ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1574/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Land development on Penteli

The WWF and other environmental organisations claim that a draft Presidential Decree is to release 600 hectares of land at Penteli to building firms. In the last five years, Penteli has been swept by fires and lost more than 50 000 hectares of woodland. 200 of the 600 hectares released for development are forest, the use of which is prohibited by the Constitution. 90 hectares form part of the Pentelikon, a class A protected area, and many others were burned down in the fires of 1998. Previous attempts to develop the area were ruled unconstitutional by the Council of State.

Given that the third Community Support Framework provides a variety of funding to create a well-balanced environment in Attica, while releasing the land for development will alter the environment to the detriment of the lives of the inhabitants of the region and the natural heritage of the country, what steps will the Commission take to persuade the Greek Government to withdraw the draft Presidential Decree and enforce its own legislation to protect its forests?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

The Commission has been active in building environmental considerations into all measures to be financed under the 3rd Community support framework. Particular attention has been paid to the areas forming part of the Natura 2000 network, i.e. areas that receive protection under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2). For these areas an agreement has been established under which all Member States accept the commitment to finance measures that will not cause any damage to these areas. When required, Member States will proceed with the designation of additional areas to the network.

The Commission has not received any official notification of the draft presidential decree aiming to drop the characterisation of forest areas in Greece. There is also no notification of any complaints about this draft decree. The area covered by the Pentelikon mountain has not received any characterisation as a Natura 2000 area and the Commission is not aware of any kind of protection status applied at European level.

As any land characterised as a forest area is protected in Greece under the Greek Constitution, the Commission considers that it is for the Council of State to examine all the necessary information in order to reply on the acceptability of the proposed decree. Bearing in mind that the Pentelikon area does not form part of the Natura 2000 network site for Greece, the Commission cannot make any effective suggestion to the Greek State in relation to funds available under the 3rd Community support framework.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1968/00

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: East Timor's accession to the Lomé Convention

Paragraph 15 of the European Parliament's resolution on East Timor of 18 November 1999 (B5-0271/1999) states that The European Parliament calls on the Commission to begin preparations to East Timor to join the Lomé Convention.

Six months later, what specific steps has the Commission already taken to prepare for East Timor joining the Lomé Convention? On this issue, how does the Commission view the current stage reached and the immediate prospects for the future?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1968/00 and E-1969/00 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2000)

The Commission shares the opinion of the international community that the question of whether East Timor should sign the Lomé Convention is a matter for political decision by the future East Timorese Government. Once an independent State of East Timor has been constituted, its Government will have to assess which regional economic group is most suited to furthering East Timorese interests. When that time comes, the Commission will certainly provide the East Timorese Government with the appropriate information.

With regard to the Community's contribution to the rehabilitation of East Timor, the Commission can confirm that the contribution to the United Nations' trust fund (for UNTAET, the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor), some 10 million, was transferred to the recipient in the first half of June 2000 and that the first tranche of the contribution to the World Bank's Trust Fund for East Timor (TFET), some 9,2 million, will be paid as soon as the financial agreement with the administrator of that fund has been signed and a request for payment has been received. The agreement is expected to be signed in July 2000. The other tranches will be paid subsequently, as provided for in the financial agreement. As to the contributions of the Member States, the Commission regrets that it does not have a complete list.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1555/00

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

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Freedom of religion in Macedonia

Can the Commission confirm that the constitutional court in Macedonia has banned prayers from being said in schools in Macedonia?

Can the Commission explain the reasons for this ban?

Does the Commission consider that this ban is in line with the European principle of freedom of religion?

What possibilities are open to the Commission to bring about discussion of this ban in Macedonia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2000)

The Commission can confirm that the Constitutional Court of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has annulled by its decision No U.br. 195/99 (published in the official Gazette of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia No 36/2000 of 12 May 2000), an Act of the Ministry of Education establishing a prayer at the occasion of the yearly inaugural classes in elementary and secondary schools of the school year 1999/2000.

The ruling of the Constitutional Court was based, in substance, on Article 19 of the Constitution of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia that reads that The Macedonian Orthodox Church and other religious communities and groups are separate from the state and equal before the law. This principle of separation between religions and the state was the main reason behind the ruling of the Court.

This ruling is in line with the European principle of freedom of religion (as established, inter alia, in Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), which is guaranteed in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Article 9 of the constitution of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia reads that Citizens of the Republic of Macedonia are equal in their freedoms and rights, regardless of sex, race, colour of skin, national and social origin, political and religious beliefs, property and social status, and Article 19

that The freedom of religious confession is guaranteed. The right to express one's faith freely and publicly, individually or with others is guaranteed [mldr.]. The decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and executive.

The Commission does not deem relevant, therefore, to start discussion with the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on a ruling of its Constitutional Court.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2206/00

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Tomatoes and the hormone conflict between the EU and the US

As was the case last year, tomatoes are on the list of products which the United States wants to keep out in retaliation for the European ban on hormone meat. Last year the situation was averted and in the end tomatoes did not appear on the definitive list of products on which a 100 % ad valorem import duty was levied. If fresh tomatoes appear on the list this year, it will mean a virtual end to the export of fresh tomatoes to the United States (which in 1998 amounted to 48 352 tonnes worth about 85 million).

