ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0876/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Food aid to Russia

The Court of Auditors Special Report(1) concerning the programme to supply agriculture products to the Russian Federation reveals the difficulties encountered in supplying goods to Russia.

1. In any future food aid schemes will the Commission refrain from supplying it to countries of current commercial interest to Community exporters?

2. Does experience with the state-to-state agreement on food aid to Russia give the Commission cause to reassess exporter liability for that country, see previous Questions E-0979/00(2) and E-2792/00(3)?

(1) OJ C 25, 25.1.2001.

(2) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 6.

(3) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 177.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

1. The Community policy on Food Aid and Food Aid management is oriented towards the improvement of food security of developing countries.

The policy, in line with the Food Aid Convention and its Code of Conduct, is carefully oriented to avoid any adverse effects on the production and commercial import structures of the recipient countries.

There have been rare exceptions to those principles, made only in a few urgent cases in countries going through economic crisis for which an immediate (and temporary) response was deemed necessary.

As to the future, on the basis of an assessment of the food aid/food security instrument, the Commission is currently drafting a Communication on food aid and food security which will reiterate the principles mentioned above.

2. Written Question E-979/00 by the Honourable Member(1) relates to the specific matter of re-importation of goods eligible for refund. The Honourable Member's Written Question E-2792/00(2) also relates to the re-importation of goods eligible for refund.

Special Report No 18/2000 by the Court of Auditors concerning the programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation does not imply that any of these goods were re-imported into the Community. Moreover, supplies under the programme are not eligible for export refunds (Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 of 17 December 1998 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation(3)).

To simplify the task of exporters, the Commission laid down special measures for the export to Russia of goods eligible for refunds in a Decision of 28 July 1999, renewed by a Decision of 21 June 2000.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001.

(2) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001.

(3) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1288/01

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Transport of live animals Eid-el-kebir

Every year, tens of thousands of sheep in France are subjected to atrocious slaughter by unskilled people in breach of EU regulations and religious tradition at the Eid-el-Kebir Festival in Paris.

Many of the methods of slaughter, where animals see each other die, are contrary to the detailed procedures set out in Islamic tradition. Additional pain and suffering is caused when animals are killed by unqualified people who do not have the necessary skills. The slaughter of animals in the open air rather than in abattoirs defies Community legislation and the requests of the European Community to France to enforce national law.

What will the Commission do to punish the French government for their flagrant disregard of EU law?

Why, despite repeated requests, has the Commission failed to take action to prevent this illegal practice?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

The Commission is well aware of the many complaints concerning the treatment of animals during this event. The fact that the French authorities have organised or tolerated the slaughter of a large number of animals under conditions which are undoubtedly in breach of Community legislation is not acceptable.

Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Community legislation concerning the slaughter and killing of animals in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993, on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing(1).

The Commission has been in regular contact with the French authorities on this matter, and before the Eid-el-Kabir 2001 there were direct contacts with the responsible French Minister.

The Commission was informed of a number of improvements in the organisation of the 2001 event. In addition, the Commission was assured that all outdoor sites will be eliminated before 2004, and that in the meantime the number of sites will be progressively reduced. It was pointed out that a more ambitious timetable would risk serious public disorder. The Commission considers that this risk has to be taken seriously.

Now that the Eid-el-Kabir 2001 is over, the Commission will assess the improvements actually made on the basis of a report requested from the French authorities.

Should adequate progress not be maintained, the Commission will consider opening an Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty infringement procedure.

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0524/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(23 February 2001)

Subject: Discussion of EU staff's financial conditions

The Swedish Government has made attempts in the past to initiate discussion of EU staff's financial conditions. On 22 September 1997, the Swedish Prime Minister, Göran Persson, met the then Commission President Santer. Persson criticised the high salaries of staff but his views were not given a sympathetic hearing. After the meeting he said that they would probe a little deeper into the matter. Nothing appears to have happened since.

However, Sweden now holds the Presidency of the Council and Göran Persson is still Prime Minister. What steps is the current Presidency taking to hold talks about EU staff's financial conditions and bringing their salaries into line with current salary levels in the Member States?

