ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1454/00

by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Publication of a feasibility study on the establishment of a European structure for health monitoring and evaluation

In the context of the programme of Community action on health monitoring (1997-2001) adopted within the framework for action in the field of health, the fourth recital of European Parliament and Council Decision No 1400/97(1) provides that it would be desirable to study the feasibility of establishing a permanent structure for the monitoring and evaluation of European Community health data and indicators.

A group of experts was commissioned to carry out this feasibility study, and delivered its report in September 1997. Does the Commission intend to make the report public at the earliest opportunity, without delaying unnecessarily the establishment of a European health monitoring centre essential to a European policy of health planning and disease prevention in the long term, and in accordance with the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty which are aimed at ensuring a high level of health protection in the EU?

(1) OJ L 193, 22.7.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the experts' report on the feasibility of a European health monitoring centre will be made public very shortly. The experts met recently in order to take account of certain developments since the publication of the first report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1460/00

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: The treatment of stray animals in Spain

Is the Commission aware of the way in which stray animals in Catalonia (Spain) are caught and killed?

Does the Commission know that the capture of stray dogs, for example, has been contracted out to a commercial organisation, which drugs the animals and burns them alive if they are not claimed within eight to ten days?

Does the Commission not feel that stray domestic animals should be kept in animal shelters in Catalonia as they are in most EU Member States?

Does the Commission know that Spain has not signed the Council of European convention for the protection of domestic animals (1987)?

Is the Commission able to remind the Catalan regional government of its responsibility with regard to the protection of domestic animals?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the way in which stray dogs are caught and killed in Spain. This is not an area of Community competence.

The Commission shares the view that unnecessary suffering of animals should be avoided.

It is correct that Spain has not ratified the Council of Europe convention for the protection of domestic animals.

Although the recent protocol on the protection and welfare of animals(1) called on the Community and Member States to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, no legal instrument is at present available to the Commission to act in line with the Honourable Member's suggestion.

(1) OJ C 340, 10.11.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1565/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(24 May 2000)

Subject: Government aid for audiovisual productions

The Commission wants to confine government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget. This proposal is the first occasion that the Commission has applied the competition rules in full in the area of cultural policy.

This action will have a pernicious effect on audiovisual initiatives in small and medium-sized Member States and cultural areas. They have more limited sources of finance than the large Member States and cultural areas. Moreover, a relative yardstick (in this case the 50 % rule), as used by the Commission, gives a distorted picture of the amounts actually invested.

1. Does the Council agree with the Commission's proposal to limit government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget? If so, why?

2. Does the Council acknowledge that this proposal is the first occasion that the Commission has applied the competition rules in full in the area of cultural policy? If no, how then should limiting government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget be interpreted?

3. In the Councils opinion, can limiting government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget be reconciled with the Commission's objective of supporting the development of small and medium-sized Member States and cultural areas? If so, in what way does the Council think that limiting government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget will contribute to developing small and medium-sized Member states and cultural areas?

4. Will the Council oppose the Commission's proposal to limit government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget in view of the detrimental effect this will have on audiovisual initiatives in small and medium-sized Member states and cultural areas? If not, why not, and what are the Council's reasons for supporting the Commission's proposal?

Reply

(26 September 2000)

The Council has not received any proposal from the Commission concerning the matter raised by the Honourable Parliamentarian. As the Honourable Parliamentarian certainly is aware, in accordance with the Treaty, the Council does not act in this matter unless it receives a proposal from the Commission (Article 89 ECT). The Council also may, on application by a Member State, decide that a specific aid granted by that State shall be considered to be compatible with the common market if such a decision is justified by exceptional circumstances (article 88, paragraph 2, 3d subparagraph ECT). No such application has been received by the Council concerning the
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2034/00

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

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Direct aid to the farming sector

