ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0679/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Car prices in Ireland and the future legal framework of car distribution

Bearing in mind the relatively high prices of cars in Ireland for general consumers compared to other members of the Euro zone, will the Commission state when it intends to take its decision regarding the future legal framework of car distribution, comment on what the rationale behind the prospective decision, and comment on what effect the decision could have on car prices in Ireland and on competition in the car sector in that country?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

The current block exemption regulation concerning car distribution(1) provides, in Article 11, that the Commission regularly evaluates the application of the regulation, with particular regard to price differentials between the different Member States and on the quality of service to final users. To this end, the Commission has, since 1993, monitored car price differences in the Community in its bi-annual report on car prices. Article 11 of the regulation also requires the Commission to draw up a report on the evaluation of the regulation before 31 December 2000.

In contrast to what has been observed by the Honourable Member, the Commission's regular reports on car prices have not revealed that car prices before tax in Ireland are particularly high in comparison with other Member States, and in particular with the United Kingdom(2). In this respect, the Commission has found that in Member States with a high taxation on car purchase, such as Ireland, prices before tax are relatively low. With regard to prices after tax, it has to be noted that taxation on car purchase has remained an issue on which the Member States decide, as they have so far excluded this issue from Community actions concerning tax harmonization in the internal market.

As far as the query of the Honourable Member about the future legal framework for car distribution is concerned, the decision is still open. The Commission is currently preparing a report on the evaluation of the regulation, which is expected to provide more evidence on the causes of price differentials and on the impact of the exempted distribution system on car prices. The impact of this regulation on consumers will be one of the key elements in the evaluation. This report will however provide an essential basis for the forthcoming discussion about the future legal framework for car distribution, after expiry of the current regulation on 30 September 2002.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.

(2) See for example the most recent press release IP/00/121 of 7 February 2000 on the Report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0827/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: EUR 2 million reduction in the Poseima programme

In his answer to question E-2403/99(1) on the EUR 2 million cutback in the Poseima programme under budget heading B1-321 Commissioner Fischler said that the proposed reduction is merely the result of taking into account, in the estimates, the actual percentage of take-up of the budgetary allocation over the last few years. However, according to figures for 1998/1999 this does not appear to be the case.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. What actual amounts for the implementation of the Poseima programme were taken up overall by the Autonomous Region of the Azores and the Autonomous Region of Madeira in 1998 and 1999?

2. Whether it intends to revise its position for the 2001 budget?

3. What actual amounts and were used in implementing the Poseidom and Poseidom programmes?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 125.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission can confirm the answer already given to Written Question E-2403/99 by Ms Figueiredo(1).

Although the appropriations for 2000 were established before the end of 1999, it must be stressed that, while the overall expenditure of the Poseima programme in 2000 ( 40,5 million) corresponded to the appropriations allocated ( 40 million), this was due solely to the increase for other measures, which are, in any case, extremely volatile. In fact implementation of the supply balances stood at 81 %.

1. Implementation of the Poseima programme in 1998 and 1999 was respectively 73 % and 81 % for the supply balances and 84 % and 131 % for the other measures. Average percentages over the last five years are 71 % for the supply balances and 89 % for the other measures.

2. In its estimates for the establishment of the 2001 budget, the Commission will take account, as in the past, of the most recent outturns available, thus including 1999.

3. Average implementation of Poseidom and Poseican programmes, over the last five years were:

a) Poseidom: supply 70 % other measures 69 % total 70 %

b) Poseican: supply 98 % other measures 61 % total 86 %.

These outturns (actual expenditure as a percentage of the appropriations provided) are based on budgetary data. Detailed quantitative data and data for each measure will be presented soon in the Commission Reports to the Council and to Parliament on the implementation of these programmes.

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 125.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1176/00

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Nationality of key officials dealing with postal service liberalisation

Can the Commission confirm that:

- the new director in charge of postal services in the internal market is Dutch;

- the Commissioner's special adviser for postal affairs is Dutch;

- the chef de Cabinet of the Commissioner responsible for postal services liberalisation is Dutch;

- the responsible Commissioner is Dutch;

- the Dutch post office is the post office in Europe that most actively supports full liberalisation?

