ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3570/00

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

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Bio, organically grown and organic descriptions

Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999(1) supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91(2), provides safeguards with regard to the use of the descriptions bio and eco for food produced using organic farming methods.

Is the Commission aware that the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is drawing up a Royal Decree which establishes a separate category for the bio, organically grown and organic descriptions given to products governed by organic farming regulations?

What view does the Commission take of this decision?

(1) OJ L 222, 24.8.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

The Commission was first informed in 1999 that the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture was preparing a Decree cancelling restriction of the term bio to products and foodstuffs marketed in Spain that have been obtained organically. It was recently informed that the Decree has not been adopted but preparation continues.

In October 1999 the Commission made known to the Ministry its position that a national provision permitting use of the prefix bio on the labelling of a product not obtained in line with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs would break Community law.

The Commission is again looking at the situation and if necessary will not hesitate to initiate proceedings under Article 226 (formerly 169) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3938/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Number of votes under QMV

1. Will the Council give the figures in each year for the last five years for the number of votes or decisions concerning legislation or other decisions which would, if voted upon, be subject to qualified majority voting?

2. What proportion of all decisions are now taken by QMV?

3. What proportion of legislative decisions are taken by QMV?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council is not in possession of the figures for each of the last five years for the number of votes or decisions concerning legislation or other decisions which would, if voted upon, be subject to qualified majority voting.

Statistics were produced for 1999, but only on the number of legislative acts. Those statistics show that 67 out of the 199 legislative acts adopted by the Council in 1999 had a legal basis requiring adoption by unanimity. The remaining 132 acts adopted during that year had a legal basis enabling them to be adopted by a qualified majority, which represents a proportion of 66,3 %.

Of those 132 legislative acts:

- 104 were adopted without votes against or abstentions;

- 28 were adopted with votes against or abstentions.

104 of those 132 legislative acts were adopted unopposed. This means that 67 + 104 = 171 out of a total of 199 legislative acts were in fact adopted unopposed, which is about 85 %.

In this respect it should be remembered that qualified majority voting may in practice make it easier to obtain all delegations' agreement to a text, inasmuch as delegations which do not agree may be inclined to vote in favour once they know they are going to be in a minority. It also strengthens the Commission's power of amendment and may in addition favour the adoption of a different text from the one which would have been approved if the legal basis had required unanimity.

As from January 2001 the monthly summaries of Council acts include references to the voting procedure followed for the adoption of the acts by the Council (unanimity, qualified or simple majority). These monthly overviews are published on the Council's website (http://ue.eu.int, under Transparency and Summary of Council acts).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3836/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Repayment of farm subsidies

On Wednesday, 5 July 2000, the Commission announced that Austria would have to repay 800 000 in farm subsidies because of the lack of penalties for inadequate tagging of male bovines in 1996. According to the Commission, Austria's agricultural market was negligent in the checks performed. Only 40 % of the ear-tags issued were entered in the database.

In reply to Question E-2636/00, the Commission stated that it had decided numerous different adjustments for a large number of Member States. Please state details.

What amounts were the other European Union Member States required to repay and why?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2001)

The information requested by the Honourable Member can be found in Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)(1). The Annex to that Decision specifies the amounts involved and the reasons for the financial corrections imposed on the Member States.

(1) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3983/00 by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Community subsidies for the Midi-Pyrénées Region: amounts and allocation.



Official Journal 318 E , 13/11/2001 P. 0017 - 0017



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3983/00 by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission (20 December 2000) Subject: Community subsidies for the Midi-Pyrénées Region: amounts and allocation What are the figures for Community subsidies, distinguishing where necessary between commitment appropriations and payment appropriations, for Toulouse and the Midi-Pyrénées Region in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, and who were the beneficiaries, under the heading of: - the ERDF - the EAGGF-Guidance - the ESF - research programmes - environment programmes - SME programmes - education, training and youth programmes - decentralised cooperation? Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (27 June 2001) Further to its answer of 11/01/2001(1), the Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. (1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0335/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Wheat prices

Will the Commission state the EU's internal price for common wheat at the end of each decade since 1959, and state that price as a proportion of the world market price in each case?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2001)

The common organisation of the market in cereals was established on 1 July 1967. Prior to that, since 1962, Regulation No 19(1) had provided for transitional arrangements.

Under the market organisation, internal prices were aligned on intervention prices, set as follows for common wheat:

- Marketing year 1967/1968: 98,75 UA (units of account)/tonne,

- Marketing year 1969/1970: 98,75 UA/tonne,

- Marketing year 1979/1980: ECU 165,26/tonne,

- Marketing year 1989/1990: ECU 163,62/tonne,

- Marketing year 1999/2000: 119,19/tonne.

There are sometimes huge short-term fluctuations in the relationship between these institutional by definition stable prices and the world market price in the course of a marketing year.

In 1969/1970, the cif (cost, insurance, freight) prices/Rotterdam recorded by the Commission were between 53 and 49 UA, i.e. approximately 50 % of the intervention price.

