ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0141/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Technical and financial cooperation programme for damage relief following the natural disasters in Venezuela and coordination with the Member States

In view of the situation in the Venezuelan states of Vargas and Miranda following the catastrophic torrential rains, floods and avalanches of mid-December 1999, which have claimed tens of thousands of victims as well as damaging the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands and causing material losses to the value of several hundred million euro in damage to housing, infrastructures, equipment and systems in general, does the Commission, in addition to continuing with the emergency humanitarian aid already granted (which is being channelled through ECHO), intend to institute a technical and financial cooperation programme with a view to alleviating the damage caused, thus enabling the Venezuelan states hit by the natural disasters to reconstruct, to be backed up by coordination with the Member States in development cooperation with Venezuela?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2000)

The Commission is currently preparing an expert mission to carry out an evaluation of the situation in Venezuela and to identify possible specific actions. Depending on the findings of this expert mission, it will decide on a medium-term plan for the reconstruction of Venezuela.

At this stage, the Commission cannot provide the Honourable Member with the exact amount intended for this action, as it will depend entirely on the findings of the expert mission and on discussions with other donors.

The Commission will closely co-operate with other donors in order to encourage a co-ordinated international effort and a clear definition of the priorities for action.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0536/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Standards of care in rest-homes

What provisions exist at European level to regulate and harmonise standards of care in rest-homes?

Does the Commission intend to launch a study with a view to improving the safety and peace of mind of the elderly people living in such homes? Has any action been taken to record the most serious incidents that have occurred in recent years including the death of inmates while indicating the causes of such incidents, deficiencies in the legislation and cases of proven negligence?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2474/99 by Mr Pérez Alvarez(1).

The Commission has no plans to launch any studies in this area.

(1) OJ C 203, 18.7.2000, p. 174.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0046/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Cologne process: adjustment of the Poseima programme in the Azores as regards liqueur wines

Article 21 of Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92(1) establishes arrangements for aid to assist the manufacture of Madeira liqueur wine. Could the Commission envisage introducing similar arrangements for Pico liqueur wine, a traditional export in the last century which efforts are now being made to relaunch?

(1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0038/00, E-0043/00, E-0044/00, E-0045/00, E-0046/00, E-0047/00, E-0048/00, E-0049/00, E-0050/00, E-0051/00 and E-0052/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Honourable Member has put a whole series of questions regarding the Poseima Programme for the Azores.

The Commission is currently drafting a report on the measures to implement Article 299(2) (ex Article 227) of the EC Treaty.

At this stage, before the Commission has adopted that report, it is not able to reply to the Honourable Member's questions concerning its content.

Lastly, the Commission's Work Programme for 2000 provides for a report to be presented to the Council and Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products(1) (Poseima), together where appropriate with proposals for any adjustments that prove necessary to achieve the programme's goals. The set of measures relating to agriculture in the Azores will be considered in that connection.

(1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0189/00

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco

Because the ceilings on imports of tomatoes from Morocco have been exceeded, the provisions of the Association Agreement with the Kingdom of Morocco have been applied requiring import certificates to be provided.

According to reports in the press, the management committee for the fruit and vegetables sector is to meet on 20 January 2000 to discuss a proposal to abolish the requirement for import certificates for Moroccan tomatoes.

Is the Commission sure that there is an adequate legal basis for using a management committee procedure to amend the provisions of the Association Agreement with Morocco?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0189/00 and E-0190/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2000)

After having noticed that Moroccan exports of tomatoes to the Community exceeded the agreed limits, and after unsuccessful consultations with the Moroccan authorities, the Commission introduced Regulation (EC) No 2767/1999 of 23 December 1999 introducing a system of licences for imports of tomatoes from Morocco(1). Following new consultations and the firm engagement from the Moroccan side to respect the agreed quantities during the current marketing year, the Commission repealed the import licences by Regulation (EC) No 188/2000 of 26 January 2000(2), while committing itself to enhance the existing import control mechanisms. If necessary, the import licences system could be re-introduced.

