ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1627/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 September 1999)

Subject: Measures to support rice-growing in Greece

Regulation 2072/98(1) established two base areas for rice-growing in Greece. As a result of implementing the Regulation in 1998, no aid was paid to producers in the second area in which the quota was exceeded despite the fact that the overall quota of 24 891 hectares laid down for Greece was not surpassed.

The regionalisation system coupled with the exceptionally high co-responsibility fine for exceeding the quota have left rice-growers in a particularly difficult situation. Will the Commission, therefore, allow quotas to be transferred from one area to another, as is the case with durum wheat? What other measures will it take to support rice-growing (increase in the overall ceiling, allocation of quotas by prefecture, controlling the massive, unrestricted imports from third countries)?

(1) OJ L 265, 30.9.1998, p. 4.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 1999)

At the request of the Greek authorities, Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) 3072/95 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1) was amended in order to divide the Greek national base area into two parts:

I. Prefectures of Thessaloniki, Serres and Fthiotida: 22 330 hectares.

II. Other prefectures: 2 561 hectares.

As the Honourable Member points out, in the case of base area II (other prefectures), the land sown in 1998 (5 180 hectares) largely exceeded the base area (2 561 hectares), so the compensatory payment was reduced by 100 % in accordance with Article 6(5) of Regulation (EC) 3072/95.

In response to a recent request made by the Greek authorities, the Commission now intends to propose to the Council a further amendment of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) 3072/95 under which the regions of Kavala and Etolia-Akarnania, which are currently included in base area II (other prefectures), would be included in base area I instead.

Doing so should lessen the risk that the base area for other prefectures will be exceeded.

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1393/99

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Subsidies for Vion VVaG

The Hanover insurance company HDI Haftpflichtverband der deutschen Industrie and the Bavarian insurance company HUK-Coburg propose to merge in July 1999. The registered office of the new firm resulting from the merger, Vion VVaG, is to be in Coburg. The decision on the location of the office was taken as a result of substantial financial incentives from the Land of Bavaria, the level of which is not publicly known.

1. Is the European Commission aware of the financial assistance for Vion VVaG from the government of the Land of Bavaria? If so, what level of assistance is being provided by the Land of Bavaria in this case?

2. Have the subsidies and incentives from the Land of Bavaria been notified as aid to the Commission?

3. Are such subsidies compatible with European law on competition and aid, and in particular Article 87 of the EC Treaty?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1999)

The Commission has been informed that the merger of HDI Haftplichtverband der Deutschen Industrie and HUK-Coburg to Vion Vvag will not take place and that no state aid measures have taken place.

On the basis of this information the Commission will thus not further investigate the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2057/99

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Fifth framework programme (Energy)

Will the Commission state what steps are being taken to achieve the target set by the European Parliament as regards renewable energy?

Answer given Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1999)

In its commentary on the 1999 budget for the Fifth research and technological development (RTD) framework programme, the budgetary authority, at the initiative of the Parliament, requested that 60 % of

credits for non-nuclear energy should be allocated to renewable energies, of which 75 % should be allocated to renewable demonstration projects. The Commission agrees that there is an urgent need to encourage the demonstration of solutions which favour the use of innovative renewable energy resources and would like to satisfy the commentary as far as practicable.

The first call for proposals for the Energie programme (energy component of the energy, environment and sustainable development specific RTD programme) gave considerable prominence to renewable energies. Indeed, within the constraints of the work programme, almost all renewables sectors were covered by the call.

While the final decision on 1999 projects has not yet been formally made, it can already be said that the share represented by projects dedicated to renewables and demonstration in renewables in the commitment of the available budget for the non-nuclear energy sub-programme will be very close to the target indicated in the budget commentary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2081/99

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Study on the impact of the Asian and Russian financial crisis on the fashion sector

On 15 January 1999 Parliament adopted a resolution on the economic and social impact of the global financial crisis on European industry (B4-0024/1999)(1), urging the Commission to provide a detailed report on the economic and social effects of increased competition on the various sectors of the European economy, especially in terms of output and employment.

