ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2100/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Death of dolphins in EU waters.



Official Journal 089 E , 20/03/2001 P. 0149 - 0149



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2100/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (30 June 2000) Subject: Death of dolphins in EU waters In view of reports that hundreds of dolphins in EU waters are being caught and drowned, and further to my Written Question E-0935/00(1), will the Commission now draw up and publish a plan of action, in accordance with a strict timetable, to resolve the problem and prevent the death of dolphins, either by the application of improved scientific techniques or by a ban on the use of pelagic trawls, as already applied in some Member States? (1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 42. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (29 August 2000) At the Fisheries Council of 16 June 2000, the Commission expressed its deepest concern on this and similar issues. To follow up, the Commission will very soon contact Member States requesting them to inform it of what actions they have taken or intend to take at national level to limit by-catches of cetaceans in commercial fisheries. Furthermore, the Commission indicated its intention to give priority to further research and to consider what might be done in the immediate future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1267/00

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Structural Funds finance for the Autonomous Community of Valencia

With reference to the criteria established by the Berlin Summit, what amounts from which Structural Funds are to be allocated to the Valencian Autonomous Community between 2000 and 2006?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 2000)

It is not possible at the moment to estimate precisely the amount of money from the Structural Funds which the Autonomous Community of Valencia will receive in 2000-2006. Assistance under Objective 1 in Spain is currently being negotiated with the Spanish authorities and furthermore the Commission cannot prejudge at this stage the amounts which will be allocated to this region under the Interreg, Urban, Equal and Leader Community Initiatives.

In the case of Objective 1, the Commission sent each Member State a proposed distribution of the appropriations available among the eligible regions of the country based on the method used by the Commission to allocate the Objective 1 appropriations among the Member States themselves. The Commission is sending a copy of the proposal on Spain direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

However, it should be stressed that this is an outline proposal. The final allocation will be decided by mutual agreement between the Member State and the Commission when the Community Support Framework is adopted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1548/00

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Internal market

The Commission announced on 5 April 2000 that legal proceedings were being opened against banks in four European Union countries Germany, France, Italy and Spain which are suspected of increasing commission on the exchange of banknotes within the euro zone after the euro's entry into force.

What steps will the Commission take to prevent such practices?

What mechanisms exist to compensate consumers?

When can we expect to see a single payment and exchange area in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Honourable Member's question is based on an agency despatch released on 5 April 2000. The Commission cannot confirm the information contained in the question.

In February 1999, the Commission conducted a number of inquiries at banks to check whether any pricing agreements had been reached when the euro was introduced. The Member of the Commission responsible for competition announced to a Parliamentary Committee in February 2000 that signs of an agreement had been discovered and that proceedings would be initiated. At this stage in the procedure, it is simply not possible to give any information on the Member States or bodies concerned.

In its communication on retail payments in the internal market(1), the Commission gave its ideas on the gradual introduction of the single payments area, the objective being to make cross-border payments as quick, cheap and secure as domestic payments. A considerable amount of work needs to be carried out on the infrastructure to automate these payments and this will take time, but the Commission does expect steady progress to be made, resulting in substantial improvements by 1 January 2002.

(1) COM(2000) 36 final (http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/fr/finances/payment/2k-108.htm).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1145/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

The Commission has submitted to the Council and the European Parliament a comprehensive proposal which summarises the measures needed to control BSE and other TSEs (section 71). The Commission is to draw up proposals for suitable test programmes.

1. Will the Commission replace the ad hoc measures on BSE and other TSEs with comprehensive legislation in order to create clarity? If not, in what way will the Commission create clarity in respect of BSE and TSEs?

2. Will the Commission apply the improved Swiss methods for detecting BSE in the EU? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1122/00, E-1127/00, E-1128/00, E-1140/00, E-1141/00, E-1142/00, E-1143/00, E-1144/00, E-1145/00, E-1146/00, E-1147/00, E-1148/00, E-1150/00, E-1151/00, E-1152/00, E-1153/00, E-1155/00, E-1156/00, E-1157/00, E-1158/00, E-1160/00, E-1161/00 and E-1162/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member are being studied with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislation according to the time scale set out in the white paper on food safety.

