ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1359/00

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Grouping together of Ceuta and Melilla in the Eurostat index for the purposes of Objective 1

All regions with less than 75 % of Community GDP may be considered eligible for Objective 1. In calculating the figures which determine whether a region qualifies for such status, the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla are generally grouped together as if they were a single economic, geographical or administrative unit.

In fact, these two cities in North Africa do not constitute a unit in any of the above senses, and it does not appear logical that they should be listed together in the context of the 75 % limit and included as such in Objective 1.

Does the Commission take the view that the GDP of each of these Spanish cities should be listed separately with a view to their inclusion among the Community regions eligible for assistance under Objective 1?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) stipulates that the regions covered by Objective 1 shall be level II regions of the Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units (NUTS II) with a per capita gross domestic product (GDP), measured in purchasing power parities and calculated on the basis of Community figures for the last three years available on 26 March 1999, which is less than 75 % of the Community average.

Ceuta and Melilla form a single NUTS II region with a per capita GDP (using the figures mentioned in the said Article 3) of 71,4 % of the Community average, and on that ground have Objective 1 eligibility for the period 2000-2006.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0755/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Transportation of horses from Lithuania to Italy

It has been brought to my attention that horses transported between Lithuania and Italy are suffering unnecessarily as a consequence of the appalling conditions they are subjected to in transit.

Does the Commission intend to raise this matter with the Italian and Lithuanian governments?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

The Commission is aware of the suffering of imported horses originating from Central and Eastern European countries as a consequence of the conditions to which they are subject in transit.

Problems also still exist in relation to the insufficient enforcement of Council Directive 91/628/EC as amended on the protection of animals during transport(1) at some Italian border inspection posts.

Several veterinary inspection missions of the Commission's Food and veterinary office (FVO) have been carried out at the Italian border inspection posts. Following the missions, detailed recommendations were submitted to the Italian authorities. The Italian authorities have planned arrangements to improve the conditions for the animals and another FVO mission is foreseen in the near future to verify these arrangements.

In a recent note from the Italian authority the need for a resting period of 24 hours for imported horses that have travelled for more than 24 hours was drawn to the attention of the official veterinarians working at the border inspection posts.

The Commission is nevertheless reviewing the matter with a view to possibly opening Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty infringement proceedings against Italy.

In addition, the Commission believes that to achieve a widespread improvement in animal welfare standards it is necessary both to improve the enforcement of existing welfare legislation and to work towards an international consensus on this issue.

In this framework the Commission has started the procedure to negotiate the participation of the Community in the revised European Convention for the protection of animals during international transport (ETS-65). This will help to ensure an acceptable level of animal welfare protection in Europe and accelerate the process of harmonisation of legislation on animal protection in the candidate countries. Furthermore the issue of long distance transport and in particular the importation of horses in the Community from Central and Eastern countries was discussed and analysed at the 7th meeting of the working group of chief veterinary officers of the associated countries which was held in Lisbon on 11-14 April 2000.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1881/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Price of fuel in Spain

There have been six consecutive rises in fuel prices in Spain in the space of a month. The latest rise is all the more surprising when we see that all the major oil companies operating in the sector are maintaining prices which, as the Commissioner Mrs Loyola de Palacio has pointed out, amazingly coincide.

Leaving this coincidence aside, what steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take in this context? Does it believe that competition in this sector is being distorted?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2000)

The fact that the major oil companies operating in the Spanish market are charging similar retail prices does not, in itself, necessarily mean that distributors have formed cartels or that competition is being distorted. It is true, as the Honourable Member points out, that parallel pricing could be the result of concerted practices or agreements between operators with the object or effect of distorting competition.

