ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0954/00

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: MCI Worldcom/Sprint telecoms merger

The European Commission now has before it a competition case of exceptional importance to the development of the Internet, information technology, and communications in the European common market the proposed merger of MCI WorldCom and Sprint.

1. The merger of MCI WorldCom and Sprint threatens to create a stifling and unacceptable concentration of power over the Internet in the hands of one company. Estimates provided by outside parties, place MCI WorldCom-Sprint's combined share of the Internet backbone market at between 43 and 70 %. The proposed merger would enable MCI WorldCom-Sprint to use its dominant position to dictate the terms and pricing of critical Internet backbone connections to European backbones and, in turn, Internet service providers (ISPs), as well as content and portal sites.

How will the European Commission prevent the proposed merger of MCI WorldCom and Sprint from creating a damaging and anti-competitive concentration among top-level Internet backbone providers that would harm European Internet development and growth?

2. In 1998, when the European Commission moved to block the combination of the MCI and WorldCom backbones by requiring the divestiture of MCI Internet, acquired by Cable & Wireless, it recognised the immediate and significant competitive harm the combination posed. The history of the MCI's Internet backbone divestiture to Cable & Wireless shows that requiring the divestiture of Internet backbone assets is simply not enough. The integrated nature of MCI's Internet backbone; MCI WorldCom's apparent efforts to only partially satisfy the divestiture conditions and Cable & Wireless's lack of an established market presence, base of knowledge, and infrastructure in the Internet backbone market combined in to result in the significant erosion of an important Internet market force.

If the European Commission decides that a divestiture is required, how will it structure the divestiture of Sprint's Internet or MCI WorldCom's UUNet to ensure the preservation of the competitive balance among top-level Internet backbone providers?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2000)

The proposed merger between MCI WorldCom and Sprint was notified to the Commission on 11 January 2000. On 21 February 2000, the Commission decided to open a second phase investigation of the effects of the proposed transaction on competition. The Commission has to conclude its investigation by 12 July 2000.

One of the areas of focus for this second phase investigation is the provision of Internet connectivity where there are serious concerns that the combined entity would be able to exercise market power independently of competitors and customers. As the investigation has not yet been concluded it is too early to conclude on the effect on competition in the top level Internet connectivity market and even more so on possible remedies to be proposed by the notifying parties to solve any competition issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0851/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Outlying regions

Pursuant to Article 299 of the EC Treaty the Commission undertook to submit, by the end of 1999, a draft regulation on the specific measures to be applied to the outlying regions. It is now the beginning of March 2000 and there is as yet no sign of that draft.

1. What are the reasons for the delay in adopting the draft regulation on the specific measures to be applied to outlying regions?

2. On what date is the draft regulation due to be adopted and then submitted to the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

On 14 March 2000 the Commission adopted the report requested by the Cologne European Council on the measures to implement Article 299(2) of the Treaty the outermost regions of the European Union(1). It transmitted the report to Parliament on 15 March 2000.

The Commission preferred to delay the adoption of this report, initially planned for December 1999, in order to make a more detailed study of the memoranda presented by the three Member States in question in November/December 1999, and the positions presented at the partnership meeting of 23 November 1999.

(1) COM(2000) 147 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0180/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Olaf's sphere of activity

At the last minute, Olaf, the Community's anti-fraud agency, has objected to Articles 66 and 73 of Doc XXI/1402/97-rev.8 and demanded that sensitive goods be excluded from the institute of the authorised consignor or recipient, otherwise the aim of combating fraud would be undermined.

After this was announced, the European industrial confederations intervened and stated that the simplified procedure should be based on the reliability of the principal, contending that this was one of the main reasons for the reform. The customs authorities in most Member States are also opposed to the action taken by Olaf in this regard.

This shows the power of the anti-fraud agency, which is going against the Commission and against most Member States.

