ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0136/00

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Setting up of Eurojust

At the Tampere Summit, the European Council decided to set up an agency to provide a more vigorous response to the most serious forms of organised crime (Eurojust). The Council was asked to adopt the necessary legislation by the end of the year 2001.

1. What progress has been made concerning specific plans to set up Eurojust?

2. In so far as it is possible to say at present, how will the agency be structured in organisational terms?

3. What are the Council's estimates concerning the future staffing levels of Eurojust?

4. What are the Council's estimates regarding costs?

Reply

(2 May 2000)

The Portuguese Presidency submitted to the Council a discussion paper examining all the possible options regarding setting up Eurojust. A first discussion of this document has already been held within the competent Council bodies. The Presidency also submitted the question of setting up Eurojust to the Justice and Home Affairs ministers at the informal meeting in Lisbon at the beginning of March 2000.

It is not yet possible to provide any information on the future organisation of Eurojust or estimates of its future resources.

As soon as the Council has been presented with an initiative regarding a legal instrument, the European Parliament will be duly consulted, in accordance with the Treaty on European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0750/00 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Council. Dutch legislation on termination of pregnancy.



Official Journal 374 E , 28/12/2000 P. 0148 - 0148



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0750/00 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Council (15 March 2000) Subject: Dutch legislation on termination of pregnancy Is the Council aware of the proposed changes in Dutch legislation allowing abortion in pregnancies over 24 weeks on the grounds that the babies have a disability and does the Council consider that such a law would be contrary to Article 6 of the Treaties? Reply (18 May 2000) National legislation relating to termination of pregnancy does not fall within the scope of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union which applies only to actions carried out, or to legal instruments and other legal acts adopted, either by the Union or by the European Communities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0395/00

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Canadian seal cull quota

The Canadian Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Herb Dhaliwal, has recently announced the quota for seal hunting. The 2000 quota is set at 275 000 for zadel seals and 10 000 for klapmutsen. These quotas are the same as last year but in previous years the quotas were on the increase (having quadrupled since 1995).

Studies published in the scientific journals Maríne Mammal Science (July 1999) and Conservation Biology (28 October 1999) indicate that the actual number of seals killed by hunting (zadel seals) in Canada and Greenland was between 417 000 and 533 000 last year. The studies sat that if sustainable hunting means that hunting does not result in a fall in population (i.e. the birth rate keeps pace with the number of seals killed), the actual number of seals killed should be in the order of 93 000 and 264 000. Accordingly, the number of seals killed as a result of hunting should be adjusted downwards.

1. Is the Commission aware of the publications in the periodicals referred to above?

2. In the Commission's view, how do the results of these studies relate to the quota laid down by the Canadian government?

3. Is the Commission prepared to take action to urge the Canadian government to change its policy? If so, what action?

4. Can the Commission provide any information on compliance with the seals directive (83/129/EEC)(1), as amended in 1985 and 1989? Can the Commission guarantee that Member States are actually complying with this directive?

(1) OJ L 91, 9.4.1983, p. 30.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the scientific publications mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The quotas for harp and hooded seal hunting in Canada have remained unchanged since 1996 and neither species is considered endangered, according to the International Union for conservation of nature and natural resources (IUCN) red list of threatened animals. The Commission takes it that the Canadian authorities are aware of problems concerning the relation between quotas and effective harvest numbers and that for that reason an extensive harp seal population survey has been conducted by the Canadian Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans in 1999 with final results expected in spring 2000. Consequently the Commission sees no need to intervene in this matter.

The Commission has no reason to assume that Council Directive 83/129/EEC of 28 March 1983 concerning the importation into Member States of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom, which only concerns furs of whitecoat pups of harp seals and of blueback pups of hooded seals, is not correctly implemented in the Member States. Some years ago miscoding of lambskins led to the impression that whitehead skins had been imported into the Community. Commercial harvesting of whitecoats and bluebacks is against the law in Canada. As a result of this measure it appears that trade in these specific kinds of seal skins has petered out.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0484/00

by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Funding under the Leader+ Community initiative

Could the Commission indicate the amount of funding the Spanish region of Estremedura is likely to receive under the Leader+ Community initiative?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Commission has distributed the EUR 2 020 million budget for Leader+ among the Member States.

