ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0021/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Twelfth extraordinary meeting of the ICCAT

With due respect for the right of Member States to enjoy dual representation within regional fisheries organisations both as Member States of the European Community and as contracting parties to the relevant regional fisheries organisation representing particular overseas territories, it was nevertheless apparent that, at the twelfth extraordinary meeting of the ICCAT held in Marrakech from 13 to 20 November 2000, members of the United Kingdom delegation were taking part simultaneously in Community co-ordination meetings and meetings of the ICCAT contracting parties, representing Bermuda. This dual role enabled the United Kingdom representative to take part in internal meetings to coordinate Community interests, while at the same time defending positions opposed to EU interests on behalf of Bermuda.

In the light of this situation, what measures has the Commission taken, or will it take, to prevent such occurencies at future meetings of the ICCAT or other regional fisheries organisations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

The question of how to represent the specific interests of the overseas territories of certain Member States was the subject of a separate declaration attached to the European Union Treaty.

This declaration stipulates that there should not be any divergence between the interests of the Union and those of overseas countries or territories unless there are exceptional circumstances. In such circumstances, the Council should endeavour to find a solution which corresponds to the Union's position. However in cases where this proves impossible, it has been agreed that the Member State concerned could act separately in the interests of such countries or territories provided that this does not undermine the interests of the Community.

The Member State must inform the Council and the Commission when such a conflict of interests is likely to come about and, if separate action is unavoidable, it should indicate clearly that it is acting in the interest of such a territory mentioned above.

The coordination of the opposing positions should take place within the appropriate Council bodies, the coordination meetings sometimes being held alongside sessions of regional fisheries organisations. The Member States are responsible for the composition of their delegation within the Council bodies under the responsibility of the Presidency. The Commission has, according to its role as guardian of the Treaty, a duty to verify that the Member States correctly inform it, as well as the Council, of the positions they intend to present on behalf of their overseas territories.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0102/01

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Choice of key period for transition to euro

On 11 October 2000 the Commission adopted a recommendation on measures to facilitate the preparation of economic operators for the changeover to the euro. One of the proposals set out in this communication is that these operators should be encouraged to start gaining experience in using the euro as of the third quarter of 2001.

This key period, from June to September, also happens to be the period during which most people, including the staff of the Community institutions, take their annual holiday. It therefore seems rather unlikely that the social partners, economic operators and European citizens will take heed of such a proposal.

1. Why was the third quarter of 2001 chosen as a key period in the changeover to the euro?

2. In recommending that bank accounts be converted into euro during the third quarter of 2001, when most European citizens are on holiday, does the Commission not fear it will cause unnecessary confusion?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The third quarter of 2001 was selected for two reasons: to accustom the economic actors to handling the euro over a period which will be sufficiently long for them to become familiar with it; to stagger and have more control over changeover operations by not having them coincide with the actual introduction of coins and notes (frontloading will be spread over September to December 2001).

Conversion of accounts into euros will be accompanied by a large-scale information and communication campaign targeted at the banks in order to prevent confusion and to ensure complete transparency of the operation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0095/01 by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Crisis-intervention in sovereign states.



Official Journal 235 E , 21/08/2001 P. 0116 - 0117



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0095/01 by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Council (1 February 2001) Subject: Crisis-intervention in sovereign states What is the EU's position on crisis-intervention in sovereign states? Does such intervention require a request from the state where the intervention is to take place, or is it possible for the EU to intervene when EU values and/or interests are at stake, irrespective of the will of the state concerned? Reply (14 May 2001) Since the beginning of the process of development of ESDP, the European Council has consistently confirmed that the Union's actions in the field of crisis management will be decided in conformity with the principles of the United Charter, the OSCE Charter and the Helsinki Final Act. The European Union recognises the primary responsibility of the United Nations Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0138/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Timeliness of economic statistics

Given the long delays before several Member States publish quarterly estimates of their national accounts see the answer of 22 December to Written Question E-3426/00(1) what proportion of EU and euro-area GDP is generally taken into account when Eurostat publishes its first estimates of GDP growth in a quarter?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