What action is the Commission taking in this connection to make sure that Olaf's power lies in the executive rather than the legislative sphere?

How will the Commission try to confine Olaf's sphere of activity to executive areas only?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

First of all, the Commission would point out that it acts in accordance with the principle of collective responsibility. It would stress that the fight against fraud is one of its constant political concerns.

On the matter of the reform of the Community transit procedure(1) (and of the common transit procedure, which is being conducted in parallel), some of the Commission's proposals which are being discussed within the Transit Section of the Customs Code Committee were designed to exclude cigarettes and alcohol above 40o from some of the simplified procedures (authorised consignor and recipient). It will be recalled that some particularly serious cases of fraud involving these products prompted the creation of a committee of inquiry in Parliament in December 1995.

The Commission does not wish to prejudge the outcome of the current discussions.

As far as the European Anti-Fraud Office's (OLAF) powers are concerned, the Commission would stress that the instruments adopted in 1999(2) confirm that the Office's mission is not merely one of investigation and operational support. The Office also has a role to play in formulating policy for the fight against fraud, and in preparing Commission initiatives for legislative instruments and regulations in its fields of activity (including instruments which come under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union). The Office also represents the Commission in the forums concerned with the fight against fraud.

(1) Draft Regulation amending Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.

(2) See Commission Decision of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and in particular Article 2; OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0546/00

by William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Welfare of laying hens

If the EU fails to secure a welfare clause in the forthcoming WTO negotiations, what will the Commission do to ensure that producers are protected from a flood of cheap, third-country imports?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

As the Honourable Member will know, there was considerable resistance at the Seattle World Trade Organisation (WTO), Ministerial Conference to the Community call to include animal welfare in the agenda for the next round of trade talks. It is clear that much of this resistance was based on a misunderstanding of our objectives. The Commission will continue to work actively both to launch a comprehensive round of trade talks and to create a better understanding of our concerns on animal welfare in order to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0748/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Fire safety code for television sets

Evidence suggests that there are television sets on the EU market which are more likely to ignite in the event of a fire, thus severely shortening people's escape time. This has serious implications for every household with a television in Europe, and particularly in hospitals where fire codes do not allow for immediate evacuation of patients.

Does the Commission have any statistics concerning the incidence of fires in the EU, either from or involving television sets?

If statistics on the fire safety of televisions are not currently available, will the Commission undertake to ensure that the involvement of televisions is recorded by the fire services when they attend fire incidents?

Will the Commission undertake to keep a record of the specific models of television sets that are involved in fires, so that we have a better understanding as to which types of televisions may pose a fire hazard in European homes?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Commission attaches a high priority to issues regarding fire safety.

To-date, the Commission has not received statistics concerning the incidence of fire involving television sets.

The safety of television sets is regulated by Directive 73/23/EEC relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (the Low Voltage Directive)(1). In response to the question from the Honourable Member, the Commission will discuss the subject of fire safety involving television sets with national authorities in charge of the enforcement of the above Directive at the Low Voltage Directive administrative co-operation meeting scheduled for 26-27 April 2000.

The meeting will also allow an exchange of information between Member States regarding incidents of fire relating to television sets.

It should be noted that it is the task of Member States to set up and implement policies on fire protection which may also include collecting incident statistics.

If it appears that a product covered by the Low Voltage Directive presents a potential fire hazard the Commission will co-ordinate the necessary actions on the part of national authorities regarding the application of the Low Voltage Directive.

For further information on this matter, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the Commission's reply to Written Question P-0828/00 from Mr Davies(2).

(1) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973.

(2) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 216.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0308/00

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Enlargement and the Structural Funds

Economic convergence is not yet a reality in the European Union. People living in Objective 1 eligible regions, who form 25 % of the Union's total population, have a gross domestic product (GDP) below two-thirds of the Community average.

So the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund are the main instruments for reducing these regional disparities, in order to permit a more balanced form of development throughout the Community.

