ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2334/99

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Infringement of anti-trust rules in connection with the certification of PDI and PGI products

Following the less than exhaustive answer to my previous Written Question P-1845/99(1) can the Commission clarify the following:

- Article 10(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92(2) states that the inspection structure for PDI and PGI products may comprise one or more designated inspection authorities and/or private bodies approved for that purpose.

The Italian Government's decision to designate one private company for each product was criticised by:

- the Italian anti-trust authority in the notification/opinion of 6 March 1998 published in Bulletin No 8/98 number 12 in the notification series;

- the Lazio Regional Administrative Court in injunction No 2038/1998.

Furthermore, in that injunction the Lazio Regional Administrative Court states that the Italian version of the EEC Regulation does not correspond to the other language versions, which it considers to be absolutely clear in establishing, as a principle, that there should be several private inspection bodies.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. whether it is aware of the opinions expressed by the Italian anti-trust authority and the Lazio Regional Administrative Court;

2. whether it agrees with the views expressed by the Italian judicial and supervisory authorities:

3. what steps it intends to take in this context?

(1) See page 27.

(2) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 1999)

The Commission was never officially informed either of the opinion of the Italian antitrust authority, or of the ruling by the Lazio administrative court, although it heard of them unofficially.

It is not the habit of the Commission to comment on decisions of this kind, which fall within the exclusive competence of the Member States.

In the light of its replies to the Honourable Member's written questions P-1845/99(1) and E-2066/99(2), the Commission does not feel the need to adopt any measures in this respect.

(1) See page 27.

(2) See page 46.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1813/99

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Selection of areas for EU aid in Finland

The initial selections have been made in the Member States for the areas to receive aid under the EU's regional policy. In Finland the government is proposing precisely delimited areas for support under Objective 2, including parts of the fastest-growing and most developed cities.

From the point of view of the less-developed areas surrounding these cities it seems strange that well-off, developed areas are being selected to receive aid, while the surrounding areas which are suffering from an exodus of population, the loss of traditional livelihoods and structural changes to industry are not able to be included among the areas eligible for support.

If it is not possible for aid areas to include whole provinces, they should at least be based on whole neighbourhoods. Now the government's proposal is seriously neglecting the rural areas around centres of growth.

What is the Commission doing to ensure that less-developed areas suffering serious problems can receive EU aid instead of the Member States cherry-picking in this way?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1999)

As provided in Article 4 of the Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the structural funds, the Commission decides the list of regions eligible for objective 2 on the basis of a proposal from the Member State. The Commission examines the proposal for conformity with the regulation. In particular, it ensures that the population ceiling fixed for the Member State is respected and that the regions proposed fulfil the criteria set out in paragraphs 5 to 9 of Article 4.

These criteria cover the different categories of area eligible for support under objective 2, viz. areas undergoing socio-economic change in the industry and service sectors, declining rural areas, urban areas in difficulty and fisheries-dependent areas with serious problems. The Commission also verifies that where it is objectively possible at least 50 % of the population covered by objective 2 is situated in areas covered by the criteria in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 4, concerning socio-economic change in the industry and services sectors and declining rural areas.

In the case of Finland, the Commission has decided the list of eligible areas, in principle, at its meeting of 26 October 1999. Some 27 % of the objective 2 list for Finland, in terms of population, were formally proposed by the national authorities under rural criteria, with 11 % and 62 % for the urban and industrial areas, respectively. In reality, the industrial areas also contain a significant rural territory which would allow the national authorities to finance measures under the objective 2 programmes concerned in favour of rural development.

The Commission is satisfied that list of areas eligible under objective 2 in Finland meet the criteria in the regulation and that they therefore have genuine needs in accordance with aims of this objective.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1884/99

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Policy on Baltic salmon

Research shows that the production of young salmon in the Tornio/Torneälv river between Finland and Sweden has collapsed. The salmon live in the Baltic Sea, and from there they head up the river to spawn. Since the Commission is now promoting what is in many respects a more liberal policy towards salmon fisheries in the Baltic, this will make it harder for the EU to achieve its target of regenerating salmon stocks by 2010. Is the Commission aware of the problem in the Tornio river, and will it have any effect on the EU's Baltic salmon fisheries policy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1999)

In February 1997 the International Baltic Sea fisheries commission (IBSFC) adopted a salmon action plan (SAP). The objectives in this action plan are to achieve a natural production of at least 50 % of the potential capacity of all wild salmon rivers, to undertake habitat improvement and to re-establish salmon in potential salmon rivers. The plan has been complemented with national measures such as closed areas and time restrictions of fishing.

