a stop-gap between Phases 1 and 2 of Al-Invest.

Moreover, the Commission received the recommendations made at the meeting of the Spanish Coopecos on 20 September 1999 in good time and intends at all events to deal with them appropriately.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2447/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Errors in the drawing-up of objectives for the municipalities of Lazio

The Lazio regional authorities recently determined which of its municipalities fell under Objective 2 and forwarded the list to the Ministry for the Budget and Economic Planning, which summarised the details of the municipalities selected and forwarded the document to the Commission. As the Commission judged the Italian proposal to be inadmissible, the aforementioned ministry is re-considering the proposals and plans to forward new documentation by the end of the year. The municipalities which are no longer eligible for the former Objective 5b have not been selected for the new Objective 2, but have been granted a phasing-out period which will end in 2005.

Given the above:

1. Why has the Commission deemed the Italian proposal to be inadmissible?

2. Could this setback lead to delays in the granting of funds?

3. Can the new list of municipalities to be submitted by the Lazio regional authorities and the ministry also include those formerly covered by Objective 5b, which are currently being phased out, and if so, will the latter also be covered by Objective 2?

4. What is the Commission's general view on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

1. The proposed list of areas eligible for Objective 2 sent by the Italian authorities on 1 October 1999 was found by the Commission to be not acceptable. It was not in compliance with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), under which the areas that satisfy the Community criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) must contain at least 50 % of the population eligible for Objective 2 assistance in each Member State. The areas put forward by the Italian authorities in line with these criteria, however, contained only 2,19 million people (i.e. only 29,6 % of the total eligible population).

2. The areas eligible for assistance under Objective 2 must be determined before the single programming documents (SPDs) can be drafted and negotiated. Any delay in the adoption of the list of eligible areas holds up the adoption of the SPDs and, ultimately, the allocation of funds. Already on 11 October 1999, the Commission called on the Italian authorities to send without delay a revised proposal in compliance with the Regulation. It has still not received any such proposal.

3. It is, therefore, unable to come to a decision regarding the list of eligible areas in the Lazio region.

4. The Commission believes that it is its prerogative to apply equally to all Member States Regulations that have, after extensive discussion and in full knowledge of the facts, been adopted by the Council, with the agreement of Parliament.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2443/99

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Europe Agreements with Eastern European countries

Each of the Europe Agreements which the EU has concluded with Eastern European countries includes an equal treatment requirement relating to the establishment of companies and nationals of the contracting countries (subject to certain provisos for special occupations).

1. Does the Commission consider that this equal treatment requirement includes a prohibition of discrimination?

2. Does the Commission consider that an EU Member State is barred from submitting nationals of the contracting countries to needs tests if their own self-employed nationals are not required to undergo such tests?

3. Does the Commission agree that, where a Member State does not require its own self-employed nationals to produce evidence of prior knowledge, etc., such evidence may not be required of the nationals of the contracting partner countries?

4. Does the Commission agree that, where a Member State does not require its self-employed nationals to produce evidence of capital, this may not be required of the nationals of the contracting partner countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

1. The Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member that the principle of equal treatment contains the prohibition of discrimination between nationals of the associated countries and nationals of the Member States.

2. The Member States may apply their laws and regulations regarding entry and stay, work, labour conditions, and establishment of natural persons, provided that, in doing so, they do not apply them in a such manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any party under the terms of a specific provision of the Europe agreements (see for instance Article 58 of the agreement with Poland).

3. It is the opinion of the Commission that the Europe agreements permit the Member States to verify that nationals of the associated countries have the required qualifications to establish themselves on their territory.

4. Member States may require that nationals of the associated countries have the financial means to establish themselves on their territory and to ascertain that self-employment and business undertakings by nationals shall not extend to seeking or taking employment in the labour market or confer a right of access to the labour market of another party to the Europe agreement (see for instance Article 44 paragraph 4 of the agreement with Poland).

In addition to the answers given under 3 and 4, it is noted that the scope of the relevant provisions of Europe agreements is subject to the scrutiny of the Court of justice. There are currently four cases, in which national courts have requested a preliminary ruling by the Court of justice on the application of the relevant provisions in the Europe agreements (Gloszczuk/C-63/99, Kondova/C-235/99, Barkoci & Malik/C-257/99 and Jany etc./C-268/99). The Commission has submitted observations in all cases. The rulings by the Court of justice cannot be expected before summer 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2573/99

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Commission reports on veterinary missions carried out in Belgium and Ireland

On 22 February 1999, the Commission published a Mission Report on a veterinary mission to Belgium. The Report revealed serious breaches in Belgium of Council Directive 91/628/EEC(1) on the protection of animals during transport, including the transport of unfit animals and the acceptance by the Belgian authorities of route plans for long journeys for pigs, even though the plans made no provision for the pigs to be rested, fed and watered after 24 hours' travel, as required by Directive 91/628/EEC.

