ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1934/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Progress in implementing the operational programme to combat social exclusion under the Community Support Framework for Greece

From the Commission's answer to one of my previous questions(1) it emerged that there were problems involved in implementing the operational programme to combat social exclusion under the Community Support Framework for Greece and that appropriations were moving very slowly. Can the Commission say what the current take-up rate of scheduled appropriations is? Have the problems associated with the implementation of the programme been overcome and, if not, to what are such long delays attributable?

(1) P-3427/97, OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 163.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1999)

The 1994-1998 take-up rate for the operational programme on combating exclusion from the labour market (1994-1999 Community support framework for Greece) is 34 % in terms of incurred expenditure.

According to information from the Greek authorities, approximately 64 % of programme credits had been committed by the end of June 1999 and it is estimated that there will be 100 % credit absorption within the deadlines imposed by the financial implementation provisions in force.

There has been significant progress in programme implementation in comparison with the 1994-1997 period. The national accreditation agency was re-established and is at present functioning in a satisfactory way. There have also been improvements in programme monitoring. However, further action would still be required, also under the 3rd Community support framework for Greece, for the reinforcement or creation of appropriate implementing structures in particular labour market mechanisms and support structures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1954/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(9 November 1999)

Subject: Kosovo Agenda 2000

As part of the reconstruction effort in Kosovo, the EU has provided financial assistance running into billions. The same is true for the reconstruction following the devastating earthquake in Turkey. These measures were decided on after the adoption of Agenda 2000.

In view of this, can the Council answer the following:

1. How much will the EU and/or their Member States invest in the reconstruction of Kosovo and what is the duration of the aid programmes?

2. What is the effect of these measures likely to be on the future budgets of the EU?

3. Does the Council consider that the plans for financing the Agenda 2000 need to be reviewed?

4. If not, how does the Council explain the fact that this financial assistance will have no effect on the plans for financing Agenda 2000?

Reply

(14 February 2000)

1. The budgetary procedure for the year 2000 been concluded, the amount allocated to the reconstruction of Kosovo in the EU-budget for the year 2000 shall be up to a maximum of 360 million. This will include 300 million in commitment appropriations. In addition to this, the Member States have pledged bilateral aid in different forms at the two donors conferences organised by the World Bank and the Commission.

2. The European Parliament and the Council, noting that the conditions laid down in paragraph 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement had been met, have decided by common agreement to use the flexibility instrument to finance the balance of the needs created by the reconstruction of Kosovo which cannot be met by carrying over appropriations from the 1999 budget or by redeployment of appropriations entered in the draft budget for the financial year 2000.

3. It is obvious that the reconstruction of Kosovo will take more than one year, but as the estimates for a longer period have not as yet been established, no exact figures on the amount of reconstruction aid can be fixed at the moment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1648/99

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Programmes for the street children of Guatemala

Could the Commission provide an update on its programme of assistance for the street children of Guatemala in the final two years of its operation?

Now that the programme has come to an end, how and through what funding channels will the Commission continue to offer support to the street children of Guatemala?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 1999)

The programme of assistance for the street children of Guatemala ran from January 1996 to July 1999. The purpose of the project was to see that children at risk socially in Guatemala were protected, respected and kept safe.

For this purpose, Commission aid centred on three areas of intervention: offering protection and direct assistance to street children to help reintegrate them into society; promoting prevention campaigns to stop youngsters becoming street children, and institution-building among public bodies responsible for protecting minors and applying child protection legislation.

On the first two points, the project team worked not just with the children but with their families and communities to devise strategies to prevent children ending up on the streets or becoming delinquents. Literacy and vocational training campaigns and income-generating schemes were set up and are still running today.

On the third point, there were activities to promote child protection, for example by setting up a joint database for the various bodies that deal with children in trouble with the law, to enable their cases to be dealt with more effectively.

Campaigns have been run to encourage Guatemala to implement the International Convention on Protection of Children, which it ratified in 1989, pending the implementation of a new children's code which has already been published with Community support. Additionally, there were projects to train staff and to prepare the institutions concerned (the judiciary, the national children's agency and the secretariat for social welfare).

