ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1694/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Aid to Sweden for information concerning EMU

Can the Commission provide me with a list of those Swedish organisations which have received financial aid since 1998 to disseminate information on EMU, stating the amounts involved?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

In 1998, a single subsidy in the sum of 84 317 was allocated to the Stiptelser Sverige i Europa Foundation.

In 1999, an agreement was signed with the Swedish government authorities for a sum of 535 855, which financed the distribution of information to businesses; the distribution of information to the public, in particular via a government office dealing with questions and answers on the Euro; an Internet site and basic information instruments such as brochures, audio cassettes and information points in the various municipalities. In order to receive a list of the Swedish organisations which participated in this action, the Honourable Member should contact the Swedish government directly.

A similar sum has been reserved for the year 2000 for renewal of the agreement once the conditions required for its signature have been fulfilled.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1115/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Protection of animals during transport

Five reports published by the Commission during 1999 on veterinary missions to various Member States show widespread breaches of Council Directive 91/628/EEC(1) (as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC(2)) on the protection of animals during transport.

What steps is the Commission taking to remind Member States that:

1. they should reject route plans which contain no arrangements for sheep and cattle to be unloaded and given food, water and 24 hours rest after travelling for 29 hours; and that

2. basic vehicles which fail to comply with Council Regulation 411/98(3) should not be used to transport animals on journeys exceeding 8 hours.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

(3) OJ L 52, 21.2.1998, p. 8.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2000)

The Commission is aware that journeys which are in breach of the provisions of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC(1) as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995(2) are still taking place in the Community.

Member States are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement of Community legislation. Commission experts, however, carry out periodic on-the-spot checks to ensure uniform application of the Directive and that the authorities of the Member States are monitoring compliance with the requirements of this Directive.

The approval of improper route plans by the authorities and the use of vehicles which fail to comply with Council Regulation (EC) No 411/98 of 16 February 1998 on additional animal protection standards applicable to road vehicles used for the carriage of livestock on journeys exceeding eight hours(3) are infringements which have been reported by inspection missions of the food and veterinary office (FVO) of the Commission. Infringement proceedings in relation to the protection of animals during transport have been opened against Greece and others are being prepared in relation to some other Member States.

In the meantime, the Commission has recently taken several additional steps to improve various aspects of the protection of animals during transport.

Article 13 of Council Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC provides for the Commission to submit a report to the Council on the experience acquired by the Member States since the implementation of the Directive, possibly accompanied by proposals. The report will be presented to the Council before June 2000 taking into account all available information and in particular the findings of the FVO missions which the Honourable Member mentioned. The Commission will put forward proposals to amend current legislation to ensure better enforcement in the light of the conclusions of the above-mentioned report.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(3) OJ L 52, 21.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2728/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Average farm size

Will the Commission state the average farm size in hectares in each Member State for each year of the last ten years?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2723/00, E-2724/00, E-2725/00, E-2726/00 and E-2728/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1991/00

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Vitamin production

In 1999, the Danish association Landforeningen Den Lokale Andel learned that restrictive practices had been operating in the vitamin industry and that heavy fines had been imposed in the USA in that connection.

The association subsequently referred a matter to the Commission on 19 August 1999.

Having received no reply, the association contacted GD IV in November 1999 and was informed that a decision was being drawn up and would be available shortly. No formal notification of the suspected offence was therefore filed.

Is the Commission in the process of investigating this matter? What stage has the Commission reached in considering the matter? When can a decision be expected?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Commission can confirm that it is in the process of investigating alleged anti-competitive practices in the European vitamins market. Given that this is a pending cartel case, no further comments on the merits or likely outcome of the procedure can be made at present. The procedure is however at a very advanced stage.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2102/00

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Osteoporosis

On 10 June 1998, the European Commission published its Report on Osteoporosis in the European Community Action for Prevention (CE-09-97-915-EN-C). The report was warmly welcomed by all those concerned with osteoporosis as an increasing health problem. At that time, European osteoporosis organisations were promised that the eight specific recommendations in the report would be converted into a proposal for EU action at the earliest opportunity. To date, two years later, there is no news of any further action by the EU. Can the Commission specify what action it proposes to take and when it will be putting forward proposals?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The Commission attaches great importance to osteoporosis which is a growing public health issue.

The Commission has been able to support the drawing up of a report on osteoporosis within the context of the Health promotion programme. The report covers recommendations for professionals, decision makers and the public. It also helps to determine the best actions to be taken at Community level.

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that a proposal for a Council recommendation concerning osteoporosis is in preparation. It is the Commission's intention to transmit it to Council late this year.