Reply

(10 July 2001)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that in accordance with Article 283 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of those Communities are laid down by the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the other institutions concerned. The emoluments and social security benefits of officials are set out under Title V of the Staff Regulations.

The Council will ensure that this issue is studied further, in particular in the light of the Orientation Papers on Pay and Pensions presented by Mr Kinnock, on 28 February 2001, which have been adopted by the Commission. This document is currently under discussion with the trade union organisations in a high-level group. The Council is ready to examine the formal proposals from the Commission as soon as it presents them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1455/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Studies grant

What support has the Commission given to the Institute for Transition Economics? From which budget line? Which other institutes and establishments also received funds in the same year?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

In 1997 the Stockholm Institute for Transitional Economics was awarded a contract (following a tender procedure) for assistance to the Russia-Europe Centre for Economic Policy. The contract is funded from the budget line B7-520 (Assistance to partner States in eastern Europe and central Asia) and it has a total value of 2 149 824. A further contract was awarded in 1999 with total value of 2 548 668. Lastly, a contract for 123 244 was awarded last year.

In 2000, the Institute also received a payment of 440 700 from budget line B6-641.

Support from budget line B7-520 for activities in eastern Europe and central Asia finances a very wide variety of projects and schemes, and over 500 contracts with consultants, experts, authorities and institutions are involved for the period covered by the Stockholm Institute contract.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1392/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2001)

Subject: Public investment

Does the Commission agree that the investment that secures adequate rates of return should be undertaken whether in the public or the private sector? If so, what is the justification for including public investment in the targeted measures of public borrowing? Why not merely ensure that public investment does indeed earn suitable ex ante and ex post rates of return?

Answer give by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

The Commission would agree that investments securing adequate rates of return should be undertaken in both the public and the private sector. It also believes that the public sector must do its best to contribute to the accumulation of capital within the economy and to promote economic growth(1). The level of investment must, however, be compatible with the principle of budgetary discipline and cannot therefore conflict with budgetary constraints, and in particular those imposed by the Stability and Growth Pact. These constraints, which are intended to restore balance to the budget in the medium term, will also create room for increased expenditure on government projects, by reducing the burden of public debt.

To evaluate projects in terms of performance and decide whether the public sector should shoulder the costs, government bodies apply the techniques of cost-benefit analysis. Various methods are used, some taking account of budgetary availabilities. In any case, the profitability criterion must be viewed in conjunction with budgetary considerations so that there is no risk of exceeding the limits imposed by budgetary discipline.

(1) See the Communication from the Commission on The Contribution of Public Finances to Growth and Employment: Improving Quality and Sustainability, COM(2000) 846 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1561/01

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Incineration vs. rendering in the UK

In the UK, full entitlement to EU reimbursement under the Over Thirty Month Scheme is only payable when a carcass is incinerated (although an 80 % advance may be given upon rendering). The UK is therefore losing interest on claimable money because of the policy of the Intervention Board to render rather than use direct incineration. Is this a result of a change in the European Commission's or the UK Government's policy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

Under Commission Regulation (EC) No 716/96 of 19 April 1996 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market in the United Kingdom(1), the Community shall co-finance the expenditures incurred by the United Kingdom for the purchase of Over Thirty Month (OTM) animals for destruction. The co-financing which is limited to a fixed amount per animal is due after the animal has been fully incinerated but the Regulation provides for an advance equal to 80 % of the Community contribution upon rendering.

Due to lack of capacity for direct incineration of OTM-animals, the bulk of the animals under the scheme has been rendered into tallow and meat-and-bone meal which are products relatively easy to store until their incineration can be made. It is the Commission's impression that the problem of incineration capacity still to-day is the basis upon which the United Kingdom is deciding whether to render the animals or to incinerate them directly.

