ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4106/00

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: State of affairs of farming in Apulia

In demonstrations lasting several days during the first half of November, in the city of Barletta and in villages in the Ofanto valley, farmers from Barletta mounted a strong protest against the steep increase in fuel prices, the extremely high fines imposed for planting vines which are held to be illegal, and the 35 % cut in aid for olive oil.

The city and residents of Barletta suffered serious damage when the town hall was occupied, the main internal roads in the city itself were blocked and a tilting train was forcibly held at the city railway station; as a result of these protests three city guards who had intervened to curb the demonstration were wounded.

Therefore, will the Commission say whether farmers within Objective 1 regions may benefit from:

- the abolition of fines imposed for vines which are held to be illegal or, alternatively, the imposition of a token fine, as is already the case in Spain;

- non-implementation of the revised 35 % cut in aid to olive oil, or, if the revised cut is confirmed, a reduction below 35 %;

- a reduction in the cost of fuel used for agricultural purposes.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3184/00

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: EQUAL programme

At the meetings the Commission has held with officials from the various Member States regarding the EQUAL programme, it has undertaken to submit a document laying down guidelines and formulas for the partnerships under the programme.

1. Given that the deadlines for the Community programme EQUAL are rather tight, when will the Commission comply with its undertaking to submit a document on partnerships, since this is essential to meet the objectives of the programme?

2. What criteria will be used for allocating Community aid if a partnership is submitted between an objective 1 region and a region not covered by the objectives?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

The Commission recognises that the correct establishment of the development partnerships in all Member States is extremely important for the good development of the EQUAL initiative. This question is the subject of detailed discussions, both at bilateral and multilateral level, within the current negotiations with Member States concerning the approval of the draft national Community initiative programmes. The outcome of this close collaboration can already be seen in the establishment of questions and answers, which set out interpretation of and agreements on certain points of the initiative, including the partnerships.

It is true that, for certain Member States, it is also important to indicate clear criteria for determining the type of financing in cases where a partnership project exists between an area in objective 1 and another area outside that objective. The Commission will work within the aforementioned negotiations to ensure that pragmatic rules are established in the Member States to settle this problem.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1602/00

by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Subsidiarity principle

The Treaty of Amsterdam, which entered into force on 1 May 1999, has annexed to it a protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The protocol clarifies and lays down further criteria for the application and observance of those principles. Has the introduction of this protocol led to any changes in the Commission and in the working methods of its officials and, if so, what changes have taken place to ensure that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are observed?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

The Commission has organised itself internally to take account of the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. This protocol takes up the essentials of the guidelines drawn up at the 1992 Edinburgh European Council, which the Commission has always endeavoured to fully respect.

From July 1998 new internal guidelines were presented and distributed to Commission departments, which aimed to define more clearly what action should be taken in the light of the information given in the protocol.

These instructions have brought results which can be seen, in particular, in Commission departments giving clearer explanations for planned Community action in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2702/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Turkey

1. What is the Commission's estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support policies were extended to Turkey on its accession to the EU:

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

To estimate the extra annual cost of agricultural support resulting from Turkey's accession to the Community it would be necessary to know with a reasonable degree of certainty the date, terms and the conditions of Turkey's accession to the Community. These aspects will have to be defined in accession negotiations with Turkey, which have not yet been opened. Consequently, any cost estimate made on the basis of assumptions indicated by the Honourable Member would necessarily be of an entirely hypothetical and speculative nature. At the present stage of the pre-accession process the Commission is, therefore, not in a position to answer the questions asked by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3508/00

by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Circeo national park

Given that:

- the Circeo national park was established by royal decree in the 1930s;

- since that time no park authority has been set up and no regional development plan drawn up and adopted;

- the zone includes an area of outstanding environmental importance, including Roman archaeological remains and lakes;

- one of these lakes, lake Paola, is treated as private property, even though it is extensively subsidised by the local authorities and is not given the necessary protection from private activities; nevertheless it forms an integral part of the park and there should be public access to its waters;

- the national legislation on the matter is confused and controversial and does nothing to clarify the situation, even though the area is one of national and European interest;

Will the Commission say:

- whether it is aware of this problem?

- whether it intends to investigate the matter further?

- whether it intends to ensure that the national authorities comply with European law, with reference also to the broader area including the Pontine islands and the nature reserves there, in order to protect the environment in what is a highly man-made area and to defend the interest of inhabitants who are living in a state of uncertainty from all points of view?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

In the specific case, since certain portions of the territory covered by Parco Nazionale del Circeo have been proposed as sites of Community importance under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) and classified as special protection areas (SPA) under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(2), these directives could constitute the possibly relevant Community law.

However, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, due to a lack of grounds of complaint on the application of Community law, no breach can be identified at present.