On 2 July 1999 the Commission published a report on the impact of the crisis on the European Union's trade in textile and apparel products, but no mention was made of the fashion sector, in particular the leather sector and the footwear industry.

In view of this omission, does the Commission intend to publish in the near future the part of the report relating to this important sector?

(1) OJ C 104, 14.4.1999, p. 191.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1999)

The Honourable Member is right to point out that the study Impact of the Asian crisis on EU trade in textile and clothing products did not cover the leather and footwear sectors. A detailed examination of the impact of the Asian crisis in trade in those sectors proved to be considerably more difficult since, unlike the textiles and clothing products, trade in leather and footwear is generally not subject to a surveillance mechanism, and such mechanisms provide helpful statistical tools. The above-mentioned study which was made available publicly on the internet, concentrated notably on the development of imports from certain trade partners as a result of the crisis.

Given that over the last few months economic growth has again picked up in the South East Asian region there appears, at the moment, to be no necessity to enlarge the above-cited study. Should similar developments to the Asian financial crisis reoccur in the future, the leather and footwear sectors could be included in possible future studies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1857/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Export refund limits

If it wishes to limit the amount of export refunds, why does the Commission not scrap its massively cumbersome proposals and simply reduce refund rates, since that would have the effect of reducing refunds while allowing current systems and procedures to operate as before?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1999)

First, the Commission does not see to which proposals the Honourable Member refers when mentioning massively cumbersome proposals.

Second, there are in fact a number of agricultural products for which export refunds can be granted and the Commission is responsible for fixing their amounts. On the one hand, it takes into consideration the situation on the internal market and the outlet possibilities on the world markets. On the other hand, it is constrained by the ceilings resulting from the Uruguay Round agreement and has to make the best use of budgetary availabilities.

As a result of the decisions on Agenda 2000, which were taken in the first half of 1999, the need for export refunds will be reduced in the near future for important sectors like cereals, milk, beef, pig- and poultrymeat. Moreover, in the context of the next millenium round of the World trade organisation, the Community, while respecting on the full Agenda 2000 package, is prepared to continue to negotiate the process of reduction in export subsidies provided that all such support is treated on equal basis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2853/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Relocation strategy of the Ford multinational company

The multinationals' strategy of relocation is continuing to affect Portugal and its workers. One of the most recent examples is the case of the US multinational Ford, which, as part of its restructuring policy, now intends to give up its plant in Azambuja and sell it to Opel, thus ceasing to produce its Transit model in Portugal as from the first quarter of 2000. More than 300 jobs are at risk.

Can the Commission state what measures it intends to take to oppose Ford's strategy and defend these jobs?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

While it regrets the negative social impact of Ford's decision concerning its plant in Azambuja, Portugal, the Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that it is not entitled to interfere in business decisions such as the one referred to here, unless Community law has been infringed.

At this stage there is nothing to indicate that there has been any infringement (and there is no mention of an infringement in the question).

At any rate the Commission wishes to recall that at least three Community directives may be applicable to this case: Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(1), Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses(2), and Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purpose of informing and consulting employees(3).

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(2) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977 (Directive amended by Directive 98/50/EC OJ L 201, 17.7.1998).

(3) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2098/99

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

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Failure of a Member State to comply with ICCAT recommendations on freezing the fishing effort

It is apparent from Commission Working Document SEC(1998) 447 of 17 March 1998 that, in 1997, the Irish fleet fishing for albacore (Thunnus alalunga) comprised 11 vessels using drift nets. However, according to the list which the Commission possesses of vessels authorised to fish for tuna with drift nets and other fishing gear, this year the said fleet grew in size to 18 vessels using drift nets and 16 using other gear. Besides amounting to a blatant breach of Regulation (EC) No 1239/98(1) aimed at abolishing drift nets, such an increase constitutes a gross violation of the ICCAT recommendation which the Commission undertook to honour, under which the fishing effort of fleets should not exceed that registered over the period 1993-1995. The fact that the Commission has not yet transposed the aforementioned recommendation into Community law does not free the EU Member States from their obligation to comply with it, as Mr Cavaco, former Director-General of DG XIV, made very clear in a notice on the NEAFC recommendations.

