ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1357/00

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

(4 May 2000)

Subject: European Union arbitration in the controversy over designations of origin for Sherry and Montilla wines

The marketing strategies for Sherry and Montilla wines in the United Kingdom have led to a confrontation between the two Spanish designations of origin which will probably have to be settled before the courts.

In the light of this and similar situations, the Community agricultural sector has been wondering whether such disputes might be settled through arbitration which could be set in motion by means of specific mechanisms implemented within the framework of the common agricultural policy.

Can the Commission say whether the common agricultural policy (CAP) provides or could provide arbitration mechanisms which would help to settle disputes between Community farmers, either from the same country or from different countries, without them having to go before the courts?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The Commission has no recent information on the confrontation to which the Honourable Member refers between the Montilla-Moriles and Jerez-Xeres-Sherry designations of origin brought about by their commercial strategies in the United Kingdom.

In the absence of detailed information permitting it to examine the actual situation in depth it cannot say whether an arbitration mechanism for regulating such conflicts exists, and can therefore only ask him to provide further information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0911/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Infringement of the directives on natural habitats and wild fauna and flora in connection with the extension of the Gersheim-Rubenheim golf course

1. Is the Commission aware that the planned extension of the golf course at Gersheim-Rubenheim would have a massive impact on an area which may come under the directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and represents a serious threat to a habitat to be conserved as a matter of priority, in which, inter alia, the butterfly species Eurodryas aurinia and Maculinea arion are to be found?

2. Does the Commission take the view that a serious assessment of compatibility with the objectives under the directive on natural habitats and wild fauna and flora can only be made where a complete growing season has been studied?

3. Does the Commission agree that the Gersheim municipal council cannot be allowed to irresponsibly disregard EU law?

4. Does the Commission agree that, in the face of such a flagrant breach of EU law, infringement proceedings should be considered?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 2000)

The Commission has recently been informed about a golf course project in Gersheim/Rubenheim, the enlargement of which might harm a potential site of Community importance, a site which should be proposed under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) (Habitats Directive).

So far the Commission has only been informed about the existence of one non-priority butterfly species under Directive 92/43/EEC, without any proof by scientific literature, information about population size, importance of the area or compensation or mitigation measures which are already foreseen.

According to this information, it is not possible to draw a conclusion on whether the area has to be proposed as a site of Community importance according to Directive 92/43/EEC. Nor can it be said at the moment whether the authorities have not respected Community legislation in this specific case. The conservation of the two butterfly species mentioned by the Honourable Member might be possible on parts of the golf course if they are maintained and managed for the conservation of their habitats and if the appropriate compensation or mitigation measures are applied.

Given the information available so far, an infringement of Community legislation cannot be proved. The Honourable Member is invited to provide specific and detailed information on the site to enable the Commission to assess the case fully.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2082/00

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2000)

Subject: Evaluation of the systems of food safety assessment and testing methods used in the Member States

Has the Commission undertaken any evaluation of the systems of food safety assessment and testing methods used in each of the Member States (directly, or through a third party), and if so, in which areas does the Commission believe there may be a need for further research?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2000)

The Commission has established through its food and veterinary office in Dublin a team of officials responsible for the assessment of the effectiveness and equivalence of the food control systems in each Member State under Article 5 of Council Directive 93/99/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the subject

of additional measures concerning the official control of foodstuffs(1). Assessments have been carried out in Member States which have included an assessment of the food control laboratories, their competencies, the quality assurance of laboratory methods, equipment, facilities and other resources.

Article 7 of Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs(2) in association with Article 3 of Directive 93/99/EEC requires laboratories to operate in line with the international standards for laboratory accreditation EN 45000 series (ISO 17025:2000) before 1 November 1998. These assessment reports are published on the Commission's internet site http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sfp/sfp_index_en.html.

In addition to the provisions foreseen in the legal framework for controls, the Commission is currently sponsoring a scientific co-operation task under Council Directive 93/5/EEC of 25 February 1993 on assistance to the Commission and cooperation by the Member States in the scientific examination of questions relating to food(3). This task is looking at the comparison of laboratory methods for the official control of foodstuffs and the comparability of control sampling and analysis data. The results of this task will be available at the beginning of 2001.

(1) OJ L 290, 24.11.1993.

(2) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989.

(3) OJ L 52, 4.3.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1144/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

Pathogens which are passed on by animal products (zoonoses) can have a serious impact on public health. Correct information on the presence of zoonoses is a prerequisite for taking action (section 70).

A few years ago the EU sought, via the zoonoses directive, to enable Member States to take action to combat zoonoses. Experience has shown that this problem is very complex and that Member States do not have adequate resources to carry out preventive measures.

1. What more effective measures referred to in the White Paper will the Commission draws up?

2. What action programmes does the Commission have in mind for combating zoonoses?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1122/00, E-1127/00, E-1128/00, E-1140/00, E-1141/00, E-1142/00, E-1143/00, E-1144/00, E-1145/00, E-1146/00, E-1147/00, E-1148/00, E-1150/00, E-1151/00, E-1152/00, E-1153/00, E-1155/00, E-1156/00, E-1157/00, E-1158/00, E-1160/00, E-1161/00 and E-1162/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member are being studied with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislation according to the time scale set out in the white paper on food safety.

