ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0957/00

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

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Promotion of the ALFA (Latin America Academic Training) programme

The purpose of the ALFA programme is to encourage exchanges between universities in the EU and their counterparts in eighteen Latin American countries, over a six-year period.

To be eligible for financial support under this programme, the universities interested in participating are asked to group themselves into ALFA networks, i.e. networks of universities consisting of at least six institutions (three from the EU, three from Latin America), from different countries.

Can the Commission state what provisions it has included in this programme to ensure that universities potentially interested in taking part are able to engage in contacts (meetings and preliminary encounters) enabling them to become familiar with each other and define a framework for their cooperation, in the priority areas referred to in the invitation under the ALFA programme?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

ALFA's first phase, besides its specific aims, has been an experience during which higher education institutions from both continents have developed mutual knowledge and during which 2918 joint project proposals have been presented to the Commission. These proposals by university networks represent the involvement of 511 Latin American institutions and 704 European institutions. As for projects approved during the first phase, 808 networks of institutions have developed or are still developing joint projects (a total of 373 Latin American and 530 European).

In the current ALFA phase, the technical assistance office of the programme assists the institutions potentially interested in taking part in the programme in the search for partners and at the same time all the requests regarding this search are published in the Internet page:

(http://alfa-program.com).

Furthermore ALFA networks that do not have experience in organising student mobility can request financing for the preparation of joint mobility projects (within the sub-programme B, pre-projects).

In addition, it may be noted that at the moment the Commission is receiving an average of 40 requests a day for information about the programme, of which more than half are requests from institutions that already have identified their networks.

Consequently the Commission has not foreseen financing for meetings among eligible institutions prior to presentation of project proposals under the framework of the ALFA programme, launched on 15 February 2000(1).

(1) OJ C 42, 15.2.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2671/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Macedonia

The Government and the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia are currently putting the final touches to a law on higher education which will enable private universities recognised by the Macedonian State to be set up. This law, which is due to be adopted before the summer recess, should in particular provide a solution to the problem of access to quality higher education for the sizeable Albanian community by creating the conditions for the establishment of a recognised university in Tetovo.

This political act (responsibility for which lies mainly with the Prime Minister, Mr Georgevski; the chairman of the Democratic Party of Albanians in Macedonia, Mr Xhaferi; and the OSCE Special Envoy, Mr Van der Stoel) will also enable approximately 7 000 Albanian students in Macedonia to resume a normal education students who would otherwise have no prospects and who would easily fall under the influence of demagogues and of those trying to force a showdown over the issue of the relations between the various communities in Macedonia.

Is the Commission aware of this welcome development? Is it also aware that without proper funding it will not be possible for the potential offered by this new legal framework to be exploited? Is it willing to provide extensive direct funding for the university in question?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his oral question H-0702/00 during question time at Parliament's Septembre I 00 part-session(1).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (September 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1458/00

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Extension of licences to operate motorways in Italy

In reply to a previous question on the extension of motorway licences in Italy (E-2292/99)(1) the Commission stated that it had initiated two further proceedings and that it had approached the Italian authorities in order to clarify the various aspects of the issue of the extension of the licences without public invitation to tender, contrary to the provisions of Directives 92/50/EEC(2), 93/37/EEC(3) and 89/440/EEC(4). In addition, the Commission stated in its written answer that a meeting was planned with the Italian authorities responsible and that it had asked all the Member States about existing circumstances regarding motorway licences. According to media reports, 19 of the motorway licences in Italy are about to be given the definitive go-ahead.

In the light of these assertions, can the Commission:

- Specify which motorway licence extensions in Italy are the subject of the proceedings referred to above, and say if in the meantime any further proceedings have been initiated?

- Say what the outcome of the meeting with the Italian authorities was?

- Say what the results of the survey of all the Member States was?

- Give its definitive opinion on the consistency of such extensions with Community law in general and Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/37/EEC and 89/440/EEC in particular?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 88.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

(4) OJ L 210, 21.7.1989, p. 1.

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2000)

The proceedings currently under way involving Italy with regard to motorway licences concern the construction of the Venice-Mestre section, the Tibre section and the Asti-Cuneo link.

At the meeting held in December 1999, the Commission again asked the Italian authorities for information concerning the proceedings that were under way. The information that was subsequently provided is now being studied by the Commission as part of the horizontal study covering all Member States.

The Commission does not yet have all the information that is needed to make a final judgement on the problems in connection with the arrangements for awarding motorway licences in the Member States, and it is currently drawing up a general review of the facts that will allow it to make the appropriate legal assessment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1863/00

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Agricultural over-exploitation, and citrus-growing in particular, in the Valencian Autonomous Community

The conversion of unirrigated land and woodland into farmland is causing over-production, while the new farms frequently take no account whatever of the fact that the area already suffers from grave water shortages.

Both the increase in the number of farms and the over-production involved, contrary to the Common Agricultural Policy, are frequently tacitly supported by the autonomous and state governments. Such practices threatens farmers' professional standards, and considerably lowers prices and farmers' incomes.

