ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3775/00

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Assent for new EC-Greenland fisheries agreement

On 14 September 2000 the Commission concluded negotiations with Greenland for a new fisheries agreement, which provides for an annual contribution from the EU of 42,82 million for the period 2000-2006. The agreement makes no distinction between the two types of funding involved, namely that for fishing rights and that for development aid, in spite of

the Commission's undertaking that the agreement would distinguish between both concepts. In accordance with the Commission's own unilateral declaration, the total breaks down into 28 million for fishing rights, with the remainder earmarked for development aid.

In addition to this budgetary peculiarity, this agreement is among those with the largest amounts of funding, for which reason Parliament ought to be asked for its assent.

Does the Commission consider that the EP ought to give its assent to the agreement reached with Greenland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2001)

The Commission would like to recall that the question of the assent procedure first came up in connection with the conclusion of the 3rd Protocol with Greenland in 1994. However, the matter was not pursued on account of lack of clarity concerning the exact meaning of the terms important budgetary implications in the 2nd sub-paragraph of Article 228(3) (now Article 300(3)) of the EC Treaty.

It should also be recalled that, in connection with the conclusion of the 1996 Fisheries Agreement with Mauritania, the Parliament introduced an appeal for annulment of the Council Regulation approving that agreement (case C-189/97). In its judgement of 8 July 1999, the Court of Justice ruled that the financial compensation due under this agreement, i.e. amounts between ECU 55,16 million and ECU 51,56 million per annum, did not have important budgetary implications for the Community within the meaning of the 2nd sub-paragraph of Article 228(3) (now Article 300(3)) of the EC Treaty. This judgment was based on the facts that the budgetary amounts involved represented around 1 % of the credits for external relations and 5 % of the credits for fisheries, which was considered not to be important.

The new 4th Protocol with Greenland will provide for a financial compensation of 42,82 million per annum, clearly below the amounts which were at issue in Case C-189/97. Nor do these amounts exceed the percentages of the year 2000 credits for external relations and for fisheries mentioned in the judgement. Therefore, the Commission is not of the opinion that the EC Treaty requires the assent of the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3591/00

by Linda McAvan (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Welfare of poultry for slaughter in Spain

The Commission has published a report of a mission carried out by it Food and Veterinary Office in Spain from 18 to 29 October 1999 concerning the production of poultrymeat (DG (SANCO) 1213/1999-MR Final).

Paragraph 3.9.3 of the report reveals that bad stunning procedures were procedures were observed in several establishments: in particular premature electric shocks and failure to reach the recommended amperage. In addition, there appears to be little or no monitoring of poultry welfare during transport or at the time of arrival at the slaughterhouse.

What steps is the Commission taking to require the Spanish authorities to ensure that stunning is carried out properly and that the welfare of poultry is supervised during transport and on arrival at the slaughterhouse?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2001)

As indicated by the Honourable Member, the findings and conclusions of the poultry meat production mission report to Spain (No 1213-1999) performed in October 1999 showed some shortcomings in the Spanish official control system as regards poultry welfare Community legislation. In this report, recommendations were made to the Spanish competent authority in order to improve the situation, but the Commission did not receive any information on corrective actions taken from the Spanish authority within the requested deadlines.

In order to assess any progress made in Spain following the 1999 mission, a follow-up mission was performed by the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office from the 2-6 October 2000. A draft report is being sent to the Spanish competent authority for comments. Once any comments have been received, the report will be finalised and, together with these comments, sent to the Parliament and published on the Internet. The Honourable Member will therefore be able to judge whether any improvement in this particular field was recorded. The Commission will consider whether further action is necessary on this matter in the light of the final report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4039/00

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

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Siemens

Have Mr Liikanen and Mr Monti received the letter sent to them by the Mayor of Hengelo, Mr Kerckhaert, concerning Siemens' plans to close its subsidiary Demag Delaval in Hengelo and relocate it to Germany, despite the fact that the undertaking involved is economically sound?