The regulation establishing import licences was adopted by management committee procedure on the legal basis of Article 3 of Decision 95/35/EC of 19 December 1994 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of exchange of letters between the Community and the Morocco on the regime for imports into the Community of tomatoes and courgettes originating in and imported from Morocco(3). Following the same procedure and the same legal basis, Regulation (EC) No 2767/1999 was repealed.

The Commission repealed the regulation on import licences following the renewed commitment from Morocco to respect, for the current marketing year, the terms of the above-mentioned exchange of letters, foreseeing a limitation of total exports of tomatoes to 145 676 tonnes for the period November 1999 to March 2000.

The Commission has committed itself to enhance existing controls of imports of tomatoes in the Community with the co-operation of Member States' customs and will re-introduce import certificates if Morocco does not respect the agreed quantities.

(1) OJ L 333, 24.12.1999.

(2) OJ L 22, 27.1.2000.

(3) OJ L 48, 3.3.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0083/00

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Hawsbill sea turtle

The critically endangered hawksbill sea turtle has been on Appendix I of CITES since 1975. Cuban and Japanese reservations allowed Cuba to export thousands of hawksbill shells to Japan between 1975 and 1992, when Japan withdrew its reservation. Since 1992, the international trade in hawksbill shells has been banned. In 1997, Cuba proposed to transfer the Cuban population of hawksbills to CITES Appendix II, to export up to 500 shells to Japan each year, and to export over 5 000 kg of government shell stocks to Japan; this proposal failed by a narrow margin. In preparation for the next CITES meeting (April 2000), Cuba invited scientific authorities of European Parties to assess their hawksbill management programme. The UK, the Netherlands and Spain visited Cuba and may recommend that European Parties support Cuba's proposal.

1. How does the Commission plan to address concerns that the Cuban proposal does not meet the criteria established at the ninth Conference of the Parties for down-listing to Appendix II?

2. Given concerns that the reopening of the legal trade in sea turtle products will fuel demand for shell around the world and cause increased poaching and illegal trade, should the Commission encourage trade in such a critically endangered species?

3. Given that experts have determined that there are no more than 5 000 nesting female hawksbills annually in the wider Caribbean, how does the Commission plan to address the fact that annual removal of 10 % of the population will have a detrimental impact on this critically endangered species?

4. How does the Commission plan to address concerns that sea turtles caught in Cuban waters are shared by other countries in the Caribbean, meaning the killing and export of shells will affect the population of other countries?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-2488/99 by Mr Evans(1).

(1) See page 54.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0089/00

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

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Negotiation of the new fisheries agreement between the European Union and Morocco

The initial public reports concerning the first interview, on 20 December 1999, between Mr Franz Fischler, Commissioner, and the Moroccan authorities with regard to the negotiation of the new fisheries agreement between the EU and Morocco are highly unfavourable. It proved impossible for the negotiations to be launched and the public statements made by members of the Moroccan Government appear to allow no possibility of establishing new agreements which do not involve the setting up of joint ventures. If these reports are accurate (and if they are, the practical implications thereof would be that Spanish and therefore Galician vessels would no longer be able to fish in Moroccan waters), what negotiating positions and instruments does the Commission intend to adopt and use?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The Commission can confirm that the position set out by the Commissioner for agriculture and fisheries to the Moroccan authorities during his visit to Rabat on 20 December 1999 is based on the need to establish a new framework for relations in the fisheries sector between the Community and Morocco which will be mutually beneficial and take account of the needs of the industry on both sides.

The Commission reaffirms the negotiating position expressed over recent months, in particular in the negotiating instructions approved by the Council in October 1999.