How does the Commission intend to deal with this anomaly, particularly in the Valencian and Catalan citrus-growing sector? What measures does the Commission intend to take to oblige the Valencian Autonomous Community (Objective 1) to apply modernisation and agricultural improvement measures, particularly as regards citrus-growing, as part of the aid which the Valencian Community will be receiving?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 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-1862/00

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: Red tuna catches in Dènia and Gandía

In the fishing ports of Dènia and Gandía French fishermen have been using nets several miles long to capture red tuna for years now.

The catches of red tuna do not meet the authorised minimum weight of 60 kg, and no checks of any kind are carried out.

Since fishing in this way is extremely destructive of Mediterranean fish stocks, with protected species also being caught, how does the Council intend to require of the governments of the States concerned that they adopt appropriate measures and comply with Community fisheries regulations?

Will the Council sanction those countries which fail to comply with the regulations?

Reply

(28 September 2000)

The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2846/98, which lays down that it is for the Member States to take the necessary measures to monitor all fishing activity within their territory and their coastal waters. Pursuant to Article 29 of the same Regulation, it is the Commission which verifies application of the Regulation by the Member States. It may conduct on-the-spot visits and carry out verifications without prior notice.

This question should therefore be put to the Commission.

In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1626/94, the minimum size for red tuna is 70 cm or 6,4 kg. These measures have been maintained for the year 2000 by the Regulation fixing TACs and quotas (Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1795/00

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Proposals by the German Minister Joschka Fischer concerning the future of the European Union

The media in particular in France have published statements made by the Commissioner Michel Barnier expressing approval and appreciation of the proposals concerning the future of the European Union made publicly by the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer in Berlin on 12 May this year.

Mr Fischer's proposals differ on practically all the most important points from the views expressed previously in the current debate on the forthcoming IGC and reported by the Commission, in particular by Commissioner Barnier, who has responsibility and specific competence for preparing the IGC. In particular they contrast sharply with the Commission's official position and the proposals for the revision of the Treaties which, in accordance with the provisions and rules set out in Article 48 of the EU Treaty, were presented by the President Romano Prodi and by Michel Barnier himself on 26 January this year, at the special meeting held with the European Parliament in Brussels.

Can the Commission say what views are currently held by the Commission and Commissioner Michel Barnier on the fundamental issues raised in the recent proposals by the German Minister Joschka Fischer concerning the future of the European Union and its institutions? Does the Commission abide by or has it revised its proposals? If it does back Mr Fischer's proposals as reported by the media, does it intend to revise completely the opinion and plans which it presented on 26 January in accordance with the procedure set out in the Treaties?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

Mr Fischer expressly stated that his speech did not concern the challenges to be met over the next few months, but rather the prospects for European integration well beyond the current Intergovernmental Conference. The Commission sees no reason to revise the opinion it issued on 26 January under Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union concerning the convocation of an intergovernmental conference with a view to amending the Treaties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1670/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers

Further to Ms Schreyer's answer to my Written Question No E-0505/00(1), will the Commission please indicate the average period of payment across all departments from the date of receipt of the invoice to the date on which the Commission bank account was debited for payments made in the four previous years (i.e. 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995)?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1669/00 and E-1670/00 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

Performance and change in average payment times since 1995 (overall statistics)(1).

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

The Commission started registering invoice payment times in 1995. The apparent deterioration in 1996 and 1997 revealed by the statistics published is, without doubt, largely due to the increased discipline with which departments record data in the system of accounts to monitor invoices.

(1) These statistics do not include the payment of advances to the Member States under EAGGF Guarantee which are charged to a non-budget account when they are actually paid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1146/00

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.

For historical reasons there are separate rules for plant products and animal products. The Commission is to propose a new comprehensive regulation which will restate the existing legislative requirements in respect of hygiene (section 72). The basic principle will be that food operators are responsible for the safety of the food they produce. This approach reflects developments at international level.

In addition to the microbiological criteria, what other objectives does the Commission have in mind for the new comprehensive regulation?

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-1207/00

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Bathing water Directive

On 12 December 1996 the European Parliament gave its opinion at first reading on the Commission's 1994 proposal for a directive (COM(94) 0036)(1) amending Directive 76/60/EEC(2) on the quality of bathing water.

When may we expect the Council's common position enabling Parliament to give its opinion at second reading on this matter?

(1) OJ C 112, 22.4.1994, p. 3.

(2) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1.

Reply

(18/19 September 2000)

In July 1998 delegations of Member States indicated their preference for the Commission to work out a new proposal for a Bathing Water Directive given the fact that in the meantime the 1994 Commission proposal is outdated.