Is the Commission aware of what damage it is inflicting on European tomato growers who in any case receive very little European support?

Does the Commission intend to compensate the European products in some other way if tomatoes appear on the definitive list of products this year? If so, how? If not, why not?

Does the Commission have a short-term solution to the conflict, given that if it continues it is likely to have a knock-on effect on other sectors which have nothing to do with animal products?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

The Commission is well aware of the serious consequences the United States trade sanctions can have on those concerned, in particular on exporters of tomatoes, which is the most affected product in the hormones dispute. The negative impact of these sanctions has been severely increased by the recent adoption by the United States of the carousel legislation, which obliges the United States Trade Representative to modify every six months the list of products subject to sanctions imposed against a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which has not complied with a WTO panel ruling.

The carousel is contrary to the basic principles of the WTO, in particular the prohibition of unilateralism in trade matters and the need to ensure the predictability of the world trading system. The Commission has therefore immediately initiated dispute settlement proceedings in Geneva against this WTO-incompatible measure.

The Commission remains determined to resolve the hormones case as soon as possible, even if the recent American move makes this objective harder to achieve. The Commission recently tabled a proposal with a view to changing Community legislation in relation to the use of hormones in livestock, based on available scientific evidence. Once adopted by the Parliament and the Council, this proposal will make the Community's trade regime fully WTO-compatible, while maintaining its chosen high level of protection.

On a short-term basis, the Commission is also willing to negotiate a possible trade-enhancing compensation package with the United States, to remove the trade-restrictive retaliation measures.

The Commission is however not in a position to take other measures to assist European companies that are faced with American sanctions. Under the principle of subsidiarity, such assistance is a matter for each Member State to consider, provided that Community rules on state aids and competition are complied with.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0803/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Community support for the Lacto-Ibérica undertaking

Lacto-Ibérica used to have a cheese factory in Ponte de Lima, producing cheese with the trademark Limiano and employing more than 100 workers. The undertaking, which received Community funding, has since decided to cease production in Ponte de Lima and concentrate production in Vale de Cambra, several hundred kilometres away, which in practice means that most of the workers will be made redundant.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is it aware of the Lacto-Ibérica projects which received Community funding? What amounts were allocated and how much was actually paid?

2. Were there any conditions attached to these projects in terms of maintaining jobs and production in the Ponte de Lima factory?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Lacto-Ibérica was granted aid from the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) for a project to modernise installations at its Ponte de Lima industrial unit. The project was approved in March 1997 and the financing plan was: total investment PTE 519 662 000, national aid approved PTE 74 765 236, EAGGF aid approved PTE 224 295 705.

In July 1998 the recipient applied for authorisation to move the investment to its Vale de Cambra industrial site in order to concentrate its activities at this location. Since the direct contractual links with the milk producers were not to be altered the national authorities agreed.

In May 1999 the recipient received a first instalment of PTE 144 456 876, for work already carried out.

For processing and marketing projects for agricultural products there are rules on Community origin and maintenance of the investment but none on employment.

The Commission has been informed by the Portuguese authorities responsible for implementation of operational programmes that Lacto-Ibérica Industria de lacticinios e quejios, SA has received support from the European Social Fund for vocational training projects. The amounts approved were PTE 704 170 under Community Support Framework (CSF) I (1989-1993) and PTE 15 373 078 under CSF II (1994-1999). The amounts actually paid were PTE 565 336 and PTE 7 484 400 respectively.

For such vocational training support no rules apply on job maintenance or the activity of the production unit.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2321/00

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: European funding

How much money has been paid from European Union funds to the benefit of projects in the County of Hampshire, the City of Southampton, the City of Portsmouth and the County of the Isle of Wight over the last four years giving a breakdown by fund, project, year and area?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0250/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Funds for federalist organisations

A number of organisations, whose political goal is the unification of the continent of Europe, receiving funding from the Communities budget lines.

Will the Commission identify which bodies endorsing the creation of a European superstate, federal entity or ever-closer union have received such funding, from which budget line, for the past two years?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Under line A-3021 of the Commission's budget the budgetary authority authorises the Commission to spend money on grants to organisations advancing the idea of Europe to cover their running costs.

The names of the beneficiaries and the amount of their grant are communicated by the Commission to Parliament each year in the Report on Beneficiaries of Part A Grants. The list for 1998 can be found on Europa, the Commission's Internet server, at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/beneficiaries_en.htm.

The list of beneficiaries of a grant under line A-3021 for 1999 will be communicated to Parliament before the end of May 2000. In the meantime, apart from the 14 organisations listed by the budgetary authority in its remarks on budget line A-3021, a list of the beneficiaries is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission will have to let the Honourable Member decide for himself which of these organisations come within his definition of federalist.