The Commission will make use of all the negotiating instruments available to it to establish a new framework for partnership between the Community and Morocco.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0377/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Tax exemption for small firms

Can the Commission state whether it is preparing legislative proposals whereby small firms would be exempt from the requirement of Commission clearance for State aid? If so, does this include tax exemptions? When are these proposals likely to be finalised?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2000)

By Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 87 and 88) to certain categories of horizontal state aid(1) the Commission was enabled to exempt by Commission regulations certain types of horizontal aid measures from the notification requirement. The categories covered by this Regulation include aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (SME).

On 28 July 1999, the Commission adopted a draft exemption regulation for SME aid which is about to be published in the Official journal. The Commission intends to adopt the regulation by July 2000.

The regulation will define up to which intensity certain aid to SME is exempted from the notification requirement. These intensities apply no matter in which form the aid is granted and therefore also apply to tax reductions or exemptions in favour of SME.

(1) OJ L 142, 14.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0105/00

by Gerardo Galeote Quecedo (PPE-DE) and José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Middle East peace process and negotiations between Syria and Israel

Syria and Israel have now opened peace negotiations in Shepherdstown with the United States acting as mediator, and have begun to address issues linked to security and the normalisation of relations.

Given the importance which the European Union attaches to the Middle East peace process, in which relations between Syria and Israel play a crucial part, and bearing in mind that, up till now, the European public has not seen many signs of European Union influence in that process,

can the Commission answer the following:

- what plans has the Commission drawn up to ensure European Union participation in the negotiations between Syrians and Israelis and in other negotiations linked to the Middle East peace process?

- what is the Commission's estimate of the costs of European Union participation in security and peace-keeping systems on the border between Israel and Syria?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The Commission welcomes the resumption of direct talks between Israel and Syria and hopes that further rounds of talks will soon be possible.

The Commission shares the view that the Community must actively contribute to the peace process to help consolidate the progress made and thus help pave the way to a permanent settlement. It will seek to make an active contribution at the current crucial stage, not least in view of the implications that the new phase might have on the Community.

On 24 January 2000, the General Affairs Council invited the Presidency, Special Envoy and Commission to pursue contacts with the parties to the peace process, as well as with the United States, with a view to maximising Community constructive input to all tracks of the peace process.

In addition, the High Representative, Special Envoy and Commission were invited to examine in detail a number of issues on which the Community would be better placed to make a significant contribution, including security, water and refugees. The Commission will actively participate in such assessment with a view to further consideration by the Council in due course.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0114/00

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

(31 January 2000)

Subject: EU plans with regard to the WTO following the failure of the Seattle Summit

Is it the case that, as has been reported in the media, fresh negotiations between the various economic blocs of industrialised countries and the poorest and developing countries are to recommence with a view to reopening the Millennium Round negotiations following the failure of the WTO Summit in Seattle?

If so, what provision will the Council make for Parliament's participation in drawing up the European position in the light of the new situation, and given the changes which have since occurred in European and world public opinion?

Reply

(28 March 2000)

1. In its Conclusions of 26 October 1999, the Council established the position of the European Union on the preparation for the Third WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle. On that occasion, the Council reiterated its firm conviction that a comprehensive round of trade negotiations was the best way to address the challenges resulting from the current economic changes, to manage the globalisation process effectively, to expand opportunities for international trade and growth, and to respond in a balanced manner to the interests of all WTO members, especially the developing countries.

At the same time, the Council underlined the need to involve civil society fully in the process and, to that end, to continue to engage with it in order to take into account its legitimate interests and concerns.

2. In its Resolution of 18 November 1999, the European Parliament had substantially shared the objectives established by the Council, particularly with respect to the global approach advocated in the abovementioned Conclusions.

3. Following the failure of the Seattle Conference, the Council bodies are currently examining, on the basis of information provided by the Commission, which was also presented by Commissioner Lamy during his recent appearance before the European Parliament Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the most appropriate ways of achieving the objectives set out in the Conclusions of 26 October 1999, which still form the basis of the Union's position for the next round of trade negotiations in the WTO. At the same time, the Council's subordinate bodies will also focus on analysing the deficiencies in the preparation and procedures of the Seattle Conference, in order to identify appropriate mechanisms for improving the efficiency as well as the internal and external transparency of the WTO process and to ensure the full involvement of all its members.

