ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3486/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: New data in the state aids to the electricity sector proceedings against Spain

The Spanish electricity company's transition to competition cost proceedings include the report of a London consultancy, which gives estimates of the transition costs.

Why was this commissioned from an outside expert? Are the Commission services incapable of carrying out this task themselves?

How was the consultancy chosen?

What fees were paid, and who paid them?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Law 54/1997 of 27 November 1997 on the electricity sector identified the cost of transition to competition in the Spanish electricity sector in relation to the loss of revenue anticipated as a result of the changeover from a non-liberalised to a partially liberalised electricity market. To give a clearer view of the Spanish system, the Spanish authorities then presented some stranded costs based on the methodology for the analysis of State aid relating to stranded costs. It was then necessary to check that the assumptions on which the calculations of the Spanish authorities were based met internationally recognised standards. In view of the extremely technical nature of this task, the Commission deemed it appropriate to use the services of an outside expert.

The Commission's criteria were that the firm chosen must be universally recognised as an expert in the field concerned and must be demonstrably independent. Another criterion was the ability to work in Spanish. These requirements led the Commission to award the contract directly to OXERA.

The total fee was 10 000, which was defrayed in full by the Commission, from budget line A-352 (Operations relating to competition, including merger control).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3928/00

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Abandonment of seafarers in EU ports

The scandalous abandonment of crew members and ships by some shipowners is one of the many violations of seafarers' rights reported in recent years and testifying to the decline in the living and working conditions of these workers.

International solutions are needed to this problem, but above all recognition by the European Union via special legislation and closer cooperation between states.

Should the European Union not introduce safeguards to prevent seafarers from extreme situations of this kind?

Will this Commission remedy this shortcoming by proposing legislation to make binding the provisions of ILO Convention 163, ILO Recommendation 173 on seafarers' welfare and ILO Convention 166 on the repatriation of seafarers?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

The Commission recognises that the abandonment of crews and their vessels by certain shipowners is a serious problem requiring the attention of international and Community bodies alike.

The Commission is paying close attention to work being carried out at on this issue at international level by the joint International Labour Organisation (ILO) and International Maritime Organisation (IMO) expert working group. The abandonment of seafarers is indeed an international problem, and one that cannot be solved at Community level without taking the international context into account.

It is certainly generally important for Member States to apply the ILO Conventions on seafarers' welfare properly in order to improve living and working conditions on board ships. However, this in itself is not enough to solve the problem of abandoned seafarers when the ships concerned do not fly a Community flag.

That is why the Commission intends first of all to examine the conclusions reached by the abovementioned expert working group before considering the expediency of acting at Community level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3682/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Amounts allotted under and out-turn of the Structural Funds in Objective 1 regions

1. Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted under the ERDF to each of the EU's Objective 1 regions during the 1994-1999 programming period?

Can it say what was the out-turn of those amounts in each Objective 1 region during the 1994-1999 programming period?

2. Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted under the FIFG to each of the EU's Objective 1 regions during the 1994-1999 programming period?

Can it say what was the out-turn of those amounts in each Objective 1 region during the 1994-1999 programming period?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3767/00

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(1 December 2000)

Subject: Settlement of the Cyprus question

The declaration of 31 October 2000 by the Presidency of the Council on the Cyprus question supports the efforts of the UN Secretary-General to find a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement, consistent with the relevant Security Council resolutions, and calls on the two communities to conduct substantive talks and to contribute actively to resolving the problem. However, given that on 11 November 2000 the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr Bulent Ecevit, made a scathing attack on the non-paper produced by the UN Secretary-General, and given that there are plans to create a federation on the island, what is the Council's current position towards the new refusal by Turkey to find a solution to the Cyprus question?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3621/00, E-3767/00 and E-3768/00

(14 May 2001)

The Union expresses unreserved support for the UN Secretary-General's efforts to find a solution, since the United Nations constitutes the reference framework for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the issue. The Council's position on the UN Secretary-General's efforts to find a solution to the conflict has been reaffirmed recently by the European Council and the Council.