The Council recommendation will include specific recommendations in the fields of health monitoring, health promotion, research as well as for health systems.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0943/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(30 March 2000)

Subject: Ban on the use of impregnating salts for treatment of wood

The use of impregnating salts to treat wood (impregnated wood) has serious consequences for humans and the environment. Such salts contain highly toxic arsenic, chromium IV and copper. Impregnated wood is used among other things in summer houses, fencing, toys, pergolas, garden furniture and rail sleepers.

Since February 2000 in the Netherlands there has been a ban on sales of all products made from impregnated wood. The State Council issued a ruling against the cutting up of impregnated wood. Nor may such wood be considered as a fuel for power stations, as a constituent of chipboard and cattlefeed, as compost in gardens and around trees, or as a substitute for straw in cowsheds.

However, it would now appear from press reports that the Dutch Government will turn a blind eye to the exportation to other EU Member States of carcinogenic woodshavings for the production of chipboard, toys and the like, thus contravening both the letter and the spirit of various EU directives.

Is the Council aware of the exportation of carcinogenic woodshavings from the Netherlands to other EU Member States?

(a) If so, which are those countries?

(b) If not, does the Council think there should be an inquiry, in view of the negative consequences for humans and the environment and the infringement of various EU directives?

Reply

(29 September 2000)

As the Honourable Member is aware, exports of impregnated wood in the form of waste are covered by Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipment of waste within, into and out of the European Community. Furthermore, as the Honourable Member is also aware, the provisions in Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste cover a possible classification of impregnated wood.

It is for the Commission to take whatever steps are deemed necessary to ensure the proper application of the above Community legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2542/00

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Unnecessary administrative formalities affecting European firms

About one year ago, on 29 April 1999, the Commission submitted to the Council of Ministers an action plan designed to abolish unnecessary administrative formalities which restrict the competitiveness of European firms.

Will the Commission say which Member States have taken a stance on this initiative and what has been the response of those EU countries which are geographically remote and do not have land borders with the other Member States, and whose firms face particular difficulties in gaining access to major markets, as well as higher transport costs? In particular, would it say what problems have been experienced by Greece as a geographically remote country, which also faces difficulties because of its extensive network of islands?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

The Industry Council of 29 April 1999, in response to the European Council conclusions at Cardiff relating to the recommendations of the BEST Task Force, unanimously endorsed the action plan to promote entrepreneurship and competitiveness, in accordance with the respective competences of the Member States and the Commission. The Member States have continued subsequently to express strong political support for the objectives of BEST. Greece has actively supported the action plan along with the other Member States.

The Commission is not in a position to offer more information about particular problems raised by the representatives of the Greek government or on other technical aspects of the negotiations for the adoption of the BEST action plan in the Industry Council of 29 April 1999, as those negotiations were conducted in the Industry Council preparatory group meetings. The Commission would therefore invite the Honourable Member to address his questions to the Council for supplementary information.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1804/00

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Changeover to the euro and outlying regions

The changeover to the euro on 1 January 2002 will undeniably mark a highpoint in European integration. However, the adoption of a single currency is not without risk to the most vulnerable parts of Europe and a proper information campaign needs to be conducted in the EU countries in general and the outlying regions in particular, since he latter suffer from a high illiteracy rate and must therefore be attended to with particular care in order to ensure that the single currency can be introduced smoothly.

What specific information and awareness initiatives is the Commission intending to launch with a view to achieving the above objective?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2000)

The Commission has not overlooked the special needs of the outlying regions regarding information about the euro. As part of the partnership with civil society financed by the Prince programme, it has selected and given financial assistance to a project called The euro made easy for the outermost regions. This project aims to provide training for euro trainers which is adapted to the needs of the general public in Martinique, Madeira and the Canary Islands. In addition, the call for proposals for euro information projects for 2000 specifically mentions the outlying regions as a target group.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1725/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Turkey disputes the sovereign rights of Greek islands in the Aegean

Prompted by the NATO exercise Dynamic Mix, Turkey has put the spotlight back on its long-standing dispute concerning the established regime of Greek sovereignty over islets and island rocks in the Aegean. In addition, it has made accusations concerning development and environmental activities by Greece in the areas in question, many of which are funded by relevant European Union programmes.

To be specific, in its representations to the Greek Government on Wednesday, 10 May 2000 Turkey referred to military and other activities by Greece on geographical formations of disputed sovereignty in the Aegean.

Could the Commission say whether it agrees with this challenge by Turkey to Greece's sovereign rights and whether this position accords with the spirit of the agreement which was achieved, following Greek concessions, at Helsinki, and also with Turkey's current status as an applicant country?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

The Commission is aware of the questions regarding the Aegean Sea, which remain to be solved.

The Helsinki European Council, in its conclusions, has stated that it stresses the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter and urges candidate States to make every effort to resolve any outstanding disputes and other related issues. Failing this they should within a reasonable time bring the dispute to the International Court of Justice. The European Council will review the situation relating to any outstanding disputes, in particular concerning the repercussions on the accession process and in order to promote their settlement through the International Court of Justice, at the latest by the end of 2004.