Is it true that Siemens' takeover of the Demag Delaval undertakings has still to be approved by the European Commission?

Does the Commission deem it justifiable for undertakings to be relocated immediately after takeover, even where there are no clear business reasons for so doing, when the problems caused by job losses are considerable?

Is the Commission prepared to investigate whether Siemens has complied with all European legislation relating to consultations with employees and the works council in this matter, given that some 700 jobs are at stake?

Has the Commission already replied to the letter from the Mayor of Hengelo? If not, when will it do so?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The Member of the Commission responsible for Competition and Enterprise have received the letter.

The merger decision in case Comp./M.2224-Siemens/Demag Krauss Maffei, which also concerns Demag Delaval Werke, was approved by the Commission on 20 December 2000.

The Commission is within the framework of merger control not authorized to supervise companies' economic decisions in terms of location matters.

The Commission has no further information about the underlying facts of the allegations raised by the Honourable Member and is therefore not able to make a final assessment of whether or not there has been an infringement of Community law.

Given that Germany and the Netherlands have properly incorporated into their national law the provisions of the relevant Directives(1), the Commission wants to underline, that any issues arising in this area are in the first instance a matter for the national industrial relations' procedures, and/or the national courts.

The letter from the Mayor of Hengelo was answered on 10 January 2001 by Directorate general for Competition. A reply from Directorate general for Enterprise is presently under preparation.

(1) Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ L 225, 12.8.1998); Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ L 161, 5.3.1977); Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of an European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (OJ L 254, 30.9.1994).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4093/00

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

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Classifying rural tourism facilities by category and quality

Rural tourism is a growth sector. In some EU countries, holiday-making has gradually switched from hotels in traditional beach and city resorts to the countryside, with its opportunities for activities such as walking, open-air living in direct contact with nature or relaxing by a warm fireside.

The development of rural tourism has brought to light needs which must be met if this form of tourism, which is a new dimension within the sector as a whole and which brings such benefits to the rural economy, is to be protected and promoted.

Could the Commission offer support and assistance in order to enable the rural tourism sector to provide services for holiday makers such as promotion and information campaigns, the classification of establishments according to their standard and the range of services they offer, and recommendations to help novices find their way around such a new sector as rural tourism?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Environment-friendly rural tourism is one way of diversifying activity in rural areas and it can also help to restore their vitality.

The tenth indent of Article 33 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Guidance and Guarantee Fund(1) provides for the part-financing of measures to encourage tourist activities.

Depending on the Community region concerned, these measures may be included in rural development plans, operational programmes or single programming documents. It is also possible to fund measures of this kind in the programmes submitted under the Leader+ Community Initiative.

It is for the Member States to decide on the projects they wish to have part-financed, bearing in mind the rules on eligibility applying to operations financed by the Structural Funds.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3590/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Health expenditure in Cuba

Would the Commission give a detailed financial breakdown, including historic figures, on support to the Cuban health sector?

Would the Commission be specific about the nature of that support, for example, did it include funding for infrastructure?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Community support to the Cuban health sector can be seen in the detailed breakdown of the European Communities humanitarian office (ECHO) assistance to Cuba in the last seven years. More specifically, the sixth global plan consisted of the following elements: food, 1 253 564; medicine, 1 047 506; primary products for medicine, 908 628; hygiene equipment, 374 275; small medicine instruments, 759 115; textiles, 431 201; stomatology products, 448 755; and others (Admin., contingencies, mldr), 1 766 956. As concerns funding for infrastructure, ECHO funding was used, in a limited number of cases, to finance micro-projects aimed at refurbishing hospitals in a very bad shape or to purchase small equipment.

>TABLE>

The non-governmental organisation (NGO) co-financing budget line (B7 6000) has also been used to support the Cuban health sector. In 1999, three NGO co-financed projects in the health sector came to 1 567 712.

