ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0341/99

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Subject: Growing competitiveness of imported rice following European Union concessions

The common organisation of the market has proved incapable of playing an effective market guidance and management role, owing to the fact that insufficient account has been taken of the increase in the areas under rice and in production levels, the basic stability of consumption levels and the growing competitiveness of imported rice following the many concessions which the European Union has made to third country and the conclusion of the GATT agreements.

A full-blown crisis occurred during the 1996-97 and 1997-98 marketing years when the total area under rice within the European Union rose to over 420 000 hectares while still remaining below the guaranteed maximum area. The result was a major drop in producer prices and the withdrawal of substantial quantities of rice.

The situation is so serious that Regulation (EC) 3072/95(1) will probably need to be revised. However, this must not be done until the forthcoming international trade negotiations (WTO agreements) have been concluded and proper account has been taken of the impact of Agenda 2000, particularly on the arable crop sector.

Does the Commission intend to determine whether it is possible to: transfer a large area (at least 50 000 hectares) from the local variety to the "world" variety; make a distinction between "world" rice and local rice as far as compensatory aid payments are concerned; and, lastly, reduce the market price for "world" rice by an amount equivalent to the increase in compensatory payments, without cutting the intervention price?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 1999)

As the Honourable Member pointed out, the rice market has been unstable since the 1996/97 marketing year, a fact evidenced by the large-scale recourse to intervention measures.

The Commission takes the view that it would be appropriate to introduce an initiative aimed at squaring supply with demand once more within the Community. The Commission is currently considering several options, one of which (that mentioned by the Honourable Member) is currently being closely scrutinised for its compatibility with international agreements; the Commission is also assessing the possible impact of the proposed measures on the Community market.

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18.
(2000/C 27 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1556/99
by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council
(1 September 1999)
Subject: The 3 000 Kosovar prisoners still held in Serbia
In the last days of the international policing operations in Kosovo, some three thousand Kosovar prisoners
were abducted and forcibly transferred to Serbian prisons by Serbian military and paramilitary forces. Theprisoners include Prof. Ukshin Hoti, a prominent member of the opposition, whose prison sentence
expired in May 1999 and who has been nominated for the EPs 1999 Sakharov Prize, and Mr Albin Kurti,
former leader of the Pristina students movement.
Can the Council provide detailed information about the whereabouts and conditions of detention of
Prof. Hoti, Mr Kurti and the three thousand Kosovar prisoners still being held in Serbia?
What steps does the Council intend to take to ensure that the Belgrade authorities immediately and
unconditionally release these 3 000 people and allow them to be reunited with their families in Kosovo?
Will the Council provide all the necessary assurances that neither the sanctions nor the embargo on Serbia
and Yugoslavia will be lifted until the Belgrade authorities release all the Kosovar prisoners currently heldin Yugoslav prisons?
Reply
(22 October 1999)
Regarding detailed information about the whereabouts and conditions of detention of these prisoners, the
Council wishes to inform the Honourable Parliamentarian that the ICRC has been allowed access toSerbian jails by the Belgrade authorities and that it has identified 2 000 Kosovo Albanian prisoners so far.On the issue of sanctions relief, the Council wishes to reassure the Honourable Parliamentarian thatprogress in democratic freedoms and respect for the rights of minorities will be key elements in decidingthe lifting of sanctions targeting the Belgrade regime.
(2000/C 27 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1557/99
by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Questions on the EU complaints procedure  Directive 65/65/EEC
1. Has the Commission ascertained to what extent other EU States have fulfilled these requirements, and
what steps is it taking in this regard in the other EU States which are affected?
2. Can these scientific publications, as the only evidence that the products are effective and harmless, be
considered to be a list of published references within the meaning of Article 4.8(a) of Directive 65/65/EEC (
1)?
3. What, in the Commissions view, are the prospects for the applicant achieving mutual European
recognition for complementary medicinal products, for example through setting up a committee foralternative medicinal products?
(1) OJ L 22, 9.2.1965, p. 369.C 27 E/130 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0105/99

by Anthony Wilson (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 1999)

Subject: Scrapies in sheep flocks in New Zealand

Can the Commission confirm whether any cases of scrapies have been found in sheep flocks in New Zealand?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 1999)

There have been two periods where scrapie was detected in sheep in New Zealand. In 1952, scrapie was found in three sheep imported from England and in 1954 in four sheep originating from the flock affected in 1952. Scrapie was identified in sheep which were in quarantine in 1976 and 1977.