It would be inappropriate at this stage to anticipate the details of each proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2168/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Rowdy behaviour by KFOR troops in Skopje

According to FYROM press reports, KFOR troops on leave in Skopje have been causing trouble on the streets and bars of the city and assaulting passers-by, particularly young women. Most of these incidents are caused by the excessive consumption of alcohol by the troops on leave. The population of Skopje almost always suffers as a result of this behaviour, but the KFOR military police takes a very relaxed attitude. This conduct by KFOR troops is an insult to the hospitality shown by FYROM to the KFOR troops, but above all damages the image of the peacekeeping effort undertaken at enormous cost by NATO and the EU in particular, which is involved through broader agreements in FYROM and in the normalisation of the situation in Kosovo.

How does the Commission intend to protect the reputation of the EU in FYROM in the face of the unacceptable conduct of KFOR troops so as not to cast a shadow over the contribution it is making to peace in the region?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2000)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission is both involved in and works closely with the international civil administration (UNMiK) in Kosovo.

Furthermore, the Commission has no involvement whatever in the international military presence (KFOR) and therefore has no comment to make on the issues raised in his question. These issues should more appropriately be raised with the States European or other which have contributed contingents to this military force.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1714/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: La Punta agricultural area (Valencia, Spain)

In its reply to Written Question E-2709/99(1) of 28 February 2000, the Commission stated that it intended to request information on the subject concerned.

What was the outcome of this request?

What information has the Commission received from the Spanish authorities concerning the issue raised in my question E-2709/99?

In the light of the information received, does the Commission agree that the Spanish authorities have failed to comply with directives on environmental impact assessment, particularly the obligation to consult the persons affected and to consider alternative projects? What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the Albufera nature reserve is not adversely affected by the ZAL Plan?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 95.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

After replying to Written Question E-2709/99(1) by the Honourable Member, the Commission decided to open an own-initiative investigation that was recorded under reference B-2000/2036.

While examining the case the Commission asked the Spanish authorities for their comments on the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member.

In response to the request for information, the Spanish authorities stated that the projected logistical activities estate at the Port of Valencia had been subjected to the environmental impact assessment procedure provided for by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment(2). The environmental impact assessment of the project were issued on 14 December 1999. An impact study of the project was carried out as part of the procedure. That study was laid open to public inspection.

Since there are no alternatives it should be stressed that Directive 85/337/EEC does not require the principal customer to make a study of alternatives.

It emerges from the environmental impact statement that the potential impacts of the project on the Albufera nature reserve have been examined. The statement concludes that the project will not affect the reserve. The potential impacts on the aquifer in the Valencia plain has also been studied. Since the logistical activities estate will be mainly devoted to goods storage, packaging and labelling activities, it was concluded that the project will have no impact on the aquifer.

In view of the above it cannot be concluded that there has been any infringement of Community environmental law in this instance.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 95.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2959/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Problem of the flooded cereals harvest

The Commission has recently stated its willingness to modify the intervention standards for the moisture content of cereals if so required by the situation on the ground. It is now clear that the intervention standards need to be modified as a matter of necessity. After the excessive precipitation farmers are talking of a flooded harvest.

Has the Commission already drawn up proposals for modifying the intervention standards for the moisture content? If so, when will the proposal enter into force? If not, given the seriousness of the situation on the ground, will the Commission still modify the intervention standards for the moisture content?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2000)

The Commission took action following its statement on the moisture content of cereals from the 2000 harvest through Regulation (EC) No 2107/2000 of 4 October 2000 derogating, as regards the maximum moisture content of certain cereals offered for intervention during the 2000/2001 marketing year, from Regulation (EC) No 824/2000 establishing procedures for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies and laying down methods of analysis for determining the quality of cereals(1).

The Regulation authorises Member States to set the maximum moisture content for common wheat, barley and rye at 15 %, subject to the price reductions given in the Annex. The Regulation is to apply from 1 November, the date on which intervention begins in the northern Member States.

(1) OJ L 250, 5.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2982/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Jas Gawronski (PPE-DE), Gianfranco Fini (UEN), Umberto Bossi (TDI), Pier Casini (PPE-DE), Rocco Buttiglione (PPE-DE) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Council

(25 September 2000)

Subject: The fall in the value of the euro

The reports received over the last few weeks, and more particularly in the last few hours, concerning the declining value of the euro in relation to the dollar and other currencies have given rise to serious concern in the European Parliament.

In view of the often unduly optimistic statements made by individual Members of the Commission, the Council and the European Central Bank (ECB), we call on the Council to issue an official response to the problem explaining the economic, financial and monetary policy the European Union intends to adopt to address the difficult situation of its currency and reverse its hitherto apparently inexorable decline.