After an exceptional rise in 1973-1974, the cif price/Rotterdam for wheat remained around ECU 143/tonne during the marketing year 1979/80, i.e. 86 % of the intervention price.

In the wake of the special measures introduced by the United States at the end of the 1980s to help wheat exports, world prices had fallen from around ECU 130 during the summer of 1989 to under ECU 70 in the second half of 1990 and to less than 50 in January/February 1991, i.e. approximately 30 % of the Community intervention price.

The 1992 reform of the common agricultural policy, which cut intervention prices, brought the Community market price close to the world level. During the marketing year 1999/2000, the cif price remained between 102 and 103, i.e. approximately 90 % of the price agreed.

(1) OJ 30, 20.4.1962.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0531/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Plastic dermatology

The International Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Dermatology was set up recently in Italy to promote the aims of plastic dermatology, a discipline which makes use of non-invasive methods with a pure dermatological and medical approach in order to improve the skin appearance and to preserve its health.

1. Is the Commission aware of this new discipline? If it is, can it say whether it exists in other EU Member States? If it does not, would it not agree that provision should be made in the scientific research programme for an assessment of such treatment, which, assuming it is effective, has the great advantage of being non-invasive?

2. What action does it suggest be taken to publicise and promote this discipline in the other EU Member States?

3. Would it not agree that university courses in this specialisation, involving treatment aimed at keeping the skin healthy, removing blemishes and combating the effects of ageing, can help to make people healthier and enhance their sense of physical well-being?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

1. The Commission is aware of this new discipline. However, no precise information is available on the newly set up International Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Dermatology, nor on the spread of this discipline across Europe in terms of research. The Commission would appreciate it if this information could be passed on by the Honourable Member.

Even though there is no specific provision made in the current Quality of Life programme, relevant research proposals can be submitted to area 7.2 iii + iv of Generic Research and technological development (RTD) Activities (clinical trials, retrospective and prospective studies)(1).

2. It is not for the Commission to publicise a particular medical discipline or practice.

3. The Commission cannot give an opinion as it does not have access to the relevant information to do so. In regards to research on combating the effects of ageing, reference is made to the specific key Action 6 on The Ageing Population and Disabilities of the Quality of Life programme.

(1) http://www.cordis.lu/life/home.html.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0182/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(5 February 2001)

Subject: Fisheries Council and integration

The Fisheries Council is requested to produce a strategy on integrating environment and sustainable development into the Common Fisheries Policy. A comprehensive strategy is due to be submitted before the Gothenburg summit in June 2001, as part of the so-called Cardiff integration process. How is the Council intending to fulfil this request given the apparently limited progress to-date?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0182/01 and E-0215/01

(14 May 2001)

1. The Council submitted to the European Council at Santa Maria da Feira (June 2000) a report on Integrating environmental issues and sustainable development into the Common Fisheries Policy, responding to the Cologne European Council's invitation. This report was mainly descriptive: it presented the legal framework of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) with respect to the integration issue, the existing instruments and the results obtained.

2. Though not yet setting out an integration strategy, the Feira report constituted the first step in the definition of the sectoral strategy as requested by the Helsinki European Council. Noting that the CFP objectives of protecting the marine environment while at the same time managing the use of living marine resources responsibly in order to ensure that they remain sustainable have been only partially achieved, it concluded that endeavours to integrate environmental requirements into fisheries policy must therefore be continued and stepped up.

3. The Feira report also referred to the CFP review in 2002, which will provide an opportunity for an in-depth debate on all questions related to the integration of fisheries and environmental policies and enable appropriate adjustments to be made to the CFP, as required for such integration in accordance with the integration strategy requested by the Helsinki European Council for June 2001.

4. The Council bodies are at present in the process of drawing up draft Council conclusions on environmental integration and sustainable development in the Common Fisheries Policy, which are intended to respond to the request for an integration strategy by the June deadline.

5. It should be noted, however, that the Commission is expected to submit shortly to the Council and the European Parliament a number of important documents which will be relevant for a sectoral strategy.

It has not been possible therefore at this stage to take into consideration these documents which are:

- the Green Paper on the reform of the CFP;

- the Communication on elements of a strategy for the integration of environmental protection requirements into the CFP;

- the Action Plan for biodiversity (chapter on fisheries).

6. The contribution which will be provided in this context will still need a thorough examination in the Council and should play an important role in the implementation of a comprehensive integration strategy following the European Council meeting in Göteborg on 15 and 16 June 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0439/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Europartenariat programme

The European Commission recently took a decision to end the Europartenariat programme. This programme has provided excellent contact and networking opportunities for many small and medium-sized companies in South-West England, and they are dismayed to learn of its abolition.

Would the Commission indicate:

1. When this decision was taken?

2. Why the Commission is no longer continuing with this programme?

3. Whether the it plans to replace this programme with a new and comparable scheme?

4. Given that an evaluation study is currently taking place at a cost of GBP 200 000, why it decided to close the programme before this evaluation had been completed?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

1. and 2. The Commission has been reviewing its priorities and the means it has to carry out its work. In this context, and following the work of the Peer Group as set out in the Communication from the Commission of 26 July 2000 Matching the Commission's activities with its human resources, it has decided that it will no longer be directly involved in the management of Europartenariat events(1).