Spain has been allocated EUR 467 million and it must now draw up the programmes to implement Leader+.

The programmes will be sent to the Commission for approval and it is on that basis that the potential funding for the various regions will be known.

The Commission has not yet received the Leader+ programmes, so it cannot give the Honourable Member any more information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1058/00

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Exemptions from the ban on leaded petrol

The fuels directive which came into effect in October 1998 lays down strict limits for the sulphur content of both petrol and diesel motor fuels. In that directive it was also decided to abandon the use of leaded petrol. The time limit for the use of leaded petrol expired at the end of last year, but France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece were granted an extension for the use of leaded and high-sulphur fuels.

Why did the Commission support the continued use of leaded petrol in these countries, even though it is widely known that lead in fuels can easily be replaced by other less polluting additives?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The Commission considered carefully the requests for derogation to continue the marketing of leaded petrol from the Member States in question. In coming to its decisions the Commission was well aware of the technical alternatives to leaded petrol. However, it became equally clear that considerable consumer uncertainty would have resulted in these Member States if derogations had not been granted and that this could have given rise to widespread disruption. The Commission thus concluded that the derogation periods granted were necessary to allow the authorities in the Member States to inform consumers accurately on this topic and to implement the necessary measures to ensure a smooth transition to unleaded petrol.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/00

by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Impartiality of EU food monitoring

Between 11 and 21 October 1998, European Union veterinary inspectors made an inspection visit to the Kola peninsula in Russia with the aim of ascertaining whether it would be possible to grant permission for reindeer meat and game to be imported into the EU from that source.

According to the inspection report (XXIV/1472/98), a representative of an enterprise with an interest in imports of reindeer meat from the Kola peninsula took part in the Commission's inspection mission. The report states that the enterprise helped to organise the journey and arranged interpreting services for meetings.

Is it standard practice for representatives of commercial enterprises to participate in EU inspection missions in third countries? Is it likely to boost consumer confidence in the impartiality of the EU's food monitoring if parties with commercial interests participate in inspection missions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

As indicated in the report (available on the Europa website at http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/), to which the Honourable Members refer, the mission team comprised two vets from the Commission, and one from the Finnish ministry of Agriculture. Two members of the team were fluent in Russian, which was the language used during the mission. It proved impossible to obtain official interpretation support for the third inspector. For these reasons, it was necessary to take exceptional measures, which fell outside normal food and veterinary office practices, to ensure the successful performance and completion of the mission.

To this end, the assistance of an interpreter for the third inspector, provided through the Swedish-owned exporting company, was accepted. In addition, the mission programme was finalised with the regional, rather than the central, official veterinary services, with assistance from the Swedish exporting company. A director of that company travelled with the team to assist with travel arrangements, but he did not form part of the team and, as is made clear in the report, did not participate in any of the technical meetings during the mission. The performance of the mission, and the reporting of its findings, conclusions and recommendations, were in no way prejudiced by this arrangement. All travel and accommodation arrangements were made fully in accordance with Commission rules.

The Commission is very aware of the need to ensure that consumers have confidence in the impartiality of its inspection and control activities. The findings of the mission, as is evidenced by the publication of the report, were achieved in a fully transparent and independent manner. They were accepted by the Member States in the standing veterinary committee on 10th February 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0671/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Raffaele Fitto (PPE-DE), Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE) and Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Violation of EU legislation on the cloning of human beings

What action does the Commission intend to take following the decision made by the European Patent Office in Munich to approve the grant of a patent for embryo duplication.

