ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2722/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural incomes

What was the average income (in ecus/euros) of people engaged in agriculture in each Member State in each of the last ten years?

What proportion of the national average income does this represent in each Member State in each of the last ten years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

Farm income may be defined in different ways. For comparison of levels of income from agricultural activity among Member States, the Commission generally uses the real net value added at factor cost per annual work unit that is available for all Member States. This parameter covers income generated by an agricultural activity, but it is not fully representative of the overall income of farmers. First of all, rents, interest and salaries paid are not deducted. Secondly, farmers may receive other types of income such as wages, social benefits, income from non-agricultural activities, or pay taxes, social contributions, etc. The income per capita is expressed on the basis of an annual working unit that broadly corresponds to a full-time working equivalent.

The importance of the income from an agricultural activity within the total disposable income of the agricultural population and of income elements such as rents, interests and wages varies considerably from one Member State to another. These elements, combined with the harmonisation of the income calculation across Member States, should be borne in mind when attempting to draw conclusions from any income comparison exercise.

The average agricultural income for the 15 Member States for the 1990-1998 period is given in the tables which are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, in euros and purchasing power standard. Income statistics are not given for 1999 as the agricultural accounts are still provisional for that year. Furthermore, income statistics for 1999 have been established on the basis of a new methodology for the agricultural accounts. Data are not available for all Member States on the basis of this new methodology over a long time period.

Regarding the second question, it should be underlined that the proportion of the national average income represented by the agricultural income, as defined above, does not constitute a meaningful indicator of the relative situation of people engaged in agriculture. The income indicator used for agriculture is not comparable with the average income per capita in the rest of the economy, notably in the sectors where wages represent the main source of income, as agricultural income constitutes both the income of the farmer (from his work) and the income or profit of his enterprise (this income is referred to as a mixed income in national accounts). Moreover, the number of people engaged in agriculture is expressed in volume terms, i.e. in annual work units, whereas such statistics is not established for other sectors of the economy.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3107/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(27 September 2000)

Subject: Human rights and democracy in Nigeria

Would the Commission clarify how support for human rights and democracy in Nigeria will be given without access to the previous budget line which was in place for Nigeria?

Will levels of funding be maintained and will commitment for creating a Human Rights Foundation, such as the EC has supported in South Africa, be continued?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2000)

The promotion of human rights and democracy in Nigeria is continuing under budget heading B7-7020 (human rights and democracy in developing countries including the ACP), as is the case for all other ACP countries except southern Africa, which comes under heading 7021. These appropriations are intended to support an incentive-based approach. Measures to promote human rights and democracy can also be financed from the European Development Fund, and this is done in other countries. Three projects worth a total of 1,7 million are in the pipeline for Nigeria under heading B7-7020 of the budget for 2000, the intended beneficiaries being civil society and the prison system. A fourth project worth 310 000 under budget heading B7-7020A will provide technical assistance.

The Commission is aware of Nigeria's political and geographical significance but feels that the quality of human rights projects selected for that country needs to be enhanced, among other things by extending and strengthening technical assistance in the field. The volume of aid depends on the quality of the projects submitted for financing, and the quality of the projects being put forward for Nigeria either spontaneously or as a result of the call for proposals issued in June last year has been disappointing.

The Commission did set up a Human Rights Foundation in South Africa in 1996 but feels the circumstances in that case were different. The foundation itself has changed; it is now a South African NGO responsible for implementing the Community's human rights programme in South Africa but is also eligible for funds from Member States and local bodies and no longer receives technical assistance from the Commission.

In line with Parliament's recommendations the Commission took a decision on 16 May to press ahead with the dismantling of technical assistance offices (TAOs) involved in external relations programmes. This important step in reforming the management of external aid is not really consistent with the creation of a new human rights foundation in Nigeria.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2940/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Abolition of tax privileges for diplomats

Further to Written Question E-1996/99(1), I should like at the outset to thank the Commissioner for drawing the conclusion that the privileges laid down in the 1961 Vienna Convention in an internal market mldr are no longer justified and should be abolished.