On 18 August 1999, the Commission published a Mission Report on a veterinary mission to Ireland. This revealed serious breaches in Ireland of Council Directive 91/628/EEC.

What steps is the Commission taking to require the Belgian and Irish authorities to ensure compliance with the requirements of Council Directive 91/628/EEC?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

The Belgian authorities were asked to send comments on the facts reported by the Commission's food and veterinary office (FVO) in relation to a mission to Belgium on the protection of animals during transport. Although a reminder was sent and a new date of 30 August 1999 was fixed by which the authorities were to inform the Commission of measures taken to rectify the deficiencies, a reply has still not been received.

The Commission will shortly take a decision with regard to opening infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex-Article 169)of the EC Treaty in respect of the reported breaches by Belgium of its obligations under Council Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Directive 95/29/EC of June 1995, concerning the protection of animals during transport(1).

Concerning the recommendations of the report of the FVO mission to Ireland on the protection of animals during transport carried out during 1998 and 1999, the Commission was informed by the Irish authorities that a programme would be initiated targeting in particular the deficiencies highlighted within the country. The Commission has not yet received this programme.

The Commission has recently convened a new working group on the protection of animals during long distance transport which aims to consider all the problems involved in the enforcement of the relevant directives and possible solutions to these problems. Representatives of the authorities from Belgium and Ireland are both participating in this working group.

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2459/99

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Raffaele Fitto (PPE-DE), Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE), Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) and Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Incompatibility between the role of President of the Commission and election campaigning activities

On 15 November 1999 the Italian newspaper Il Messaggero published an article stating that the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, had personally taken part in the election campaign to support a certain Mr Parisi, who is standing in the parliamentary elections for the 12th constituency (Bologna), which are set to take place on 28 November.

Should this information be confirmed, does the President of the Commission not consider that this kind of behaviour is in breach of the Treaty on European Union, and in particular of Article 213(2) (ex Article 157), according to which: the Members of the Commission shall, in the general interest of the Community, be completely independent in the performance of their duties. In the performance of these duties, they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. Each Member State undertakes to respect this principle and not to seek to influence the Members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2459/99, E-2600/99 and E-2628/99 given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

As the Commission has had frequent occasion to recall in reply to written and oral questions by Members of Parliament(1), the Members of the Commission are politicians carrying out a political function, who, while honouring the obligations imposed by this function, remain free to express their personal opinions quite independently and on their own responsibility.

(1) The Honourable Members are referred in particular to the answer by Mr Rey to Oral Question No 10/68 by Mr Habib-Deloncle, and Commission answers to Written Questions No 44/83 by Mr Gendebien OJ C 197, 25.7.1983, No 1682/85 by Mr Vandemeulebroucke OJ C 55, 10.3.1986, E-1404/97 by Mr Pasty OJ C 391, 23.12.1997 and E-2617/98 by Mr Wibe OJ C 96, 8.4.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/99

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: CITES and the hawksbill sea turtle

Can the Commission assure me that the EU will not be supporting the Cuban proposal for downlisting the hawksbill sea turtle from Appendix I to Appendix II at the next CITES Conference in 2000?

I believe that the Cuban justifications for downlisting are based on erroneous population models and biology and, furthermore, that if the hawksbill is downlisted, it will serve to fuel the existing illegal trade in sea turtle shell.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The Community has, unfortunately, not yet been able to become a party to CITES. Those Member States that are party to this Convention will vote individually at the forthcoming 11th conference of the parties. In view of the existence of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein(1), there is Community competence on many of the issues to be discussed at the Conference, including the two Cuban proposals concerning hawksbill sea turtles. The position of the Community and its Member States on these issues, including the way in which the Member States which are party to CITES vote, is determined by the Council on the basis of a proposal from the Commission.

Experts from a number of Member States visited Cuba in September 1999 to examine the situation concerning hawksbill turtles. Trade controls appear to be good and the capture of turtles is well regulated. However, the impact of the harvest on the populations of this species is more difficult to assess because of the life history and biology of the species. The Commission will focus on this aspect when comparing these proposals with the scientific criteria established by CITES for judging such proposals. The Commission also wishes to take into account the opinions of the CITES secretariat and expert non-governmental organizations. As a consequence, no firm conclusion has been drawn to date.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2549/99

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Exclusive designations for types of beer

A few months ago a proposal was made that the allocation of traditional names for breeds of horse should be restricted to a particular geographical region. Thankfully the Commission opposed the adoption of such protectionist measures.

Now efforts are also being made to introduce exclusive designations for types of beer, which would thus be given the same protection as types of wine. However, the designation of a type of beer, unlike wine, does not so much indicate its geographical origin as a particular production or brewing method.