How does it intend to uphold fundamental human rights and ensure that, unlike in countries such as the United States and Japan, it is impossible in the European Union to patent procedures involving the manipulation of the genetic structure of cells for the purpose of creating living organisms?

How does it intend to ensure that the document approved by the Patent Office categorically rules out the cloning of human beings?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The actions of the European Patent Office (EPO), which is not a Community institution, are governed by the European Patent Convention (EPC). This Convention is an international agreement to which 19 countries including all the Member States are a party. The implementing regulations to the EPC were amended last year to take account of Directive 98/44/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions(1). The regulations, in following the wording of the directive, specifically exclude from patentability processes for cloning human beings, processes for modifying the germ line genetic identity of human beings and uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes.

In response to the controversy surrounding European patent EP0695351, the Commission wrote to the EPO expressing concern about the granting of this patent and seeking a swift amendment of this patent. In response, the EPO has agreed to constitute an opposition division earlier than normal to consider the oppositions that have already been filed in respect of this patent. This opposition division was duly constituted on 29 March 2000 and is expected to issue a preliminary ruling shortly. The Commission will continue to monitor developments and, should the action of the EPO prove inadequate, will consider further action including the possibility of the Commission or the Community formally opposing this patent before the EPO.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0653/00

by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Use of Community funds for irrigation infrastructures on the river Guaro

In 1987 the Commission allocated 645 million pesetas (Decision C(87) 1626/13) for the construction of the La Vinuela dam on the river Guaro and for various irrigation infrastructures along the river's banks.

However, only the work on the left bank of the river Guaro has been completed, while the work on the right bank is still unfinished (technical data sheet No A N 94 P 0101 includes the Guaro irrigation project as part of the operational programme for Andalucia, 1994-1999). In addition, a delegation of interested parties visited the offices of DG XVI in Brussels without obtaining a satisfactory reply from the Commission.

In the light of the above, will the Commission say why the work on the right bank has not been completed? What steps has the Commission taken to provide full information to those affected by these projects?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission suggests that the Honourable Member refer to the information already given to Parliament on the project in question, in particular its reply to Written Question E-1391/99 from Mr Sakellariou(1), its communications on petitions 249/1999 and 391/1999 and its letter dated 6 May 1999 to Mrs Theato.

According to information provided by Spain, apart from the previous part-financing of the construction of the dam at La Viñuela, the work part-financed under action 6.1.1. of the operational programme for Andalusia 1994-1999 is all located on the left bank of the river Vélez and has practically been completed. In fact, the technical description in the OP does not specify whether the projects are located on the left or the right bank of the river, but states only Obras de distribución en el Guaro.

The Commission would like to point out that, under the principle of subsidiarity, it is the job of Member States to select the projects to be part-financed. According to information received from the national authorities, the projects to which the Honourable Member refers will most probably be implemented during a later programming phase but the same authorities do not specify if they intend applying for Community part-financing for this future development work.

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 3.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0855/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: UK map for Structural Funds Objective 2

When in 2000 did the United Kingdom Government write to the European Commission requesting the suspension of the process of approval for the Objective 2 map for the European Structural Funds 2000-2006?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

The British authorities wrote on 2 February 2000 requesting suspension of the procedure while they considered changes to the list. The Commission replied on 4 February 2000, asking for the revisions to be submitted quickly so that the final list could be decided in order to clear the way for the programming of actions on the ground.

Following a second letter on 24 February, in which the Commission again emphasised the urgency of a decision, the United Kingdom replied by formally removing their suspension on 2 March 2000 and rescinded their request for changes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1353/00

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

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Delay by the EU in reaching a decision on an increase of capital for the Santana Motor company

The Spanish car manufacturer Santana Motor registered a loss of ESP 2 986 million in 1999, in excess of all forecasts, whether those of the Andalusian regional government or those of the company's own strategic plan.