Since the Commission is accordingly of the opinion in relation to itself that the tax privileges in question are anachronistic and this has been demonstrated both by the Commission decision of 29 September 1999 and by the measures abolishing duty-free shops within the EU, will it not state whether it could advocate the necessary unanimous Council decision amending the outdated Vienna Convention from 1961?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 63.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2000)

A Community initiative to regulate the tax and duty free privileges for diplomats would, as already indicated in the reply to Written Question E-1996/99 by the Honourable Member(1), interfere with Member States' application of the Vienna Convention. The adoption of a Commission proposal to this effect would require the unanimous vote of the Council which is unlikely to be found. Against this background, the Commission is not currently planning to put forward a proposal on this issue. Meanwhile, existing Community legislation does not prevent individual Member States from limiting the privileges that they are granting to diplomats, as suggested by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 219 E, 1.8.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2384/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council. Time limits for answers to parliamentary questions.



Official Journal 103 E , 03/04/2001 P. 0142 - 0142



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2384/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council (24 July 2000) Subject: Time limits for answers to parliamentary questions In view of the delayed replies from the Council to parliamentary questions numbers E-0570/00, E-0571/00, E-0572/00, and E-0573/00 tabled on 14 February 2000, and number E-0917/00 tabled on 8 March 2000, would the Council please state its current policy on time limits for answering parliamentary questions? Reply (7 November 2000) The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it answered this question when it replied to Questions E-1299/00, E-1300/00 and P-1541/00. It reaffirms that it will maintain the balance described on that occasion regarding the formulation of replies to questions put to it by Members of the European Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2089/00

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2000)

Subject: European Year of Languages

The April 2000 part-session saw the adoption of the report by Mr Graça Moura approving the Commission's decision to declare 2001 the European Year of Languages.

This decision does not explicitly refer to those languages which are official only in part of the Union's territory: it remains with the Member States to decide whether languages in this situation should be included in the actions proposed under the decision.

Given that these languages are part of the Union's cultural heritage and that it is therefore essential to protect and promote them, what action does the Commission intend to take to guarantee the participation in the European Year of Languages of languages which are official in part of the Union's territory?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2000)

The target languages mentioned in Article 1 of the proposal for a decision establishing the European year of languages(1) (EYL) are the official languages, together with Letzeburgesch and Irish and other languages identified by the Member States for the implementation of the decision. The Commission will respect the Member States' decision on which languages additional to those explicitly mentioned should be covered.

However, a large part of the activities to be carried out in the context of the EYL should be neutral from the point of view of target languages. The European information campaign will have as a key theme the importance of linguistic diversity, as well as the promotion of language learning in general. The campaign will promote the learning of all languages.

The Commission believes that, where specific languages are to be targetted, as wide a range of languages as possible should be covered.

(1) OJ C 56 E, 29.2.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1637/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Situation of the dairy sector

In its reply of 27 march 2000 to my earlier written question E-0549/00(1), the Commission refers to certain data and aspects which I would like the Commission to clarify.

Firstly, it is notable that in the case of Greece, the data presented refers to an exceedingly short period (April to August 1999) which does not allow valid comparisons to be made and conclusions to be drawn. Could the Commission supply the most recent data available concerning the 1999-2000 milk year, at the very least concerning November or December 1999? In view of that data, what are the end-of-year forecasts?

Secondly, regarding the United Kingdom, can the Commission identify the zone(s) responsible for the overshoot in that country? More specifically, to what extent did Northern Ireland contribute to the excess production registered in the United Kingdom according to data referring to December 1999?

