ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0943/01

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Aid under the Regional Fund for quality controls of Styrian kernel oil pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2081/1992

Member States are obliged, pursuant to Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/1992(1) of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, to create inspection structures to ensure that agricultural products and foodstuffs bearing a protected name meet the requirements laid down in the specifications. According to Article 10(3) the inspection authority can use the services of third parties. The costs of these inspections are borne by the producers using the protected name. Styrian kernel oil is a name protected under this Regulation.

Which bodies have been notified to the Commission by the Republic of Austria as bodies for the inspection of Styrian kernel oil?

Has money been made available under EU Regional Fund for the inspection of Styrian kernel oil and what amount?

If so to whom were these funds transferred?

Are there any accounts for the use of this aid?

Is it clear from the accounts that the aid relates to subsidised inspections?

Would subsidised inspections be a misappropriation of EU aid?

Does the subsidising of inspections contravene Article 10(7) of Regulation No 208/1992?

Is the use of Regional Fund aid conditional on not creating any distortion of competition between the different inspection bodies?

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

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

Inspection structures, as notified by the Member States in accordance with article 10(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, have recently been published(1).

With regard to Steierisches Kürbiskernöl, Austria notified the Commission that the public service Der Landeshauptmann Steiermark, located in Herrengasse 16, 8010 Graz, was the inspection authority.

No Community financed regional aid is granted to control activities concerning Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.

(1) OJ C 365, 19.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1638/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Decision of the Ecofin Council in Versailles

The Commission, the Council and the European Central Bank are still using the Ecofin decision banning the circulation of banknotes before 1 January 2002 as the pretext for their refusal to supply the public with euros in advance. Since the Ecofin in Versailles was an informal meeting of Economic and Finance Ministers and the Treaty does not grant any decision-making power to Councils meeting informally, how lawful is the decision which the Commission, the Council and the ECB are using as the basis for opposing the advance distribution of a reasonable amount of small denominations to the general public before 1 January 2002?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

The declarations published after an Ecofin Council be it formal or informal are political undertakings. Deciding whether or not to issue banknotes to the public in advance is a political act which requires consensus in the Council and the agreement of the ECB, which is responsible for putting the notes into circulation. The informal Ecofin Council is an appropriate forum for such debates since all the authorities concerned are present. The Versailles decision was taken after a long discussion within that forum.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1485/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Identity checks at Charles de Gaulle airport

One of the major steps forward for a People's Europe was the Schengen Agreement and its incorporation, through the protocol adopted at the European Council in Amsterdam, into the body of law on the basis of which the European Union functions. However, one of the essential principles of the free movement of persons within the Union, that is to say an end to systematic identity checks on Europeans travelling in the Schengen area, is currently being flouted at Charles de Gaulle airport in Roissy in France. Each passenger travelling towards a destination within the Union is required by the Air France company to undergo identity checks carried out by a security firm prior to entry into the departure lounges, requiring them to pass through metal detectors.

What action does the Council intend to take in response to this new obstacle to freedom of movement?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, matters concerning immigration, visas and asylum, including border control, fall within Community competence pursuant to Title IV of the TEC. It is thus for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to ascertain whether Member States are fulfilling their obligations in these matters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0289/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Subject: Promeuro

Will the Commission deposit in the EP library copies of the material produced by Promeuro using EC funds?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2001)

The Commission will of course be happy to deposit in the Parliament's Library copies of the material produced by Promeuro, which was made with Community financial contribution in the framework of the Prince programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1224/01

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) and Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Vehicle registration

In view of the dynamism and the high profile of regions in all the EU Member States, and given that many of the Member States are structured on the basis of such regions, it would be a good idea if such identities were reflected on EU number plates.

The European Union should propose harmonisation of an EU number plate which would include the regions.

Is the Commission prepared to acknowledge Europe's realities and to endorse such a proposal?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1211/01 and E-1224/01 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

The specifications of vehicle registration plates fall mainly under the competence of Member States, which apply their own legislation within the framework of the Vienna Convention of 1968 on road traffic, concluded under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. This Convention provides that every motor vehicle in international traffic shall display at the rear, in addition to its registration number, a distinguishing sign of the Member State in which it is registered. (e.g.: E for Spain).