This company is owned by the Andalusian Development Institute (Instituto de Fomento de Andalucía), which is an organ of the Andalusian regional government. The Institute believes that these losses have arisen owing to the appreciation of the yen and to the delay by the EU in reaching a decision on an increase of capital for the company and on its requests for aid.

Can the Commission state whether the Institute's complaint as regards the Union in this respect is in fact justifiable, and explain to what extent it believes the Union can be considered responsible for the prejudice for which it is being blamed by the owners of Santana Motor?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The company in question carried out a restructuring plan between 1995 and 1997, which was supported by state aid approved by the Commission in its Decision 97/17/EC of 30 July 1996(1). The aid to Santana was approved under certain conditions, such as the provision of an annual monitoring report and the prohibition of any new restructuring aid. The Commission points out that the restructuring plan on which the above Commission decision from 1996 was based should have lead to the viability of Santana. It takes note of the information submitted by the Honourable Member that the losses incurred by Santana in 1999 amount to PTAS 2 986 million.

In 1998, the Commission learned through the press that a credit of PTAS 3 800 million was granted to Santana Motor by a consortium of five banks, which was accompanied by a public guarantee of the regional government of Andalusia. Following this information, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities for additional information which was provided only in part. Documents such as the company's medium-term strategic plan made reference to investment aid as well as a capital injection by a public body. The measure was registered as non-notified aid. In order to be able to assess the public financing measures, the Commission required further information, which was gradually submitted by the Spanish authorities.

The Commission is currently examining the measures; it is therefore too early to arrive at any conclusions regarding the nature of the measures and the compatibility with the Community competition rules or the need for proceedings under Article 88 (2) (ex-Article 93) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0204/00

by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Travelling with guide dogs

Travelling with their guide dogs is a problem for the blind as every European country has a different set of rules for the veterinary checks and vaccinations required.

In general the rules vary substantially between the countries of Europe. The United Kingdom requires import permits to be obtained in advance while Sweden requires the dog to be identified by either a tattoo or a microchip and Spain will not accept rabies vaccinations more than twelve months old.

This need to prepare everything in detail and in advance prevents the blind from travelling on impulse, so what kind of freedom of movement are the blind left with?

Does the Commission have comprehensive information on the varying rules for the entry of guide dogs into the countries of Europe?

Has it considered harmonising these rules so that the blind are also able to use the principle of free movement between European countries?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the problems caused by the existence of differing national rules governing the movement of pets, more specifically guide dogs, between Member States. Unfortunately, previous attempts by the Commission to harmonise veterinary requirements in this area proved unsuccessful.

After consulting a panel of independent scientists, the British Government recently abolished quarantine in favour of an alternative, less restrictive, system allowing owners to take their pets with them when travelling between Member States, subject to certain conditions.

Visually impaired persons travelling with their dogs have been the first to benefit from these new rules. Indeed, before the implementation of the new provision, the first animal to enter the United Kingdom without having been quarantined was a guide dog.

In this new context, the Commission will shortly submit to the Council and Parliament a proposal for a Regulation to harmonise veterinary requirements for the movement of pets. In particular, the Regulation will offer a solution to the problems which are still facing visually impaired persons travelling within the Community with their dogs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0933/00

by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Commission investigations against the German Land of Thuringia

1. What investigation procedures in connection with subsidies under EU programmes and directives have been or are being carried out by the Commission against the Land of Thuringia, and when did these begin?

2. What has been the outcome of the investigations under competition law which have already been completed? What is the financial scope of the procedures under investigation, and into what particular areas can they be broken down?

3. Has the Land government been involved in the investigation process or informed about the outcome, and have any specific demands for changes on specific matters been made? If so, when, and on what matters?

4. What are the possible consequences for the Land of Thuringia, and what is the Commission's assessment of these?

5. Which investigation procedures have not yet been completed, when is this likely to happen and to what matters do they relate?

6. Is there a need to alter the customary procedures for the implementation of EU programmes and directives in Thuringia; if so, which, and in which areas?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.