ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0240/00

by Hans Modrow (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: CDU funding scandal

The preamble and Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union lay down the imperative of upholding democracy and abiding by the rule of law. The Tampere European Council charted the goal of developing the Union as an area of freedom, security, and justice.

Current political and economic developments in Germany are placing a question mark over observance of these principles. Manifest infringements of the principles recognised by all Member States are likely to fuel misgivings in the new German Länder and central and eastern European countries about adoption of the acquis communautaire, especially where compliance with democratic rules of conduct is concerned.

1. What does the Commission know about the sale of Leuna to the Elf Aquitaine company and what steps will it take in view of the fact that DM 30 m may have found its way into the CDU party coffers to be used as election campaign funds?

2. How does it propose to investigate the suspicion that money is being laundered in European banks, especially in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg, and enlighten the European public as to the facts of the matter?

3. Does it know of any other cases of subsidy fraud and distortion of competition connected with privatisation of State-owned businesses in the former GDR? If so, what further investigations does it intend to carry out?

4. Have persons implicated in the German funding scandal attempted to influence political decisions of the Commission or other EU bodies in favour of particular firms?

5. Will the Commission investigate whether money from the illicit accounts and other dubious channels was used for the CDU's European election campaigns in 1989, 1994, and 1999?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2000)

In the framework of its responsibilities for state aid control, pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 (ex Articles 92 and 93) of the EC Treaty, the Commission is currently investigating whether the cost of the construction of the Leuna 2000 refinery by Elf was artificially inflated. Elf could have received aid payments which go beyond the 35 % aid ceiling permitted in Eastern Germany. If this were to be the case, the Commission would request the reimbursement of part of the aid. As regards the investigation of possible fraud in relation to the granting of state aid, it should be noted that such investigations are the responsibility of the national authorities in Member States. The Commission will study with interest any conclusions such investigations may lead to in order to see whether it has to draw any consequences. However, it is only if the fraud is allegedly connected with the use of direct Community subsidies that the European antifraud office (OLAF) could intervene pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European antifraud office (OLAF)(1).

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0461/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Delay in ESF payments

Some 7 000 unemployed persons who have attended seminars as part of continuing vocational training programmes in Greece, mainly in the regions of Crete and Attica, have not yet been paid, even though eight months have passed since the programmes were implemented.

Given that the programmes in question are funded primarily by the European Social Fund, will the Commission say:

1. Why has it not yet disbursed the sums of money owed to Greece by the European Social Fund?

2What measures does it intend to take to ensure that the unemployed are paid as rapidly as possible?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

For the purpose of funding the European Social Fund (ESF), the Commission every year first establishes the financial commitments and then proceeds with the payments in accordance with the financial plan applicable to each operational programme (OP).

The Commission wishes to comment as follows concerning the regions of Crete and Attica:

The Commission established the financial commitment relating to the regional OP in Crete as soon as the Member State forwarded the required documents and it made the first advance payment for the 1999 financial year. The Commission received the Member State's request for the second advance payment at the end of the year in question, by which time all ESF payment appropriations were exhausted. This explains why the payment was effected in February 2000.

In the Attica region, as in several other regions in Greece, the procedure for amending the OP's financial tables was considerably delayed. In addition, the decision-making procedure in the Attica region was further delayed because of the specific measures planned for the victims of the September 1999 earthquake. As a result, when the new financial plans were adopted at the end of 1999, appropriations were exhausted, as was the case in Crete. Consequently the commitment will be established and payment of the first advance effected as soon as the funds become available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0039/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: The CAP and animal welfare

The CAP currently incorporates much legislation on animal welfare. However, Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999(1) encourages the castration of bovine animals, providing for two annual subsidies for castrated animals but only one for those which are uncastrated.

In the Autonomous Region of the Azores, as in other island regions, bovine animals which are raised solely for meat have not traditionally been castrated, but now farmers are compelled to adopt the practice on pain of forfeiting part of their Community subsidy.