The Commission is not aware of any recent cases of scrapie in sheep of New Zealand origin.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2570/99

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

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Secretariat of the Energy Charter

The Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad reported on 20 November that the Netherlands Government is concerned at the poor management at the Energy Charter Secretariat in Brussels. A year ago the management consultancy firm of Arthur D. Little issued a report on the management of the Secretariat at the request of the then chairman of the Governmental Council of the Energy Charter, Mr Rutten.

1. What progress has been made on the Energy Charter Protocol?

2. Is the Commission aware of the Arthur D. Little study on the operation of the Secretariat of the Energy Charter?

3. What is the status of this report, and when can it be made available to the Member States and the European Parliament?

4. Is it true that the Finnish Presidency has requested Mr Schütterle, Secretary-General of the Energy Charter, to communicate the report to the Member States?

5. Is it true that Germany considers it inappropriate to publish this report?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2000)

The Commission has been informed of the existence of the report by a consultancy firm concerning the management of the Energy Charter Secretariat. This report is classified as confidential and has not been transmitted to the Commission.

On a proposal from the Community, the Energy Charter Conference supported by its chairman, Mr Christophersen, decided on 7 December 1999 by consensus to replace the present Secretary general, Mr Schütterle (Germany) as of 1 January 2000 by Mrs. Kemper (Germany) for four years with an option for an additional period of two years.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1872/99

by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Baden-Württemberg origin and quality mark

Are press reports suggesting that the Commission intends to abolish government funding for Baden-Württemberg food product marks correct? What measures are proposed, and on what grounds and on what legal basis? Which products and which types of mark are affected?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1999)

The Commission is currently reviewing the Community framework for state aid for the promotion and advertising of agricultural products (Commission communication concerning state involvement in the promotion of agricultural and fisheries products(1) and the framework for national aids for the advertising of agricultural products and certain products not listed in Annex I to the EEC Treaty, excluding fishery products)(2). This review is meant to clarify the existing rules and to update them in the light of developments in Community legislation and the carelaw of the Court of justice. It is not, however, intended to make major changes of substance to the existing rules.

In 1989 the Commission approved an aid scheme for quality promotion in Baden-Württemberg. This approval was expressly subject to the condition that all promotional activities would comply with the above mentioned framework.

(1) OJ C 272, 28.10.1986.

(2) OJ C 302, 12.11.1987.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1931/99

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Complaint 98/4317, sg(98) A/5584 concerning the activities of SA Métal Blanc at Bourg-Fidèle, France

On behalf of the association Défense et Protection de l'Environnement de Bourg-Fidèle (Bourg-Fidèle environmental protection association), Mrs Schneider of Grand Hongréaux, F-08230 Rocroi, France, lodged a complaint with the Commission on 20 February 1998 concerning lead pollution of her village. This environmental pollution is probably caused by the activities of SA Métal Blanc of Bourg-Fidèle.

The Commission registered this complaint under No 98/4317, sg(98) A/5584. Since then there has been considerable press interest in this problem; unfortunately, it seems that lead pollution has undeniably affected the village and its inhabitants (particularly children).

Can the Commission say what are the results of the inquiry it has conducted to investigate this complaint? What action does it intend to take on this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1999)

The Commission has indeed registered the letter mentioned by the Honourable Member complaining about the pollution caused by a non-ferrous metals foundry located within the municipality of Bourg Fidèle (Ardennes département) as a complaint, under number 98/4317. The plaintiffs have supplied the Commission with further information on several subsequent items of correspondence.

After analysing the information passed on by the plaintiffs, the Commission asked the French authorities to comment on the facts of the case, which were likely to indicate poor implementation of several directives on waste and on both water and air pollution caused by certain dangerous substances.

Since that letter has remained unanswered well beyond the stated two-month deadline, the Commission decided, on 13 October 1999, and in accordance with Article 226 (former 169) of the EC Treaty, to send a letter serving notice to the French Government because that government had failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on it by Article 10 (formerly 5) of the EC Treaty by not responding to the above-mentioned request for information.