José Manuel Silva, the Commissioner Director-General of Agriculture and Rural Development recently took part in the presentation of a university study claiming that Galician agricultural productivity is a mere 16 % of the European average. In statements reported in the Galician press, Mr Silva said that the Galician agricultural sector does not receive large quantities of direct aid, because its basic products, namely milk and meat, are subject to a market system rather than subsidy arrangements. What perverse mechanism is therefore responsible for the fact that Community subsidies, especially via the EAGGF guarantee, particularly benefit the richest areas and farming communities, to the detriment of others which, like Galicia, are perfectly capable of developing a multi-purpose agriculture really based on the land?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The Commission can confirm that the agricultural sector in Galicia receives relatively little direct aid because its basic products, milk and meat, are mainly supported via the market out of the pockets of consumers and not in the form of subsidies from the taxpayer.

In other words, it is Community consumers and not taxpayers who support Galician farmers.

The Commission would like to point out that the European Council held in Berlin decided to postpone the start on dairy reform until 2005 but urged the Council of Ministers to conduct a mid-term review in 2003 on the basis of a report from the Commission, with a view to allowing the present supplementary-levy system to lapse after 2008.

The Commission hopes it can count on the support of the Honourable Member when the time finally comes for reforming the dairy sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1585/00

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Finland's horizontal rural development programme

The Finnish Government submitted its proposed horizontal rural development plan to the Commission last October. The programme comprises environmental aid to farmers and LFA support programmes.

Consideration of Finland's proposal still has not been concluded.

As of 26 May, farmers are required to commit themselves to new environmental and LFA programmes for five years, although their content has not even been decided yet. This situation renders farmers' legal position extremely uncertain, as aid under these programmes is expected to amount to nearly half of total aid to farmers.

How many other Member States' corresponding programmes have not yet been processed?

What is the reason for the delays?

Which persons and departments are responsible for the delays?

What will the Commission do to remedy this maladministration?

How will the Commission shoulder its responsibility and restore legal certainty for farmers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The Finnish horizontal rural development plan was foreseen to be presented to the committee on agricultural structures and rural development (STAR committee) on 29 March 2000. However, due to some pending problems of the Finnish action plan under Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources(1) the point was withdrawn to ensure further clarification of the situation. The April 2000 meeting of the STAR committee was partially cancelled as the committee on the development and conversion of regions acted as STAR-Committee dealing only with objective 1 issues. Therefore, the Finnish plan was on the agenda of the STAR-committee on 24 May 2000 where a favourable opinion was given. The final step on the approval procedure will be the Commission decision.

For the programming period of 2000-2006, the Finnish plan is the first European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) funded plan from Member States to be examined by the STAR committee.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1915/00

by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Council

(19 June 2000)

Subject: War in Ethiopia and Eritrea

The crisis in Ethiopia, which the Committee on Development and Humanitarian Aid has been faced with in the last few months in attempting to alleviate the food emergency, has recently been exacerbated by the worsening of the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

In an effort to find a way to mediate, the United Nations Security Council has approved a resolution holding the two nations equally responsible for the warfare, which thus does not take into account the differing degrees of involvement of aggressor and victim, in the case in point Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Can the Council therefore say what the European Union's position is and what initiatives it intends to take:

1. with regard to the search for a peaceful solution to the ongoing conflict in the Horn of Africa,

2. with regard to the steps the representative of the European Union's Presidency with responsibility for the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea intends to take to promote an immediate stop to the conflict,

3. with regard to the practical measures the representative of the European Union's Presidency, in tandem with the Presidency of the OAU, plans to carry out at once to sustain the civilian peoples who are victims of the conflict?

4. Can the Council also report on whether evacuation plans for EU citizens, coordinated between the various Member States, exist?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

On 18 June 2000 the governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea signed an agreement on the cessation of hostilities, proposed by the OAU, which the Feira European Council welcomed in its declaration of 20 June 2000. The Council subsequently adopted, on 29 June 2000, Common Position 2000/420/CFSP concerning EU support for the OAU peace process between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Under that common position, the European Union will support, in particular, the deployment of international observers, the delimitation and demarcation of borders, mine-clearance and efforts to assist refugees and displaced persons.