Is it not contrary to the principles of animal welfare to provide incentives to castrate bovine animals?

How do the principles of the CAP justify this type of incentive?

Could not the Commission, when proposing amendments to regulations further to its report on the outermost regions, propose that this rule be waived, at least in the Autonomous Region of the Azores?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The rearing of steers (castrated male bovines) is a traditional beef production system yielding meat of a specific quality differing from that from uncastrated animals. It is found particularly in Member States such as France, Ireland and the United Kingdom that can devote large areas of grassland to feeding such

animals. In this type of extensive farming castration, effected at a very early age to minimise pain, is necessary to prevent fighting and obtain the desired quality of meat.

Since reform of the beef sector in 1992 aid in respect of male animals is granted at most twice in the animal's life, once between the age of 10 and 22 months and a second time from 23 months. This in practice amounts to an annual premium granted twice on each animal in the case of longer fattening systems (currently steers). In the case of bulls the second premium gave rise to production of particularly heavy animals and it was discontinued from 1997 (in certain cases from 1999). So far there has been no increase in the number of applications for second age range premiums (castrated animals) but rather the contrary. The new reform of the sector has kept to this approach by retaining a single premium for bulls ( 210) and two premiums for steers ( 150 for both age ranges).

On his last question the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's answer to his Written Question E-0038/00(1).

(1) See page 130.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0209/00

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: The import of live animals from third countries

In October 1999 the Commission published a report showing that the requirements of Council Directive 91/628/EEC(1) (as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC)(2) on the protection of animals during transport are often not being enforced at certain Italian border inspection posts in respect of live animals entering the European Union from third countries. Animal welfare organisations have also reported breaches of the laws designed to protect animals during transport at the border inspection post of Gorizia.

Will the Commission now consider withdrawing the approval for Gorizia to function as a border inspection post?

Will the Commission also consider opening the Article 226 infringement procedure in respect of Italy's failure to enforce the requirements of Council Directive 91/628/EEC (as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC) at certain border inspection posts?

(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 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the problems in relation to the insufficient enforcement of Council Directive 91/628/EC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 concerning the protection of animals during transport at the border inspection post of Gorizia (Italy). Reports by its veterinary inspectorate and complaints from various animal welfare organizations also indicate that problems continue to exist in this domain.

In the last five years five veterinary inspections missions have been carried out at the Italian border inspection posts of Gorizia and Prosseco-Fernetti. The report on Gorizia, with reference to an inspection carried out in July 1999, did not recommend the withdrawal of approval for the importation of live animals. Withdrawing the approval of Gorizia to function as a border inspection post is also not foreseen, as this measure would not prevent the traffic from continuing through other routes.

The Commission has intervened with the Italian authorities on a number of occasions concerning the inadequate enforcement of the national legislation transposing the requirements of Council Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC. Although some short-term improvements were noted in respect of earlier interventions it nevertheless appears that transport of the animals concerned is still frequently being carried out with inadequate respect of animal welfare requirements.

The Commission will also in due course take a decision as to whether to open infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) EC treaty in respect of Italy's failure to adequately enforce the rules of the animal transport directives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0178/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) and Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Discontinuing of train services between the Netherlands and Germany after upgrading of the Nieuweschans Weneer section of the TEN

1. Is the Commission aware that passenger rail services between Groningen in the Netherlands and Bremen in Germany have so far been restricted to three trains a day in each direction and that there has even been talk of cancelling the service, which would mean that there would no longer be any public transport between the northern regions of the two countries.

2. Is the Commission also aware that for years the main argument put forward in support of this restricted service was that the section of the line between the border localities of Nieuweschans (Netherlands) and Weener (Germany, Lower Saxony) was dilapidated and single-track, as a result of which the speed had to be restricted to 30 km an hour in some places, and that the necessary repairs were not regarded as viable?