In addition, a programme of support to the economic reforms under B7-3110, currently under discussion, contains provision of 1 130 000 as assistance for the Ministry of Health/the Ministry of Public Finance for the improvement of the use of resources in the health sector. The support will mainly be in the form of technical assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3278/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Umbria and Marche

Years after the event, and despite the funds provided, the people of Umbria and Marche are still living in conditions of extreme hardship and the process of reconstruction has not been completed. Could the Commission, therefore, state whether it intends to launch an investigation aimed at evaluating the assistance provided and ascertaining whether the procedures laid down by Community law were complied with?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

Within the partnership, and in particular through the meetings of the Monitoring Committees which it attends, the Commission is kept informed of how the Structural Funds are being used. It does not plan therefore to establish a committee of enquiry to evaluate Community structural assistance under Objective 5(b) in Marche and Umbria. At this stage, it regards as adequate the monitoring of and checks on those measures carried out under the regulations governing assistance from the Structural Funds.

The next Monitoring Committee meeting in both regions will take place in December 2000. The agenda will include the approval of the annual reports on the implementation of the single programming documents (SPD) in 1999, detailed information on the progress and implementation of each measure and discussion of the evaluation reports. Close attention will obviously be paid to the reconstruction measures required as a result of the earthquake.

With regard to those measures, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that information on the progress report is at present neither exhaustive nor final since assistance under the SPD does not have to be completed until 31 December 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3952/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Index-linking of war pensions

Will the Commission investigate the question of war pensions being index-linked or means-tested in the Member States of the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2001)

The matter of compensation of war victims remains a responsibility of the Member States. The Commission has no powers to investigate this matter, and Member States have so far not expressed an interest in exchanging information on war pensions in the framework of the Community institutions.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3575/00

by Yves Piétrasanta (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Food poisoning in Barcelona

Lestonac School in Barcelona has been hit by an outbreak of food poisoning, caused by contaminated meat, which began on 2 October, and affected over 150 pupils.

Is the Commission aware of this incident?

Has it checked whether there was a failure to observe EU regulations on hygiene in slaughterhouses and food handling?

Does it intend to open an enquiry in order to identify where responsibility may or may not lie?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

The Commission was not informed officially of the outbreak of food poisoning in Barcelona due to the bacterium E. coli. On becoming aware of it indirectly and having noted references to it in a Spanish language newspaper, the Commission contacted the relevant Spanish authorities for information. The authorities explained that the matter was being handled at local level, not having extended to other Member States.

There are two criteria necessary to permit the launching of a rapid alert system notification. These are, firstly, that the matter presents a grave risk to human health and, secondly, that the products in question affect more than one Member State. If one of these criteria is not met, the problem is managed locally or nationally.

The proposal(1) to modify Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety(2) includes a provision whereby Member States will be obliged to report incidents occurring at national level.

(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.

(2) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3898/00

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Advance supply of 5 and 10 banknotes

According to a recent report by the committee responsible for monitoring the introduction of the euro it has just been realised that it will not be possible to adapt most automatic cash dispensers in the EU Member States to issue 5 banknotes and, in certain countries, 10 banknotes also. In other words cash dispensers will generally only be able to issue 20, 50 or 100 banknotes. This will cause a major problem for the retail trade which, after 1 January 2002, will be receiving payment in large denominations and require to give change in 5 or 10 banknotes which will rapidly become very hard to obtain. In view of this apparently unforeseen situation, should the question of advance issuing of 5 and 10n banknotes in particular be reconsidered? In certain countries, from 15 December 2001, the public will be able to purchase a kit containing all euro coins with which they will thus be able to familiarise themselves. In the weeks leading up to 1 January 2000 would it not be a good idea to enable the European general public to purchase 5 and 10 banknotes thereby facilitating the transition to the euro?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2001)

The Member States of the European monetary union (EMU) have agreed to reduce the period of dual circulation of banknotes and coins in 2002 as much as possible. This is in order to reduce the possibility of confusion for the citizens and to alleviate the necessity for the retail sector to operate in two currencies.

