ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1054/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(6 April 2000)

Subject: Cyprus

Could the Council confirm or deny reports that Cypriot citizens will be denied their right to freedom of movement when Cyprus joins the EU unless Turkey joins simultaneously?

In the House of Commons on 15 February 2000 (Hansard Column 781), the Rt Hon Robin Cook MP, Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, made the following announcement in relation to the accession of Cyprus to the EU:

Freedom of movement between the Republic of Cyprus and the occupied northern sector would apply only if Turkey simultaneously joined the EU.

Does this statement reflect the views of the Council? Could the Council state whether any citizens of the Republic of Cyprus will be denied their right to freedom of movement when Cyprus joins the EU?

If the answer to this question is yes, could the Council explain why Cypriot citizens are to be denied (on an indefinite basis) the basic rights afforded by the Treaties? Could the Council justify the decision to discriminate against Cypriot citizens in this way?

Could the Council explain why the decisions on the accession of Cyprus are being linked to EU relations with a foreign country which maintains an illegal occupation force in the Republic of Cyprus, contrary to the stated position of the UN, the European Parliament, the European Council and the overwhelming majority of the international community?

Reply

(8 June 2000)

The attention of the Honourable Parliamentarian is drawn to the Council's reply to Written Question E-711/00 submitted by Mr. Ioannis Marinos on the same issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0549/00

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

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Current situation in the European milk sector

In the light of the information forwarded to the Commission by the Member States in the first four months of the current milk year (April to July) and the Commission's forecasts on the basis of that information, which were published in November, it appears that several Member States will exceed their allocated milk quotas.

With a view to forming a picture of the situation in the European milk sector now that the current milk year is drawing to a close, can the Commission report on the most recent data available on the quantities of milk produced by the various Member States during the current milk year (1999/2000) and the level of quotas used up on the reference date?

In particular, can the Commission say, on the basis of its end-of-year forecasts, which Member States are expected to exceed their quota and by how much?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

First of all, the official data concerning the quotas has to be communicated to the Commission, by the Member States before 1 September of each year following the end of the reference period (April-March) by the questionnaire in annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of the Commission, from 9 March 1993, laying down the detailed rules of the additional levy in the sector of milk and of the(1) milk products according to the forecasts of the fourth indent of Article 8. For this reason, the data referring to reference period 1999/2000 will be known only after this date. This questionnaire constitutes the base for the payment of the additional levy.

However, Member States, in practice current, communicate to the Commission the development considered deliveries carried out to industry. Currently, the Commission has these estimates for the period April-December, except for Greece (August) and Spain (November). In this estimate, one can observe that certain Member States exceed the profile considered for the period in question. As one can observe in the table which is sent directly to the Honourable Member as well as to the Secretariat-General of Parliament, this involves Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

At the reading of this table, one must take account that the transfers provided for in Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of the Council, of 28 December 1992, establishing an additional levy in the sector of milk and of the(2) milk products can cause an increase or reduction in the overshooting according to the case.

Considering what precedes, the data available gives only a partial vision of the quantities of overshooting, since the estimates of the 25 % of the reference period also are missing, i.e., January 2000 at March 2000, which can change significantly the development undertaken until now by each Member State.

(1) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993.

(2) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0754/00

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Harp seals

What plans does the Commission have to raise with the Russian authorities and Mr Putin the issue of the mutilation of baby harp seals on the White Sea, due to start at the end of February/first week in March?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2000)

The Union is intensifying its dialogue with the Russian authorities on environmental issues under the partnership and cooperation agreement using a specific sub-committee of the cooperation committee established for this purpose. The next meeting is planned for the week 15-19 May 2000. Issues of endangered species and bio-diversity are discussed in this context.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0828/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 March 2000)

Subject: Television set fire safety

Is the Commission aware that a recent report from the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute allegedly shows that, as a result of the lowering of fire safety levels for TV set enclosures during the 1990s, televisions sold in Europe pose a greater fire risk than those sold in the United States?

Evidence in the report allegedly suggests that there are television sets on the European market which tend to be more susceptible to ignition and burn fiercely in the event of fire, thus severely shortening people's potential escape time. This has implications for households across Europe, particularly for hospitals and care premises where fire codes aim to control the flammability of the contents, and therefore hazards, because of the difficulties of evacuating patients in the event of a fire.

Will the Commission urgently review the safety standards of television sets sold in Europe so as to ensure that the most vulnerable groups in society are protected from fire to the same degree as, or to a higher standard than those in the United States?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Commission attaches a high priority to matters regarding fire safety.

The Commission has contacted the relevant Swedish authorities in order to obtain more information on the report from the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The safety of Television sets is regulated by the Low Voltage Directive 73/23/EEC concerning electrical equipment designed for use with certain voltage limits(1). Aspects relating to fire safety are more specifically addressed in Harmonised Standard EN 60065:1998, Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus Safety requirements adopted by the European standardisation organisation Cenelec.

The Commission has so far received no information from national authorities regarding shortcomings of the above mentioned standard in relation to fire safety. However, in response to the question from the Honourable Member, the Commission will now raise the question with national authorities in charge of the enforcement of the Low Voltage Directive at their next meeting scheduled for 26 27 April 2000.

The need for further action, including the potential for a review of relevant safety standards for television sets, will then be considered on the basis of information received from Member States.