The Honourable Member's attention is also drawn to the fact that Senator Rino Serri's mandate as the Presidency's special representative for Ethiopia/Eritrea was recently extended for a further six months.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1111/00

by Pernille Frahm (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Advertising campaign for Spanish oranges

In the light of a survey published by the Danish organisation Grøn Information showing that Spanish oranges have an alarmingly high content of poisonous spray residues, will the Commission state why it has chosen to grant EU funding to advertise such oranges and, if the above information from Grøn Information is correct, whether it intends to withdraw its support for the advertising campaign?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the campaign to promote citrus fruit of Community origin is governed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1201/90 of 7 May 1990 on measures to increase the consumption of citrus fruit(1), which inter alia deems fruit and vegetables to be healthy products whose consumption should be encouraged as part of a healthy and balanced diet. Article 2 stipulates that the measures provided for in the Regulation must not refer to any Member State. The purpose of the campaign is therefore to promote consumption of citrus fruit harvested in the Community.

Since it is not aware of surveys which reveal that oranges originating from one of its regions have a high pesticide content, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to send it all reliable information on this matter.

The Commission would also emphasise that oranges marketed in the Community are required to comply with the Community rules on pesticide residues. The Danish authorities are responsible for ensuring compliance with those rules on Danish territory. The Community early warning system for foodstuffs enables the Commission and the Member States to exchange information quickly when high levels of pesticides or other contaminants are detected in food. Over the past six months the Commission has not received any notification from Denmark regarding pesticides in Spanish oranges.

(1) OJ L 119, 11.5.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1098/00

by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(6 April 2000)

Subject: Electronic database on pigs

The Council has decided to introduce an electronic database on pigs in three stages, concluding on 1 January 2003.

The following questions arise in that connection:

- What data will be collected?

- Who will collect the data?

- What are the estimated costs of the database in the final stage of development?

- Who will bear the costs of data collection?

- Will costs be reimbursed if data is collected by pig breeders?

- Who will be given access to the data?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

1. On 10 April 2000 the European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2000/15/EC amending Council Directive 64/432/EEC on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine, to which the Honourable Member refers.

2. That Directive(1), published in Official Journal L 105 of 3 May 2000 (page 34), follows on from the amended Directive 64/432 which already referred to the creation of electronic databases for bovine animals and swine, in order to make available information on animals and their movements.

That Directive included in particular:

- the obligation for those Member States which did not have an approved surveillance network system to provide for an electronic database for swine before 31 December 1999,

- an indication of the data to be gathered,

- an indication of the Commission/Standing Veterinary Committee procedure regarding the treatment of such data.

3. Directive 2000/15/EC does in fact provide for the creation, in three stages, of an electronic database for pigs and lays down the deadlines for the achievement of that objective and the legal framework for the determination of the appropriate implementing arrangements, which are a matter for the Commission.

4. Pending the introduction of those arrangements, it is possible to inform the Honourable Member that:

- the Member States are responsible for collecting data and for the provisions to be implemented in order to comply with the Directive,

- the provisions relating to the first, second and sixth questions will be determined in accordance with the Commission/Standing Veterinary Committee procedure,

- it is difficult to estimate the cost of this measure at this stage, as that will depend on the provisions adopted by individual Member States at national level,

- the arrangements for the defrayal of the costs referred to in the fourth and fifth questions may be examined in the context of the review of certain provisions of Directive 85/73/EEC on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls(2) in accordance with Article 14(8) of Directive 64/432/EEC(3).

(1) OJ L 105, 3.5.2000, p. 34.

(2) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 19.

(3) Directive on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine, as amended by Directive 97/12/EC (OJ L 109, 25.4.1997, p. 1).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1057/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Cyprus

Accession negotiations with Cyprus pose special challenges to the EU.

What is the total amount of finance which has been made available to date so as to aid Cypriot accession? What commitments have been made as to future funding?

What, if any, funds have been made available for projects designed to foster reconciliation between the two communities in Cyprus?