Does the Commission agree that public perceptions of this situation could undermine the credibility of its internal reform and in particular the de-flagging of posts and policy sectors?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The answer to the Honourable Member's questions is yes. In addition to this, it is worth mentioning that out of the team of six dealing with postal issues in the Directorate general for the internal market, two are French, one is German, one is British, one is Portuguese and the head of unit is Spanish. Furthermore, the deputy director general of the Directorate general for the internal market is Austrian and the director general British. Moreover, it should be noted that the Commission is in contact with all national regulators and with postal operators in various Member States.

Finally as regards the policy of de-flagging of posts, the answer given above tends to show that there is no particular problem in this respect.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0670/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Borage honey and the 1976 honey regulations

Honey produced from the borage plant (borage honey) naturally contains a higher level of sucrose than the 5 % limit stipulated by the 1976 honey regulations. However, the Local Authority on Trading Standards in the UK has advised Trading Standards (UK) to accept the sucrose level in borage honey, following detailed analytical work by the European Federation of Honey Importers, Packers and Distributors (which liases closely with the European Commission).

Will the Commission accept that borage honey naturally contains a high level of sucrose and therefore ought to be exempt from the current regulations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

In 1996, the Commission presented a proposal to the Council to simplify the Directive relating to honey(1). In Annex II of this proposal were included certain new criteria concerning apparent sucrose content.

In February 2000 during its last meeting, the Food and agriculture organisation (FAO) codex committee on sugars agreed a draft revised standard for honey. The new text of that draft revised standard includes sucrose content for Borage (Borago officinalis) honey of not more than 15 g/100 g. It seems probable that the next meetings of experts in the Council on the proposal relating to honey will take into account the conclusions of the codex committee.

(1) OJ C 231, 9.8.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1094/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Cotton-growing in Greece

Under the Agricultural and Home Affairs Ministries' Interministerial Decision No 38570/10.2.2000, the Greek State has designated cotton-growing as controlled cultivation and has imposed conditions on cotton producers. In practice, however, these have the effect of preventing cotton-growing for a large proportion of those concerned. Thus, for example, long-standing producers wishing to increase production above their average over the last three years may not do so, while new producers who wish to start growing may do so only if they have inherited the farming land.

Could the Commission say whether it is aware of this situation, whether it considers that these arrangements and others contained in the above-mentioned Greek interministerial decision are consistent with Community legislation and, if not, what action it intends to take to remedy the situation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

The Commission, recently informed of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers, has asked the Greek authorities for the texts covering the Decision, and thus cannot comment at this stage.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0733/00

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Subject: Italian decree concerning the dairy sector

The Italian Government has issued Decree No 8 of 4 February 2000 concerning, inter alia, the temporary regulation of the dairy sector. Paragraph 5 states that in the event of the purchaser failing to pay the additional levy the regional and provincial authorities shall forcibly collect it even from the producer, whether or not the latter is entitled to reimbursement from an insolvent purchaser or one who fails to fulfil his obligations.

This provision is surprising as it stands, unbelievable if it refers to the purchaser of milk as defined in Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92(1), and blatantly distorts the gist of the contents and recitals of the Regulation.

Can the Commission say:

1. what it thinks of the rules already introduced in Italy by virtue of the above-mentioned decree;

2. whether the concept of the purchaser as the sole and central instrument for the management and collection of the levy remains valid in Italy following this decree;

3. whether the Italian provision does not constitute a dangerous precedent for the implementation of the whole Community system;

4. whether, in view of this provision, producers should refuse to be subjected to the levy in order to safeguard themselves and their businesses from the probability of a compulsory twofold levy;

5. whether the provision introduced by the Italian authorities might not induce unscrupulous purchasers to avoid paying the levy, with impunity, appropriating the producer's funds for long periods of time pending the outcome of endless legal proceedings typical of Italy.