That said, the Commission does not at present have any evidence to suggest any agreement or coordinated policy among the distribution companies. Furthermore, it has learned that the Spanish authorities are currently carrying out an inquiry into the matter. The Commission assures the Honourable Member that it will continue to monitor compliance with Community competition law in the sector, and that it does not rule out taking action if there prove to be issues with a Community dimension.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1275/00

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

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Spanish Government holding back 12 % of the additional milk quota for Galicia

The Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Mr Jesus Posada, recently announced in Santiago de Compostela that the central administration was going to hold back 12 % of the 207 000 tonnes of the additional milk quota for Galicia, which should be being allocated in full in April, explaining that this step was necessary in order to deal with possible claims or unexpected developments.

Does the Spanish Government actually have the power to take such a decision? Will the Commission ensure that the Spanish Government respects the granting of the additional milk quota to the farmers of Galicia, who actually require a substantial increase in their permitted production levels?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 2000)

The allocation of the individual reference quantities, and in particular the additional quantities available thanks to the specific increase decided by the Council under Agenda 2000, is, in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector(1), a matter for the Member States using objective criteria. The Member States are, however, required to notify the Commission of the measures adopted for this allocation.

In its memorandum to the Commission of 21 March 2000, Spain stated that it had reached agreement on quota distribution with the authorities of the Autonomous Communities. The Commission has no more detailed information at the moment but would certainly not take a negative view of any retention in a national reserve of a certain percentage of the additional milk quota, as reported by the Honourable Member, in order to cope with specific needs.

(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1819/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Funding in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92

In its answer to Written Question E-0154/00(1) the Commission states that 17 % of the assistance it granted to Italy to finance projects in the context of the above-mentioned Regulation was allocated to Liguria and amounted to ITL 2 707 million. It also specifies that 97 % of the funding was intended to benefit small and medium-sized enterprises.

Since the Commission did not answer the first two questions asked in that Written Question, can it now say:

1. to whom the funding was assigned and for what projects;

2. whether it also benefited businesses in the Ventimiglia area, since it is the one worst hit by the disappearance of customs activities?

(1) OJ L 394, 31.12.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

According to the implementation report concerning Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December 1992 on measures to adapt the profession of customs agent to the internal market(1) which has been transmitted

to the Commission by the Ministero del Lavoro e della Previdenza Sociale, the following information can be supplied concerning the number and location of projects carried out under that Regulation:

>TABLE>

According to the same implementation report, the following information can be supplied concerning, specifically, the province of Imperia (of which Ventimiglia is a part). 10 projects were presented (2 from the town of Imperia, 3 from San Remo, 5 from Ventimiglia). The Italian authorities responsible for operating the programme selected 6 projects to receive funding (1 from Imperia and 5 from Ventimiglia). According to the information which the Commission has available, all but one of these projects did not follow through their applications and for this reason did not receive support under the programme.

The one project from this group which did receive support was located in Ventimiglia. The project concerned the creation of a service centre for lorries(2). The final beneficiary was Autoporto riviera dei fiori spa. Approved costs amounted to ITL 1 140 million, with Community funding at ITL 285 million and national funding at ITL 285 million.

(1) OJ L 394, 31.12.1992.

(2) Realizzazione di un centro di assistenza al traffico degli autotrasportatori che preveda oltre allo svolgimento dell'attivita' edilizia, la gestione dei servizi autoportuali.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1551/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Validity of the application of purchasing power parity (PPP)

In its reply to Written Question E-0275/00(1) the Commission stated that, with reference to the meeting of the working party on PPPs held in Luxembourg on 21 and 22 June 1999, neither during this meeting in Luxembourg, nor after the meeting, did the Portuguese delegation make any statement (or complaint) on the validity of PPPs and their use in Community regulations.

Nevertheless, the Commission makes no reference to statements and complaints made before the meeting. Is it not the case that, on 5 May 1998, the Portuguese national statistical authorities questioned the validity of PPPs and their use in Community regulations?