In the light of the principle of subsidiarity, the Community only intervenes in the field of registration plates when it is necessary in order to ensure the free movement of goods and persons within the Community.

In recent years several Member States have introduced a model registration plate which, on the extreme left, displays a blue zone containing 12 yellow stars representing the European flag plus the distinguishing sign of the Member State of registration, the so called Euro Plate.

Because some Member States did not recognise the distinguishing sign on the Euro plate Council Regulation (EC) No 2411/98 of 3 November 1998 on the recognition in intra-Community traffic of the distinguishing sign of the Member State in which motor vehicles and their trailers are registered(1) was adopted. The purpose of the Regulation is to give equal status, in intra-Community traffic, to the distinguishing signs contained within the Euro plates and the distinguishing signs required by the Vienna Convention.

This is the only Community legislation on the subject of registration plates. Given the success of the Vienna Convention, the Commission has no plans to propose legislation harmonising national registration plates, and therefore to consider the question of regional or any other signs being included in them.

(1) OJ L 299, 10.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0950/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Use of Bisphenol A

Is the Commission satisfied that the current use of Bisphenol A is consistent with consumer safety? Will it confirm that there is now scientific evidence that current human exposure is at about the same level as that which causes damage to the reproductive system of mice, and that Bisphenol A is a known hormone disrupter? Will it list the current uses of Bisphenol A known to the Commission and confirm its use in protective coatings for tin cans, in white dental fillings and in polycarbonate plastic bottles? Is the Commission aware of alternative products that could be used to perform the same tasks without the same side effects?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2001)

The possible risks to health and to the environment of Bisphenol A are being evaluated in the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances(1).

Bisphenol A is used in the production of polycarbonates and epoxy resins, which have a number of applications in consumer goods, such as food and beverage containers, which have epoxy resin internal coatings, and polycarbonate tableware and bottles, such a those used for infant formula milk. Another source of consumer exposure arises from its use in dental fissure sealants.

The risk assessment has identified health concerns (eye and respiratory tract irritation, skin sensitisation, effects on the liver and fertility) in certain occupational exposure scenarios, and also concerns for environmental damage in relation to specified uses. No concerns have been identified for consumer exposures in relation to any of the above-mentioned effects. Discussions in relation to developmental toxicity, and the significance of the findings in mice at very low dose levels are still ongoing.

The results of the risk evaluations will be summarised in a Commission Recommendation published in the Official Journal. Where unacceptable risks are identified, the Commission will consider risk reduction measures, as appropriate, in those areas where concerns have been indicated. In this context, issues related to substitution will also be taken into account.

(1) OJ L 224, 3.9.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0067/01

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

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Talks between the Commissioner Frank Fischler and the Moroccan Prime Minister and other members of the Government concerning the fisheries agreement between the European Union and Morocco

In the talks between the Commissioner for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Prime Minister and other members of the Moroccan Government held on 3 and 4 January this year, as in those held with other responsible authorities over the last few months, it would seem that the Commission's policy position consisted in aiming for an agreement which, whilst starting the first year under what are considered acceptable conditions, although much less favourable than in the agreement for the years 1995-1999, opens the way to a rapid and total elimination, in the space of a few years, of the Spanish fleets from Galicia, Andalucia and the Canaries, as well as the Portuguese fleet, which used to fish off the Moroccan and Saharan coasts. Anybody interested in this serious problem might gain the impression that the Commission, possibly with the collusion of the countries concerned and against ship-owners and fishermen, is negotiating with a view to total withdrawal from Moroccan waters, without using the European Union's full negotiating capacity in the talks with Morocco and hence not fulfilling the responsibilities for Community fisheries conferred on it.

1. Is this, as it seems to be, the Commission's negotiating position? If not, what actually is its position?

2. Does the Commission not believe that the ship-owners and fishermen affected, as well as all the Members of the European Parliament, should know what the Commission is doing?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

The Commission has maintained a constant position throughout its contacts with Morocco and that position reflects the mandate approved by the Council in October 1999.