On 7-9 December 2000, the Nice European Council welcomed and expressed its strong support for the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to achieve an overall agreement on the Cyprus problem consistent with the UN Security Council Resolutions and to arrive at a positive conclusion of the process initiated in December 1999. The European Council appealed to all parties concerned to contribute to the efforts made to this effect.

On 4 December 2000, the Council reached political agreement on including the following reference to the Cyprus issue in the short-term (2001) priorities of the Accession Partnership for Turkey under the title Enhanced Political Dialogue and Political Criteria: in accordance with the Helsinki European Council conclusions, in the context of the political dialogue, strongly support the UN Secretary-General's efforts to bring to a successful conclusion the process of finding a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem as referred to in point 9 (a) of the Helsinki European Council conclusions.

The proximity talks scheduled to begin at the end of January 2001 did not get off the ground given the Turkish-Cypriot side's failure to participate. The Council still hopes that this round of discussions can take place as envisaged and be completed successfully.

The question of a violation of Cypriot airspace has not been raised in the Council. The Council recalls that, in resolution 367 of 12 March 1975, the UN Security Council, called for respect for the territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3604/00

by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Air travel: economy-class syndrome

Does the President of the Commission intend to adopt any binding measures, and if so which, in relation to airline companies after the recent death of Miss Emma Christoffersen, a British citizen, who was taken ill shortly after landing in London after a 20-hour flight on a Quantas Jumbo 747 from Sidney?

Miss Christoffersen suffered an embolism brought on by sitting still for a long time in cramped conditions. Her sad death highlights the problems for passengers travelling long distances in economy class. The limited space (70 to 85 cm) between rows of seats is a genuine hazard for many people, who run the risk of suffering a fatal attack of thrombosis. At the very least, the airline companies could inform travellers of the risks they incur by remaining seated throughout long flights.

Will more passengers have to die before any action is taken?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2001)

The Commission takes most seriously the question of links between immobility during long flights and problems of blood circulation, and other potential health risks, such as those linked to air quality.

It therefore intends to set up groups of experts to scrutinise existing research and draw conclusions on health risks and the need for further research. This will enable the Commission and all interested parties to consider the case for further measures, whether the responsibility of the Community, national governments, airlines, airports or passengers themselves.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3754/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Spatial planning in the EU: TERRA programme

TERRA was one of the programmes adopted in the framework of the innovatory measures regulated by Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation for the period 1994-1999, under which a number of projects were financed in the period 1997-1999. The TERRA programme was conceived, together with the Community initiative Interreg II C, as a laboratory for testing new instruments and methods of spatial planning and evaluating the options proposed by the European Spatial Strategy (ESS).

Can the Commission provide information on the results of TERRA and the conclusions it has drawn from those results, as well as their relationship to and influence on the ESS, especially regarding the outlying maritime regions of Objective 1 as it applies to the existing EU?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

The TERRA programme was conceived as a laboratory for testing new spatial planning approaches and procedures. Various orientations emerged that can serve as guidance for other projects at local, regional, national and Community level, such as the need for new approaches to spatial planning itself, prioritisation of sustainability in local development, the importance of partnership between local people and local administrations, the synergies yielded by interregional cooperation, and development of new instruments such as support observatories for integrated development policies.

A number of TERRA projects involved outlying maritime regions.

The LORE project, coordinated by the local authority for Ikaria in Greece in partnership with Alcamo and Ragusa in Sicily and Iraklio and Magnisia in Greece, permitted establishment and operation of local observatories tasked with setting up a coordination and control mechanism for spatial planning hitherto the province of local authorities and other local agents.

The DIAS project, coordinated by the Cretan regional authority in partnership with Siracusa in Sicily, is concerned with spatial planning focused on protection, management and promotion of the natural environment and cultural heritage of zones displaying common features and problems. Development strategies have been proposed for certain Mediterranean, mountain and coastal zones with great environmental and cultural richness but at serious risk owing to population pressure.