The project was successful. The government agencies and also the non-governmental organisations involved in it incorporated the running costs into their ordinary budgets, so that the project activities could continue after the Community withdrew.

In view of the results, the Community proposes to devise a new project to support street children which will carry on the prevention strategy put into place by the project which has just finished.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2238/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Support for dyspraxia victims

Please indicate the official support and help offered to the victims of dyspraxia and their families in each of the Member States.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission is aware of the importance of this disability. However, there is no Community action programme in the area of public health at the moment, which could support the sufferers of dyspraxia and their families.

Support and help to victims of dyspraxia and their families is a responsibility of the Member States. Information on support programmes of the Member States in favour of sufferers and their families is not made available to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2112/99

by SIR Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 1999)

Subject: Air Traffic Control

What discussions have been held by the European Commission with the relevant departments of the governments of Member States about Air Traffic Control problems and delays? What is the nature of those discussions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2106/99, E-2107/99, E-2108/99, E-2109/99, E-2110/99, E-2111/99, E-2112/99, E-2113/99, E-2114/99, E-2115/99, E-2116/99 and E-2117/99 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission has issued a communication(1) on the current situation of air traffic delays and on new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management (ATM) system it needs to ensure the proper functioning of its internal market. Most questions raised by the Honourable Member are answered in this document which has been adopted on 1 December 1999 and communicated to the Council and the Parliament.

When preparing this communication the Commission worked in close cooperation with interested parties, in particular airspace users, airports, workers, and air traffic services providers, through their representative organisations. It also consulted the civil aviation authorities of all Member States on the various actions to take to rectify the situation.

Reduction of air traffic delays is primarily a responsibility of Member States and their co-ordinating body, Eurocontrol. In this context operational procedures and technical improvements are for specialists to define and implement. The role of the Community is essentially to create the organisational framework at national and European level so as to ensure that such solutions are universally agreed and implemented in a co-ordinated and consistent manner. This is why the Community decided in 1998 to join Eurocontrol so as to exercise political control on this organisation. Negotiations to that end are nearly completed, but ratification procedures may take several years. The Commission therefore will ask early implementation of Community membership.

The ATM 2000 strategy is a document produced by Eurocontrol and it is the responsibility of that organisation to adopt and implement the proposals contained in the strategy. The Commission has contributed to the production of this document along with aviation users, Member States, and international organisations. The Commission supports the general objectives and strategic principles as indicated in the strategy, but wonders whether more work is required in order to develop a mature, reliable and robust plan which addresses the technological developments necessary to meet the estimated doubling of traffic by 2015.

(1) COM(1999) 614.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2375/99

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Sheep production in Ireland and the UK

Given the crisis in sheep production in Ireland and the UK, would the Commission indicate the EU ewe premium and the rural world premium on a regional basis to take account of Ireland and Britain's lamb prices which are 50 pence/60 pence lower respectively than French lamb prices? Would it remove sheep from extensification calculations, protect Irish sheep farmers from unfair competition from non-EU countries in the upcoming WTO negotiations and insist on the clear labelling of imported lamb?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 1999)

The Council has established the method for the calculation of the ewe premium, which is based on the difference between the Community average price and the basic price, and has fixed the amount payable for the rural world supplement. An alternative method could not be used without a fundamental reform of the sheep regime.

To exclude sheep from the calculation for the extensification premium would create a disparity between producers. A beef-only farm should clearly be considered as having a lower stocking density than a mixed farm with the same number of beef cattle where sheep are also kept.

In the World trade organisation (WTO) negotiations the Community is committed to a balanced and fair liberalisation of trade but also to the promotion of a sustainable and competitive agricultural sector. An obligation to label imports cannot be imposed without there being a similar requirement for Community produced lamb. The Commission has no plans at this stage to introduce a sheep meat-labelling scheme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2224/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Nationality of Commission employees

Please state the proportion of employees by nationality in each of the top ten grades within the Commission establishment plan.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 1999)

A table concerning the distribution of the personnel of the Commission by nationalities and by categories is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The table comprises the officials and temporary staff, under all budgets, on 1 November 1999.