A banknote frontloading to the public could in effect lengthen the dual circulation period and could run counter to the reasons that led to its shortening. Moreover, banknote frontloading to the public could entail the risk of early circulation of the notes before 1 January 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3635/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Concentration of ICT firms in large cities with a shortage of electricity

1. Can the Commission confirm that Amsterdam, Frankfurt, London and Paris are favourite locations for ICT firms, not least because of their optical-fibre cable connections?

2. Can the Commission also confirm that to maintain thousands of websites in cyberspace, to forward millions of e-mails and to link mobile phones with the Internet these firms need data hotels and telecom switches as large as sports halls full of computers each of which consumes, for computing and cooling purposes, as much electricity as a town of 20 000 inhabitants?

3. Is the Commission aware that new firms requesting adequate connections to the electricity grid in the cities referred to above face a wait of up to three years?

4. What can the Commission do to spread this new economy over locations with a serious shortage of high-quality modern job and provide an adequate supply of electricity?

Source: The Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant, 3 November 2000.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

1. The location of ICT firms is influenced by a whole range of factors. Some of these apply to all firms, e.g. the tax situation, the physical infrastructure and the origin of the firm's founders. Factors specific to ICT firms include the availability of skilled labour, the proximity of universities specialising in technology, and network connections, particularly their speed and cost. Taken together, these factors lead a great many firms to set up in Europe's main cities. However, nothing leads the Commission to suppose that the four cities the Honourable Member refers to are particularly favoured by ICT firms.

2. The energy consumption of telecommunications equipment is changing constantly. Thanks to technological progress, equivalent performance is requiring ever less energy, with equipment taking up ever less space. This unfortunately makes it impossible to calculate the energy consumption and space requirement of an unspecified set of activities.

3. The arrangements for connection to the electricity grid, and the obligations placed on distribution companies, are laid down by the Member States, whose competent authorities are responsible for monitoring this, without reporting to the Commission, in line with the principle of subsidiarity.

4. Article 11 of Directive 96/92/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity(1) stipulates that distribution system operators must maintain a secure, reliable and efficient electricity distribution system in their area, with due regard for the environment. They must not discriminate between system users or classes of system users.

The Member States have transposed the Directive into national law and must see that it is enforced.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4156/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Environmental impact assessment procedure in respect of the Via Sacchi car park in Rome

Aware that:

- Rome municipality granted the Soc. Paladino Srl. company permission (No 1048/1998) to build an underground car park in Via G. Sacchi in Rome.

- the Lazio Region, in the exercise of its environmental protection responsibilities under Article 10 of Law 72/1991, identified a number of specific hydrogeological risks and decided, by Order of the Chairman of the Regional Administration No 23 of 16 November 1999, that the work should be suspended.

- the Paladino company appealed to the Regional Administrative Court for a suspension of this order.

- on 22 March 2000 the court rejected the appeal, calling on the municipal authorities simply to check whether the project was likely to affect the stability of the surrounding land but stating that the building work did not require an environmental impact assessment.

- in November the municipality decided that the work should resume.

In view of the above and, in particular, the fact that, given its nature and scale, the project must be considered as subject to the provisions of Directives 85/337/EC(1) and 97/11/EC(2), Class 10(b), will the Commission:

1. Check whether the procedure followed by the Rome Municipality was acceptable?

2. State its position on this matter?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

As regards the general issue concerning car parks under the Community legislation on environmental impact assessment (Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC, of 3 March 1997), the Honourable Member is kindly requested to refer to previous answers given by the Commission to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-2858/99(1) and 243/00(2).

As regards the specific case, information given by the Honourable Member is not sufficient to demonstrate that the car park project mentioned is an urban development project under Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC, which is applicable to this case, and, therefore, that the specific project is covered by the Community legislation on environmental impact assessment.

Therefore, 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 of it can be identified at present.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000.

(2) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000.