4. An initial exchange of views at political level on all of these questions will be held at the informal meeting of Trade Ministers scheduled for March 17 and 18 2000 in Porto. It will then be for the General Affairs Council to lay down the political and strategical guidelines in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0159/00

by Carl Lang (TDI) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Flooding in the South of France

In reply to a question by my colleague Mr Jean-Claude Martinez (E-2395/99)(1), the Commission indicated that no emergency aid was paid by the Community to Member States in response to natural disasters but that it intended to provide ERDF or EAGGF appropriations for affected areas under certain conditions.

1. How will the Commission ensure that these notoriously bureaucratic and lengthy procedures are implemented rapidly?

2. How can the Commission justify excluding an affected area from such aid on the grounds that it is no longer situated in an area eligible for structural funds under the programmes for 2000-2006?

3. Given the profound injustice of a situation in which the Commission grants emergency aid to third countries while at the same time, refusing it to Member States of the European Union, will it remedy matters, for example by re-entering the appropriation under an amending budget for 2000?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 124.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2000)

The Honourable Member should refer to the information memo adopted by the Commission on 12 January 2000(1) and also to its contribution to the debate during the plenary session of Parliament in January 2000(2).

(1) SEC(00) 40.

(2) Debates of the European Parliament (January 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0574/00

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Wording of Article 158 of the Treaty, referring to islands

In December 1999 the author of this question tabled Question P-2579/99(1) to the Commission requesting its interpretation of the different versions of Article 158 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) referring to islands. In his answer dated 18 January 2000 the President, Mr Prodi, replying on behalf

of the Commission, said that any differences between document CONF 400/97 and the Treaty could be explained by legal corrections and the final harmonisation of the texts in order to make them agree in all the languages in which the Treaty was drawn up.

It is obvious, in fact blatantly obvious, that the differences between some of the different language versions are not attributable solely to what Mr Prodi said in his answer. Without any doubt, the latest wording of the French version is substantially different from the original wording, as a comparison between them shows. The latest version is not only substantially different but it is also very restrictive. The same does not apply to the final versions in Italian, English and Swedish, among others, which not only offer a broader interpretation, but, more important, are closer to the meaning of the original French version.

The Union institutions must not give the impression that they can easily be swayed in their day-to-day decisions, especially as regards issues affecting the interpretation of the EU Treaty itself and the 26 island regions of the EU.

I suspect that the serious nature of these problems will make recourse to the courts inevitable, in order to settle the dispute caused by what Mr Prodi in his answer calls legal correction and the final harmonisation of the texts, particularly as regards their concordance in all the languages in which the Treaty was drawn up. It therefore seems extremely important, politically speaking, that the island regions should endeavour to find a satisfactory solution before bringing the matter to court. The case already being brought by the Isle of Wight in the United Kingdom sets a bad precedent if it means that the 26 island regions of the Union will become involved in disputes of this kind or similar.

Can the Commission therefore say whether it considers the original or the final version of the French text to be valid? Or, what amounts to the same thing, which version corresponds to what was agreed in Amsterdam in June 1997 the French and Spanish versions or the versions in English, Italian and Swedish, inter alia, which do not coincide at all?

(1) OJ C 203, 18.7.2000, p. 175.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The text of the second paragraph of Article 158 of the EC Treaty currently in force was amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam signed on 2 October 1997 and ratified by all the Member States. The Treaty of Amsterdam was drawn up in twelve languages, the texts in each of these languages being equally authentic in accordance with Article 15 thereof.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0118/00

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Cost of processing a litre of milk

Does the Commission know how much it would cost to process a litre of milk in Denmark and Holland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

The Commission does not have at its disposal data on the cost of processing a litre of milk in Denmark, the Netherlands or in any other Member State. It should be underlined that these processing costs may vary considerably depending on the type of product manufactured or on the size and structure of the processing plant.