As for the fact that the Ente Parco has never been set up, the Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that situations of non-conformity with internal national law are relevant only in the internal national legal system.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3072/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: EU agencies, foundations and centres

Would the Commission list all EU Agencies, Foundations and Centres, indicating the cities in which they are located, the number of people employed in each and the funding received by each?

Are the any proposals to establish any new EU organisations? If so, when is a decision on their establishment likely to be taken?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2000)

The Commission refers to the table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat containing a list of the existing Community decentralised bodies (agencies, foundations, offices and centres) with indication of the cities in which they are located, the number of people employed (establishment table) in each body and the funding from the Community budget (2000 and 2001) for each.

On 27 September 2000 the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation to set up a European aviation safety agency(1). This proposal has been forwarded to the Parliament and Council according to normal procedures.

Following the Commission's white paper on food safety(2) a proposal for a regulation including a European food authority is programmed for the end of the year 2000.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the Commission in its communication on Matching the Commission's activities with its human resources(3), paragraph 3.3 on Externalisation, has proposed to undertake feasibility studies and cost/benefit analyses relating to certain areas.

(1) COM(2000) 595.

(2) COM(1999) 719 final.

(3) SEC(2000) 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2302/00

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Structural funding for Ceuta in the period 2000-2006

What amount of structural funding does the Commission envisage for the Spanish region of Ceuta for the period 2000-2006?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2302/00, E-2304/00 and E-2306/00 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

It is impossible at present to give any precise estimate of the volume and breakdown of Structural Fund appropriations that the region of Ceuta and Melilla will receive for the 2000-2006 programming period. Negotiations on Objectives 1 and 2 funding with the Spanish authorities are still in progress.

Likewise it is too early to say what amounts will be allocated to the region under the Community Initiatives Interreg and Urban.

In the case of Objective 1 the Commission sent each Member State a proposal for distribution of the available appropriations among the regions concerned. These proposals are based on the Commission's method of distributing Objective 1 appropriations among the Member States. The Commission is sending a copy of the proposal for Spain direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

It must be stressed however that these are merely indicative proposals. The actual allocation is agreed by the Member State and the Commission when the Community support framework or single programming document is adopted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2874/00

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

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Industrial accidents on board fishing vessels

One in five deaths related to industrial accidents in Galicia occur in the fisheries sector: over the decade 1990-1999, such accidents at sea affected a total of 18 672 Galician seamen. These figures, which appear in a report of the Galician branch of the UGT trade union, are sufficient in themselves to indicate the gravity of the situation. In its report, the UGT takes the view that the high accident rate is largely due to the extremely unsatisfactory working conditions on board the vessels: excessively long working days going up to 16 or 18 hours, lack of suitable rest periods and training periods, periods of up to several months spent at sea away from seamen's families, and the use of temporary recruitment leading to abuses by employers. All this is compounded by the neglect of the public authorities, which fail to conduct the necessary safety inspections.

In view of this situation, which no doubt reflects a problem also present in other EU fleets, and in the light of the Union's competences and responsibilities, what action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that seamen are offered working conditions similar to those in other economic sectors with a view to ending the present high accident rate?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about the situation in the fisheries sector, which must be regarded as a high-risk economic activity area.

Against this background, the Council has adopted occupational health and safety directives with a view to improving health and safety conditions at work and reducing industrial accidents and occupational diseases.

This legislation includes Council Directives 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels(1) and 93/103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels(2).

Reference should also be made to Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time(4), which was amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 to cover other sectors and activities(3). This means that the sea fisheries sector is now covered by Directive 93/104/EC. A new article (17b) contains specific provisions in respect of workers on board sea-going fishing vessels. The deadline for transposition into national law is 1 August 2003.

The Member States must ensure adequate supervision and monitoring of the transposition of these directives, so that the safety measures for which they provide can make a significant contribution to the reduction of accidents and occupational diseases in the fisheries sector.

(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.

(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(3) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.

(4) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2538/00

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Erasmus programme: taxation of students

Can the Commission confirm that students participating in Erasmus exchange programmes as visiting students are exempt from liability to local taxation when resident as visiting students in the host country? Can the Commission therefore advise as to the proper course of action when a visiting student on an exchange between the UK and France receives tax demands, and ultimately final demands from Grenoble (2nd Division) or any other such local authority?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2000)

In the absence of harmonised Community legislation, direct taxation falls in principle under the competence of the Member States.

According to the information available in the Commission, the Erasmus grants are exempted from income taxation in all the countries participating in Erasmus. The Honourable Member's question refers however specifically to local taxation.