Finally, and on a different matter, while the deadline for the submission of official data to the Commission is 1 September following the end of the milk year, it is well known that most Member States provide regular updates regarding their situation and that by 15 May most countries know the final figures. With regard to the above, could the Commission supply me with the final delivery data for the 1999-2000 milk year for the various Member States as and when they submit such data?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 102.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Two estimates are currently available for Greece: the first states that deliveries in 1999/2000 will be 16 % below the quota, the second that they will be 5 % above. While both estimates come from the Ministry of Agriculture, the information available suggests that the first does not take into account small dairies. Although the second is therefore more likely, it must also be treated with caution given the answer to the third part of the question (see below).

Since the Commission does not have information on the regional breakdown of deliveries, it does not know the details for Northern Ireland.

According to the Member States, actual production can be estimated quite soon after 31 March (the end of the milk year). However, that estimate does not establish accurately to what extent the quota may have been exceeded or the amount of the resulting levy. Deliveries have, firstly, to be corrected according to actual fat content and, secondly, adjusted following the temporary transfer of quotas, reallocation of unused quotas, etc. Since reallocation is often done in several stages, the final position is not known until long after 31 March. That is why the dates set for purchasers to submit their statements to the relevant authorities and for Member States to notify the final figures are 15 May and 31 August respectively. Since almost all the Member States supply their figures after 20 August, there would be no practical benefit in passing on those figures as they are received.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2577/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Council

(26 July 2000)

Subject: Use of rectified concentrated grape must to the detriment of the Sicilian wine-producing sector

The Sicilian wine-producing sector is going through a significant process of expansion and improving the quality of its products, as recognised throughout the world. The relevant Community authorities are about to adopt provisions allowing the use of rectified concentrated grape must, produced from grapes picked outside the wine-growing areas of zones C III A and C III B. These provisions are likely to have an adverse effect on the whole wine-producing sector in Sicily and other Mediterranean regions.

Can the Council say:

1. whether it can confirm that the above-mentioned provisions are soon to be adopted?

2. if so, whether it can endeavour to ensure that the provisions are revised to prevent adverse economic effects on Sicilian wine producers?

Reply

(10 November 2000)

The common organisation of the wine-producing market does not contain rules limiting the use of rectified concentrated grape must to grapes picked in certain wine-growing areas. Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/99 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1) provides specific aid inter alia for rectified concentrated grape musts (Article 34(b), Title III, Chapter III, Aids for specific uses). That provision also lays down that The grant of aid may be reserved for products coming from wine-growing zone C III if the trade patterns in must and coupage wines cannot be guaranteed without this measure.

The new Regulation took effect on 1 August 2000 and, in accordance with its powers to establish implementing rules, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000(2).

Given that the Commission has jurisdiction for this area, it is not for the Council to issue an opinion on the scope of this implementing Regulation.

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 194, 31.7.2000, p. 45.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3255/00

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Revision of the postal directive creation of a compensation fund

With a view to achieving a significant reduction in the reserved area of services, in its proposal of 30 May 2000 COM(2000) 319 final the European Commission seems to be relying on the compensation fund to maintain financing of the universal service.

However, the Commission fails to make it clear how the compensation fund will operate, whereas in the telecommunications sector, for example, detailed guidelines were set out in the proposals for directives.

1. Can the Commission say what factors support the idea of setting up a compensation fund? How will the fund operate and how will it be financed in the long term?

2. Will the setting up of a compensation fund be sufficient to ensure the quality of the postal service in rural or sparsely-populated areas?

3. Will the creation of this fund guarantee equal access to the postal service for all users, not least in terms of price?

Reply given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

1. The compensation fund is one of the additional means provided for by Directive 97/67/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of the quality of service(1) which the Member States may use for funding the universal service. The analytical elements providing support for this idea are based on the fact that the cost accounting provided for under this directive should allow costs to be made transparent.

Five Member States have made provision for a compensation fund in their legislation without putting it into practice, however. The Commission will examine the details of these measures as state aid from the point of view of the competition rules. On the basis of this analysis, the Commission could, depending on the case, propose further principles to be applied to this compensation fund as happened in the telecommunications sector.