Any efforts to include this issue in the political dialogue which takes place in the context of closer relations between Greece and Turkey, should therefore be encouraged.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0867/00

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Charter vessels in Greek waters

I understand that Greece has a derogation from Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92(1), under Article 6, paragraph 3, until 1 January 2004.

Does this mean that Greece has the right to allow charter vessels in Greek waters only if they are registered in Greece (carry a Greek flag) and the skipper is Greek?

(1) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Greece enjoys a temporary exemption from the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) until 1 January 2004 for two maritime cabotage sectors which are that of regular passenger and ferry services and that of services provided with vessels of less than 650 gross tonnage (gt) in island cabotage.

This means that the Greek authorities may reserve such services to Greek registered vessels, flying the Greek flag. Charter vessels of less than 650 gt registered in other Member States and flying other Member States' flags may, therefore, be excluded from Greek island cabotage until the above mentioned date.

As regards the requirement that the captain has Greek nationality, the Commission is of the view that this is not incompatible with Community law. Indeed, taking into account the fact that the captain of the ship exercises aboard it sovereign powers (concerning, for example, investigation of crimes committed on board, respect of discipline as well as powers in relation to the civil status of passengers), the Commission considers that this post is covered by the derogation of Article 39(3) (ex Article 48) of the EC Treaty (cf. Commission observations in case Commission/France, C-334/94 (judgement of 7 March 1996)).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1911/00

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Grants for exchanges

I receive numerous letters complaining at the meagreness of the grants allocated under the Erasmus section of the Socrates programme. In order to remedy this problem, could the Commission consider the possibility of setting up, for example, a European Foundation by means of a public-private partnership, with a view to encouraging young people's mobility in the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Every year the demand for student mobility under Erasmus rises sharply, while the budget available for mobility grants increases only slightly. The Commission is aware of the repercussions of this imbalance in terms of the level of Erasmus grants and the frustration this can cause. Together with the various interested parties (Socrates/Erasmus national agencies, representatives of the academic world, student associations), it is looking for possible solutions to the problem.

The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that the purpose of Erasmus grants is not to cover all the costs incurred by students during the period spent abroad, but to help offset the additional costs resulting from their being abroad. Financial assistance from sources other than the Community budget is therefore essential, and many countries participating in the Erasmus mobility scheme offer students additional (national, regional or private) funding. This is clear from the survey on the socio-economic background of Erasmus students, the results of which were forwarded to Parliament on 18 January 2000(1) and are currently being examined by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport.

In its recommendation No 20, the survey emphasises the need to explore other sources of funding for student mobility, including alternative sources of direct or indirect support, such as reduced-price travel tickets, fund raising from industry, business and local government, and the establishing of a system of student loans at national or European level in order to cover the extra costs of mobility. A feasibility study on the latter point has recently been launched.

(1) Report from the Commission: Survey into the socio-economic background of Erasmus students, COM(2000) 4 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0989/00

by Jean-Claude Martinez (TDI) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Community preference for nuts, chestnuts and carob beans

Throughout Europe approximately 300 000 families are involved in the production of almonds, hazelnuts, chestnuts and carob beans. However, since its needs far outstrip production, the European Union leads the world in imports of almonds, (74 % of which are supplied by the United States), hazelnuts (75 % produced by Turkey) and walnuts from California and China.

The lowering of customs duties to 2 % in accordance with the Marrakesh Agreements threatens to wipe out nut production in Europe, which cannot reduce its production costs to the social and environmental dumping levels in Turkey, China and the United States.

Almond, chestnut and walnut plantations protect the soil and the environment and are a source of employment and balance in the countryside. Although in ten years the European Union has invested 725 million in the sector, today there is no one specific aid instrument dedicated to it.

Does the Commission intend to set aside funding, even if only as part of environmental and rural policy, to provide adequate financing for this sector, the disappearance of which would prove a great deal more costly than ensuring its survival?

What practical, specific and workable measures does the Commission intend to adopt?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Specific aid has been granted to the nut sector for 10 years under the provisions of Title IIa of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables(1) in order to improve productivity and competitiveness. Community expenditure from 1990 to 1999 was 725 million. A further expenditure of over 250 million for improvement plans still in operation is foreseen until 2006. An additional specific flat-rate aid for hazelnuts has been granted since 1997 and up to the year 2000.

Such specific aid was always intended to be temporary and degressive, in order to allow a shift of financial responsibility on to the growers.

As for all other products in the fruit and vegetable sector, aid is available for nuts through the operational fund scheme of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(2), which provides financial support for all fruit and vegetables marketed through producer organisations.

Finally, taking into account environmental and social aspects of nut production, Member States can of course include nuts in their rural development plans under conditions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(3).

(1) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972.

(2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.