How does the Commission intend to oppose this renewed attempt to bring about a protectionist restriction on world trade on the eve of the WTO Millennium Round? How does it intend to ensure, particularly in the current negotiations with the candidate countries, that the principle of free trade is understood and enforced?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

The Commission notes the well-known concerns expressed by the Honourable Member concerning advance protection of beer varieties. In the current discussions within the World trade organization (WTO) Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs agreement) concerning the establishment of a so-called multilateral register for the protection of wines and spirits, the Commission is also considering the proposal of an increase of protectable subject matters in order to include other agricultural and foodstuff products

A multilateral register will have to be based on the TRIPs agreement and, thus, has to fully respect the provisions contained therein. This implies that WTO members do not have to grant protection for geographical indications with respect to goods if it is demonstrated that the relevant indication is identical with the term customary in common language. Consequently, WTO members do not have to grant protection to these so-called generic names which might relate to a certain production method rather than to a geographical indication. The future register will not change this essential provision since as far as a geographical name is concerned the matter could be challenged through an objection by the WTO member concerned.

The discussions will, therefore, lead to an enhanced protection for European right-holders without necessarily distorting free trade in products with generic names.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2818/99

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR) to the Council

(10 January 2000)

Subject: Enactment of Community criminal legislation to combat doping

Doping is an increasingly widespread problem and is having an adverse effect on the world of both professional and amateur sport and, unfortunately, even the youngest athletes. Continual drug abuse seriously damages the health and bodies of sportsmen and women. Athletes and others who use drugs are therefore subjecting themselves to grave risks. In all these years, however, the various national and international sports federations and organisations, which were supposed to help to keep sports doping in check via their own sports tribunals, have not managed to combat the phenomenon. Cases of sports doping are regularly brought before the national courts in several Member States and the problem is causing increasing concern in the sports world. It is therefore essential that common legislation be enacted for all Member States.

In view of the above, can the Council use its powers to promote the introduction of Community criminal legislation, whose general principles would be adopted by, and binding on, all Member States?

Reply

(10/11 April 2000)

The Council is aware of the problem posed by doping in the world of sport and attaches great importance to it. No initiative has been submitted to the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2321/99

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: European civilian and solidarity service

In view of the fact that compulsory military service has been abolished or its reform is at least being debated in many Member States and the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the establishment of a European civilian service on 22 September 1995, in which it called on the Commission to submit a proposal for the creation of a European civilian service, the Commission is asked to say whether it is considering the possibility of taking initiatives and measures to establish a three- to four-month civilian and solidarity service applicable to all men and women alike?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

A programme of European civilian and solidarity service has been established through Decision No 1686/98/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 20 July 1998 establishing the Community action programme European Voluntary Service for Young People(1).

The programme has the following objectives (Article 1):

(mldr) It is intended, while respecting equal opportunities for men and women, to encourage mobility and solidarity among young people as part of active citizenship, to promote, and give them the chance of acquiring, informal education experience in a variety of sectors of activity, which may be one of the foundations of their future development, and to promote, through their participation in transnational activities of benefit to the community, an active contribution on their part to the ideals of democracy, tolerance and solidarity in the context of European integration and to cooperation between the European Community and third countries.

However, it has to be stressed that European voluntary service is not a substitute for military or alternative services which are according to the principle of subsidiary within the responsibility of the Member States. Concerning this item recital 21 of the decision says:

Whereas European voluntary service activities are not a substitute for military service, for the alternative service formulae provided in particular for conscientious objectors or for the compulsory civilian service existing in several Member States (mldr).

The activities of European voluntary service will be continued from the year 2000 on within the framework of the Community action programme YOUTH(2), which is currently under negotiation.

The Commission has recently launched a comparative analysis and description of all civil service schemes including those that are an alternative to military service in the Member States. The results which should be available in the second half of the year should identify possibilities for building up synergies between national civil service schemes and European voluntary service.

(1) OJ L 214, 31.7.1998.

(2) OJ C 210, 22.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2397/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Road infrastructure in Carrara

In Carrara, in the region of Tuscany, Italy, marble-working is the largest economic sector, employing over 10 000 people.

Recently, the use of lorries with trailers for transporting the marble has been declared to have reached critical levels because of the significant reduction in quality of life it is causing within the city.

The problem could be solved by constructing a road to the east of the city, about five kilometres in length, for an investment of ITL 75 billion. This would halve transportation times for marble, reduce city traffic and create an inter-regional route which would connect to the Tyrrhenian Sea Brenner Pass European route.

The isolation of roads in the region could be overcome once and for all by building just 15 km of expressway connecting eastern Lunigiana to the Apuan coast.

Could the Commission therefore say whether there are any specific financial aid measures for carrying out infrastructure work of this kind?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The Structural Funds may finance infrastructure projects such as that mentioned by the Honourable Member, provided they are located in an eligible area.

The Commission is still awaiting the revised proposal by the Italian authorities under the regulatory provisions governing Objective 2 during the next programming period (2000-2006(1)).

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.