The International council for the exploration of sea (ICES) has confirmed that the management actions taken have resulted in a considerable increase in the numbers of wild salmon returning to home rivers. The higher numbers of wild salmon spawning in the rivers have resulted in increased production of wild smolt (juvenile salmon).

The same improvement has not been observed in all salmon rivers. However in the case of the Torneå river the increase has been very large and ICES reports that salmon occur in parts of the river for the first time since the Second World War. According to ICES and to national sources the production in river Torneå has not collapsed; on the contrary, in 1998 the production was among the highest observed since the early 1970's. Although a reduction in production was observed in 1999, production is still very good and almost 5 times higher than that observed in the period 1976-1987. Furthermore a reduction in the 1999 production was expected as the returning salmon were from less numerous year classes, affected by the M 74 syndrome, and hence fewer salmon would have participated in the spawning. The ICES forecast for the Torneå river indicates that the objective set out in the SAP might be achieved in the near future.

Against this background, the Commission does not share the view expressed by the Honourable Member that the production of salmon in the Torneå river has collapsed.

The encouraging signs of increased production of wild salmon in the several rivers in the Baltic confirm that the actions instituted by IBSFC and supplemented by national measures are effective. However there are rivers that do not show the same improvement and the Commission is convinced of the need to continue with a responsible management strategy in order to achieve its objectives.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2634/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Compensation of EU citizens in the case of road accidents in Switzerland

Loopholes in Swiss legislation allow insurance companies to delay paying compensation in respect of third party liability. This source of legal uncertainty also affects nationals of EU countries who are the victims of road accidents in Switzerland. They find themselves involved in legal proceedings without any prospect of obtaining fair compensation within a reasonable period of time.

The forthcoming ratification of the transport agreement between Switzerland and the EU in the course of 2000 should be taken as an opportunity to resolve this legal problem as soon as possible. EU citizens in Switzerland are entitled to the same protection as Swiss nationals enjoy in the fifteen Member States of the EU. It is also worth noting that former Commission President Santer was informed of this problem in writing on 12 March 1998 and 27 July 1998 (letters from Dr Eric Suy, president of VTB-VAB and Belgium's Deputy Prime Minister, Elio de Rupo).

1. What action has the Commission taken to remedy the loopholes in Swiss legislation, which result in a lack of legal certainty in the case of road accidents in Switzerland?

2. Will the Commission take advantage of the ratification procedure for the transport agreement between Switzerland and the EU to demand from the Swiss Government a rapid, fair and reasonable solution to this legal problem? If not, why not?

3. What further steps will the Commission take to ensure that Swiss Government finds a fair and reasonable solution to this legal problem as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The Commission is aware of a number of cases in which Community nationals have encountered difficulties in their dealings with Swiss insurance companies, following accidents in Switzerland.

These are cases governed by Swiss civil law and, as far as traffic accidents are concerned, by the green card agreement, which also falls under civil law. The Commission has no competences in this respect, and has no powers to deal with claims following from accidents in third countries, against insurance companies in these countries.

These questions were not covered by the mandate for the negotiation of the seven sectoral agreements, and therefore it was not possible to include them in the negotiations. The result of the negotiations has been proposed by the Commission to the Council(1), and the agreements have been signed on 21 June 1999 in Luxembourg. It is now for the Parliament, the Member States and the Council to ratify the agreements on the basis of their own evaluation.

The Commission has taken up this issue in a more general context with the Swiss authorities. It will again raise the issue at the next meeting of the joint committee of the insurance agreement, which will be held in spring 2000, even if strictly speaking this matter falls beyond the scope of this agreement.