It would be inappropriate at this stage to anticipate the details of each proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1421/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Corruption within the European Commission (return of misappropriated funds)

Can the Commission indicate what progress has been made in recovering BEF 5,5 million against the estate of Mr Berthelot and all misappropriated funds related to the Leonardo project, and is the Commission prepared to make a report to the European Parliament detailing the extent of the misappropriation, the attempts made to prevent discovery and the success in recovering funds?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

In December 1999, the Commission issued two debit notes for a total value of BEF 5,5 million against Mr Berthelot (expiry date 31 January 2000). The notes were contested but the Commission did not accept the arguments put forward by Mr Berthelot's lawyers. Since Mr Berthelot died in March 2000, a reminder and a formal notice to pay were sent to those entitled under him in March and April 2000 respectively. As no payment was made, the Commission started enforced recovery proceedings.

With regard to the Leonardo da Vinci programme, the Commission identified and recovered the amounts relating to expenditure considered as ineligible during the audit conducted by the office assisting it with programme implementation (Leonardo technical assistance office TAO). At the beginning of February 1999, the Commission notified the Brussels Prosecution Service of four cases linked to the operation of this office for information purposes. The investigation is under way and the Commission has not yet been informed of the results. The Commission has not uncovered any irregularity in the management of projects under the programme checked on the spot by its departments. Moreover, following the checks made by its departments into beneficiaries, the Commission regularly issues recovery orders against beneficiaries in respect of ineligible expenditure amounts.

In the course of the discharge procedure, the Commission has already reported to the rapporteur for the discharge for Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control on the situation regarding the Leonardo programme and on the monitoring of activities and rules relating to scientific visitors. The Commission has also transmitted all the reports drawn up by its departments on the matter to the Committee on Budgetary Control.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2220/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Pelagic trawls

Will the Commission list the Member States which authorise the use of pelagic trawls in EU waters?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

All Member States except Spain allow pelagic trawling in Community waters. However, Greece has no vessels equipped with mid-water otter trawls or pair trawls. Luxembourg and Austria have no fishing fleets.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2739/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Foie gras production

On 16 December 1998 the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare adopted a report on the welfare aspects of the production of foie gras in ducks and geese. This report recommended that no process should be used that results in an increase in liver size such that its function is significantly modified or that it directly or indirectly causes increased mortality, pain or distress to the animal, and that no feeding procedure should be used that results in substantial discomfort to the animals. The Committee also recommended that the use of small individual cages for housing these birds should be banned.

What plans does the Commission have to publish a proposed Directive to implement the Committee's recommendations?

Are force-feeding methods consistent with current EU animal husbandry law? If they are inconsistent with EU law, what steps does the Commission propose to take in order to remedy this situation? UK law is interpreted in such a way as to make the force-feeding of farm animals illegal. Should EU law on animal husbandry be interpreted in the same way? What EU laws are relevant to the foie gras industry?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2739/00 and E-2758/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Questions E-2183/00 and E-2618/00 by Mrs Lucas and Mr Davies(1).

(1) See p. 168.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2190/00

by Gerard Collins (UEN) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Availability of veterinary medicine

In reply to my Oral Question H-0062/00(1), the Commission stated that it would be prepared to consider adapting the approach adopted in the regulation on orphan medicinal products to the development of veterinary medicinal products.

Could the Commission state whether it has been sufficiently satisfied that such a development would stimulate the availability of veterinary medicines for minor species?

Could it indicate a definitive date when it intends carrying out and completing an assessment of the issue of whether public financing for developing these products can be permitted and/or made available?

