ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2374/00

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Genres programme

During the previous Commission the Genres programme was set up to ensure that valuable genetic resources in farmed plant and animal species are properly evaluated and conserved. This programme received strong support from the Parliament, operates with a modest budget and grants are allocated, no more than 30, on a competitive basis.

Is has come to my attention that application made and granted during the previous Commission have since been rescinded and funds have not come through.

Can the Commission explain why funding granted to projects from the previous Commission has now been withdrawn?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2000)

The Honourable Member is hereby informed that no projects under Regulation (EC) 1467/94 of 20 June 1994 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture(1), which were approved by the Commission were rescinded.

In 1998 seven projects were accepted following the procedures and criteria of this Regulation. Two contracts were signed in early 1999 and the other five at the end of that year.

Funding granted to projects has not been withdrawn, but is paid following the procedure which applies for this Regulation.

(1) OJ L 159, 28.6.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3053/00

by Sérgio Sousa Pinto (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against non-nationals in French law (Organic Law No 98-404 of 25 May 1998)

Can the Commission state what action it intends to take, at the pre-judicial stage or by an infringement procedure, concerning a piece of French legislation (Organic Law No 98-404 of 25 May 1998) which is both incompatible with Council Directive 94/80/EC(1) and unacceptable under the Treaties.

This law requires a European citizen wishing to be entered on an electoral register to declare that he has not been deprived of his electoral rights in his Member State of origin a provision which is blatantly discriminatory by comparison with the treatment of French nationals.

In addition, the requirement that candidates should state their nationality on the ballot slips is a further grave case of discrimination on grounds of nationality, in breach of Article 12 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994, p. 38.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

The Commission was notified of Organic Law No 98-404 of 25 May 1998, which transposes into French law Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994, laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals(1), on 21 July 1998.

As part of its scrutiny of the French law to ensure its compliance with the Community legislation, the Commission asked the national authorities for further information on the two points raised by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is now examining the information provided by the French authorities and will not hesitate to use the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty if it finds that the Member State in question has failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations.

(1) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2902/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(18 September 2000)

Subject: Number of MEPs in the European Parliament

In view of the recent statement by the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in the UK that we could easily knock 100 seats off the European Parliament(1) could the Council outline the process that would have to be gone through to reduce the current European Parliament from 626 to 526?

Would the Council take the view that this is an easy task?

(1) Quoted in GC magazine, September 2000, p. 142.

Reply

(16 November 2000)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, under Article 48 (ex Article N) of the Treaty on European Union, it is for the intergovernmental conference, i.e. the representatives of the Governments of the Member States, to adopt by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties. It is not for the Council to comment on the proceedings of the intergovernmental conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2539/00

by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Commission's review of active substances in herbicides and pesticides

A small business in the English region which I represent manufactures and sells and environmentally-friendly weedkiller. They wrote to me to complain that they have been obliged to participate in the EU's review. A coordinating authority in Germany has demanded 5000, otherwise their product must be taken off the market. Later they will be informed by the German authority which Member State will conduct the review of their product but they have no choice in the matter. If it is Greece, they will be charged a further 90 000, if it is the United Kingdom the extra charge will be 180 000, if it is Sweden it will be nearly 500 000. Are these facts correct? If so, why are the charges so different across different EU states? Why is there so little concern for a small growing business which is likely to be forced out of business by these unfair and apparently ridiculous rules?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Whilst the Commission does not want to penalise small innovative enterprises operating in the field of plant protection, it has, in Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(1), a responsibility to review the safety of all plant protection products, in a timely and efficient manner, so as to ensure the highest level of human and environmental safety.

It is true that there is a high cost in carrying out a review for a plant protection product. Nevertheless this high cost should be seen against a background of highly complex work, demanding teams of experts to assess, in a careful and professional way, all the possible impacts which plant protection products could have.

As to the amounts charged in the different Member States for doing this work, it is true that the cost structures are not the same. It is therefore not possible to completely harmonise the amount of such fees. Nevertheless, the amount of the fee has to be established in a transparent way and has to correspond to the real cost of the examination.

The Commission is currently collecting information on the range of fees charged by the Member States.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1737/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Funding of European Union island regions

What action does the Council intend to take in order to create the necessary legal basis for the funding of European Union island regions from the EU budget set for 2001, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the guidelines for the 2001 budget that Parliament has already voted on (paragraph 33)?

Reply

(9 November 2000)

1. The Council recognises that island regions suffer from structural handicaps as a result of their being islands. It has always attributed the greatest importance to financial instruments intended, when that is justified, to integrate those regions more satisfactorily into the internal market under equitable conditions.

2. In the context of economic and social cohesion, the Structural Funds are, in this connection, an important instrument for action, having a positive effect on the growth and convergence of island regions.

