ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0164/00

by Rosa Díez González (PSE), Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Competition transition costs (CTC) in Spain

Without prejudice to the outcome of the assessment of the Spanish electricity sector entrusted to an independent expert by the Commission, will the Commission say how it determined which costs not able to be covered during the transition to competition derive directly from the regulatory framework adopted by Spain in the past? Has the Commission checked whether compensation has been paid to cover these costs in the past? Does it not find it unacceptable that consumers (whether eligible or not) should have to meet costs for CTC which in no way correspond to the definition of such costs?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Commission has not yet completed its examination of Spanish stranded costs and cannot therefore give an immediate answer to the first question put by the Honourable Members. It is clear in any event that costs already compensated for in the past will not be regarded as stranded costs. Electricity consumers will have to meet only costs which the Commission regards as stranded.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0013/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Creation of a Greek service on Euronews

Since 1 November the news agency Euronews has been broadcasting in a sixth language, Portuguese. In his statements, the channel's managing director has stressed that Euronews has the capability to expand its activities into other languages too.

Is the Commission looking into the possibility of the creation of a Greek service on the channel, so that the large number of Greeks and Greek speakers abroad who are interested in the broadcast of news in Greek could be kept informed?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2000)

The question as to the creation of a Greek service on the Euronews information channel is not a matter for the Commission but for the management of Euronews.

However, the Commission agrees that it would be a good thing for Euronews to broadcast in as many Community languages as possible. The fact that it now broadcasts in six languages is a significant step in the right direction.

The Commission will pass on the Honourable Member's views during its contacts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0493/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Proper execution of an invitation to tender for the supply of meal vouchers, issued by the Italian Ministry of the Treasury

1. Can the Commission check whether the invitation to tender issued by the Italian Ministry of the Treasury (Government Stationery Office) in December 1998 for the supply of meal vouchers for ministerial employees was properly executed?

The tender was to the value of ITL 180 billion on an annual basis, to be split into three equal parts.

2. Is the Commission aware of the fact that, further to the decision by the Regional Administrative Tribunal (TAR) to uphold the allegations of the unsuccessful companies and to suspend the award of the contract, and following the refusal by the Court of Auditors to give its seal of approval to the tender documents, the Italian Ministry of the Treasury cancelled the invitation to tender, issuing a new one to the value of ITL 180 billion, to be divided into three parts on a renewable yearly basis?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

The Commission would be particularly grateful to the honourable Member if he could forward the information he has on the infringements of Community law on public contracts that are alleged to have occurred in connection with the invitation to tender issued by the Ministry of Finance in Italy.

The Commission has no knowledge of any facts that would allow it to contact the relevant Italian authorities to check that the procedure in question complied with the provisions referred to above.

On the basis of the information that the honourable Member will be kind enough to provide, the Commission will launch an investigation to see if there are any infringements of Community law on public contracts and to take any action laid down in the EC Treaty that proves necessary in order to ensure, if need be, that the procedure in question again complies with Community law on public contracts.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1110/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Freedom of movement in Italy for unidentifiable immigrants

On 6 March 2000 the Italian Ministry of the Interior issued a circular to all police headquarters and border control points suggesting that they should not detain non-Community citizens of national or ethnic origins for which, on the basis of past experience, repatriation is likely to prove unsuccessful because of the lack of cooperation on the part of the diplomatic authorities of their presumed countries of origin in seeking to establish their identity during the period for which they can be kept in the temporary detention centres specially set up to house unauthorised immigrants (immigrants who are illegal, without identity documents or awaiting repatriation). The provision refers in particular to immigrants of Yugoslav, Algerian, Ecuadorian, Iraqi and Turkish nationality and to Kurds. In other words, the circular authorises the free movement of illegal and unidentifiable immigrants, in breach inter alia of the Napolitano-Turco law, which is supposed to regulate immigration. The result is that in practice Italy is applying the principle of free movement for immigrants unable to produce identity documents and unwilling to divulge their identity.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is it aware of this provision?

2. Has it considered the effects that application of this provision will have on neighbouring Member States which have signed the Schengen Agreement?

3. Does it think that these proposals comply with the Schengen Agreement?

4. If not, will it propose that Italy be suspended from the agreement in order to safeguard the rights of Member States with regard to controlling immigration within their territory?

5. Does it not think that ill-judged provisions of this kind help to foster xenophobic sentiments among the population?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

The Commission has no knowledge of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. It has asked the Member State concerned for information and will inform the Honourable Member of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0258/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: EU fish catches by volume and value

Can the Commission state whether it has a breakdown of the total fish catch by volume and value attributable to the fleet of each Member State and does it also have a breakdown of where these fleets land their catch (either in or outside the Community) and can these statistics be made available?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Under Community legislation(1) Member States are required to report to the Commission the volume of their annual catches (in tonnes live weight equivalent) broken down by species and the area of capture. No value data are required with these submissions. Summary data of this kind is mentioned in the statistical bulletin of the Directorate general for Fisheries. The latest copy is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat.