3. Can the Commission confirm that as from 1 April 2000 rail traffic on the border section of the track will be suspended for six months (and replaced by a bus service) so that this neglected line can at last be upgraded at a cost of at least EUR 16,5 million and the train speed increased to 120 km per hour, except on the swing bridge over the Ems between Papenburg and Leer, which is needed because of shipbuilding, and that the cost of the German section of the work is being funded partly with monies allocated to the trans-European networks?

4. Does the Commission realise that the Netherlandse Spoorwegen (NS) have cancelled the Deutsche Bahn VT624 train used hitherto so that the new regional rail company NordNed can take over the service but that NooordNed has not has not yet come to any agreement on a subsidy with the Netherlands Province of Groningen and the German Land of Lower Saxony and that no application for a timetable for the winter period 2000-2001 has been submitted to the rail authorities?

5. What steps does the Commission intend to take to prevent a situation in which, as a result of the withdrawal of the two national railway companies involved and insufficient regional subsidies, passenger services on this railway line do not resume on completion of the repair work in October 2000, which would mean that upgrading the TEN link had been pointless?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0233/00

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Restructuring of the group ABB Alstom Power

The management of the group ABB Alstom Power, which is the product of a merger of 30 June 1999, has announced that it is to undergo restructuring, involving job losses in some regions where the company has branches. The group ABB Alstom Power or the companies involved in the merger have benefited from Community aid. Will the Commission give details of the amounts and conditions involved and say whether this aid was conditional on jobs being created? Should it transpire that all the relevant conditions have not been met, will the Commission demand repayment of the aid granted to the group?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0805/00

by Othmar Karas (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Funds for the Prince Programme information campaign about the euro

Over the last two years, the appropriations allocated for the information programme for European citizens have not been fully utilised. A commitment appropriation of EUR 38 million was entered in the 1999 budget, but only EUR 35,1 million was actually committed. Given that the level of information and knowledge of the average citizen about the euro is totally inadequate, the failure to use all the appropriations available is quite incomprehensible and regrettable and prompts several questions.

Why was the appropriation entered against Article B3-306 not fully utilised, although Eurobarometer statistics relating to businesses and to the general public, especially disadvantaged groups, show a more than negligible need to give a boost to preparations for the changeover? What areas suffered from the cuts in expenditure: cofinancing of national campaigns or the Europe-wide campaign to be carried out by the Commission? What kind of expenditure was not made? What reasons are given for the failure to use all the appropriations?

Have many Member States not taken up the appropriations available to them? If so, which ones?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2000)

In the 1999 budget, a total of 38 million was earmarked for two priority measures: 35,1 for the programme The euro, a currency for Europe and 2,9 million for Agenda 2000.

As far as the euro is concerned, the Commission implemented its initial plan, and 98,6 % of the funds for 1999 were committed, compared with 99,9 % in 1998.

Regarding Agenda 2000, the Member States, with the exception of France and to a lesser extent the Netherlands and Ireland, opted not to enter into agreements with the Commission. For this reason the funds initially allocated were not fully used up.

Under its programme The euro, a currency for Europe, the Commission has established bilateral partnerships with 13 Member States. For their own internal reasons, the United Kingdom and Denmark decided not to make use of this option.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0617/00

by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 February 2000)

Subject: EU rapid deployment force: Helsinki conclusions

In Annex I to Annex IV of the Helsinki Summit Presidency Conclusions, the EU Rapid Deployment Force is described as follows: they (Member States) will be able to deploy rapidly and then sustain forces mldr in operations up to corps level (up to 15 brigades or 50-60 000 persons) mldr They must be able to sustain such a deployment for at least one year. This will require an additional pool of deployment units (and supporting elements) at lower readiness to provide replacements for the initial forces.

However, in the first indent of paragraph 28 of the Presidency Conclusions, the text refers purely to Member States having to deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least 1 year military forces of up to 50 000 60 000 persons.

Could the Council state whether the decision taken at Helsinki was for a maximum deployment of 5 brigades sustainable for 1 year or of the 15 brigades referred to in the Annex?