The salient information relating to the distribution by grade and nationality of senior Commission personnel has been on the internet(1) since 6 October 1999.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/staff/nationalities/.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2106/99

by SIR Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 1999)

Subject: Air Traffic Control

What steps are being taken by the Commission to resolve Air Traffic Control delays within European Airspace?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2106/99, E-2107/99, E-2108/99, E-2109/99, E-2110/99, E-2111/99, E-2112/99, E-2113/99, E-2114/99, E-2115/99, E-2116/99 and E-2117/99 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission has issued a communication(1) on the current situation of air traffic delays and on new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management (ATM) system it needs to ensure the proper functioning of its internal market. Most questions raised by the Honourable Member are answered in this document which has been adopted on 1 December 1999 and communicated to the Council and the Parliament.

When preparing this communication the Commission worked in close cooperation with interested parties, in particular airspace users, airports, workers, and air traffic services providers, through their representative organisations. It also consulted the civil aviation authorities of all Member States on the various actions to take to rectify the situation.

Reduction of air traffic delays is primarily a responsibility of Member States and their co-ordinating body, Eurocontrol. In this context operational procedures and technical improvements are for specialists to define and implement. The role of the Community is essentially to create the organisational framework at national and European level so as to ensure that such solutions are universally agreed and implemented in a co-ordinated and consistent manner. This is why the Community decided in 1998 to join Eurocontrol so as to exercise political control on this organisation. Negotiations to that end are nearly completed, but ratification procedures may take several years. The Commission therefore will ask early implementation of Community membership.

The ATM 2000 strategy is a document produced by Eurocontrol and it is the responsibility of that organisation to adopt and implement the proposals contained in the strategy. The Commission has contributed to the production of this document along with aviation users, Member States, and international organisations. The Commission supports the general objectives and strategic principles as indicated in the strategy, but wonders whether more work is required in order to develop a mature, reliable and robust plan which addresses the technological developments necessary to meet the estimated doubling of traffic by 2015.

(1) COM(1999) 614.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2490/99

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Transport of live animals

Article 13 of Council Directive 91/628/EC(1) as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC(2) on the protection of animals during transport requires the Commission to submit a report to the Council, possibly accompanied by proposals, before 31 December 1999.

Does the Commission plan to submit the report by the due date and, if not, when does it intend to submit it?

There is clear evidence that long journeys lead to very poor treatment and, in some cases, to high levels of mortality of animals. In the light of this, will the Commission, when submitting proposals under Article 13 of Council Directive 91/628/EC, propose that the transport of live farm animals should, where practicable, be replaced by a trade in meat and carcasses?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

The experience acquired by the Member States is the most valuable source of data concerning the enforcement of Council Directive 95/29/CEE of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 91/628/EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport. The reports that Member States submit to the Commission every year, as provided in Article 8 of Directive 91/628/CE, represent in fact the main source of information regarding the enforcement of the provision concerning the protection of animals during transport. The Commission has reminded all competent authorities to fulfil the provisions of Article 8.

The Commission's food and veterinary office has carried out inspections in different Member States reporting on the situation in relation to the enforcement of Directive 91/628/CE. The Commission has also received official complaints from non-governmental organisations in relation to problems encountered in the enforcement of the Directive in Member States.

The report mentioned in Article 13 of the Directive will be presented as soon as possible, taking into account appropriate consideration of all the above-mentioned information.

Meanwhile, a working group of the standing veterinary committee has been established in order to identify the difficulties encountered by the authorities in enforcing Community legislation including the collation of the information sent to the Commission by the Member States under Article 8 of the Directive.

Concerning the protection of animals during transport, Community legislation is drawn up on the basis of the results of scientific research and practical knowledge, both of which indicate that animal transport is feasible if specific conditions are met. Community animal welfare legislation is under continuous revision in line with new scientific knowledge and practical experience in the field.