However, it would not be right to perform a theoretical study of the operation of a compensation fund now since Directive 97/67/EC has already indicated the parameters for such action (Article 9).

2. The current directive establishes the universal service as a minimum to be provided in each Member State. The activation of a compensation fund to ensure the operation of the universal service will probably not be necessary in most cases since the draft directive of the Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/67/EC, regarding the opening-up to competition of the Community's postal services, allows for the possibility of 50 % of the postal receipts of those providing the universal service continuing to be reserved if necessary.

3. Yes. The combination of one or more means provided by the directive for ensuring the universal service (reserved service, licence conditions, tariffs geared to costs, compensation funds) will allow a guarantee to be made that all users will have equal access to the postal service.

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2404/00 by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Death of refugees at the EU's external borders.



Official Journal 103 E , 03/04/2001 P. 0146 - 0146



WRITTEN QUESTION P-2404/00 by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) to the Council (11 July 2000) Subject: Death of refugees at the EU's external borders In 1999 and the first six months of the year 2000, how many refugees were found dead at the EU's external borders and how many were found injured? (Please break down by month, refugees' origin, place where found (country, region), type of injury). Reply (7 November 2000) The Council does not have the information sought by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3227/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Merger controls by the European Commission

Commissioner Monti has frequently expressed support for amending the regulation on merger controls to give the Commission more scope for acting in this field. A number of cases would suggest that this is entirely justified.

This applies to the planned merger announced in Spain between Endesa and Iberdrola, which seems to enjoy the approval of the Spanish Government. When analysing this operation, it should be borne in mind that the companies concerned generate two-thirds of their turnover in Spain and do not therefore have a Community dimension. In addition, in Spain decisions on mergers are not taken by an independent body such as a competition tribunal, but by the government itself.

Does the Commission consider that it should be empowered to act to control mergers in cases where they involve companies in strategic sectors whose activities are centred in a single country?

What are the Commission's views on the proposed merger between the two main Spanish electricity companies? Could this merger affect competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2000)

In its report(1) to the Council on the application of the Merger Regulation threshold(2) of June 2000, submitted for information to the Parliament, the Commission expressed the view regarding mergers of enterprises that achieve more than two-thirds of their turnover in one and the same Member State that As far as the two-thirds rule is concerned, it is the Commission's experience that certain transactions with clear cross-border effects are excluded from the scope of the Merger Regulation by this criterion. mldr Still it has to be concluded that the available information is insufficient to allow any firm conclusions. Consequently, further data collection and analysis would be required prior to making any concrete conclusion or proposing specific amendments.

Given the absence of the necessary information to form even a preliminary view, the Commission is not in a position to comment on the merger mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(1) COM(2000) 399 final.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2293/00

by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Humanitarian aid to South Sudan

Will the Council make a statement on its decision to end humanitarian aid to South Sudan and advise of what representations it has made regarding alleged human rights abuses by the Sudan Government?

Reply

(9 November 2000)

The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that the Council has never taken a decision to end humanitarian aid to South Sudan. However, in a declaration by the Presidency on 8 March 2000 the European Union expressed its grave concern at the conditions imposed by the SPLM/SRRA on NGOs working in southern Sudan, leading to the withdrawal of many of those organisations. It urged the SPLM/SRRA to consider resuming negotiations with the NGOs as soon as possible with the objective of creating conditions to enable the NGOs to carry out humanitarian operations unhindered and in accordance with international humanitarian law.

As regards the human rights situation in Sudan, the European Union has in recent years regularly raised the question within the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva and in other relevant United Nations bodies and, since 1999, directly with the Sudanese authorities in the framework of the renewed EU-Sudan dialogue. In particular, the renewed EU-Sudan dialogue meetings held to date have made it possible to discuss frankly and constructively numerous topics relating to human rights in Sudan.