At this stage without prejudice to the substance of the case, that decision solely relates to the cooperation on which the Commission is unable to pronounce without having received the French authorities' comments.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2219/99

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 November 1999)

Subject: Tax discussions

1. What meetings have been held in the last month to discuss elements of what is known as the Monti tax package, and what meetings are scheduled for the same purpose in the next two months?

2. Specifically, what tax matters have been discussed at the meetings held during the last month, and what matters are due to be discussed at upcoming meetings?

3. In the interests of transparency, will the Council provide Parliament with summary reports of these meetings and with any documents on which discussions have been based?

4. With regard to the proposed directive on the taxation on savings income (withholding tax), press reports have recently indicated that Commissioner Bolkestein appears to be softening his approach be permitting exemptions for eurobond trading from the withholding tax. What is the prospect of such an exemption being agreed? What are the most likely terms of such an exemption?

5. Will the Final Report of the Working Group on the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation be completed on time? Will this report be made public? What measures, and in which Member States, are included in the report?

Reply

(14 February 2000)

One of the main priorities of the Presidency in the last months was to bring to a conclusion the three elements of the so-called Tax package before the Helsinki European Council. With that aim, intensive discussions concerning both technical questions and basic features have taken place within the Council itself and its competent bodies (at technical and high level). The Council will continue to inform Parliament in the usual way on these developments.

With regard to the proposal for a Directive on the taxation of savings, it emerged from the discussions held so far, that the views of Member States still not have converged on some of the key issues.

The Code of Conduct Group on business taxation brought its discussions on the assessment of potentially harmful measures to a conclusion. A report on its work has been forwarded to the Ecofin Council of 29 November 1999. According to paragraph H of the Code of Conduct, the reports of the Code of Conduct Group will be published, if the Council so decides.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1847/99

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Waste tip in Dos Aguas, Valencia, Spain

In its reply to my Question E-1528/99(1) on the Dos Aguas waste tip in the Valencia region the outgoing Commission stated that it was unaware of the facts concerned and that it would hold the talks required to clarify the issue and establish that the relevant directives were being correctly applied.

Can the new Commission state how it intends to investigate the issues raised in Question E-1528/99, given the serious risk of the pollution of water resources used both for irrigation and as drinking water?

In addition, what steps has the Commission taken vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities with a view to ensuring compliance with Directives 91/156/EEC(2) and 97/11/EC(3)? Does the Commission intend to investigate the environmental impact assessment procedure carried out in connection with this project? What measures does the Commission plan to take in order to ensure that the waste tip complies with the provisions of Article 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC(4)?

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 111.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.

(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(4) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

Answer given Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 1999)

Following Written Question E-1528/99(1) from the Honourable Member, the Commission started a suspected infringement investigation into the facts set out therein (reference B-99/2191).

In the course of its enquiries the Commission requested the Spanish authorities to submit their observations. On that occasion, information was requested on the measures taken to comply with the Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, on waste, Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, and Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances(2). The Commission has still not received a reply from the Spanish authorities.

The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of the results of its investigations.

On the specific question of what measures the Commission intends to take to ensure that this waste tip conforms to Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, it should be underlined that Directive 1999/31/EC entered into force on 16 July 1999. Member States are obliged to take the measures necessary to comply with it by 16 July 2001 at the latest. Under Article 14 of the Directive, Member States must take measures to ensure that landfills which have been granted a permit or which are already in operation at the time of transposition of the Directive may not continue to operate unless the steps in question are accomplished. These measures must be implemented as soon as possible

and within eight years after 16 July 2001 at the latest. In the first instance, the Spanish authorities must take the measures necessary to comply with their obligations under the Directive.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 111.

(2) OJ L 20, 26.1.1980.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1844/99

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Article 58 Belgian law on bribes and compliance with competition rules

Article 58 of the Belgian Tax Code explicitly grants firms the right to give bribes, euphemistically defined as secret commissions, if such payments are acknowledged as standard practice, stating that the Finance Ministry may stipulate that the sums involved should be regarded as professional expenses, provided that the commissions do not exceed normal limits and that the firm pays the relevant taxes.