3. Under the new regulatory framework of the Structural Funds, the least favoured islands in the European Union meeting the criteria of eligibility defined in the general Regulation may benefit specifically from Community financial help under Objective 1 (regions lagging behind in development) or Objective 2 (areas undergoing social and economic conversion).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3323/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Sugar supply requirements in the Azores in Regulation No 1481/2000

Regulation No 1481/2000 of 6 July 2000(1) refers to objective data provided by the Portuguese authorities for establishing the sugar supply balance for the Azores.

What were these objective data?

(1) OJ L 167, 7.7.2000, p. 6.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

To establish the forecast supply balance, the Commission receives regular updates from the competent authorities on the implementation of the supply programme. The drawing up of the balance for 2000/2001 was based, amongst other things, on a communication of 5 May 2000 which gave a quantity of 6 500 tonnes for 1999/2000.

On 14 June 2000, the Ministry of Agriculture sent the Commission justification from the autonomous region of the Azores for a supply requirement of 9 000 tonnes in 2000/2001. The Commission considered this request and concluded that the real consumption of the Azores did not justify such an increase in supply requirements, because from the information provided no justification for the increase in local consumption could be identified.

Taking into account the local production of sugar beet, a quantity of 6 500 tonnes for import requirements is more than sufficient for the marketing year in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2405/00

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Draft common position on Copyright Directive (COM(97) 628)

The draft Common Position on the Copyright Directive (COM(97) 628)(1) contains a Commission and Council Declaration on Recital 23 which is technology specific, referring only to proxy caching.

By proxy caching, does the Council mean network caching in general, or are the Council and the Commission deliberately excluding all other forms of caching from the scope of the Declaration?

If it is the intention of the Declaration to refer to network caching in general, can the Council ensure that the Common Position text reflects this?

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998, p. 6.

Reply

(10 November 2000)

The Council has not yet adopted its common position concerning the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, to which the question refers. Consequently, the Council cannot comment at this stage on any statements which it might decide to enter in the minutes of the meeting at which it will adopt its common position.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2911/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Austria/Sanctions

In its answers to various parliamentary questions from the undersigned Member on the subject of Sanctions against Austria, the Council repeatedly had recourse to phrases such as not yet examined, has no opinion or not yet dealt with. How does the Council justify its action, if it does not deal with or appears to not deal with a very topical issue, such as the sanctions of the 14 against Austria?

However, as the official version, the publication and the statement of the 14 by the Portuguese Presidency show, it is evident that the Council must have dealt with the subject.

In addition, according to media reports, the question of sanctions against Austria has been discussed at ministerial level at various working lunches, for example, at the General Affairs Council on 14 February, in Lisbon on 23 March, in the Azores on 5 May and at the Feira European Council on 19 June 2000.

Without a proper discussion on this topic as shown by the Council's unsatisfactory answer it is clear that the action of the Portuguese Council Presidency both presumes and exceeds authority.

Will sanctions consequently be imposed against Portugal? Is an inquiry actually being carried out? Precisely how long will it be before there is any new information on this matter?

Reply

(22 December 2000)

The statement to which the Honourable Member refers was issued by the Prime Minister of Portugal on behalf of the Government of 14 Member States. It was not discussed by the Council. The Council cannot respond in substance to the questions raised by the Honourable Member since it has never taken a view on them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3082/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Union enlargement to include countries of Central and Eastern Europe

The Committee on Industry, in its report on the implications of Union enlargement (PE 286 105), draws attention to the fact that the Commission has not presented to Parliament any quantitative assessment of the potential impact of the enlargement ontrade creationandtrade diversion.

Are there any scientific surveys available to the Commission relating to the impact of enlargement on trade creation and diversion?

If so, what practical conclusions can be drawn from them?

How does the Commission assess such conclusions?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

Since the overall assessment made by Agenda 2000 and the impact study looking at the effects that the accession of the Central and East European countries will have on certain Community policies, the Commission has ordered or is currently carrying out various comprehensive studies on the implications of enlargement.

The Community, which is now by far the most important partner of the 13 candidate countries, saw the total value of its trade increase almost threefold between 1993 and 1999. The surplus from trade with the 13 candidate countries ( 25 800 million) to a large extent offsets the Community's overall deficit.

But enlargement must not only be measured in terms of growth in trade: the benefits of extending the internal market to more countries must also be assessed in terms of the simplification and standardisation of rules and procedures, competitive practices and intellectual property.

The Commission has not conducted any specific survey of the impact on trade, trade creation or trade diversion. Some of the comprehensive studies that have been carried out relate partly to trade.(1)

(1) L'impact de l'élargissement à l'est sur l'emploi et les salaires dans les Etats membres de l'Union, Boeri, Brückner et al, Berlin, 215 p., March 2000; The impact of enlargement on small and medium sized enterprises in the EU, RWI, Essen, EPRC Glasgow 216 p., October 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2880/00

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

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Plans for a high-speed rail link between Galicia and the EU heartland

The Galician regional government has announced that an agreement will shortly be signed with the Spanish central government to guarantee the construction over the period 2000-2007 of a high-speed rail line linking Madrid (via Valladolid) to Galicia, entering the region at Orense and serving the cities of La Coruña, El Ferrol, Santiago, Lugo, Vigo and Pontevedra. The Valladolid junction would also link Galicia with the line running from Madrid to the French frontier via the Basque Country. The information provided to the media states that the new line will use the standard European wide gauge for high-speed trains, although on some stretches the maximum possible speed will be only 200 kph, and that it is certain to receive EU cofinancing from the Cohesion Fund.

