ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2196/00

by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Proposed allocation of fishing opportunities to the Community fleet in the waters of the Svalbard archipelago

In the Commission proposal concerning the management of shrimp fishing in the waters of the Svalbard archipelago the reference period for the allocation of fishing opportunities has been changed from 1990-1995 to 1995-1999. This means that Community countries which have been continuously and actively involved in fishing in those waters will have to cede some of their fishing opportunities to other countries which, in the case of Germany, sent fishing vessels to the waters concerned only in the final year, i.e. 1999.

It should be borne in mind that 1999 was a wholly exceptional year in which the Commission asked the Community fleet to withdraw from the fishing grounds in order to avoid provoking a conflict with Norway. The conflict was caused by the sudden arrival of German vessels, which actually belong to Icelandic companies. Although part of the Community fleet complied with the Commission's request, Germany took advantage of the situation to send more vessels (as many as nine). The outcome of this is that the results for 1999 (which, it was decided, would be included in the calculations) are much more favourable to Germany than to the other countries, whose vessels had been operating in the area concerned for much longer.

In view of this anomaly, would the Commission explain how it is possible that, in its proposed allocation of fishing days, it has decided to reward Germany (which was precisely the Member State which provoked the 1999 conflict) by granting it fishing opportunities which will have to be taken away from the fleets which, in compliance with the Commission recommendation, withdrew from fishing activities and consequently suffered financial loss?

What has prompted the Commission to withdraw fishing opportunities from Community fleets in order to benefit a third country (in this case Iceland, the owner of vessels flying the German flag)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

To date, the Commission has not presented a proposal on this issue.

However, the Honourable Member should note that, at a meeting on 30 June 2000 between officials of Member States and the Commission, a non-legislative fishing plan was agreed between the Member States involved for possibilities for the Community fleet to fish for shrimps in Svalbard waters. The agreement recognises that Community vessels will spend no more than 519 days in this area and that, with some minor possible exceptions, no more than four Community vessels will be simultaneously present in the area. All the Member States involved agreed to this plan.

In the light of this agreement the Commission did not pursue its formal proposal on this issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1645/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Video games and depleted uranium

In the Starcraft video game (marketed in Italy by Blizzard), which like all too many products of this type is basically a war game, players can use uranium 238 to upgrade their weapons. An entry on page 43 of the Italian manual reads: U238 ammunition research; this depleted uranium ammunition can improve the range of Gauss guns. A further entry on page 41 reads: Radiation: an enemy unit hit by one of these weapons will be bathed in highly radioactive particles capable of inflicting considerable damage (mldr). The radioactive field will create serious problems (mldr). Eventually radioactivity levels will decrease.

1. Does the Commission believe that it is right for young people and little children to become accustomed to the idea of using nuclear weapons?

2. Does the Commission agree that it should take steps to prevent the concept of nuclear weapon use becoming commonplace in Europe's youth culture?

3. Does the Commission agree that it it would be appropriate to stem the flood of violence to which young children are being exposed by video games?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

At Community level the main legislative instrument specific to toys is Directive 88/378/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys(1). However, the prime purpose of this directive is to is to protect toy users from the risk of physical injury, by establishing safety requirements in terms of the physical, mechanical, chemical, electrical and other properties of toys.

The psychological development of the child, and the influence which certain games currently on the market may have on this development (games which trivialise and encourage the imaginary use of nuclear weapons or violence), or on morality in general, is primarily a matter for the Member States.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concerns and would point out that the national authorities do, in principle, have at their disposal the necessary powers and instruments for the protection of children. At Community level, Article 30 (ex Article 36) of the EC Treaty leaves it open to Member States, in the absence of Community harmonisation measures, to adopt national measures to restrict the marketing of this type of product on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security, or of the protection of the health and life of humans, provided that the measures that they adopt are commensurate with the objectives of protection.

So far, the idea of harmonising the provisions governing the protection of the psychological development or morality of children with regard to video games has not been considered.

(1) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2707/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Security features in euro notes

Will the Commission state whether any modern security features that might have been incorporated into the design of euro notes have been sacrificed because not all of the proposed printing plants were technically capable of producing them?

If so, which security features have been dropped?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

The European Central Bank bears sole responsibility for deciding on the security features of euro banknotes and overseeing their production. The Commission is therefore unable to answer questions on the subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1756/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Cyprus

Further to my Written Question E-1057/00(1), could the Commission please state whether any Commission projects aimed at reconciliation between the two communities in Cyprus have been blocked or in any way hindered by the Denktash regime?

Could it also please state whether any EU funds have been paid directly to the Denktash regime?