The detailed breakdown of where Community vessels land their catches is not available. Under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2104/93 of 22 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1382/91 on the submission of data on the landings of fishery products in Member States(2) Member States are required to submit monthly reports on the volume (in tonnes product weight) and the average price of 120 fishery products landed in their ports. The national reports are broken down by the landings by all Community vessels (without identification of the Member State of the vessels), by vessels from the European free trade area (EFTA) countries and, not on a mandatory basis, by the vessels of third countries. The reports do not include data on the landings by national vessels in foreign ports (neither in or outside the Community).

These catch and landings statistics are available for consultation on Eurostat's New Cronos data-base in the domain on fishery statistics.

Under Regulation (EEC) No 2847/931, Member States are required to ensure the verification and the recording of landings of catches of species carried out in another Member State or in a third country.

This data forms part of the notifications that Member States transmit to the Commission by reason of their obligations resulting from Regulation (EEC) No 2104/93 and can be made available to the Honourable Member.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3880/91 of 17 December 1991 on the submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States fishing in the north-east Atlantic OJ L 365, 31.12.1991, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2018/93 of 30 June 1993 on the submission of catch and activity statistics by Member States fishing in the north west Atlantic OJ L 186, 28.7.1993, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, Council Regulation (EC) No 2597/95 of 23 October 1995 on the submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States fishing in certain areas other than those of the north Atlantic OJ L 270, 13.11.1995.

(2) OJ L 191, 31.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1337/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Merger of Commercial Intertech Corporation with Parker Hannifin Corporation

Is the Commission aware of the merger between Commercial Intertech Corporation and Parker Hannifin Corporation and its implications for European competitivity? Will the Commission investigate whether it is appropriate for the merger to take place in the light of European competition policy? Will it undertake to meet with representatives of the workforce to hear their views?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

The Commission has not been informed of the merger, which is the subject of the questions raised by the Honourable Member.

With regard to the Commission meeting with representatives of the workforce of undertakings concerned by a notified merger, in general the Commission is willing to meet with such representatives to hear their views on the competition aspects of the operation. Furthermore, Article 18.4 of the Merger Regulation, Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989, on the control of concentrations between undertakings(1) provides for the entitlement of the recognized representatives of employees to be heard upon application, in specific instances, most notably in the case of in-depth investigations.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0972/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Aid from Community funds

Over 150 workers at Lisnave Lisbon Naval Shipyards Ltd have been waiting for 15 years to be taken on again by this undertaking, having been forcibly dismissed a move which they have never accepted.

It is now reported that Lisnave or Gestnave Industrial Services Ltd, the successor company, received aid from Community funds.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. What Community funds were allocated to these undertakings?

2. In allocating Community funds, was due attention paid to the need to maintain jobs?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1012/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Regulation, import and possession of dangerous animals

According to journalistic sources, the number of rare and dangerous animals in Italy can be estimated at more than 11 200. From time to time there are reports of wild animals attacking and savagely wounding their owners or defenceless persons who happen to cross their path.

The keeping of such animals by zoos is subject to regulation, whereas the keeping of such animals by private individuals may be governed only by simple safety standards with the animals often kept under intolerable health and hygiene conditions. In Italy such animals must be registered, in accordance with the 1975 Washington Convention, but the official figures would suggest that many animals are imported and kept illegally.

1. Are there any common rules in the EU governing the importing and keeping of animals of this type?

2. If not, do all the Member States comply with the provisions of the Washington Convention?

3. What public safety guarantees are there when such animals are kept by private individuals?

4. What criteria and parameters are used to determine the health and hygiene conditions applying both to these animals and to human beings?

5. Are there any special reasons, apart from scientific research and entertainment purposes, that would warrant private individuals being allowed to import and keep wild animals?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 2000)

Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein(1) contains provisions for transport, keeping and housing of specimens of wild fauna included in the annexes of the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES).

In relation to animal health conditions, import rules have been laid down by Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and import into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (1) to Directive 90/425/EEC(2). Special conditions are foreseen for movement of animals between zoos.

Any other measures concerning import or possession restrictions of non-domestic animals, or matters dealing with problems resulting from keeping of exotic animals in places other than zoos, do not fall within Community competence.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0714/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: National bankers and ethnic entrepreneurs

Has the Commission, in its roundtables with national bankers, raised the issue of discrimination against ethnic entrepreneurs? If not, will it do so in future?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The issue of discrimination against ethnic minorities in the area of finance was touched on in both the 2nd and 3rd Round tables of bankers and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), since entrepreneurs from ethnic minorities were identified as being among the more vulnerable groups that encountered difficulties as regards access to finance. The Round table of bankers and SMEs is an initiative of the Commission to improve the relationship between banks and SMEs.