Eurostat calculates the first estimates of quarterly gross domestic product (GDP) for the euro zone and the 15 Member States three times per quarter in accordance with the following schedule:

- an initial estimate covering at least 75 % of GDP is made within 70 days after the end of the reference quarter;

- a second estimate covering 90 % is made after 100 days;

- a third estimate covering 95 % is made after 120 days.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0325/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Lorry rear-view mirrors

Many road accidents, some of them fatal, are caused by the fact that lorry drivers cannot see enough in the rear view mirrors fitted to their vehicles and large areas are invisible to them. This risk could be removed by better provision of mirrors on lorries, which would save countless lives.

Is the Commission planning any amendment to this effect to the provisions which require lorry manufacturers to fit appropriate mirrors to vehicles at the production stage?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-3672/00 by Mr Staes(1).

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 199.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0079/01

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

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Zero-deficit Spanish national budget for 2001 and respect for the principle of additionality in implementing the Structural Funds

The Spanish national government has submitted to the national parliament, obtaining its approval, a balanced budget for 2001 based on a zero deficit, justifying its decision on internal economic grounds but also invoking the need to comply with the Community agreements on financial stability. This decision of the Spanish government occurs in highly particular circumstances. For some years now the Spanish government has been cutting the real wages of public employees, by the device of limiting pay rises to predicted inflation levels (which always fall short of the reality), while also reducing both investment in badly needed transport infrastructure and expenditure on R & D (not to mention cuts in other key areas). At the same time, however, it is raising tax levels to twice the European figures. From the EU perspective, it is surely particularly disturbing and unacceptable that a state which, every year, receives exceptional payments under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds should use those funds for the purpose of balancing its budget and achieving a zero deficit, while at the same time cutting back on investment funded from its own coffers, thus manifestly failing to comply with the governing principle of additionality which prevails within the EU. In view of its responsibility for monitoring compliance with the Community rules on the implementation of Community funds, can the Commission state its position on this attitude of the Spanish central government? Has the Commission taken any initiative to ascertain whether this zero-deficit budget of the Spanish state for 2001 has been drawn up and adopted on the basis of a relative reduction in the national funding which should be earmarked for investment cofinanced by the EU, in breach of the principle of additionality?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

According to the information forwarded to the Commission by the Spanish authorities, they have in the past fulfilled all their obligations as regards additionality imposed under the Structural Funds.

During the 2000-2006 programming period, Spain intends to increase structural expenditure by an average annual of 9,6 % in the case of Objective 1 and 17,4 % in that of Objectives 2 and 3.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0625/01

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 February 2001)

Subject: Environmental pollution in the towns of Barletta, Andria and Trani

The Ciappetta-Camaggio canal, which begins in Murgia, upstream from the town of Andria, flows into the sea between Barletta and Trani, at a place known as Ariscianne.

This canal has always represented a serious environmental problem, because of the high risk of pollution it poses to both the sea and the ecosystem.

According to local information and reports in the press, the situation has recently deteriorated still further.

Highly pollutant materials, such as burnt tyres, waste from illicit slaughterhouses or sewage from gully suckers, have been systematically dumped into the canal near the district of S. Lucia.

There are also illegal waste outlets into the canal as well as illegal water collection to irrigate surrounding fields.

Reports on the problem have been drawn up by members of the Nucleo di Vigilanza Ittico-Faunistico-Ambientale (an environmental watchdog group), pointing to the existence of a highly pollutant whitish scum, something which is particularly serious in view of the proximity of the stretch of sea concerned to the beach resorts of Barletta.

Will the Commission say what kind of controls should be introduced for the waters of the Ciapetta-Camaggio canal and how the bodies responsible can be prevailed upon to perform such controls properly so as to identify those causing the pollution?

Answer given by Mr Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

The problem seems in the first place to be one of urban waste water collection and treatment, resulting from a failure to implement correctly Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment(1). This Directive obliges Member States to install waste water collection and treatment, with secondary treatment, i.e. biological treatment, unless further treatment (such as nutrient removal and/or disinfection by ultra violet (UV) or ozone) is required to comply with other directives such as the Bathing Water Quality Directive(2).