(1) COM(99) 229 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1731/99

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 September 1999)

Subject: Imprisoned Moldovan Parliamentarian Ilie Ilascu

The Moldovan Parliamentarian Mr Ilie Ilascu is being held in prison without far trial in the breakaway Moldovan province of Transdniester. The self-styled Soviet Republic of Transdniester, with the support of the Russian Fourteenth Army, has imprisoned non-Russian ethnic leaders, among whom the most prominent is Mr Ilascu.

Will the Foreign Ministers raise this issue in the next meeting of the EU-Russia Cooperation Council and report to Parliament?

Reply

(2 December 1999)

The Council is closely following the human rights situation in Transnistria, notably the case of the Moldovan Parliamentarian Mr Ilie Ilascu. The EU-Troika of senior officials raised the issue of Mr Ilascu with the Transnistrian authorities during its visit to Tiraspol on 15 October 1999.

The wider issue of Transnistria has been raised at the recent Ministerial Troika with Russia in Moscow on 7 October, but is not on the agenda agreed between the EU and Russia for the forthcoming summit.

The Council will use every other appropriate occasion to press for an early retrial of Mr Ilascu and will keep the European Parliament duly informed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1841/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 October 1999)

Subject: Construction of a solar thermal power plant at Frangokastello in the Sfakia region of Crete, Greece

I have received complaints from residents of Frangokastello in the Sfakia region of Crete about plans to construct a solar thermal power plant in the area, which will, however, be powered by liquid gas as an alternative during periods of reduced sunlight. According to these complaints, finance for the construction of the plant is also to be provided by the European Union under the Thermie programme.

Will the Commission say whether, in fact, it plans to fund this project? If so, to what extent has an environmental impact assessment been carried out, both from the environmental viewpoint the region has been designated an area of exceptional natural beauty and is covered by the Natura 2000 programme and from the economic and cultural points of view as the plant is to be built in the vicinity of an archaeological site and villages and towns with a thriving tourist industry, which provides the basic source of income for the population?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1999)

Within the Thermie programme, the project TE-235-96 (thermal solar European power station at Frangokastello, Crete-Theseus) has received support for its first phase, which regards the design of the plant.

Implementation of the project will be fully dependent on the national (Greek) legislation and procedure as far as permissions and authorisations are needed for the land use, spatial planning, environmental impact, building, operation, and connection to the grid. If such authorisations are not granted, the project will not be eligible for further support. In particular,the Frangokastello area is located within a site included in the list of sites of Community importance proposed by the Hellenic authorities by virtue of Council Directive 92/0043/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) for the Natura 2000 network. The relevant environmental impact studies carried out for the development should therefore take proper account of the conservation value of that site so that its deterioration can be avoided.

When permissions are given by national or local authorities, the Commission can only assume that environmental considerations have been taken into account. It is not the responsibility of the Commission to interfere with local issues. However the Commission may intervene should evidence of a potential breach of Community legislation be brought to its attention.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1769/99

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Introduction of a common EU-wide bottle recycling system

Drinks packaging currently contributes to the serious waste management problems faced by the majority of Member States. Certain countries have introduced systems for recycling bottles but in some cases find it difficult to collect sufficient quantities to make such systems economical. One possible solution might be to introduce a common, EU-wide system, which would help to ensure that bottles are collected in sufficient quantities and alleviate the growing problem posed by large volumes of household waste.

Is the Commission planning to introduce a common EU-wide system for recycling glass bottles?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1999)

The encouragement of reuse systems of packaging in the Member States is one of the measures foreseen by Parliament and Council Directive 94/0062/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste(1) in order to prevent or reduce the environmental impact of packaging waste provided that the packaging can be reused in an environmentally sound manner in conformity with the Treaty.

Several Member States have established reuse systems or reinforced their traditional old systems, such as Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Austria, Finland, and Sweden. Currently, reuse rates of up to 90 % have been achieved for beverages packaging in some of these Member States.

However, the setting up of a European system for reuse is a rather complex issue where several aspects (standardisation, transport distances) play a role. This makes it difficult to harmonise the existing reuse systems, which have been historically developed along different lines. Moreover, the need to ensure a high level of environmental protection needs to be combined with internal market rules.