(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

The Decree of 4 February 2000 cited by the Honourable Member was received by the Commission only recently.

The text of the Decree is currently being translated and scrutinised by the relevant department.

As soon as this review is finished, the Commission will be in a position to answer the Honourable Member's questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0903/00

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) and Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Council

(24 March 2000)

Subject: Steep rise in drug abuse among European schoolchildren

According to the annual report of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the use of cannabis among European schoolchildren has risen very sharply: about one third of pupils in secondary education in France, 25 % of thirteen year-olds in the United Kingdom and 69 % of young people who go to techno music parties in Germany have experimented with the drug; there has also been an increase in the use of the synthetic drugs Ecstasy and LSD, since young people associate these drugs with having fun. The report also states that Albania has become a major producer of cannabis which is channelled mainly through Greece, Italy and Slovenia; furthermore, the provision of information about the cultivation of the plant and its derivatives through the Internet has led to a sharp increase in domestic production of drugs. Will the Council say whether it knows which factors are responsible for the dramatic increase in the use of cannabis and what steps have been taken to harmonise legislation and the position of the European Union on the use of various narcotic substances?

Reply

(10 July 2000)

In the EU Drugs Strategy for 2000-2004 that has been endorsed by the meeting of the European Council of Helsinki it is affirmed that cannabis is still the most commonly used illicit drug.

In this strategy, that is now being transposed into an action plan, specific importance is given to demand reduction. EU action as regards demand reduction is conform to Guiding Principles and the Plan on demand reduction adopted in 1999 in the framework of the United Nations. EU Actions cover all areas of prevention. Addiction prevention strategies should be an integral part of community health policies. These strategies should particularly focus on children and young people. Preventive measures should also be developed for drug use in prisons and alternative measures to imprisonment.

All these principles are being transposed into concrete actions on which the Parliament will be informed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1041/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Financial aid for the French oil industry

In her answer to Question E-0218/00(1), Mrs de Palacio states that, since 1975, the Commission has provided aid to France totalling 270,49 million.

Can the Commission give a breakdown of this figure by year and by undertaking subsidised in France?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 104.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1040/00, E-1041/00 and E-1042/00 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

Since 1975, the Community has run programmes to give financial support to innovative technology for exploration, production and transport of hydrocarbons. In reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0218/00(1), the Commission provided a breakdown of this support by year and by Member State. As regards the request for a detailed breakdown by company, the Commission can provide data for the period 1990-1998. This information is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. It should be noted, however, that the attribution of the support to certain Member States could be somewhat misleading, as contracts in addition to the main contractor often involve several participants from different Member States.

With regard to the data requested for the period 1975-1990, it should be noted that a reply to the Honourable Member's questions would, due to lack of electronic support for data at that time, require a lengthy and difficult research which the Commission is not in a position to undertake.

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 104.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0319/00

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Environmental pollution and health

Considering the close relationship between environmental pollution and public health, how does the Commission see coordination between these two areas developing?

For instance, is the Commission satisfied that the Commission for the Environment still retains control of releases of genetically modified organisms?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

The link between environmental problems and public health has been and remains a strong factor in both Community environment and public health policies.

The two services involved are each in the process of preparing medium and longer range policy plan proposals to be adopted by the Commission later this year. Directorate general Environment is preparing a proposal for the sixth environment action programme. Directorate general Health and consumer protection is preparing a Community strategy in the field of public health, including action programmes in the field of Environment and health. In the preparatory work of these environmental and public health policy programmes, both services are particularly concerned that inter-service discussion and co-ordination safeguards the link between environment and health.

The existing regulatory framework in relation to genetically modified organisms aims to ensure protection of human health and the environment. It is founded on Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)(1) and Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms(3), as amended by Council Directive 98/81/EEC of 26 October 1998(2).