Reply

(30 November 2000)

On 22 September 2000, the President of the Eurogroup issued the following statement:

As President of the Eurogroup, I have been informed by Wim Duisenberg, the President of the European Central Bank, of the interventions to be implemented today by the monetary authorities of the Euro area, the United States and Japan. This operation follows the position expressed by the finance ministers of the Euro area in Versailles on 8 September and shared by the European Central Bank and I fully approve it.

This statement was made in connection with the following statement made public on the same day by the ECB:

On the initiative of the European Central Bank, the monetary authorities of the United States and Japan joined with the European Central Bank in concerted intervention in exchange markets because of their shared concern about the potential implications of recent movements in the euro exchange rate for the world economy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2510/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Discrimination by Italian banks

Will the Commission confirm that it is illegal for Italian banks to discriminate against EU citizens who want to open a bank account in Italy by offering them foreign accounts at disadvantageous terms?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2000)

The free movement of capital as provided for in Article 56 (ex Article 73b) of the EC Treaty is one of the cornerstones of the single market. However, Article 58 (ex Article 73d) of the EC Treaty explicitly sets out the Member States' right to maintain or introduce certain measures for reasons of taxation (different treatment of residents and non-residents) as well as for statistical and administrative reasons. However, such measures may not be discriminatory.

Given the necessity to obtain statistical information for establishing their balance of payments, most Member States impose certain reporting requirements on their banks and financial institutions. Certain transactions from and/or to a non-resident account as well as cross-border transactions in general have to be notified to the authorities. This is the case in Italy.

Hence, operating a non-resident account calls for additional administrative procedures for the credit institutions under present Italian legislation. If a provider decides to levy additional charges in order to cover the cost of the necessary manual handling, this decision is made on the basis of profitability and hence a commercial decision; it is not a discriminatory decision. Neither national authorities nor the Commission can intervene in the banks' price policy.

Furthermore, should a provider decide that these additional administrative procedures are too burdensome to enable the provision of non-resident accounts on a commercially viable basis, the provider is under no obligation to provide such a service

It should be noted that there is also a tax issue to be considered in this context. Residents in Italy are subject to Italian income tax on the interest from their bank accounts. Non-residents, on the contrary, are not subject to Italian income tax on such income, but normally in their country of residence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2143/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: JRC and tests for GMO levels

Is it true that the Joint Research Centre (JRC) is engaged in developing a test for GMO levels in food, given that no such test currently exists?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The availability of validated methods for the detection and quantification of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food samples is a key component for the implementation of Community legislation on novel foods and GMOs.

The Commission's Joint research centre (JRC) is currently co-ordinating a network of laboratories within Member States, which was recently established to develop appropriate analytical methodology for the detection and quantification of GMOs.

Several analytical methods that can be used for detection and also quantification (assessment of levels) of GMOs are already available within these laboratories. The JRC itself has recently validated methods for (a) the screening (detection) of raw(1) and processed materials(2) for the presence of GMOs, (b) the quantification(3) of GMOs from material derived from Round-up® Ready soybeans and BT-176 maize; and (c) the identification (and quantification) of Round-up® Ready soybeans(4). Further validation studies concerning the existing quantitative methods are certainly required as are studies to develop more accurate and sensitive detection methods. Such studies are currently being conducted in a number of laboratories.

The work of the JRC (jointly performed by the Institute for health and consumer protection (IHCP) and the Institute for reference material and measurements (IRMM)) in these areas continues in close collaboration with the network of laboratories from Member States. The validation of a further quantitative method for detection of GMOs is foreseen for autumn 2000.

(1) M. Lipp et al. (1999). IUPAC collaborative trial study of a method to detect the presence of genetically modified organisms in soy beans and maize. J AOAC Int., 82, 923 (1999).

(2) M. Lipp et al. (2000). Validation of a method based on polymerase chain reaction for the detection of genetically modified organisms in various processed foodstuffs. Europ. Food Res. Technol., submitted.

(3) G. Van den Eede et al. (2000). Results of a European validation study of a quantitative method. EUR in print.

(4) M. Lipp et al. (2000). Validation of an immuno-assay for detection and quantitation of a genetically modified soybean in food and food fractions using reference materials: interlaboratory study. J. AOAC, in print.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3007/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Town twinning and eligibility criteria

Under the eligibility criteria for town twinning, the EU does not provide financial assistance for exchanges between towns less than 250 km apart.

Poole (South West England) and Cherbourg (France) have a long-standing twinning agreement, but are ineligible for a grant because the two towns are less than 250 km apart.

However, the two towns are separated by the English Channel, and any travel between them necessitates a journey by either air or sea, which can be costly.

Would the Commission consider taking into account the high cost of travel between two twinned towns that are separated by a sea border, and change the eligibility criteria accordingly?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2000)

The Commission remains highly conscious of the need for effective management of the town twinning assistance programme as a precondition of its complete success.

In view of the difficulties and ensuing need for remedial action created by the large number and variety of proposals received in the past, the Commission is introducing a new procedure for 2001, which should help to improve efficiency. This procedure provides for greater flexibility in evaluating proposals involving towns less than 250 km apart.

The Commission notes the concerns voiced by the Honourable Member and will keep Parliament informed of the application of the new procedures.