A new phase has to be opened in relations with Morocco and this is best exemplified by the Commission's concrete proposals to assist the growth and development of the Moroccan fisheries sector, as well as to defend the legitimate European interests.

All the efforts during the last months, at the meetings of the Parties at technical and political level, in close co-ordination with the most concerned Member States, have been focused on delineating a new framework for a fisheries partnership which must be mutually beneficial and balanced.

This position will be maintained by the Commission, in line with the directives of the Council.

The Commission reiterates its undertaking to regularly and fully inform the Council, the Parliament, and all the actors involved of the developments on this key issue over the coming weeks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1420/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Bilateral agreements between the European Union and Switzerland

The bilateral agreements between the European Union and Switzerland have important implications for relations between the two sides and cover various spheres.

When are the individual agreements due to come into force and via what procedures?

What other discussions have been opened between the two sides and what sectors are being envisaged for greater integration?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The seven agreements signed with Switzerland on 21 June 1999 will enter into force all together once they have been ratified. One of the agreements, the one on free movement of persons, needs to be ratified by all Member States. These ratifications have not yet been completed. The Commission hopes that all ratifications will have been completed by the end of this year or early next year.

During the course of this spring the Commission has held exploratory talks with Switzerland in eight further sectors: Swiss participation in the European Environment Agency, co-operation on statistics, co-operation against fraud, trade in processed agricultural products, trade in services, Swiss participation in Community programmes (media, youth, education, training), taxation on savings, and the issues falling under the Schengen acquis and Dublin convention. For the first four sectors, the Council has given or is about to give negotiating directives to the Commission. In these sectors negotiations can start as soon as the Swiss side has adopted its own negotiating mandates. The exploratory talks in the other sectors are less advanced.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2227/01

by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 July 2001)

Subject: Economic resources of the European political parties

At the June part-session I put an oral Question about the economic relations of the European political parties (H-0460/01)(1) and received an answer from the Commission on 13 June which was incomplete and unsatisfactory.

The background to my Question was that the new concept of European political parties is hard to translate into practical reality because it has to be distinguished from national political parties, while at the same time being something different from the political groups in the European Parliament which are to a varying extent already functioning as European political parties. Is it possible to imagine any other sphere of activity for the European political parties than the political territories of the Member States?

Your reply failed to answer the main point of my Question.

I therefore have no choice but to return to the matter and to ask:

- What does the term own resources in the Commission's answer mean? Could these, for example, come from the funds of national parties? Will the European parties be permitted to accept large-scale financial support from national parties?

- Will it be permissible for a part of the remaining 75 % to come from the national parties (should the Commission be unable to pay the full amount)?

- I understand that rigorous financial controls will be carried out, but for that very reason I should like to know what rules apply. Are the European parties to be permitted to use their resources for activities in the Member States, or will the new regulations rule that out?

(1) Written answer of 13 June 2001.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 August 2001)

The Commission tabled its original proposal on 13 February 2001 and, following Parliament's Opinion given on 17 May 2001, tabled a revised proposal on taking up some of Parliament's amendments.

The proposal is currently pending before Council, where unanimity is required. No final decision can be expected before October 2001.

The Commission proposal lays down that parties must cover at least 25 % of their budgets from own resources, that is to say from any resources other than the Community Budget. This own resources component could be covered by contributions or subscriptions from national member parties or from individuals or organisations.

The total amount that a party can receive from the Community Budget will depend on the resources made available by the budgetary authority and the application of the distribution provisions set out in Article 7(a) and 7(b) of the draft Regulation. It is conceivable that this amount might represent less than 75 % of a party's total budget.

Control of financing under this regulation shall be exercised in accordance with the Financial Regulation and its implementing rules and also on the basis of an annual certification by an external independent audit.

European political parties may not contribute financially to purely national political activities with resources from the Community Budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1133/01

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Zimbabwe

Is it correct that the chairman of the Zimbabwean Red Cross is Dr Swithum Mombeshora who is also the Zanu/PF Minister of Energy in Mugabe's Government?