There is not as such any local income tax in France. It is possible that the local taxation mentioned by the Honourable Member in the question refers to taxes, dues or other fees charged by a town to residents for public services. Exchange students will not necessary be exempted from such duties. Nor would such duties normally be covered by double taxation conventions concluded between Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2727/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Price of arable land

Would the Commission give figures on some comparable basis for the price of a hectare of similar arable land in each of the Member States over each of the last ten years, or for as long a period as is possible?

Will it also give comparable figures for the United States, Canada, Australia and Argentina?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2000)

Most Member States have provided the Commission with figures on agricultural land prices every year since 1973.

Figures for the period 1977-1998, accompanied by methodological information to help interpret them, were published by Eurostat in the 1999 edition of Agricultural land prices and rents in the European Union(1).

Figures on agricultural land prices come from administrative sources in most Member States, having been recorded by the land registration or tax authorities. The main methodological differences between Member States are explained in the above-mentioned publication. The lack of comparability between Member States lies in the fact that Member States supply figures on agricultural land prices voluntarily.

The Commission has no comparable figures for the United States, Canada, Australia or Argentina.

(1) ISBN 92-828-8381-7.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3181/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: ERM II

1. Should the UK decide to join the euro, does the Council believe that the Treaty would require the UK to join ERM II prior to joining the euro and, if so, for how long?

2. If membership of ERM II is not a pre-requisite of membership, how would the UK be expected to fulfil the exchange rate stability requirements contained in the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

Should the United Kingdom decide that it wishes to adopt the euro, the Council will undertake a broad assessment of its eligibility to do so. This broad assessment will cover a number of criteria. As far as the exchange-rate stability criterion is concerned, the relevant EC Treaty provision is the third indent of Article 121(1) (ex Article 109j). This specifies that the exchange-rate criterion is the observance of the normal fluctuation margins provided for by the exchange-rate mechanism of the European monetary system, for at least two years, without devaluing against the currency of any other Member States. Article 3 of the Protocol on the convergence criteria also makes reference to the criterion on participation in the exchange-rate mechanism of the European monetary system referred to in the third indent of Article 121(1) of this EC Treaty.

It should be noted that neither the decision to widen the Exchange rate mechanism (ERM) band to ± 15 % from ± 2,25 % nor the move to the ERM II are considered valid reasons to remove the requirement of ERM/ERM II membership. Therefore, in order to be consistent with the Treaty provisions, the participation of sterling in the ERM II for two years prior to the United Kingdom adopting the euro would be expected, although exchange rate stability during a period of non-participation would be taken into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3361/00

by Barbara Weiler (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against mother-tongue language teachers

In Hessen mother-tongue language teachers are generally placed in a lower category on the public pay scale for non-tenured employees than their German colleagues.

1. In the view of the Commission, are the German Länder entitled to make it a practice to place mother-tongue language teachers in a lower category than other teachers in non-tenured employment?

2. If so, would this lower categorisation still be tenable if a full teaching qualification from the country of origin were expressly required as a condition of giving mother-tongue language instruction and if, in addition, the individual teaching qualification had been recognised in an equivalence decision?

3. Does the Commission not take the view that such treatment violates the following rights:

- the right to equal treatment (in this case as regards nationality)

- the right to freedom of movement

- the right to equal pay for equal work?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2000)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform her of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2635/00

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Illegal state aid to Combus A/S

The State-owned Danish coach company Combus A/S has, with the help of State aid, been able to compete with private (domestic and foreign) coach companies charging fares well below real cost.

According to my information the Association of Danish bus and coach operators had a meeting with the Commission in Autumn 1999 at which they expressed their objections to the illegal State aid to Combus A/S, and were given to believe that the Commission was going to take the matter further.

The Commission:

1. Has it completed its inquiries following the visit to Brussels of the Danish bus and coach operators in Autumn 1999?

2. If its investigations are still under way, can the Commission tell me what progress has been made and in particular when it expects to have dealt with the question of illegal State aid to Combus A/S?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

State funding which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings and which affects trade between Member States requires, in principle, the Commission's prior clearance. No state aid notification under Article 88 (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty has reached the Commission on the issue of the financing of the Danish public transport company Combus A/S.

However, financial compensation for the provision of public transport by road and rail is exempted from an a priori notification and assessment by the Commission under the Treaty's state aid regime if granted in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway(1) as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991(2).

Within the framework of the Regulation, Member States are free to choose the form of compensation they grant companies to balance costs for the provision of public services. The Commission will react however in cases of documented misuse of such aid provided that both a harmful impact on competition and an effect on cross-border trade can be established.

The Commission has not taken a formal decision regarding its assessment of the financing of Combus A/S. In view of the current market situation the Commission believes an immediate reaction is not required.

(1) OJ L 156, 28.6.1969.

(2) OJ L 169, 29.6.1991.