Could it also please state whether any EU funds have been paid directly to the Denktash regime, without the involvement and/or assent of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

Could it also please state whether any EU funds have been paid to organisations or individuals in occupied Northern Cyprus and if so:

1. to whom such funds were paid,

2. what involvement there was by the Denktash regime in relation to such funds, and

3. whether the Government of the Republic of Cyprus was informed of the payments?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 64.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2000)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the political situation in Cyprus, with the de facto separation of the island since 1974, has made the implementation of bi-communal projects very difficult. This has been particularly the case since the Luxembourg European Council in December 1997 and the end of 1999.

During this period, relations between the two communities deteriorated. Nevertheless, the Commission has attempted over the years to foster better inter-communal relations largely through meetings between representatives of civil society groups coming from the two communities (trade unionists, women's groups etc.). These meetings largely took place outside the island. The finance for the conferences was paid directly to the non-governmental bodies hosting the meetings. At no time is the Commission aware of any payments being made other than to the Republic of Cyprus.

The Commission has however, during the period in question, invited certain individuals (academics, students, members of civil society groups) from the northern part of Cyprus to visit the institutions of the Union in an effort to better inform those citizens about the workings of the Union. In these cases the individuals were invited directly by the Union institutions. An example of such invitations is the European Union Visitors Programme (EUVP) jointly sponsored by the Parliament and the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0982/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Political developments in the law on property of individual applicant countries

Does the Commission believe that the law on the restitution of expropriated property currently valid in the Czech Republic and the draft law on reprivatisation recently adopted by the Polish government are compatible with Community legislation, in particular with regard to the exclusion clauses, notably the provisions on citizenship?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0980/00, E-0981/00 and E-0982/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The EC Treaty states that it shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership (Article 295 ex Article 222). The Commission thus has no competence for intervening in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

For this reason, the Commission does not foresee publishing a white book on this matter.

For the reasons mentioned above, it is not for the Commission to take a position on the specific cases raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1696/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Classification of strawberries and the Swedish climate

Has the Commission adjusted the classification of strawberries to take account of the Swedish climate? Swedish strawberries are smaller but sweeter than the strawberries grown further south in Europe because of the climate. Since Sweden's entry into the EU, part of the country's strawberry crop has had to be set aside and turned into purée as they do not, in terms of size, fall within the four classes into which strawberries have been divided. Has the Commission taken account of this Scandinavian aspect of strawberry production in the relevant legislation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2000)

One of the purposes of marketing standards is to withdraw from the market products which consumers would find of unsatisfactory quality. One of the instruments used is the establishment of minimum sizes, which permits the withdrawal of fruit which is insufficiently developed or mature. The minimum size for strawberries, based on recognised international standards, was set at 22 millimetres (mm).

It appears that fruit of two varieties (Primella and Gariguette) could be of satisfactory quality even though smaller than 22 mm. Accordingly, the Commission has decided to reduce the minimum size for these two varieties to 18 mm.

The Commission has no information on other varieties of strawberries, cultivated in Sweden or elsewhere in the Community, whose fruit reaches a satisfactory level of development or maturity despite being smaller than 22 mm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1718/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE), Vittorio Sgarbi (PPE-DE), Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE), Marcello Dell'Utri (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE), Raffaele Fitto (PPE-DE), Umberto Scapagnini (PPE-DE), Pier Casini (PPE-DE) and Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE) to the Council

(7 June 2000)

Subject: The euro crisis

The undeniable crisis affecting the euro has been, and is, a cause for great concern in all the countries are participating in the single currency, and in the EU in general.

Can the Council as a matter of urgency provide the European Parliament and, more generally, European citizens, with an adequate explanation of the measures that have been, or are to be, taken to put an end to a situation which we all hope is transitory, but which nevertheless has been dragging on for many months?

Reply

(28 September 2000)

The Euro 11 group, on 8 May, issued the following statement:

The Euro 11 Ministers and Commissioner, and the President of the ECB share the view that growth is very robust in the euro area; an increasing

number of jobs is being created. The ECB is committed to ensure that this growth will remain non-inflationary. Ministers are determined to speed us ongoing fiscal consolidation and structural reforms towards a knowledge-based, full-employment economy according to the orientations set by the special European Council in Lisbon, thus increasing the growth potential of our economies.

In this context, we share a common concern about the present level of the euro which does not reflect the strong economic fundamentals of the euro area.

Although the Council itself has not taken a position on the recent developments of the external value of the euro, it may be pointed out in the above context that in the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community for 1999/2000, adopted on 12 July 1999(1), the Council underlined that strong, sustainable growth and employment constitute the main priority and that growth and stability-oriented macroeconomic policies and comprehensive and co-ordinated economic reforms are the main means.