Is it also correct that there are Red Cross structures throughout Zimbabwe such as in Mberenqua East, which have as their acting chairman Mr Shiri, a teacher at Zuishava in Mberenqua East, a perpetrator of violence against MDC members, who was also arrested and charged, but is now a beneficiary of the Mugabe amnesty and is once again agitating for violence in preparation for the forthcoming Presidential election?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2001)

Swithun Mombeshora is Minister of Transport and Chairman of the Zimbabwe Red Cross.

Mr Shiri is Deputy Headmaster of a secondary school in Mberengwa District. He was taken into custody by police in connection with political violence carried out on behalf of the ruling party in Mberengwa in the pre-election period, but was soon released and there has been no follow-up. Mr Shiri was on the Mberengwa Committee of the Zimbabwe Red Cross. This Committee has been dissolved pending elections.

It is not the role of the Commission to judge individual nominations made at local and national levels by the Zimbabwe Red Cross. I would suggest your queries are directed to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1007/01

by Yasmine Boudjenah (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Eurobarometer

The latest Eurobarometer results are useful for assessing trends in public opinion on a range of EU issues. Many of the questions concern the single currency, the employment situation, EU enlargement and the common foreign policy. The Commission regularly makes changes or adjustments to the questions asked.

Would the Commission be prepared to add a question, one that could become a key indicator, on recognition of the right of all foreigners (Community and non-Community) to vote in local and European elections? The replies, and the trend revealed by them, could help with efforts to restart the campaign for the right of foreign residents to vote, in accordance with the 1992 Council of Europe recommendation.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

As the Honourable Member is aware, Community law (Article 19 (formerly Article 8b) of the EC Treaty) guarantees for citizens of the Union the right to vote in their Member State of residence in municipal elections and in elections to the European Parliament.

Regarding third-country nationals, the Commission's information is not necessarily up to date because Member States are not under an obligation to notify it of amendments to their electoral legislation unless they concern citizens of the Union. Subject to that proviso, it can provide the following information: Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden grant the right to vote to third-country nationals; Portugal and the United Kingdom also grant the right to vote, but only to certain foreigners. In France and Belgium the question of whether or not to extend the right to vote to third-country nationals is under discussion.

Since its resources are limited, the Commission allocates the bulk of its expenditure on surveys to matters coming within its jurisdiction. In view of the fact that the voting right of third-country nationals falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Member States, it is not considering adding questions on this topic to the Eurobarometer in the near future.

Nevertheless, the Eurobarometer framework contract administered by the Commission is open to all institutions of the European Union, so that the European Parliament is entitled to suggest adding questions on this or other topics, at its expense and on its responsibility.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0527/01

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Stability pact in Spain

At their meeting of 24 January 2001, the College of Commissioners' noting that the Irish budget for 2001 does not overlap with the major economic policy guidelines adapted by the Feira European Council of 19 June 2000, called on the Council to issue a recommendation urging Ireland to adjust its budgetary policy to the major economic guidelines (Article 99(4) of the EU Treaty).

In Spain, the High Court recently handed down a sentence to the effect that the freezing of civil servants' salaries, included in the 1997 budget, was illegal, admonishing the administration to update these salaries in accordance with CPI trends during the period in question.

It is estimated in some quarters that such an updating would mean disbursing almost 900 000 million pesetas, which, claims Fuentes Quintana, would cause a considerable increase in inflation and a significant imbalance of state finances, i.e. a substantial deviation from the major economic guidelines for Spain and, more importantly, the recently updated Stability Plan.

Does the Commission intend to make a similar recommendation to the Council as it has done vis-à-vis Ireland, should the Spanish Government find itself now obliged to update the salaries in question?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2001)

The recent judgment of the Audiencia Nacional referred to is subject to appeal by the Spanish government. Potentially, therefore, there might be no budgetary cost of implementing a judgment in this case. In any event, the Commission assesses national fiscal policies as a whole and not the cost of individual expenditure categories. The budgetary impact of the final legal judgment on this particular issue would not therefore be central to such an assessment.