Is the Commission aware of this law on bribes in Belgium? Does it regard this law as being consistent with the letter and spirit of the Treaties? Has it been informed by Belgium of the countries in which that Member State regards such payments as being standard practice? In particular, can the Commission state whether Belgium regards such payments as standard practice in other Union countries? Moreover, does the Commission not regard the legalisation of bribes as a breach of the principles governing competition?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 1999)

In the absence of harmonisation measures, direct taxation falls within the Member States' sphere of competence, subject to observance of Community law and in particular the fundamental freedoms provided for by the Treaty.

As part of the efforts to combat corruption, the Council of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted, in April 1996, a recommendation that its members should prohibit the tax deductibility of bribes paid to foreign public officials. The signing of the Convention of 17 December 1997 on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions, which was ratified by Belgium, has had a major impact on the revision of the contracting countries' legislation in implementation of the 1996 recommendation. In its communication of 21 May 1997 on the Community's anti-corruption policy, the Commission stated that it would raise the question of tax deductibility for bribes with the Member States in the appropriate fora, with a view to reaching consensus to abolish such provisions in the framework of a joint concerted move(1).

According to the information available to the Commission, Belgium has arrangements which, following authorisation from the Minister of Finance, allow secret commission to be treated, under certain conditions, as business expenditure where the firm pays tax on this commission, calculated at the standard rate, which is set by the Minister and may not be less than 20 %. However, Article 7 of the Law of 10 February 1999 on the elimination of corruption lays down that such authorisation may not be granted for obtaining or keeping public procurement contracts or administrative authorisations.

This new measure should enable Belgium to implement, as other Member States have already done or will do, the positions taken by the OECD and the Commission on ending the deductibility of bribes paid to foreign public officials.

(1) COM(97) 192 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2464/99

by Dominique Souchet (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Drift net fishing

The European Union has decided to ban the use of drift nets from 31 December 2001 for tuna fishing in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

The European Union has provided for financial aid under the new regulatory framework in order to enable vessels to be converted for use with other fishing gear. Following a series of studies carried out by the fishing industry, it appears that vessels equipped for tuna fishing using drift nets cannot easily be converted for use with other fishing gear. Fisherman are therefore faced with the prospect of having to build new vessels that are more suited to the regulatory changes being introduced in the industry.

In this specific case, will the Commission consider the possibility, for the building of suitable vessels, of a specific allocation of kilowatts being made on an exceptional basis for the equipment concerned, which would of course be complementary and additional to the existing fishing vessel building programme?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2000)

On 22 November 1999 the Fisheries Council reached an agreement on the Regulation laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, which sets the conditions on which a Member State may renew and modernise its fishing fleet, with or without public aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2790/99

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Research projects on healthcare systems within the fifth framework-programme

The deadline for submitting research projects (Call Identifier: 1999/C/ 64/13) on healthcare systems within the fifth research framework-programme was 15 November 1999. The projects submitted include several assessing non-conventional medicines (Research Programme 1.1.1. Thematic priority 1.1.1.-10.1-(i)(ii)(iii) Public Health research, Health Services Research and Health and Safety/evaluation of the effectiveness of non conventional therapies).

Proper and objective assessment of research projects is normally made with the help of experts who are specialists in the research field concerned.

Can the Commission tell me whether the experts assessing the quality of the research projects on each of the disciplines concerned (homeopathy, osteopathy, etc.) have already been appointed?

If not, can the Commission tell me when they will be, and what objective criteria and what procedure will be employed in appointing these experts?

Can the Commission tell me how many projects it has received, and the disciplines concerned?

Is the budget earmarked for these projects adequate?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

In response to the call for proposals(1) for the specific research programme Quality of life and management of living resources(2), some 600 projects of a generic nature were submitted by 15 November 1999, three of which related to non-conventional medecines.

The proposals will be evaluated by independent experts in January 2000. As stated in the Vade Mecum for Experts Taking Part in Proposal Evaluation (www.cordis.lu/life), each proposal will be evaluated by at least 4 independent experts. All the experts are selected from the Commission's expert database, which is set up through a call for applications. They are chosen for their scientific expertise in the areas of activity of the work programme. The names of the experts taking part in the evaluation will be published once all the decisions relating to the call for proposals have been taken.

A budget of 86 million has been allocated for these generic activities. Given that the overall Community contribution requested for the 600 proposals submitted will be over 900 million, the selection rate will probably be approximately 1 out of 10.

(1) OJ C 64, 6.3.1999.

(2) OJ L 64, 12.3.1999.