The Commission's choice of which projects to finance is based on the finality of the action itself and not on the political goals of the organisation supporting the projects. The Commission is therefore not in a position to inform the Honourable Member which of the organisations receiving a grant for a project have as their objective the creation of a federation, since it does not hold the requested data.

Furthermore, the Commission supports actions of the European Movement and of International federation of Europe Houses (FIME), which aim to animate a dialogue on European concepts (ideas), as requested by the European Parliament and stipulated in the commentary of the budgetary line B3-301.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2486/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Cooling in relations between the Union and the countries of Latin America: assessment

The Latin American media are reporting that relations between the EU and the Latin American countries have cooled and suggesting that the situation has arisen since the departure of the Spanish Members of the Commission who in recent years have held the international cooperation portfolio.

What does the Commission think about the claims that relations have cooled, and, if it has really happened, what is the reason for this state of affairs?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The Commission does not feel that the European Community's relations with Latin America have cooled. Moreover, relations between the Community and Latin America in no way depend on the nationality of members of the Commission responsible for international cooperation.

The Member States and the Commission all played an active role in the success of the first EU-Latin America/Caribbean summit held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1999 and they are also helping implement the priorities identified at that meeting.

The Commission feels that relations between the Community and Latin America have intensified and improved across the board. The summit of heads of state and government clearly illustrates the political importance the Community attaches to its relations with Latin America and the Caribbean. Continuation of the negotiations with Mercosur and Chile and implementation of the accords with Mexico attest to the economic impact of these relations. The Community is the top investor and the main or second biggest supplier and customer of this part of Latin America. Aside from the support towards alleviating the debt of the three poorest countries, cooperation ties continue as before. The Community remains the principal donor of aid to the developing countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2421/00

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Reform of the COM for rice

On 7 June the Commission adopted a proposal for the reform of the COM for rice which will entail the abolition of the intervention price mechanism and an increase in direct aid, with rice being included in the COM for arable crops. It appears that it is also intended to use this as an opportunity to increase tariffs on rice from third countries.

The intervention price plays a fundamental part in protecting the sector in the face of imports from third countries whose prices are more competitive on the world market, and the increase in aid may not be sufficient to offset the losses caused by the abolition of the intervention price, which will make the sector less profitable. Moreover, rice is already subject to a discriminatory system of penalties by comparison with other arable crops. How will the Commission remedy this discrimination?

Can the Commission say what measures it will propose to ensure that the reform of the COM for rice does not lead to market imbalance?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2000)

The proposed reform of the common organisation of the market in rice(1) is based on integrating rice into the arable crop system and abolishing the intervention price.

The Commission does not consider that the proposal would place rice at a disadvantage compared with other arable crops or could cause a market imbalance. The proposal is based on: an increase in the area payment (currently 52,65/tonne) to 63/tonne in line with the aid stipulated for cereals from 2001/2002 onwards; scope for adopting exceptional measures

if there is market disruption following abolition of the intervention mechanism; and (subject to negotiation with the supplier countries) greater external protection and Community preference through applying the general system of fixed tariffs.

These measures, in conjunction with the introduction of set-aside, will make it possible to balance supply and demand while still maintaining rice growers' income.

(1) COM(2000) 278 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3002/00

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Procedure whereby the income derived from share-based investment funds is halved for tax purposes pursuant to the German Law on Tax Reductions

It transpires from an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 2 September 2000 that the Law on Tax Reductions, which came into force on 1 January 2000, puts foreign share-based investment funds at a disadvantage vis-à-vis share-based investment funds established under German law. German dividend income will in future be subject to what is known as the Halbeinkünfteverfahren (procedure whereby the income is halved for tax purposes), whereas the income from non-German share-based investment funds will be subject to the previous rules, i.e. full taxation.

This gives rise to the following questions:

1. How does the Commission view these new rules under German tax law in view of the principle of equal treatment under European law and of the prohibition on discrimination?

2. What action does the Commission intend to take, if any?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2000)

The Commission's attention has already been drawn by a number of foreign funds to the question of tax arrangements for share-based investment funds.

1. The Commission is aware of the Law on Tax Reductions referred to in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 2 September. It is currently undertaking a detailed comparison of the tax regime for German and foreign funds in the light of the relevant Community provisions, with particular reference to the non-discrimination rule.

2. Depending on the outcome, the Commission may if it sees fit prepare a case under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2106/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Council. 1995 Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests.



Official Journal 103 E , 03/04/2001 P. 0063 - 0063



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2106/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Council (30 June 2000) Subject: 1995 Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests What action does the Council intend to take in order to ensure the ratification of the 1995 Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests, given that it should have been completed by 1998 and that ratification will become pointless once the Commission has submitted a proposal for a Community act? Reply (7 November 2000) The Council is continuing to call on those Member States which have not yet done so to proceed rapidly with ratification of the Convention signed in 1995 and of the Protocols thereto. The Council sees no need to consider the possible consequences of a Commission initiative for a Community act in this field as long as no such initiative has been taken or formally announced.