The 3rd Round table brought together European SME organisations and representatives from the European banking (saving, cooperative, commercial banks), venture capital and mutual guarantee associations and several public SME development agencies of the Member States. The final report of the 2nd Round table was adopted early in 1997 and the final report of the 3rd Round table will be adopted in May or in June 2000.

Some of the participating bankers seemed to feel that lending to such entrepreneurs meant taking on higher than average risk and often was not profitable, which translated into additional caution when assessing requests for loans. However, they continued to offer micro-loans to business creators in order to facilitate the integration of ethnic minorities into society, especially when part of the risk was taken on by public programmes.

In the 2nd Round table, one of the case studies highlighted in the final report as a best practice was that of Mama Cash in the Netherlands, an organisation that provides advice and guarantees to women (especially immigrant women from ethnic minorities) wishing to set up businesses, who have been refused credit by the banking sector. The initiative was considered to be especially interesting because it was successful, self-sufficient and did not rely on public funding.

The draft final report of the 3rd Round table also looks at the ethnic minority issue, highlighting various initiatives taken by British banks in order to better serve their customers from ethnic minorities.

The Commission will examine thoroughly the recommendations of the Round table on better access to micro-loans. In the meantime, the Commission recalls that, in its proposal for a directive on equal treatment irrespective of racial and ethnic origin of 25 November 1999(1), discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin in access to services is expressly forbidden. The Commission has called on the Council and the Parliament to accelerate their handling of this proposal in order to secure its early adoption.

A copy of the final report of the 2nd Round table is sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) COM(1999) 566 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0117/00

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Ban on night flights at Zaventem airport in Belgium

On 31 December 1999 the Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Transport submitted a draft ministerial decree, which was withdrawn on 12 January 2000 for wider consultations. The purpose of the draft decree was to set noise quotas by introducing a system of maximum noise levels. However, it also stipulated that, starting in the summer of 2003, commercial flights would be banned between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m.

The draft decree is based inter alia on Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes(1), which states that where serious congestion and/or environmental problems exist the Member State responsible may (mldr) impose conditions on, limit or refuse the exercise of traffic rights.

1. What action has the Belgian Transport Minister taken to comply with the requirement laid down in Article 9(3) of the above Regulation that at least three months before the entry into force of the action, he inform the other Member States and the Commission?

2. Given the lack of European legislation governing the prohibition of night flights, does the ban on such flights at Zaventem airport only provided for in the draft decree not constitute a distortion of competition between Belgian and other European air carriers within the meaning of Article 9(2), fourth indent?

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

The Commission has taken note that the draft ministerial decree introducing a ban on nightflights at Zaventem airport has never been published in the Moniteur Belge and has been withdrawn on 12 January 2000, as indicated by the Honourable Member. Since the Belgian legislation banning nightflights at Zaventem has been withdrawn before its entry into force, the question is no more of practical application.

The Commission understands that the Belgian authorities are now preparing in replacement of the abovementioned ministerial decree a comprehensive set of rules addressing the noise problems at night around Zaventem.

Finally, the Commission intends to address the issue of operational restrictions at airports through a Community framework for operational restrictions and dissemination of best practices, as set out in its recent Communication on Air Transport and Environment(1).

(1) COM(1999) 640 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0789/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: The Common Agricultural Policy

In response to a Written Question from Lord Inglewood in the House of Lords (PQ 788 written 28 February 2000) Lady Hayman, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that the Common Agricultural Policy as currently structured does not serve farmers, consumers and taxpayers well. Does the Commission agree?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

The common agricultural policy (CAP) is an evolving policy. It has developed ever since its introduction to improve its contribution to the objectives laid down in Article 33 (ex Article 39) of the EC Treaty. With the 1992 reforms and the recent Agenda 2000 reforms, fundamental re-orientations of the CAP have been introduced in order to increase internal and external competitiveness, and the quality orientation of agricultural production, to ensure a fair standard of living for the farming community, to better integrate environmental goals into the CAP and to enhance rural development and the creation of complementary or alternative income and employment opportunities.

The structure of the CAP and the current reform process reflect the interests of all Member States and those involved in agricultural policy. It should be noted that the Agenda 2000 reform was agreed unanimously by the Berlin European Council. Indeed, these reforms give Member States flexibility to tailor the implementation of the CAP to national situations to provide greater focus on rural development and environmental concerns.

The Commission does therefore not share the view attributed to the British minister.