(1) OJ L 99, 20.4.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1186/01

by Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Developments in the negotiations between the EU and Algeria

In April 2000, negotiations resumed between the EU and the Algerian authorities with a view to concluding an association agreement which would be satisfactory to both parties. In its Communication on relaunching the Barcelona Process and in its answers to various oral questions put by the European Parliament, the Commission has expressed the hope that the negotiations will be concluded by June 2001, which will require considerable efforts by all concerned.

Can the Commission answer the following:

- In view of the outcome of the most recent negotiating rounds and, in particular, the one held on 15 and 16 March in Brussels, during which it became apparent that there are still areas in which intensive negotiations will have to continue, what are the Commission's current forecasts regarding a successful conclusion of the negotiations on the agreement?

- When and how are the various aspects of the topics relating to justice and home affairs to be discussed in detail?

- Has there been any progress in the establishment of a political dialogue with Algeria which goes beyond the ad hoc meetings held between the EU Troika and the Algerian Foreign Affairs Ministry?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2001)

During the Commission President's visit to Algiers on 12 and 13 January, political accord was reached with President Abdelaziz Bouteflika on the signing of an association agreement before the end of the year. Since then, negotiations have been progressing at a satisfactory pace with sessions taking place more frequently.

Talks on justice and home affairs were held at the 9th session of negotiations in Algiers from 14 to 16 May and they will continue at the next meetings to be held in Brussels in June.

There has been regular political dialogue since January 1998 within the framework of European Troika missions and the activities of the Heads of Mission in situ. The last ministerial Troika took place on 24 April. The conclusion of the association agreement will further strengthen the process since political dialogue will be institutionalised within the bodies set up under the agreement, i.e. the association council and the association committee.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1522/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Harmful herbal preparations used in dieting

The use of herbal preparations for slimming has become widespread all over Europe. They have sometimes caused damage or even death among people following this kind of diet. The use of herbs such as Larrea tridentata (causing hepatitis), Teucrium chamaedis or Scutellaria laterifolia (harmful for the liver), Datura stramonium or Phlox rhododendri (brain disorders) and Chinese herbs such as Aristolochia frangchi or Stephania tetranda (causing lethal kidney damage) should be regulated at European level by the compilation of lists of harmful herbs which should not be used in herbal medicine or, in certain cases, should not be imported.

What is the Commission's view of this problem?

What proposals does it intend to put forward on the subject?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

The existing Community legislation forbids a medicinal product to be placed on the market of a Member State unless a marketing authorisation has been issued either by the Commission or by one of the Member States. The marketing authorisation is granted only where the product proves to comply with the fundamental requirements of quality, safety and efficacy. The intention is to preclude the marketing of medicinal products with a negative benefit-risk balance. This legislation applies to all kinds of medicinal products, including those on herbal basis.

The treatment of herbal substances by national authorities is not completely coherent though, thus endangering the effective protection of public health by the Community's pharmaceutical legislation. Differences relate inter alia to the classification of the products as well as to the application requirements and the procedures.

To further improve this situation, the Commission currently prepares a separate directive on traditionally used herbal medicinal products. It is envisaged to establish a special registration procedure and will lay down specific criteria regarded appropriate to guarantee quality, safety and efficacy with regard to these products. If a herbal medicinal product is not authorised under the existing legislation or registered under the new directive, it will not be allowed to market it within the Community. For this reason, a separate list of prohibited products or substances is not considered necessary and therefore not foreseen in the draft directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0885/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Hazards to health and to the environment of the military use of depleted uranium

What contacts has the Commission had with respectively:

(a) the World Health Organisation;

(b) the United Nations Environment Programme and

(c) NATO in its investigation into the hazards to health and to the environment of the military use of depleted uranium in the Balkans and elsewhere?

Will it make public its correspondence with external bodies on this issue?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0885/01, E-0977/01, E-0978/01 and E-0982/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

The Commission invited international organisations (World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)) to a round-table discussion on the issue of depleted uranium on 31 January 2001. There has been no correspondence other than the letter of invitation. In addition, the Commission informed the other organisations on the release of the Opinion of the Group of Experts established under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty on 6 March 2001 and the Commission was informed of the release of the UNEP report on 14 March 2001.