(1) Written answer delivered on 15 February 2000.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2000)

The Commission is examining the various possible options to respond, in the current circumstances, to the problem posed by the non-availability of veterinary medicinal products for certain species or indications. The European Agency for Medicinal Products and the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products, in particular, are involved in this exercise.

A possible solution would be to adopt an approach comparable to that for orphan medicinal products. However, the effects of adopting any separate regulations would be felt only in the long-term. Moreover, the efficacy of such a policy would be directly dependent on the extent to which it provided an incentive to the veterinary pharmaceutical industry.

The acuteness of the problem of the non-availability of veterinary medicinal products is essentially due to the ban which has been in place since 1 January 2000 on the marketing of medicinal products for which no maximum residue limit had been set by that date, in the absence of scientific data from the manufacturers. The Commission is therefore planning to give priority to short-term measures, in particular the possibility of extrapolating the maximum residue limits set for certain species to other species, on the basis of the guidelines developed by the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products.

In the medium term, the revision of pharmaceutical legislation which is planned for 2001 could also offer an opportunity to propose adaptations to legislation in order to facilitate the marketing of new veterinary products or the use of medicinal products which are available.

The Commission is, however, continuing to consider the possibility of also developing a similar policy for veterinary medicinal products as was devised for orphan medicinal products, but it has not yet adopted a draft timetable.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1996/00

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Price differences for the posting of printed matter

At present, there are wide price differences for the posting and distribution of magazines on subscription between the United Kingdom and Ireland. In the context of the recently announced proposals for liberalisation of the postal service market, what solution to this problem does the Commission envisage?

Reply by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

In general in the Community, postage rates for magazines sold by subscription differ considerably depending on whether they are sent to an address in the same country or to an address in another Community country. This is indeed the case for postal rates between Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Unlike domestic rates, cross-border postage rates are dependent, following international agreements, on changes in the end costs which the dispatching postal service of one Member State must pay to the postal service of the other Member State responsible for distribution. Since rates must be geared to actual costs, as laid down in Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service(1) for services falling within the universal service, this rate distinction is not in breach of Community law. It is for the national regulatory authorities of each Member State to ensure compliance with obligations under the Directive.

Since Directive 97/67/EC has already determined the principles on which postage rates are to be based, it is not planned to deal with this question again in the proposed amendment to this Directive.

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1356/00

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

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Modification of specific aids to the dried fruit and nuts sector

The Union of Small Farmers and Stockbreeders of Málaga province (Spain) has expressed its concern that the dried fruit and nuts sector could cease to exist in the near future, as a result of the decision to change the existing system of aids and replace it by a new system proposed by the Commission which could lead to the disappearance of the sector, which provides a livelihood for 200 000 households. In Málaga province alone, elimination of the aids would affect over 15 000 producers.

The Union of Small Farmers believes that if the sector is to survive it can only be through the introduction of specific income support arrangements for dried fruit and nuts producers under the budgets provided for in the COM in fruit and vegetables. This proposal has already been put forward by the Fruit and Vegetable Producers' Platform.

Can the Commission state what action it intends to take to alleviate these farmers' anxieties arising from its proposals to alter the aid arrangements which have hitherto applied in this sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2000)

The specific aid scheme for nuts of Title Ila of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(1) was set up in 1989 in order to improve nut productivity and competitiveness. The main element of this scheme was the improvement plan, through which a producer organisation could benefit from financial support for a maximum of 10 years.

The support scheme has not been modified. The support was always intended to be temporary and degressive, in order to shift financial responsibility onto the growers.

Additional support for the nut sector is available for nuts and locust beans, as for all other products in the fruit and vegetable sector, through the operational fund scheme of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(2) which provides financial support for all fruit and vegetables marketed through producer organisations.

(1) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972.

(2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1198/00

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

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Imports of Venezuelan and Peruvian preserved sardines into the EU

Article 2 of Council Regulation 2136/89 of 21 June 1989(1) laying down common marketing standards for preserved sardines stipulates that the only products which may be marketed as preserved sardines and receive the trade description provided for in Article 7 are those which, inter alia, meet the requirement of having been prepared exclusively from the species Sardina Pilchardus Walbaum.