If such funds have been made available, can the Commission give details of the nature and number of such reconciliation projects?

UN Resolution 1283, adopted in 1999, states that links and contacts between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities remain very limited, largely because of the restrictions imposed by the occupying Turkish regime ('the Denktash regime'). Have the Commission or its agents or employees experienced any difficulties in implementing projects designed to foster reconciliation between the two Cypriot communities?

If so, could the Commission give details of these difficulties and state whether they have still to be resolved? In particular, could it state what role the Denktash regime played in blocking or otherwise hindering such reconciliation projects?

Is the Commission aware of any non-EU initiatives aimed at reconciliation between the two Cypriot communities which have been blocked or in any way hindered by the Denktash regime?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that enlargement negotiations with Cyprus raise special challenges for the Union. However, the Commission hopes that the opportunity of Union membership for Cyprus may be the catalyst in the proximity talks currently underway within the auspices of the United Nations.

Cyprus has benefited over the years from four financial protocols covering grants, risk capital and European Investment Bank (EIB) loans. The fourth of these protocols ( 74 million, consisting of 50 million in EIB loans, 22 million in grants and 2 million in risk capital) came to an end on 31 December 1999. One of the projects financed under this protocol is for a translation of the Community acquis into Turkish.

For the future, the total funds which have been made available for Cyprus for the period 2000-2004 fall within the terms of the new financial regulation, adopted by the Council on 13 March 2000(1). This regulation now forms the legal basis for the accession partnership with Cyprus. 57 million is earmarked for the island over the period, with 9 million to be committed for the year 2000. 6 million of this will be for harmonization projects within the pre-accession strategy with the remaining 3 million being reserved for bi-communal projects.

For the new financial regulation and following the recent visit to Cyprus of the commissioner responsible for enlargement, the Commission is now studying projects aimed at bringing the two communities together. This work is currently at the pre-programming stage.

(1) OJ L 68, 16.3.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1428/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: The nature of the Commission's role as guardian of the Treaties

Can the Commission indicate whether its role as guardian of the Treaties is a legal or political one, and whether in either case it believes that it is in the interests of the Commission and of the European Union for all violations of the Treaty to be addressed as long as that role is maintained?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1422/00 and E-1428/00 given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Honourable Member rightly refers to Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty and to the role of the Commission as guardian of the treaties which indeed constitutes one of its core tasks.

According to well-established case law of the Court of justice, the Commission is not bound to commence the proceedings provided for in that provision but in this regard has a discretion(1); the Commission alone is competent to decide whether it is appropriate to bring proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations and to determine the conduct or omission attributable to the Member State on the basis of which those proceedings should be brought(2). Indeed, without having such a margin of discretion the Commission could not fulfil efficiently its role as guardian of the Treaties. It should also be noted that a comparable margin of discretion is generally granted to national authorities having the task of prosecuting violations of the law in the public interest.

When exercising its discretion the Commission has to take into consideration a wide range of aspects, including the gravity of the infringement, its significance or its aptitude as a model case, as well as the Commission's resources. After careful consideration of all circumstances, the Commission may in a given case decide to give less priority to commencing infringement proceedings in a matter involving exclusively a problematic application, in an isolated case, of national rules that are as such compatible with Community law. It also needs to be taken into account that in such individual cases national courts might provide more advantageous remedies than infringement proceedings, given that such a proceedings could last longer and do not allow illegal measures to be quashed, or judicial injunctions to be issued against the administration or compensation for damages to be granted. This does not prejudice by any means the paramount importance, stressed repeatedly by the Commission, of individual complaints for detecting violations of Community law. The Commission's concern is merely to ensure that the most important infringement cases continue to be treated quickly and efficiently in the future.

It is to these considerations that the remarks of the Director-general of the Commission Legal service, mentioned by the Honourable Member, are related.

(1) Case 247/87 Star Fruit Company v. Commission [1989] ECR 291, point 11.

(2) Case C-431/92 Commission v. Germany [1995] ECR I-2189, point 22.