The Commission will however take advantage of the revision process of the Directive 94/0062/EC, which should start before the end of this year, to further improve the reuse systems of packaging in the Member States.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1561/99

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

(1 September 1999)

Subject: List of vessels that have stopped using drift-nets in compliance with Regulation (EC) 1239/98

Council Regulation (EC) 1239/98(1) of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) 0894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources, bans the use of drift-nets by

Community vessels as of 1 January 2002. In view of the fact that the use of such gear by Member States' fleets may be phased out gradually, Article 1(4) of the abovementioned regulation provides that Member States shall communicate to the Commission the list of vessels authorised to carry out fishing activities using drift-nets for each target species, as listed in the annex to the Regulation, by 30 April 1998, the information shall be sent not later than 31 July 1998.

1. Can the Commission provide a list of vessels which were authorised to carry out fishing activities using drift-nets in the period 1995 to 1997?

2. Can the Commission provide the lists of vessels authorised to carry out fishing activities using drift-nets in 1998 and 1999 which should already have been submitted by the Member States?

3. Based on a comparison of the lists requested, can the Commission guarantee that the provisions of Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) 1239/98 are being complied with?

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998. p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1537/99 and E-1561/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 1999)

The Member States concerned have sent the Commission the information referred to in Article 11a(4) of Regulation (EC) 0894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources(1).

According to this information, the number of fishing vessels driftnetting for long finned tuna in the north-east Atlantic in the period from 1995 to 1997 and the number of vessels authorised to do so in 1998 and 1999 were as follows:

>TABLE>

The information provided by the Member States in question shows that the requirement laid down in Article 11a(3) of Regulation (EC) 0894/97 is being complied with. The Commission will verify the data provided by the Member States for the 1995-1997 period as part of the checks conducted under Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy(2).

(1) OJ L 132, 23.5.1997.

(2) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1436/99

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Spanish Government plan to draw up and adopt a geographical mobility plan

On 1 June 1999 the Spanish Government announced that it intended to draw up and adopt a geographical mobility plan with the aim of transferring labour towards the Mediterranean on the pretext

that there were more job vacancies in this area. Were this plan to go ahead, it would entail massive investment in housing, transport, education, health and even as regards taxation and social security, since unemployed persons from other parts of Spain would have to be transferred to this region.

This Spanish Government policy would be tantamount to consolidating and even increasing existing regional imbalances with the help of public funds, instead of addressing the historical deficit of the Atlantic regions of Spain in terms of infrastructure and development, which is reflected by a very high unemployment rate (17 % of the labour force in Galicia).

If the Spanish Government submitted an application of this kind to the Commission, could it authorise the former to use Structural and Cohesion Fund resources to pursue a policy which is clearly at odds with the objective of economic and social cohesion?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 1999)

The Commission is not aware of the geographical mobility Plan to which the Honourable Member refers and which, based on the information provided, is only a Government statement of intent at this stage. Without the text of the plan or at least some detailed information on its purpose and implementation, the Commission cannot say whether it might attract assistance from the Structural Funds.

Under the terms of Council Regulation (EC) 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund(1), the Fund exclusively assists investment in transport infrastructure and environmental protection. The Cohesion Fund does not therefore assist the sectors mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2026/99

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Organophosphate sheep dips

Can the Commission say whether the EU is helping finance any research projects into the effects on human health of the handling of organophosphate sheep dips, and whether it has any plans either to ban such dips, or to reinforce the safety measures that must be employed when they are being used?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission can confirm that the Community is not directly funding any research projects into the effects on human health of the handling of organophosphate sheep dips. In addition, there are no Community plans to ban such dips or to lay down safety measures that must be employed in addition to those already provided by the manufacturers and by individual Member State national legislation.

There is no current project in agriculture research within the agro-industrial research (AIR) and fisheries, agriculture and agro-industrial research (FAIR) programmes on this matter.

However, a research proposal on this theme could be submitted to key action 5 of the specific programme Quality of life and management of living resources of the 5th framework programme for research and technological development (RTD). One of the priorities of the above key action is Health and welfare of animals used in farm livestock production. Research activities on improved methods for evaluating the impact of veterinary products on public and animal health could be addressed to this key action.