The species which fulfil this requirement are those falling under the CN codes:

- 0302.61.10 (Sardina Pilchardus, fresh or chilled)

- 0303.71.10 (Sardina Pilchardus, frozen).

Only from these species can preserved sardines be obtained which may be described as such and classified as products falling under the CN codes 1604.13.11.20 and 1604.13.19.20.

Can the Commission state what monitoring action is being taken to ensure that the Community legislation concerned is being complied with in full?

Can the Commission state what results have been achieved in the monitoring of respect for this Community legislation in the case of imports of preserved sardines from Venezuela and Peru?

(1) OJ L 212, 22.7.1989, p. 79.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2000)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy(1) requires the Member States to monitor all fisheries activities on their territory, including marketing, in order to ensure compliance with all the rules in force. The implementation and supervision of Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 are therefore matters for which the Member States are responsible.

Following a complaint by a Member State in July 1999 and information received from certain private organisations, the Commission notified the matter to the importing Member State (Germany), asking it to ensure strict compliance with the Regulation. A number of practices not in conformity with Community legislation were corrected as a result. However, since the situation did not appear to be entirely satisfactory, the Commission then initiated infringement proceedings against the importing Member State. These are still in progress.

Like the proceedings, the complaint concerns the import of pilchards from Peru and sardinellas from Venezuela under the designation sardines. It should be noted that the Community imports only small quantities of preserved sardines from these two countries. In 1999, no imports under codes 1604 13 11 20, 1604 13 19 20 and 1604 20 50 10 were recorded for Venezuela. In the case of Peru, 70 tonnes were imported by the Member State against which infringement proceedings were initiated.

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1988/00

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Internal market: delays in transposing European directives

Statements have been published to the effect that the Member States have been cutting back on their efforts to transpose European internal market legislation into national law within the corresponding time-limits.

The gap between Member States applying single market legislation (particularly Sweden, Finland and Spain) and those delaying transposition (four countries Greece, Portugal, France and Luxembourg account for over 40 % of delays) has widened dramatically.

Given that Portugal is among the countries with the worst deficit:

- can the Commission clarify whether the above statements are accurate with regard to Portugal?

- can it provide a list of all directives (regardless of the area concerned) awaiting transposition in Portugal, indicating the subject and the length of the delay in each case?

- can it provide a breakdown of these directives in order of urgency, based on the importance which it attaches to each case?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

The single market scoreboard report(1), shows an increasing gap between Member States implementing internal market legislation in a timely way and those accumulating delays. On 15 April 2000, the cut off date for transposition data used in the scoreboard, Greece, France, Luxembourg and Portugal accounted for 44 % of all cases of delayed transposition (344 overdue implementing measures out of a total of 786).

The list of directives overdue in Portugal is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. It is not possible to provide a breakdown in order of urgency. Member States are under a legal obligation to implement all directives on time. Failure to do so results in the opening of infringement proceedings by the Commission in accordance with Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) SEC(2000) 879.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3961/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Construction of gas turbines

The Minister for Development recently announced that gas turbine units would be built in the area of Hellinoperamata (Herakleion) for the Greek Electricity Board (DEI). This decision is contrary to decisions of the relevant prefectural and local government bodies. It should be pointed out that the area concerned is already polluted by fumes from a DEI plant built inside the coastal area without any operating licence which, along with other companies in the vicinity, is causing heavy pollution in the area to the west of the City of Herakleion. A study drawn up for the municipality concerning the environmental consequences of the DEI plant for the region in 1998 and 1999 respectively found that nitrogen and sulphur oxide levels had risen by 300-400 %.

Is the Commission aware of these very serious allegations, and what action does it intend to take to ensure compliance with Community environmental legislation and to put an end to pollution in the Hellinoperamata region?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.