The strategic framework provided by the European Spatial Development Prospective gave the appropriate political context and the necessary orientation to TERRA, which has taught local officials to look beyond the limits of their administrative and geographical responsibility and tackle wider questions. It has confirmed the relevance of the ESDP political options for local action by drawing attention to the problems posed by networking of divergent spatial planning cultures and administrative competences.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4055/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Central European Bank: how much do its directors earn?

On several occasions questions have been asked concerning the salaries of the European Central Bank (ECB) directors (in 1999, 2000 and 2001). On each occasion the Commission has glossed over its replies, taking refuge behind abstract formulas and incomprehensible parameters.

Could a clear reply now be given? How much did they receive in 1999 (under all headings, without any exceptions) and in 2000?

Figures are required, not words.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2001)

The Commission does not know the individual emoluments of the members of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB). According to the notes on the Profit and Loss Account of the ECB for the year ending 31 December 1999 the emoluments of the Executive Board of the ECB amounted to a total of 1,8 million in the year 1999(1).

(1) ECB Annual Report 1999, page 156.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3601/00

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Protection of typical products outside the EU

Nowadays the European Union's typical products are protected by labels, such as PDO (protected designation of origin) and PGI (protected geographical indication), which have at last made it possible to put an end to imitation products that confuse consumers and create uncertainty on the market. Unfortunately, however, such product protection systems are confined to the Union and so as in the case of fontina, the typical cheese of the Valle d'Aosta region do not prevent the placing on the United States market of imitation or counterfeit products, even if they originate in Europe, or the manufacture and sale of such products under the same name as typical products in South America.

What steps has the Commission taken to enable the system for the protection of PDO and PGI products to be extended beyond the Union by means of appropriate international agreements, thus protecting both the products in question and consumers? Can the Commission take action at European level against those who manufacture imitation DOP and IGP products for sale outside Europe?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

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 ensures the development of protection for designations of origin and geographical indications on the Community market(1). The protection is designed to promote product quality, ensure proper information for the consumer about products and prevent substitutes or imitations from undermining the reputation of these products.

At international level, the adoption, within the World Trade Organisation (WTO), of the Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) marked real progress in the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications. It must nevertheless be recognised that the TRIPs Agreement includes a number of restrictions on the legal protection of quality products and that progress still needs to be made, in particular as regards products other than wines and spirits.

On the basis of this Agreement, the Commission is continuing a policy of protecting European designations against misuse on foreign markets. Improvement of market access for Community quality products is also part of the Communities' comprehensive negotiating proposal under the WTO negotiations on agriculture. The Commission has asked the Member States to provide it with information on European products protected by geographical indications or designations of origin which are being counterfeited on the export markets. On this basis, the Commission is playing an active part in the discussions currently being held on the multilateral register for wines and spirits and extension of the protection of geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits under the TRIPS Council integrated programme.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3574/00

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Report on animal welfare required under Council Directive 98/58

Article 8 of Council Directive 98/58(1) concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes requires the Commission, before 30 June 1999, to submit to the Council a report relating to the impact on farm animal welfare of the World Trade Organisation rules.

In reply to Written Question P-2539/99(2) on 27 January 2000 the Commission stated that the report would be presented to the Council shortly. As the negotiations on the WTO Agreement on Agriculture have now begun, does the Commission agree that this report is essential to assist in developing the EU's negotiating position and that it could also play an important role in persuading other WTO members that in raising animal welfare issues the EC is not attempting to introduce new types of non-tariff barriers?

In the light of this, when does the Commission intend to submit to the Council the report required by Directive 98/58?

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.

(2) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 178.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2001)

Council Directive 98/58/EC of 29 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, Article 8, obliges the Commission to submit a report to the Council on the comparison of animal welfare provisions in the Community and in third countries.

The Commission has received information on available legislation or guidelines in the field of animal protection on the farm, during transport and at the time of slaughtering from 73 third countries who supply the Community with red meat, poultry meat, fishery products and live animals. The Commission intends to adopt the report in the first half of 2001.