3. The Commission will not prepare a specific programme to financially support Europartenariat-type events. It will continue its efforts aimed at facilitating co-operation between companies and promoting internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by other means.

In the context of regional policy, support to SMEs remains an objective eligible for structural funds.

4. The objective of the Europartenariat evaluation study that is being carried out is to examine the impact that the programme Europartenariat has had over the 10-12 year period of its existence, and to suggest improvements to the formula. The decision of the Commission not to continue investing its own resources in managing this programme does not preclude that the formula developed over the years may be used by other interested parties, particularly those that have recognised the benefits of past programmes. In this context the evaluation will be a useful tool for such interests. The Commission is ready to make available the management tools it has developed, such as the organisers guide and the software package, to new organisers.

(1) SEC(2000) 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0152/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Balkans syndrome safety of Community staff

The Commission has already expressed its concern about the Balkans syndrome, while large numbers of Community staff and non-governmental organisations are located in dangerous areas of Kosovo. As Thessaloniki is the seat of the Agency for the Reconstruction of the Balkans, does the Commission intend to consider the possibility of moving Community staff to Thessaloniki to protect their health? The extension of the agency's activities to Serbia and Montenegro will cause communication problems for the agency's Community staff. Under the existing regulations, is a subsidy for an air service connecting Thessaloniki with Pristina-Belgrade-Podgorica a possibility?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

The investigation of the alleged Balkans syndrome is still ongoing in various fora.

The United Nations Environmental Programme and the Community's Article 31 Committee have concluded that there is no immediate environmental or health risk. The Community co-operates with the international organisations carrying out such investigations. Thus far, there is no clear evidence of health implications. The work of the European Agency for Reconstruction will therefore continue as usual i.e. in the places where the programmes are implemented.

Although transport in the region can be difficult, the opening of offices of the Agency in Belgrade and Podgorica will not cause communication difficulties. Apart from the fact that each of the Agency's three offices will handle separate programmes with dedicated staff, modern technology provides for sufficient contacts and overall co-ordination.

As regards the Honourable Member's second suggestion, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that Community competition rules would not allow such a subsidy either with Community or national funds unless it results from a Community-wide tendering process.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0122/01 by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Council. EU policy aimed at eradicating torture.



Official Journal 235 E , 21/08/2001 P. 0125 - 0126



WRITTEN QUESTION P-0122/01 by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Council (24 January 2001) Subject: EU policy aimed at eradicating torture Will the Council under the Swedish Presidency give a commitment to work actively at EU level and internationally to develop a comprehensive EU policy leading to the elimination and prevention of torture and ill-treatment as a key objective of the EU Human Right's policy bearing in mind that torture is thought to take place in over half the countries of the world and is inflicted on women, children and men and will the Council ensure that bringing those responsible for acts of torture is also made a key part of such an EU policy? Reply (14 May 2001) The Council Human Rights working group is examining ways to reinforce the EU's policy against torture and has engaged in the process of drafting guidelines for an EU policy towards third countries on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Swedish Presidency aims at adoption of the draft guidelines by the Council before July 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0161/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Preventable infant deaths in the world

According to the report by Unicef for 2001, in 1999 eleven million children under the age of five around the world died from causes that could have been prevented. Furthermore, the growth of 177 million children is impaired because their mothers were malnourished during pregnancy.

The report also highlights the fact that some 100 million children have no access to schooling. In poor countries one child in five does not receive primary education, and approximately 20 million children have been forced to flee their homes because of war.

Given that our sense of responsibility and empathy towards other human beings prevents us from remaining impassive to such a desperate state of affairs, does the Commission see the need to put forward specific suggestions whereby the Member States would reconvert the debt owed to them by poor countries into investment, with a view to ensuring that debt payments do not prevent the latter from providing basic social services?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2001)

The Commission recognizes the problems and development challenges highlighted in the United Nations International children's emergency fund (Unicef) annual report. The Commission supports the efforts of developing countries to improve their health and education outcomes and food security. The Commission does this through direct investment in the social sectors and through support for international initiatives to relieve the debt burden of the poorest countries. Former debt repayments are now used within national budgets to fund poverty reduction efforts. This has led to increased expenditure on the social sectors including health, education and food security.

All Member States have pledged sums to the enhanced highly indebted poor countries HIPC framework. Disbursement now needs to be accelerated to fund poverty reduction strategies in these countries. The Community has committed 1 billion and disbursed 354 million representing about a third of the total contributions to date. The Commission would welcome further efforts by all donor countries and in particular these G7 countries, whose contributions to the HIPC trust fund is not commenserate to the size of their economies.

The Community provides substantive and increasing assistance for programs in the health and education sectors in developing countries. Assistance supports the improved management and performance of health systems including the delivery of interventions to improve maternal and child health and to increase access to primary education, particularly for girls.