For this reason the four French Overseas Departments that are eligible under Objective 1 will see a considerable increase in their level of per capita aid between the periods 1994-1999 and 2000-2006. This is a remarkable and necessary step, but plans for enlargement to include the central and eastern European countries are already in hand and are likely to upset the present balance considerably.

What measures is the Commission proposing to ensure that the impact of enlargement on the allocation of the Structural Funds does not worsen the situation for the Union's regions that are most disadvantaged, and particularly the outermost regions?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Sixth Periodic Report on the socio-economic situation and development of the regions of the European Union indicates that, in 1996, the average per capita GDP of the regions eligible during 1994-1999 under Objective 1 of the Structural Funds was 68 % of the Community average.

In respect of the current programming period (2000-2006), the list of regions eligible under Objective 1 and the distribution among the Member States of the Structural Fund resources allocated to these regions were approved by the Commission on 1 July 1999. These decisions will not be modified as a result of enlargement. This means that the French overseas departments will remain eligible under Objective 1 throughout the period 2000 to 2006, while the resources allocated to them under Objective 1 will be EUR 254 million at 1999 prices.

As regards the future of cohesion policy, the Second Report on Cohesion which the Commission will be adopting at the end of 2000 will in particular analyse the situation of the regions in the context of a broader Union. Based on the conclusions to be drawn from enlargement, it will be looking at various options that will open up beyond 2006.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Animal testing for cosmetics

Referring to the Commission's statement dated 5 April (IP/00/335) regarding the adoption of a proposal to amend Council Directive 76/768/EEC(1) on animal testing for cosmetics, does the Commission agree that this proposal is likely to lead to the cruel testing being exported from the EU and the products of that cruelty subsequently being imported for sale, and will the Commission also state the number of contacts that it has had with the industry and with the World Trade Organisation in respect of this proposed change of policy?

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission does not aim to increase cruelty towards animals. On the contrary, the Commission is continuing its efforts to reduce the suffering inflicted on animals during testing, cut down on the number of tests, and, as far as possible and within the shortest feasible timescale, eliminate animal suffering, an aim also found in Directive 86/609/EEC regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes(1).

The Commission took this objective into account when drawing up its proposed seventh amendment. It does, in fact, propose to introduce a definitive ban in Europe on carrying out animal testing for both finished cosmetic products and the ingredients used for these. In addition, since the key to solving this problem is to perfect methods which substitute animal testing, the Commission is continuing its efforts to develop alternative methods, making it compulsory to use these once they have been scientifically validated at Community level. The Commission will also seek to ensure that these alternative methods obtain the rapid approval of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, thus enabling them to be used world-wide.

As for the contacts which took place during the drafting of this proposal, the Commission consulted all the parties concerned by the issue of animal testing, including animal protection groups.

(1) OJ L 358, 8.12.1986.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0871/00

by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Setting up businesses

According to OECD figures, the number of statutory documents needed to set up a business in the Member States of the EU varies between two or three in Denmark and 28 in Greece.

Does the Commission consider that these differences between the Member States encourage the setting up of new businesses, especially by young people? Does the Commission intend to take any practical steps to remedy this evident distortion of the single market?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2000)

The Commission shares entirely the concern of the Honourable Member over the regulatory burdens involved in setting up a business that continue to exist in a number of Member States, and regards the simplification of the formalities involved in business start-up as a priority.

That is why, while recognising that this is primarily a matter for national governments, the Commission has encouraged Member States, in its BEST report(1), to address this problem and has supported their efforts to find simpler and better solutions.

The BEST report calls on Member States to facilitate the creation of enterprises. Under the follow-up(2) to this report, the Commission is monitoring and evaluating progress made by the Member States, and is also sharing information about good practices. The Commission will report on the follow-up later this year.