Information provided by the Italian authorities under the Bathing Water Directive does indicate that bathing waters in Barletta comply with the more stringent (guide) values of the Directive.

It is for the Member States to decide, under the subsidiarity principle, which authority is responsible for the controls and the implementation of the measures to comply with the above Directives.

If it is considered that European legislation is breached, appeal should be made in the first instance to the national legal courts. Only if all legal means at national level have been exhausted, can appeal be made to the Commission.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (OJ L 31, 5.2.1976).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0309/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Early retirement from farming

On 27 September 2000, a new programme for early retirement from farming was approved, under Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999(1) on rural development. Can the Commission provide information on how the measures for early retirement from farming are progressing in Greece? What use has been made of the measure? What are the expectations for this period?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The early-retirement programme implemented in Greece under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2079/92 of 30 June 1992 instituting a Community aid scheme for early retirement from farming(1) enabled 25 000 farmers over 55 to cease working in agriculture and an equivalent number of new entrants to set up in farming.

The new rural development plan approved by the Commission on 27 September 2000 under Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations provides, in particular, with regard to the early-retirement scheme:

- payments against previous budget commitments, and for this purpose a figure of 626,8 million in total public expenditure has been included in the financing schedule annexed to the Commission Decision of 27 September 2000;

- progressive inclusion of new beneficiaries up to 2006, when numbers should reach the estimated target of 45 000 to 50 000 persons. To this end, a figure of 509 million in total public expenditure has been included in the financing schedule annexed to the Commission Decision of 27 September 2000.

This means that payments will continue to those already receiving them under the previous scheme. As for the new beneficiaries in 2000-2006, according to all available information the Greek authorities have just finalised the national implementing provisions and the scheme will start up very soon.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/01

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Possible EU measures to support agriculture during the BSE crisis

The BSE crisis is the cause of the sharp fall in demand for beef products of all kinds. This has further exacerbated the critical situation of farmers' incomes and some farms are in danger of going under.

The same applies to slaughterhouses.

1. In response to EU requirements, Germany is to test for BSE in all female animals over 30 months old which are covered by the EU purchase-for-destruction scheme. Does the Commission see any possibility of taking meat that tests negative into intervention?

2. It would not seem possible to comply with the requests of the Federal Institute of Agriculture and Food to take bulls into intervention. Does the Commission see any possibility of placing greater emphasis on whether the meat is fit for consumption as a criterion for being taken into intervention? Can intervention be opened for bulls over 24 months, at least temporarily?

3. Does the Commission see any possibility of raising the slaughter premium for calves of between 1 and 7 months weighing less than 159,6 kg from the current DEM 65 to the level paid for adult cattle (DEM 129)?

4. Is it possible to pay bull-fatteners a premium equal to the special premium for male cattle for unoccupied fattening places (extensification) in order to relieve pressure on the market?

5. What is the Commission doing to shed light on the emergence and transmission of BSE? Is it participating in the development of tests on live animals? Is there a timetable?

6. The end of animal-and-bone meal has led to a rise in demand for vegetable protein. Can exceptional arrangements be made for 2001 whereby farmers may grow protein crops on their own set-aside land for their own use on a scale equivalent to the farm's average annual animal production?

7. Owing to the suspension of slaughtering, it is possible that the density coefficient of 2,0 LU/ha cannot be met. How will that be taken into account in terms of the volume of animal premiums and the extensification premiums under the agricultural programmes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0177/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Fleet renewal and overcapacity

The OECD estimates that 1,3 billion was spent in 1997 to subsidise the European fisheries sector. A large proportion of this was used for fleet renewal and modernisation. Considering the large overcapacity of the EU fleet, does the Commission consider that this was money well spent and what safeguards are in place to make sure that the funds are not used to fuel overcapacity?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0177/01 and E-0208/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2001)