Is it not the case that the Luxembourg meeting of the working party on PPPs did not result in any significant changes to the situation and that, consequently, the Portuguese authorities did not express any change of opinion on the matter?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 169.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2000)

Despite detailed investigation, it has not been possible to find any trace of such a statement which the Honourable Member claims to have been made by the Portuguese national statistical authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2212/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Funding of information booklets

Last September, ILGA Europe (the European branch of the International Lesbian and Gay Association) published a booklet entitled: After Amsterdam: sexual orientation and the European Union, which attracted funding from the Commission.

The preface states that the guide was produced as part of a project supported by the Commission (DG X) under the Information Programme for the European Citizen (Prince).

In view of the foregoing, would the Commission state:

1. What are the objectives and implementing procedures of the Prince programme?

2. In what circumstances would it be be deemed permissible for the Commission to provide a private organisation with funds to publish information material aimed at European citizens?

3. Whether the subject matter of the publication in question can be regarded as falling within the scope of public information for the European citizen on the funding of Community institutions?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The aim of the Prince programme (Information Programme for the European Citizen) is to provide European citizens with information on EU-related issues which are considered to be a priority. The choice of priority areas is decided, under the budgetary procedure, on the basis of the recommendations of the interinstitutional consultative working party, which brings Parliament and the Commission together at the highest level.

Implementation of the Prince programme is based on the principle of partnership either with the government authorities in the Member States if they are interested (agreement) or with organised civil society on the basis of a call for proposals for information projects which are then cofinanced. By organised civil society we mean the voluntary sector, non-governmental organisations, federations, trade unions, etc.

In the specific case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) Europe, like all associations which have a recognised legal status, is eligible for assistance provided the project presented by this association is accepted by the project selection panel.

All Europeans have the right of access to information to allow them to form opinions on all issues. This right to information also applies to the booklet entitled After Amsterdam: sexual orientation and the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1558/00

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Global trade in cat and dog fur

Would the Commission inform me what steps it is prepared to take to introduce a ban on imports into the European Union of items which are made from cat and dog fur?

Investigations by the Humane Society International have revealed that millions of dogs and cats are slaughtered annually for their pelts, often being killed in the most inhumane ways. This fur is frequently imported into the EU in the form of trimming on boots and coats.

European Union consumers may not be aware of the fact that the items they are purchasing are made from these animals or of the appalling way in which the animals are killed, as the labelling is, at best, misleading and, at worst, dishonest.

Surely EU consumers deserve to be told the real origin of the materials used in their purchases? As a first step, is the Commission prepared to ensure that tighter controls are imposed on the labelling of such products?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1465/00 and P-1558/00 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member over the international trade in dog and cat fur, particularly concerning the possible implications for animal welfare.

The Commission has adopted a comprehensive set of legislation that covers a wide range of issues relating to animal welfare. Nothing in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules prevents the Community from taking measures which are considered essential for animal welfare, i.e. adopting high standards, within its borders. However, it is the Commission's view that the Community cannot unilaterally impose its welfare-based production standards on third countries. WTO rules do not permit the Community to prohibit products on the sole ground that they have been produced according to different welfare rules.

The adoption of international welfare-based standards in the framework of multilateral agreements may help in solving potential conflicts with trading partners. The Commission sought to ensure that the issue of animal welfare was raised in the WTO Millennium Round. However, at Seattle, the Commission had essentially no support for its animal welfare objectives. The Commission's efforts to promote them in the WTO context will continue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1335/00

by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Free equipment and access to the Internet in schools

A major German telecommunications operator has indicated recently that it is prepared to supply, free of charge and before the end of the year, e-mail addresses, home pages and access to its Internet access provider for 40 000 German schools.