Further, under its concerted actions(3), the Commission assists Member States in exchanging good practices. A good example is the French Centres de formalités d'entreprises, which have greatly simplified procedures for start-ups. Moreover, there is encouraging evidence of Member States learning from each other's experience. For example, the Portuguese Centro de Formalidades das Empresas network, which has reduced normal start-up times for businesses from around six months to around fifteen days, exploited the French experience.

Benchmarking is an important tool to show differences and progress, and the Commission will continue benchmarking between Member States in the field of entrepreneurship and innovation.

(1) Report of the Business Environment Simplification Task Force. This report can be found on Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg23/gen_policy.

(2) Action plan to promote entrepreneurship and competitiveness. This can be found on Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg23/gen_policy.

(3) Outlined in the recent report to the Council and Parliament on concerted actions, adopted by the Commission on 9 November 1999, COM(1999) 569 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0087/00

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

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Adoption of a regional development plan for Galicia and Northern Portugal within the 2000-2006 Community Support Frameworks

Does the Commission think that a Galicia and Northern Portugal development plan for the 2000-2006 period could and should be implemented, given that both regions qualify for Objective 1 status and fall within the scope of the Interreg II programme and the Community Support Frameworks for Spain and Portugal? The plan could be negotiated and approved by the Commission and the Member States in the first quarter of this year and would cover the full geographical extent of the Euro-region in question, embrace all aspects of the Union's regional policy, including job creation and the development of agriculture, fisheries, tourism and industry, and devote particular attention to the modernisation of ports and airports and the establishment of links to the trans-European road and rail networks.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) stipulates that plans submitted under Objective 1 must be drawn up at the geographical level deemed by the Member State concerned to be most appropriate but must, as a general rule, cover a single region at NUTS level II. However, this does not prevent the priorities established for Galicia and for the North of Portugal from taking into account the problems faced by both regions and identified through ex ante evaluation.

The draft Interreg guidelines(2) (which the Commission adopted on 13 October 1999 and which Parliament is currently examining) specifically provide for establishing joint structures entrusted with the tasks of programme development, promotion, operation selection, overall management, coordination and monitoring of programming implementation. The Commission is due to adopt the guidelines at the end of February 2000.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) COM(1999) 479 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0582/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable tansport policy

Can national governments and EU institutions, habitually at loggerheads on transport questions, actually achieve a sufficient meeting of minds?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The question of sustainable transport is of vital interest to all Member States as well as the Community as a whole. A sufficient meeting of minds can only be achieved through dialogue and openness. The Commission has for this reason set up a joint transport and environment expert group to advise it on issues of environmentally sustainable transport, which is one of the key concerns in the common transport policy. The Commission intends to come forward in the autumn of this year with a new communication which sets the common transport policy in the new context of the 21st century. The communication will aim to take account of the profound changes that are occurring in the European economy and the trend to globalisation as a whole. In addition to this initiative, the Commission intends to issue a further communication in 2000 on the subject of Clean urban transport. These two new communications will give the Community the opportunity to re-assess what has to be done to ensure that transport plays an effective role in the general effort to ensure sustainable growth in the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0334/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Special treatment of a Kurdish national imprisoned in Hamburg

Ilhan Gelkouvan, a Kurdish national imprisoned in Hamburg, has for many days been on a hunger strike with the intention of starving himself to death, maintaining that, although his case has been tried by the courts and final judgment delivered, he is being excluded from the schedule applicable to other prisoners, being given different treatment and being held in solitary confinement. We have now learned that other prisoners in the EU Member States and in third countries have also commenced hunger strikes in sympathy.

1. Is the Council aware of the special treatment being given to Ilhan Gelkouvan by the Hamburg prison authorities?

2. What measures will it take to end this and ensure that the prisoner concerned is treated in accordance with the same criteria applicable to other prisoners, given the fact that he is seeking no more than his due?

Reply

(2 May 2000)

The Council has no information on the treatment mentioned and has no competence to deal with the questions raised by the honourable Member of the European Parliament.