(1) OJ L 217, 17.8.1999, p. 34.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2061/00

by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Visa requirements in respect of Romania and Bulgaria

Since the beginning of 2000, the Commission has been working on plans to end visa requirements in respect of Bulgaria and Romania. Such a move would be an important step towards helping the two countries develop in a more positive way and in particular indicate that the European Union does not intend to continue to discriminate against European countries that are not Member States.

What has been the upshot of the Commission's proposal to the Member States that visa requirements in respect of Bulgaria and Romania be abolished? Will the Commission continue its efforts to end discrimination against these two countries?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

On 26 January the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement(1). This proposal includes Bulgaria and Romania in the list of countries whose nationals are exempt from the visa requirement.

The Commission proposal has been sent to the Council and to the European Parliament for examination in accordance with the relevant procedures.

(1) COM(2000) 27 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2257/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Transport of live farm animals

Experience shows that long journeys often result in significant welfare problems for farm animals. Moreover, scientific research indicates that long journeys should be avoided. A majority paper on sheep transport by scientists from Bristol University concluded that from a welfare point of view, transport distances and times should be kept to the minimum. The Scientific Veterinary Committee (SVC) has concluded that it would be best for the welfare of slaughter pigs for transport to be as short as possible.

Moreover, as long ago as 1992, the SVC stressed that the occurrence of poor welfare can be reduced considerably by slaughtering near the point of rearing and transporting meat.

Does the Commission accept that many of the welfare problems associated with long-distance transport could be avoided by the adoption of a major change of policy, whereby the long-distance transport of live farm animals was, wherever practicable, abandoned and replaced by a meat trade?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC(1), as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995(2) sets out the requirements concerning travelling time, resting periods, feeding and watering of the animals during transport.

Community legislation is drawn up on the basis of the results of scientific research and practical knowledge, both elements of which indicate that animal transport is actually acceptable on welfare grounds if specific animal protection conditions are adhered to.

In accordance with Article 13 of Directive 91/628/EEC, the Commission intends to submit a report to the Council on the experience acquired by Member States derived from the application of Community legislation in this field. The report will also be presented to the Parliament.

In the compilation of the report the Commission has identified several areas of difficulty for enforcement of current law. Long-term initiatives as well as technical solutions are currently being examined.

Following the presentation of the report the Commission will submit specific proposals to address these difficulties.

As soon as possible several fundamental aspects of the Directive should be evaluated on a scientific basis and notably data concerning travelling times, stress related to loading and unloading operations and loading densities. In this framework, measures to encourage the slaughter of animals closer to the places where they are raised also merit examination.

The Commission intends to explore in the near future those and any other possibilities for improvement with experts from the Member States and sectors concerned.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1478/00

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Registration of company cars

According to its press release of 31 March 1998, the Commission has instituted infringement proceedings against Denmark relating interalia to the Danish policy towards the use by employees resident in Denmark of company cars registered in another Member State.

Can the Commission state what action it has taken since publication of the press release and what action it intends to take against Denmark since Denmark is clearly still practising a policy in breach of the Court's judgment in the Ledoux case C-127/86 (see most recently the second Ryborg case which was drawn to the Commission's attention in November 1999, cf. Commission file No D(99) EMPL/D/4-45329)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2000)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, following its reasoned opinion of 18 May 1998, the Danish authorities modified the relevant national regulations. Indeed, the Vehicle Registration Tax Act was amended by Act No 385 of 2 May 1999. The Ministry of Transport Order on registration and inspection of vehicles was also amended.

Although the new regulations allow for the use of company cars in Denmark by cross-border workers in certain circumstances where it was not possible under the preceding regulations and practices, the Commission considers that there still is an incompatibility with the applicable Community law, in particular Articles 39 and 49 (ex Articles 48 and 59) of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 10 (ex Article 5) of the EC Treaty. Thus, it still pursues the infringement proceedings against Denmark.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1688/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Curvature of class 2 cucumbers

In the summer of 1997, a dispute took place between a cucumber grower and a Department of Agriculture inspector. The inspector considered that the curvature of the cucumbers was too small. The official maintained that if the cucumbers were to be sold as class 2, the curvature had to be two centimetres. The grower said that, for safety's sake, he would describe the batch of cucumbers as class 1 and accepted that class 2 cucumbers had to curve 2 centimetres. During the dispute, however, the cucumbers rotted. In the Commission's view, what are the conditions affecting the classification of cucumbers in terms of their curvature?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

The Commission was not aware of the case described and suggests asking the relevant Swedish inspection department about the matter.

The Commission feels it ought to point out that the Community standard for cucumbers, as set out in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1677/88 of 15 June 1988 laying down quality standards for cucumbers(1) and itself based on internationally accepted standards, does not contain any rules on minimum or maximum curvature for Class II cucumbers. Cucumbers of all shapes, straight or curved, may be marketed in this class.

(1) OJ L 150, 16.6.1988.