As recently underlined in the white paper on food safety, adopted on 12 January 2000, the Commission attaches major importance to the issue of animal welfare.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2092/99

by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Dispute between Kockums Computer Systems GmbH and the European Union

The company Hamburg Kockums Computer Systems GmbH (previously known as SCHIFFKO, Schiffskonstruktion und Entwicklungs GmbH) is still claiming payments in relation to the 1988 full economic cost contract, number RI1B-0198-C, with the European Economic Community. In the dispute about the outstanding payments, the latest letter of 13 May 1998 from Mr Arturo Garcia Arroyo, DG XII, Directorate C, European Commission, announced that a full audit by the Commission services would be undertaken so that the dispute could finally be settled. The company, Kockums Gmbh, and their lawyers, Cyros, Makowski and Partner, Hamburg, are still waiting for the Commission's response.

The Commission is therefore asked:

1. Why has the Commission not yet replied to the many queries, sent on 20 July 1998, 14 September 1998, 3 November 1998, 4 January 1999 and 3 February 1999, from the lawyers Cyros, Makowski and Partner, all of which were sent to Mr Arroyo in DG XII? When does the Commission intend to reply?

2. What is the current position in this dispute? How does the Commission assess the claims? How is this matter to be concluded?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

From 1993 to 1998, the Commission has made it clear in writing, by telephone and in meetings with Kockums Computer Systems GmbH and its legal representatives, that its cost claims under the above research contract (1988-1992) had no foundation and has provided detailed information and documentation to this end. It had been proposed that a full financial audit be carried out, but this could not be carried out as the contractual period in which this could be done had expired. However, the Commission has exhausted all manner of response and maintains its position that it has fulfilled its obligations under the contract. There is no further action foreseen on the part of the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2289/99

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Whaling in Russia

According to the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), between 30 and 50 white whales (belugas) have been killed in the past few months in the Sea of Okhotsk. The blubber and meat were exported to Japan. A further 12 animals were caught alive to be exported to dolphinariums worldwide.

Commercial whaling has been prohibited since 1986. Now the Russian government is permitting the hunting of belugas in the Sea of Okhotsk and the export of meat and blubber to Japan. In other words, the trade in products from small whales has begun again after many years.

Is the Commission aware of this?

If so, what measures does it propose to take?

Will the Commission take measures to bring about an immediate end to the import of white whale products and live belugas to Japan? If so, what?

Will the Commission take measures against the further killing and capture of white whales by Russia? If so, what?

Will the Commission take measures to withdraw export licences and to ensure that all white whales captured alive by Russia are immediately released? If so, what?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The Commission is aware of reports on recent white whale hunting by Russian vessels.

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein(1) the importation of white whale blubber, meat, live specimens and all other products into the Community for commercial purposes is prohibited.

The Commission has no power to take measures to prohibit the killing and capture of white whales by Russia, nor the export of specimens from Russia or import in Japan.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2212/99

by Gérard Deprez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Draft free trade agreement between Turkey and the USA

Is the Commission aware of the draft free trade agreement between Turkey and the USA (S.1746) which Senator Moynihan presented to the US Senate on 18 October? The text provides for a bilateral agreement between the USA and Turkey seeking to reduce and eventually eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, and possibly to establish a free-trade agreement between the USA and Turkey.

Can the Commission say what will be the probable effects of this US Senate bill on the Customs Union agreement between the European Union and Turkey?

If the American Congress passes this bill, what consequences will it have for Turkey's status as a candidate for EU membership?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

The Commission has not received precise details of the draft referred to by the Honourable Member and does not have a copy of the full text of Senator Moynihan's proposal. However, it seems this kind of initiative is not new in the United States.

Turkey and the Community have had a customs union since 31 December 1995, which de facto prevents Turkey from establishing a free trade zone with the United States.

By entering into a customs union, the parties adopted a common customs policy including a common external tariff, which does not allow them any autonomy in this matter.

Given that Turkey cannot enter into a free trade area with the US, even if Congress agreed to the proposition it would be a unilateral act which would not commit Turkey and would therefore pose no barrier to Turkish membership of the European Union.