In view of the aforementioned facts, what does the Commission intend to do to prevent any further increase in the Irish fleet's fishing effort as regards stocks of albacore?

How does it intend to compel the said Member State to comply with Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 and the ICCAT recommendations, and what penalties does it envisage imposing on that Member State for repeatedly displaying such serious disregard for Community and international rules and placing albacore populations in peril, in breach of those recommendations?

When does it intend to transpose the ICCAT recommendations into Community law in order to prevent their absence from being used as a pretext for increasing the fishing effort?

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1999)

The Honourable Member is requested to refer to the answers given to her Written Questions P-1537/99(1) and P-2067/99(2).

The Commission is in the process of drafting proposals for a Regulation to transpose the recommendations made by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and other multilateral organisations that manage tuna stocks. The proposals are due to be adopted by the Commission in January 2000.

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000.

(2) See page 82.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2011/99

by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission

(9 November 1999)

Subject: Transitional period between the two programming periods for the Structural Funds

Given the time necessary for consultation and negotiation between the Member States and the Commission for national programming for the Structural Funds for 2000-2006, what will be the situation on the ground during the transitional period between the end of the current programming period (1994-1999) and the beginning of the next one?

Would it be possible for outstanding balances to be carried forward and used on the basis of the old arrangements until the new ones come into force?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

The end of the current programming period will proceed normally in four successive stages, which will mark the closure of the 1994-1999 programmes: 31 December 1999 is the deadline for commitments on the ground relating to eligible operations; 31 December 2001 is the deadline for payments corresponding to eligible operations committed to on the ground before 31 December 1999; 30 June 2002 is the deadline for the Member States to declare the payments they have made; during 2002 and at the beginning of 2003 the Commission will pay the balances to the Member States.

At the same time, the programmes for the new 2000-2006 programming period will be adopted as from 1 January 2000. In fact, in view of the current state of preparation, the first programmes or single programming documents (under Objective 1) cannot be adopted before the end of March 2000.

However, the eligibility of the operations begins with the presentation of these programming documents to the Commission by the Member State. Moreover, if the Member State submits a request for assistance to the Commission between 1 January and 30 April 2000, the associated expenditure can be considered eligible for a contribution from the Funds as from 1 January 2000 (Article 52(4) of Regulation 1260/99). Member States can consequently start operations as of now in respect of the new programming period. Independently of the dates on which decisions are taken on the new programmes, there are therefore real possibilities for transition between one programming period and another.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2409/99

by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Falling birth rates in the EU

The fact that the EU's population figures are falling is reflected in a birth rate lower than has even been known in peacetime or in a period without major epidemics, namely 1,45 children per woman. In the southern countries the rate is lower still, 1,2 in Spain, Portugal and Italy, and as low as 0,8 in certain regions such as Galicia, the East German länder and northern Italy.

What is being done to study the phenomenon of the rapidly ageing European population? Have any measures been put forward with a view to stimulating the birth rate and increase the population?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-1830/99 by Mr Marínos(1).

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 110.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1504/99

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

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Customs duty on fishery products produced by EC-Argentinian joint enterprises since the expiry of the EU-Argentinian fisheries agreement

The expiry of the EU-Argentinian fisheries agreement in 1999 may lead to a spectacular increase in duty on imports of fishery products produced by the EC-Argentinian joint enterprises set up under the terms of the agreement. This may cause insoluble supply problems for the Community market and adversely affect a large number of enterprises and fishermen in Galicia. Customs duty on certain types of fish may increase by nearly 300 % which would make it difficult to maintain trade relations between the EU and Argentina. Furthermore, there is no other economic sector in which there have been such dramatic increases in customs duty in such a short space of time.