According to OECD estimations, only 10 % of EU public subsidies to the fisheries sector were applied in 1997 to fleet renewal and modernisation. For the 1994-1999 FIFG (Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance) period, public money (Community and Member States) spent on renewal and modernisation of the fleet was 593 million, or about 22 % of the total public aid given to the sector during this period. In contrast, 894 million (33,5 % of total public aid) were allocated to financing fishing vessel decommissioning schemes with the aim of reducing over-capacity. One of the main objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is to adjust fisheries resources to fleet capacity, as well as to provide a sustainable and profitable fisheries industry. Community rules are in place to prevent the allocation of aid for new vessels or modernisation if a Member State has not achieved the target for capacity reduction set in the Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes for fleet restructuring.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0267/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: URBAN II Programme

What is the Commission's timetable for the assessment of bids under the new URBAN II Programme?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

In the Communication from the Commission laying down guidelines for the URBAN II Community Initiative(1), Member States were invited to present their proposals for URBAN II programmes within six months after its publication, i.e. before 20 November 2000.

Programme proposals have been received from mid-November onwards to reach a total today of 36. Of these, 28 have been declared admissible by the Commission while the remaining eight have necessitated further work on the part of the national authorities. Those that have been judged admissable are currently being examined in depth by the Commission in the light of the requirements of the Structural Funds regulation and the URBAN II guidelines. In principle the Commission has to take a decision within five months of receipt of the admissible proposal.

It is expected that a first set of programmes will be approved before July 2001.

(1) OJ C 141, 19.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0136/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: EU Advisory Committee on Wine

1. Will the Commission indicate the membership by category and by Member State of the EU's Advisory Committee on Wine for each of the last five years?

2. What is the method of selection and appointment to this Committee, and what are its precise powers and functions?

3. Why is it that the wine producers of some Member States (like the United Kingdom) are not represented on the Committee but must nevertheless abide by EU legislation governing vineyard and winery operations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

Since the reform of the agricultural advisory committees under Commission Decision 98/235/EC of 11 March 1998 on the advisory committees dealing with matters covered by the common agricultural policy(1), the Advisory Committee on Wine has been designated as the advisory Standing Group on Wine-Growing. The list of members was published in the Official Journal(2). An update has been published twice in the Official Journals(3) to take account of resignations, etc. The list of members by sector and nationality is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Under Commission Decision 98/235/EC on the agricultural advisory committees, members are appointed by the Commission on the basis of proposals from the socio-economic organisations established at Community level (Article 4 (1)). The advisory committees serve as a forum for the exchange of information and advice between the Commission and the Community socio-economic sector. They are purely consultative. Under Article 1 (paragraphs 2 and 3), the advisory committees may be consulted by the Commission on all matters relating to the Common Agricultural Policy and the policy of rural development and its implementation . The Chairman of each committee may propose on his own initiative or at the request of any of the interest groups represented that the Commission consult his committee on any matter within its competence.

Members are appointed, as mentioned above, on the basis of proposals from the Community socio-economic organisations. Members therefore are deemed to represent their Community level organisations, not their Member State.

(1) OJ L 88, 24.3.1998.

(2) OJ C 370, 30.11.1998.

(3) OJ C 122, 4.5.1999 and OJ C 123, 3.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0324/01

by Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (PSE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Information on the volume of EU funding flowing to Berlin in 1999 and 2000

Via which projects and Funds, and in what amounts, did Community funds flow to Berlin in 1999 and 2000 (separate figures please):

1. from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF),

2. from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guidance and Guarantee Section,

3. from the European Social Fund (ESF),

4. from the Community's research programmes,

5. from the Community's energy programmes,

6. from the Community's environmental programmes,

7. from the Community's transport programme,

8. from the Community's education and youth programmes,

9. from the Community's health programmes,

10. from the Community's social programmes,

11. from the programmes for NGOs,

12. from the cultural programmes,

13. from the programmes for cooperation with third countries (CEEC, CIS),

14. from the town-twinning programmes,

15. from other Community programmes?

How successful in the view of the EU, have the measures been?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.