The Honourable Member may be reassured that the Commission has made clear in the course of the ongoing negotiations on the World trade organisation (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture that in raising animal welfare issues the Community is not attempting to introduce new types of non-tariff barriers. The Commission also agrees that the forthcoming report will contribute significantly to the WTO debate on animal welfare issues. The Commission underlines the strong ethical component to this debate, which should not be limited to technical considerations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4159/00

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: BSE crisis

In its 2001 budget, the Union has allocated 65,5 million for BSE testing and a further 6 billion to support beef farmers. It is already known that these amounts will certainly not be enough, as the cost of the BSE crisis in Europe is rather higher than was assumed.

Will the Commission therefore state:

1. Whether it will take steps to ensure that Parliament and the Council adopt a supplementary budget making additional funds available to deal with the BSE crisis?

2. If so, what amount will it propose?

3. Whether estimates or more accurate calculations of the expected cost of dealing with the BSE crisis in Europe in 2001 and subsequent years are already available?

4. Whether estimates or more accurate forecasts already exist as to the categories of people or interest groups in Europe that will suffer most as a result of the BSE crisis and will therefore need additional assistance from the Member States and the European Union?

5. Whether any definite ideas have been formulated (in negotiations or talks) on how the funds made available by the Union to deal with the BSE crisis are to be divided out amongst the Member States and as to the proportion of the cost which the various Member States will have to bear themselves?

6. In what proportions the budget appropriations available now, and to be made available in future (supplementary budget), are to be allocated to the affected groups?

(a) How much of the total amount are the affected cattle farmers to receive?

(b) How much of the total amount are the affected feed manufacturers to receive?

(c) How much of the total amount are other producers, such as in the beef-processing sector (meat-processing plants, sausage factories, slaughterhouses, etc.) to receive?

(d) How much of the total amount are other affected groups to be paid?

7. Whether any ideas have been formulated or decisions taken as to when and in what form the payments are to be made to the groups that have suffered losses?

Will the Commission take steps to ensure that particular categories such as farms, slaughterhouses, beef-processing firms, feed manufacturers, etc., who have been particularly hard hit by the BSE crisis and have ended up in this situation through no fault of their own, receive emergency assistance so as to prevent them going out of business (bankruptcy owing to lengthy closure)? An emergency assistance fund ought to be set up for this purpose.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3802/00

by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Council

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Transposal of Directive 97/66/EC

Article 15 of Directive 97/66/EC(1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector stipulates that: Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for them to comply with this Directive not later than 24 October 1998. By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, Member States shall bring into force the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary for them to comply with Article 5 of this Directive not later than 24 October 2000.

Will the Council say:

- why provision was made for a derogation in respect of Article 5?

- what does it intend to do about the nine countries which have not yet taken any measures? What procedures will it initiate and when?

- has it checked whether the directive has been correctly transposed in the other countries?

- in the light of the failure of a majority of the Member States to transpose Directive 97/66/EC and given that the amendment of Directive 95/46/EC(2) is pending, is it not premature to proceed with amending this legislation via the proposal for a directive COM(2000) 385?

(1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3798/00 and E-3802/00

(8 March 2001)

Directive 97/66/EC was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 15 December 1997 following a meeting of the Conciliation Committee. The provision referred to in the Honourable Member's question was not contained in the common position adopted earlier by the Council on 12 September 1996.

This provision is one of the elements of the compromise reached on the matter of confidentiality of communications, which was one of the issues submitted to the Conciliation Committee. In order to make one of the European Parliament's amendments, which the Council was prepared to accept, compatible with the remainder of the text of the Directive, it proved necessary to add an explicit reference to recordings legally authorised by certain Member States in the course of limited business practice for the purpose of providing evidence of a commercial transaction or communication (Article 5(2)). As part of the compromise on this point, provision had consequently to be made for a further period to enable some Member States to include this possibility in their national legislation.

The Honourable Member's other questions fall within the scope of the powers attributed to the Commission by the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 211 thereof.