For these reasons, can the Commission say what the prospects are for the imports of fishery products from ships belonging to EC-Argentinian joint enterprises? Was any provision made for adopting measures to prevent these increases in duty?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 1999)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the reply to question No IV.5 in the questionnaire presented by the Fisheries Committee in preparation for the hearing of the Commission Member responsible for Fisheries on 30 August 1999. This can be found at: http://www.europarl.eu.int/dg3/com/fr/answer.htm.

The expiry of the EU-Argentina Agreement in 1999 may entail a spectacular increase in the customs duties for imports of fisheries products produced by EU-Argentinian joint ventures constituted under that Agreement. What arrangements have been made for imports of fisheries products originating from vessels belonging to EU-Argentinian joint ventures? Are there any plans to adopt a method whereby possible increases in customs duties might be curbed?

As a result of the deterioration of the hake stocks in Argentinian waters and the measures adopted to redress that situation, we can expect a substantial reduction in imports of hake from joint venture sources in Argentina in 1999.

Tariff reductions were granted on an erga omnes basis to fisheries products of interest to Argentina in the context of the Fisheries Agreement and these concessions formed part of the overall balance of that Agreement.

The Agreement having expired on 24 May last, there is consequently no rationale for the continuation of the tariff concessions. In the context of the elaboration of a new fisheries relationship with Argentina, it may be opportune to reintroduce tariff concessions. To envisage unilateral concessions at this stage, however, would weaken the Community's negotiation strategy.

Next year, we will again take stock of the progress in talks with Argentina and of the market situation for the products in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2435/99

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Possible misuse of European Union funding

According to an article published in the Sunday Times on 7 November 1999, young ravers are to be sent to Amsterdam, courtesy of the National Health Service and the European Union, for what critics claim is a course on drug cocktails.

The NHS and John Moores University, Liverpool, are jointly paying £ 10 000 to send 40 lecturers and 20 students to attend a conference on drug culture and clubs in the Dutch city this week. The EU is also subsidising the visitors. Apart from lectures about the supposed health benefits of drug-induced trance dancing the programme also includes visits to nightclubs where drugs illegal in Britain are tested for purity at the door rather than confiscated.

What does the Commission know about this, and is it true that EU funds are being used to cofinance the project?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2000)

Following detailed internal inquires, the Commission has been unable to discover any Community involvement in the activities cited by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2022/99

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 November 1999)

Subject: Discrimination against German vehicle recovery firms

1. Is the Commission aware that under the existing law (§ 15a, StVO: Road Traffic Regulations) German vehicle recovery firms may only tow vehicles on German motorways to the next exit and that the towing operation must be completed no more than 100 km from the point where the beakdown occurs?

2. Is the Commission also aware that foreign vehicle recovery firms operating on German motorways remove vehicles which have had an accident, or which have become inoperable because of some other damage, without any distance restriction? (For example, the firm van der Zandt (Holland) uses recovery vehicles to take tractor units in working order as far as Irschenberg in Bavaria and transports damaged tractor units from there back to the Netherlands).

3. Is the Commission aware that EU firms receive exemption permits of unlimited validity from consulates or embassies, but that German firms are not allowed to complete such journeys?

4. Is the Commission aware of the expert opinion of TÜV Verkehr und Fahrzeug GmbH of April 1998 which explicitly states that if the newer generation of recovery vehicles is used (with hydraulic undercarriages) German firms can recover heavy vehicles, safely and with no risk to traffic, if the requirements set out in the expert opinion are complied with?

5. What action is the Commission intending to take against this effective distortion of competition?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

The Commission is aware that German legislation limits the distance over which recovery vehicles may tow broken down vehicles on German motorways.

The Commission has however no knowledge of the treatment of particular non-German breakdown services, in particular of the fact that German embassies grant to non-German firms exceptional licences enabling them to recover vehicles on German motorways over longer distances than generally provided in the relevant German rules. Furthermore, the Commision is not aware of the expert opinion mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Nevertheless the Commission considers that if the practices described were to be followed, such decisions by the German authorities to grant more favourable conditions to firms established in Member States other than Germany would not contravene the rules and principles of Community law. Member States are allowed under Community law to apply stricter rules to their nationals or to firms established on their territory.