The Council has been informed that the Commission has started an intensive consultation and working programme with a view to present a communication by June 2000 which will take into account the comments made by Member States, and all scientific technical and management experts concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2531/00

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Projects cofinanced by the Community in Condado (Ponteveda, Spain)

On 4 August 1997 an agreement was signed between the district of Condado, comprising the municipalities of Ponteareas, Salvaterra, Salceda and Mondariz, the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture and the Galician Regional Government, under which Condado would receive Ptas 500 million from the PRODER programme (a programme for the development and economic diversification of rural areas), cofunded by the Community, for a series of projects to be carried out between 1997 and 1999. The agreement provided for a number of projects connected with the development of the rural heritage, agri-tourism, rural tourism and small businesses, and included the renovation of the Pazo de Picoña in Salceda and the Casa del Conde in Salvaterra, the redevelopment of the area around Vilasobroso castle, the construction of a castro to provide accommodation for rural tourism, the establishment of a Wine Museum in the Doña Urraca cellars in Salvaterra castle, the creation of an archaeological information centre at the Castro de Troña in Ponteareas and the construction of a golf course at Pías.

Democracy demands transparency, and information for citizens, and sometimes the European Community must compensate for the lack of information from some local administrations, which conceal facts from inhabitants of the area. Withholding information in this way runs counter to the public information requirement laid down by the regulations on the Structural Funds.

Will the Commission give details of projects cofinanced by the European Community during the period 1994-1999 in Condado, in the province of Pontevedra?

What amount of joint funding did the Community provide for these projects? What was the total cost of the projects?

Have all the projects for which Community cofinancing was requested been completed? If not, is there any provision for an extension to enable the projects to be completed? Until what date would an extension be possible?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 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-2243/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 July 2000)

Subject: Problems in implementing the posting of workers Directive

In response to problems affecting pay and working conditions in the construction industry in Germany, minimum wage legislation was introduced following an agreement between the two sides of industry. The implementation of the EU Directive on the posting of workers also sought to regulate the immigration of workers, and the said conditions. The problem of legislating in this area is that the resources of the authorities and the trade unions are inadequate to ensure compliance with the legislation.

Social dumping is apparently occurring on a large scale, with the use of illegal labour, and with some of the workforce employed outside the rules and agreements in force. This conflicts with the requirement of equal treatment of workers, regardless of their country of origin, and the requirement for competition on equal terms, regardless of the contractor's country of origin. Is the Commission aware of these problems in the German construction industry, and what action does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services lays down a nucleus of mandatory rules for minimum protection to be observed in the host country by employers who post workers to perform temporary work in the territory of a Member State where the services are provided(1). These mandatory rules include paid holidays and minimum wages.

Under this Directive, Member States must ensure cooperation between the public authorities which are responsible for monitoring the terms and conditions of employment referred to. In addition, Member States must take appropriate measures in the event of failure to comply with the provisions of this Directive and, in particular, make sure that adequate procedures are available for the enforcement of the obligations in question.

It is therefore the responsibility of the national authorities, firstly, to monitor the application of Community provisions and, where necessary, to punish failure to comply with these provisions.

Finally, it must be emphasised that the legal mechanism created by the Directive does not affect the conditions of entry of third-country nationals into a Member State.

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1676/00

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Methylphenidate

The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances classified Methylphenidate as having high abuse potential. What information does the Commission have on the prescription by psychiatrists in Europe of Methylphenidate for the treatment of what is known as attention deficit disorder and on the abuse of this substance within the EU?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Methylphenidate is the active substance in a psychostimulant used to treat hyperactive attention disorders in children.

The product has been authorised by the national authorities to be placed on the market. Monitoring, especially of its prescription and abuse, is therefore carried out by those authorities.

The Commission is not responsible for medicinal products, except those covered by the Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products(1) where a referral is made leading, after evaluation and the delivery of an opinion by the Scientific Committee of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, to a Commission Decision. No referral has been made to date in respect of the above product.

The risks associated with this medicinal product are well known and the marketing authorisations are accompanied by very detailed information for health professionals and a leaflet for users. The information on the product must include counter-indications, warnings, precautions regarding use, undesirable effects and instructions for use.

More generally, the risk/benefit ratio must always be evaluated before authorisation is given for a product to be placed on the market and, if necessary, the prescription and supply conditions may be subject to restrictions in accordance with the national authorities' rules. As the active substance in this medicinal product is classified as a psychotropic substance, strict conditions apply with regard to prescription and supply.

(1) OJ L 147, 9.6.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2215/00

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2000)

Subject: Ban on Russian klonddykers

Is the Commission aware of the fact that 24 Russian klonddykers are currently operating near Rockall west of the 15 degree line? Those vessels, all over 200 feet long, are fishing for haddock and seriously endangering stocks for years to come.

Can the Commission take immediate action to protect fish stocks in the waters around Rockall by asking the North Eastern Atlantic Fisheries Commission to introduce emergency conservation measures which will effectively ban Russian klonddykers from the area before they cause an ecological disaster? In view of the wide range of conservation measures put in place by the Commission, it is vital that the NEAFC intervene to protect haddock stocks.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The Commission is fully aware that Russian fishing vessels are operating in international waters adjacent to Rockall Bank and is concerned about possible effects of this fishery on the stock of haddock which inhabits this area.

The Commission has already raised this issue within the North Eastern Atlantic Fisheries Commission and will continue to pursue it with the utmost vigour with the intention of ensuring rational exploitation of this fish stock.