The Commission had no contact with the other organisations referred to by the Honourable Member. Among the material provided by different organisations, NATO in particular, there are American documents referring to the Office of Environmental and Health Sciences of the Department of Defence.

The flow of information on depleted uranium is considerable (in the form of documents and internet-based material for example). The Group of Experts has looked into much of this material and has spent considerable effort in identifying which are original, validated sources of information. The main references to such sources are included in the published Opinion.

The Commission believes that it is in the interest of all organisations to exchange information to the largest possible extent, while preserving full independence in evaluating the information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1221/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: EU aid to Colombia

Can the Commission confirm that an assistance package worth 105 million is being granted to Colombia by the European Union?

Can the Commission also indicate the UK's share of this package?

Will the European aid be kept wholly separate from any other aid packages, such as the USA's Plan Colombia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2001)

The Union expressed its full political support for the peace process carried out under the aegis of President Pastrana. As a consequence, the Union is playing an increasing role in the support for the peace process and has decided to complement its efforts with a significant amount of aid.

The Community financial support package, as announced on 30 April 2001 at the recent third meeting of the Support Group for the peace process in Colombia, amounts to more than 330 million. Several Member States have already announced generous contributions to this overall package. The actual contribution of the United Kingdom is not known to the Commission.

At the 30 April meeting, the Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations confirmed a Community contribution of 140 million ( 105 million of programmable aid and 35 million of non-programmable aid) and announced that commitments of up to 43 million will be made this year by the Commission.

The Community assistance strategy has four fundamental strands aiming to:

- establish Peace Laboratories (this year, in the Magdalena Medio area to support the implementation of peace agreements, notably by fostering local institutions, civil actors promoting peace, economic and social development projects);

- address structural weaknesses (justice, land reform, environment);

- combat violence and human rights violations;

- relieve the social impact of conflict (displaced people; children involved in conflict and alternative development in areas where manual eradication of drugs crops takes place).

As to whether the Union's package will be kept separate from Plan Colombia, the Commission would like to re-iterate its position: the Union's reservations about some aspects of the Plan Colombia are well known to President Pastrana and to his Government. Furthermore, the Commission does not intend to take part in any initiative with a military dimension.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0321/01

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Antignano cliffs: failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment

Building work has begun without planning permission on a seaside complex in the area of the Antignano cliffs running along the seashore in the province of Livorno. An announcement of the start of work has simply been made. Above all, no environmental impact assessment has been carried out.

Given that disfiguring the landscape is a form of vandalism and that the complex may have been financed with European Union funds, can the Commission:

1. ascertain exactly how it has been possible for the complex to be built;

2. provide any information it has on the possible sources of funding for the project;

3. give its overall view on the matter.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) stipulates that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size or location must be made subject to an assessment of their effects (environmental impact assessment EIA). Classes of projects covered by the Directive are listed in the two Annexes. Projects listed in Annex I require an EIA procedure. Under Article 4(2), projects of the classes listed in Annex II are made subject to an EIA where Member States consider that their characteristics so require.

Pursuant to Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2), which modified Directive 85/337/EEC, Member States are obliged, for projects listed in Annex II, to determine, through a case-by-case examination, or through thresholds or criteria they themselves set, whether the project is to be made subject to an EIA. However, projects for which requests for development consent were submitted to a competent authority before 14 March 1999 are governed by the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to amendment.

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member building work on a seaside complex is not described in sufficient detail to enable the Commission to assess whether it can be considered to fall within the scope of the abovementioned Directive.

On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, given the lack of grounds of complaint regarding the application of Community law, no breach of that law can be identified at present.

The fact that the Honourable Member does not identify the project makes it difficult to check whether this seaside complex is receiving any funding. According to information sent by the regional authorities, a project entitled Bagni Fiume located on the Antignano coast and involving the refurbishment of an existing establishment appears to have been co-financed on the basis of the single programming document for Objective 2 during the 1997-1999 programming period.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.