Reply

(13 April 2000)

The decision taken at Helsinki was that Member States should be able to deploy rapidly and sustain forces capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks, including the most demanding, in operations up to Corps level (up to 15 brigades or 50 000 60 000 persons).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0336/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Exclusion of the prefecture of Arta from assistance under the Community Interreg 2000-2006 initiative

The Commission recently forwarded a draft notification to the EU Member States concerning the Community's Interreg 2000-2006 initiative.

From this it emerges that, although it meets the necessary criteria, the prefecture of Arta has not been included in a list of regions eligible for assistance under the cross-border cooperation arrangements (Section A), which will take up most of the funding.

Since this effectively amounts to discrimination against the prefecture of Arta:

1. Can the Commission give the reasons for its decision to exclude Arta from the list of regions eligible for funding within the framework of cross-border cooperation?

2. Will the Commission remedy this injustice against the prefecture of Arta and include it in the list of regions selected in its final draft?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0150/00, E-0229/00 and E-0336/00 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0115/00

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

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Unemployment and treaty reform

The Portuguese Presidency intends to devote the first European Council meeting to be held in Portugal to unemployment and social cohesion. It is clear that the unemployment problem in the EU in recent years has been directly linked to economic development, and the 25 regions with the lowest level of unemployment, at 4 %, are among the richest regions, while the 25 regions with the highest unemployment, standing at 23,7 %, are among the poorest.

In the light of this situation, will the Portuguese Presidency include the implementation of a European employment policy at the same level as the regional development policy among the issues for which reform of the Treaties is proposed at the Intergovernmental Conference for the year 2000?

Reply

(16 March 2000)

Under the Treaty of Amsterdam, a new Title VIII on employment has been included in the EC Treaty requiring Member States and the Community to work towards developing a coordinated strategy for employment. While it is early days still in developing such a coordinated strategy, the initial experience of implementing the Treaty provisions, which began in advance of the actual entry into force under the Luxembourg process, has been encouraging. One of the reasons for the recent improvements in the overall employment situation are the policies being implemented by Member States and efforts to coordinate them through the various processes at the level of the Union. In all Member States, the 1998 and 1999 Employment guidelines have been successfully transposed into national action plans demonstrating the continuing and strengthened commitment to the process.

The Presidency's aim for the special European Council in Lisbon on 23 and 24 March is to update the European strategy for growth, competitiveness and employment in the light of the new conditions, as well as to enhance the European Employment Pact.

Neither the conclusions of the European Council in Cologne nor the conclusions of the European Council in Helsinki include the implementation of a European Employment Policy within the mandate of the conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States which shall be called to amend the Treaties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0286/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Difficulties affecting the Rome newspaper Il Tempo

The difficulties of Il Tempo, a well-known Rome newspaper which has not been on the news-stands for several days, have recently been causing quite a stir. The controversy has arisen because the publisher is continuing to take a hard line with those who are calling for negotiations, also involving the trade unions, in an attempt to resolve the problem of the jobs being jeopardised by the publisher's restructuring policy. The publisher, however, apparently does not intend to abide by union agreements or the employment contracts drawn up by the journalists' and printers' professional representatives. In addition, the proprietorship situation is shrouded in mystery because the sum paid by the present publisher, Bonifaci, for the Società Editrice Romana seems to have consisted largely of money belonging to the Società Editrice Romana, in other words the company whose shares were the subject of the deal.

In the light of the foregoing, does the Commission not believe that it should:

1. intervene in order to ascertain that the sale of the Società Editrice Romana was lawful and has not damaged free competition;

2. call on the Italian authorities to take steps to protect a leading daily and freedom of expression, which is possibly being endangered by Bonifaci's strategies;

3. express a general view on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for sharing her concerns regarding the current situation of the Il Tempo newspaper.

However, the matters referred to in the question do not have any cross-border dimension liable to come under the principles of freedom of movement or the rules on competition within the internal market.

This being the case, the Commission cannot comment on the matter.