Can the Commission say:

1. Whether it considers that free Internet access for schools forms part of the universal service obligations, as the European Parliament has stated, and whether it agrees that free Internet access for schools is not covered by the Community rules on competition, in accordance with Article 86(2) (ex Article 90(2));

2. Whether it considers that free Internet access for schools is the best way of gradually achieving the aim of linking up all European schools to a trans-European high-speed network, as was decided at the Lisbon European Council meeting of 23 and 24 March?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

1. The Commission has not been called on to examine the Schulen ans Netz initiative, which was launched jointly by Deutsche Telekom and the German Ministry of Education and Research in 1996, and is, therefore, unable to give an opinion on whether it is compatible with Community rules. The EC Treaty rules do not prevent public authorities from contributing to the costs of Internet equipment and access in schools, provided that the arrangements in place are compatible with the rules on state aid and, in particular, that the contribution is granted on a non-discriminatory basis. However, subsidising access for schools does not form part of the universal telecommunications service within the meaning of Parliament and Council Directive 98/10/EC of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment(1). The Directive makes it clear that the exception in Article 86(2) (former Article 90) of the EC Treaty regarding services of general economic interest does apply in the area of telecommunications. Article 86(2) could not, therefore, be cited as grounds for having a universal service fund finance the provision of services not covered by the Directive.

2. The Lisbon European Council urged the Member States to see to it that all schools in the Community had Internet access by the end of 2001. It did not, however, stipulate that access had to be free of charge. Access always involves a cost for someone. Providing subsidies may increase the demand for access and help achieve the objective set out in the Lisbon conclusions. However, schools should not be deprived of a genuine choice of service provider and access infrastructure. As in other areas, it is competition that makes for high-quality products and best stimulates innovation.

(1) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1250/00

by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Legal guarantees and human rights of a group of Jewish Iranian citizens

On various occasions the European Parliament (which adopted a resolution on the matter in September 1999) and the media have considered the possibility that a group of Iranian Jews accused of spying may face trial on charges carrying a possible death sentence. Will the Council give details of any measures that have been taken and initiatives it could adopt to ensure respect for human rights and, in particular, a fair trial for these citizens?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1208/00 and E-1250/00

(28 September 2000)

The question of the 13 Iranian Jews has been raised in talks, on all possible occasions and at all levels, between EU representatives and Iranian official representatives, notably during the visit of the Iranian Foreign Minister Kharrazi to Helsinki in September 1999 and at the EU-Iran dialogue meeting in December.

In response to these representations and to such representations undertaken by the Member States of the European Union the Iranian Government assured and re-assured the European Union that the detained Jews would get a fair and transparent trial.

In April, just before the opening of the trial, the European Union expressed again to the Iranian authorities the importance the EU attaches to this issue and recalled the Iranian commitments as to the conduct of the trial.

The European Union has learnt with concern of the verdict pronounced by the revolutionary court in Shiraz. It is disappointed that the trial was held in camera despite the assurances given by the Iranian authorities. The European Union notes that the decision is open to appeal. In view of the significance it attaches to this issue, it strongly hopes that the court of appeal will overturn the convictions. The European Union will continue to express its concern to the Iranian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1982/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Legal challenges to the extension of An Post's contract to provide social welfare payments in Ireland

This question is tabled further to Written Question E-0463/00, tabled by Avril Doyle to the Commission on 24 February 2000, and the subsequent answer from the Commission(1). Bearing in mind the legal challenges made by a firm of Dublin-based solicitors(2) to the extension of An Post's contract to issue social welfare

payments in Ireland and the importance of such a service to the vitality of rural post offices and rural communities, would the Commission outline the current status of the legal challenges, confirm whether it has yet gathered all the information it requested before it could investigate the matter fully, state its position on the case and, if no such position can be conveyed at present, confirm a date when the Commission will announce its decision?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 81.

(2) McCann Fitzgerald Solicitors, on behalf of Transaction Network Services, Dublin.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

Further to the answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-463/00, the Honourable Member is informed that the Commission is at the moment in the process of gathering additional information, necessary to investigate the allegations made by Transaction Network Services Limited. The Commission hopes to come to a position on the complaint immediately after receiving this additional information.