Other aspects of GMOs, such as novel food, fall under the responsibility of the member of the Commission responsible for health and consumer protection, with whom there is a continuing and close collaboration. The Commission continues to ensure that these aspects are correctly co-ordinated among the services involved.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.

(2) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

(3) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1139/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

The Authority and the Commission have to work closely together (section 56 ff.). By operating in close proximity to the Commission the Authority will remain well-informed and able to take due account of the needs of the Commission's services.

Given the need for close cooperation and a smooth exchange of information, will the Authority be located in the vicinity of the Commission? If not, is not the location of the Authority an obstacle to close cooperation and the smooth exchange of information with the Commission, as stated in the White Paper?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1121/00, E-1124/00, E-1126/00, E-1129/00, E-1130/00, E-1131/00, E-1132/00, E-1135/00, E-1136/00, E-1137/00, E-1138/00 and E-1139/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

In the White Paper on Food Safety(1), the Commission set out the general guidelines it intends to adopt concerning the future establishment of the European Food Authority and invited all the parties concerned to respond and contribute to the discussion during the consultation period. Regarding many of the points raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to finalise its proposals or fix the details of operational mechanisms until it has had an opportunity to consider the opinions expressed during the consultation procedure.

However, with regard to the question of responsibilities, the White Paper states that risk assessment, the gathering of data and providing information to consumers in areas for which the Authority is responsible should be a matter for that Authority. For legal reasons and reasons of democratic responsibility, the Commission believes that, under the current framework, the transfer of regulatory powers to an independent authority cannot be justified. However, any future extension of the Authority's powers would have to be considered in the light of the Commission's assessment of the Authority's performance and the degree of confidence that it has generated without ruling out a possible need to amend the Treaty.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1043/00

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

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Infringements in connection with Project 97/11/561/047 (Sogama project) financed under the Cohesion Fund

In his answer on behalf of the Commission to my Written Question E-1737/99(1) on the solid waste management project in Galicia (Sogama), Mr Barnier did not reply to the specific points made in my question in relation to the project's design, which criticised the fact that the project was basically geared to incineration with energy recovery, to which most of the investment had been allocated, rather than to minimising, re-using and recycling waste. Consequently, attention still needs to be drawn to a number of aspects in addition to demanding that the conditions laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94(2) establishing a Cohesion Fund are met and hoping that the condition mentioned by Mr Barnier in his answer, i.e. that payments will be made subject to the presentation by those responsible for the project of periodical reports on overall progress, will indeed be put into practice.

The following should be taken into consideration:

- the Sogama project clearly fails to comply with Community legislation, in particular Council Directive 75/442/EEC(3) of 15 July 1975 on waste, Article 3(1) of which commits the Member States to encouraging the prevention, recycling and processing of waste and mentions the production of energy, which is nevertheless at the centre of the Sogama project, only in second place and as a possibility. Indeed, that project (Project 97/11/561/047) does not comply with its own description as contained in the decision granting financial support under the Cohesion Fund.

- finally, the project runs counter to the new Spanish legislation and specifically the National Plan on Solid Urban Waste, which accepts the objectives of the above Council Directive and places the emphasis on the principles of recovering, reducing and recycling organic waste by means of processing. The Galician regional government is manifestly failing to meet those objectives, given that the Sogama project is chiefly geared to incineration and the volume of waste incinerated in Galicia is set to reach 300 000 tonnes in 2001 and 500 000 in 2005.

Is the Commission aware that the Sogama project involves the incineration rather than the recycling of organic waste? Can it confirm the project's evident failure to comply with basic Community legislation on environmental protection in connection with waste? What are the Commission's plans as regards the requirement that periodical progress reports be submitted as announced in the Commissioner's reply?

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 86.

(2) OJ L 130, 25.4.1994, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions E-0784/00 and E-0818/00 by Mrs Miguélez Ramos(1).

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 42.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2491/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Prison conditions in Italy

What is the Commission's view of the human rights situation in Italian prisons?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

The Commission regrets that it does not have sufficient information to be able to answer the question.