Is the Commission aware of such an undertaking? Has it taken any decision, with the agreement of the Spanish central government, on the application of investment from the Cohesion Fund to this rail link between Galicia and the Union heartland? Can the Commission confirm from its side that on some of the Galician stretches of this rail line the maximum possible speed will be no higher than 200 kph?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2000)

The Commission was informed of the agreements between the central Spanish Government and the Xunta de Galicia concerning infrastructures during its regular contacts with the authorities in the European regions.

As part of the revision of the TEN guidelines planned for this year, the Commission is in contact with the Spanish Government and will examine this matter in order to determine its impact on the trans-European high-speed network.

The Commission has not received any requests for Cohesion Fund financing of the projects concerned.

Decision No 1692/96 of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the trans-European transport network lays down that the trans-European high-speed network(1) shall consist of the following lines, as set out in Annex 1 to the Decision:

- lines especially designed for high speed and equipped for speeds that are generally not less than 250 km/hour by means of current or new technologies;

- lines especially configured for high speed, and equipped for speeds of roughly 200 km/hour;

- lines especially configured for high speed and having specific characteristics as a result of the topographical, relief or urban environment constraints, whose speed must be adjusted on a case-by-case basis.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3619/00

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (TDI) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Prospects for the JRC

The JRC (Joint Research Centre) is an extremely important Community scientific research body, which serves as a forum not just for the exchange of experience between Europe's various schools of scientific thought but also for checking the scientific findings produced in the Member States for possible applications in all areas (the environment, the economy, society, etc.).

It has been reported that plans are now being made to cut 200 posts at the Centre, despite the agreement reached by the Council in 1998 to maintain staff numbers at 2080 during the course of the Fifth Framework Programme.

Would the Commission state whether:

- two hundred posts really are to be cut?

- it is true that plans are being made to rationalise the Community research system (new synergies between the DG for Research and the JRC, etc.)?

- it would not agree that such a cut in staff numbers would seriously undermine the Ispra centre's role and its ability to carry out its appointed tasks?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

One of the recommendations to emerge from the report by the high-level panel chaired by Viscount Davignon was to concentrate the activities of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) on its strongest areas of competence. Likewise, following the recommendations of the Steering Group on striking a balance between human resources and the Institution's tasks, the Commission decided to examine the scope for closing one site down or cutting 200 jobs within the JRC.

In view of that aim the Commission examined the scope for closing one site and is continuing the study in respect of all of the JRC's institutes. As announced in letter of amendment No 1 to the 2001 preliminary draft budget, the Commission will re-examine the situation and put forward any changes needed to the research-staff tables.

The Community's research system is undergoing a thorough restructuring via the European research area initiative. Against this backdrop synergies will emerge between the Directorate-General for Research and the JRC, and also with the research centres in the Member States.

The Commission does not intend to downgrade the operation and skills of the JRC as a whole, but on the contrary recognises the need to provide the JRC with a stable future by concentrating its activities on its areas of skill as part of its purpose to serve the Union's policies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3262/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Purchasing and award of contracts by Swedish Systembolaget

At the beginning of 2000, the Commission sent a letter to the Swedish Government stating that the Swedish Systembolaget must comply with EU rules on public procurement when purchasing alcohol.

Systembolaget, however, considers that the best wines, for example, cannot be purchased by way of a public procurement procedure as it is a seller's market in that particular sector.

Has the Commission discussed the matter further with the Swedish Government and Systembolaget and possibly changed its opinion, or does the Commission adhere to its position as set out in the above letter?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The letter to which the honourable Member refers in connection with Systembolaget (Swedish monopoly for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages) concerns the application of the rules laid down in the directives on the award of public contracts (Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts(1), Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts(3) and Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts(2)) to Systembolaget's purchases of alcohol and purchases of other types of supplies, as well as service and works contracts.

With regard to purchases of alcohol, it may simply be said that in the light of the Court of Justice case law there is no derogation in Directive 93/36/CEE (or in Community law) for purchases of alcohol. Systembolaget is therefore supposed to apply the relevant provisions of the directive in question when purchasing alcohol.

This matter has been discussed on a number of occasions with the Swedish authorities, in particular during a meeting that was held in June 2000. The Commission asked the Swedish authorities for further information regarding the status and operation of the monopoly.

This information is now being carefully examined so that the Commission can assess the compatibility of Systembolaget's purchasing procedures with Community law on public contracts.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(3) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.