(1) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0762/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Humanitarian aid to the people of Eritrea

The conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia, which began in May 1998, has had a high death toll on both sides and has led to the deportation of tens of thousands of civilians. The European Union should cooperate with the United Nations to take more effective action in the region, on the one hand to persuade Ethiopia to fully accept the framework peace agreement drawn up by the OAU, and on the other to send more humanitarian aid to the peoples that are the victims of this conflict. The European Union has guaranteed only 40 % of the humanitarian aid requested by the Eritrean authorities and this aid is reaching its destination with considerable delay.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does the Commission therefore not consider that the humanitarian aid to the victims of the conflict should be increased?

2. What action has it taken, or does it intend to take, to expedite the delivery of the aid in question?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Since the outbreak of hostilities and military confrontation between Ethiopia and Eritrea the Commission, in particular through its Humanitarian Office (ECHO), has been very actively involved in providing assistance to the war-affected populations of Eritrea. The Commission is supporting a wide range of humanitarian activities in the fields of water and sanitation, supplementary feeding, shelter, distribution of food and non-food items. This assistance is in particular crucial for some 200 000 displaced people and deportees gathering in camps.

In 1999 the Commission, made available humanitarian assistance worth 9.8 million in favour of the vulnerable populations affected by the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Of that amount 3.5 million were destined for Ethiopia and 6.3 million for Eritrea. The Community is thus among the major donors providing humanitarian assistance to the displaced and deported populations in Eritrea. The Commission is conscious of the need for an even handed approach to both countries. Nevertheless the humanitarian needs and circumstances in Eritrea call for a more comprehensive support.

The Commission will continue to closely monitor the humanitarian situation in Eritrea. Should the situation deteriorate the need for an adaptation of the Commission's assistance programme will be examined.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0227/00

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

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Arrest of moderate dissidents in Cuba

The moderate dissidents, Osvaldo Payá Sardinas and Hector Palacios, were recently arrested in Cuba, after first being taken to an unknown destination. According to the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, more than 300 dissidents and human rights activists have been arrested since November 1999.

Is the Commission aware of these facts?

What are its views on these arrests?

Does it intend to take any action on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

The Commission follows the human rights situation in Cuba closely and in particular the case of political dissidents through monitoring carried out by the human rights working group made up of representatives of Member States' embassies and the Commission in Havana. Through declarations and approaches at local level, the Union has regularly expressed its disapproval to the Cuban authorities regarding the treatment of political dissidents and activists.

The Commission is aware of the detention of those dissidents in the last months. To the best of the Commission's knowledge, the majority of cases have been short detentions (Cuban human rights groups claim that the number of detainees that would have to face trial is around 11 out of 262) but the Commission still believes its importance must not be underestimated.

The Commission was also informed about the detention of Osvaldo Payá and Hector Palacios on 25 January 2000. It has learned that the two were released after being interrogated by security officers. On that basis, the Union has agreed not to undertake formal action on the matter at this stage. The Commission will nevertheless continue to work towards pursuing the common goals of promoting human rights in Cuba and will take advantage of any opportunity to raise the issue with the Cuban authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2264/00

by Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Subject: Right to market table grapes included, and approved for cultivation, in the catalogue of national varieties in Italy in accordance with Community rules

A number of producers of seedless grapes in southern Italy, and particularly producers of the Sugraone variety (which has been duly entered and approved for cultivation in the catalogue of national varieties in Italy) are concerned by the behaviour of certain Community importers who refuse to purchase Sugraone grapes unless the producer can prove he has paid production royalties to an American company that claims to have patent rights to the variety in question (although under a different name) that also apply when the product is marketed.

Could the Commission answer the following questions, with a view to preventing unfair charges and distortions of the internal market:

1. Can producers lawfully and freely market Sugraone grapes, without being subject to any restrictions by potential Community purchasers in terms of proving that they have paid production royalties?

2. Does the obligation to pay royalties at the production and marketing stage (and the requirement for purchasers to check that such royalties have been paid) apply solely to the marketing of varieties of table grapes that have been patented and have registered names and

trademarks, or do such obligations also apply to producers marketing named varieties of table grapes, such as Sugraone grapes, which are included, and approved for cultivation, in the catalogue of national varieties in Italy in accordance with Community rules?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 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-1232/00

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

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Presence of regions such as Galicia at meetings of the Fisheries Council of the European Union

The Spanish Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr Jesús Posada, said in Santiago de Compostela that he doubted whether autonomous communities such as Galicia, which hold the corresponding powers and have a large fishing industry, could represent the state at meetings of the Council of Ministers.

Does the Council share this view? Are there other Member States whose federal states or other internal political entities already participate in the Fisheries Council?

Reply

(10 July 2000)

In accordance with the provisions of Article 203 of the EC Treaty, the Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level authorised to commit the government of that Member State.

Accordingly, it is for each Member State to determine how and by whom it is represented in Fisheries Council meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0289/00

by Arie Oostlander (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Kosovar prisoners in Serbia

In a statement by the Interparliamentary Delegation for Relations with South-East Europe, which referred to an EP resolution of 16 September 1999 (B5-0100/1999), the Serbian Government was called upon to release the approximately 1 900 Kosovar prisoners still being held under appalling conditions in Serbian gaols.

Is the Council aware that nearly two thousand Kosovars are still imprisoned in Serbia, as they have been since the end of the Kosovo crisis?

Will the Council take effective measures to enable these people to return to their families as soon as possible?

Reply

(16/17 May 2000)

The Council fully shares the Honourable Member's concern over the fate of the Kosovar prisoners still held in Serbia. On the occasion of the 19 July 1999 General Affairs Council, Ministers called on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to guarantee the International Committee of the Red Cross full access to those

prisoners. The Council also called for the immediate release of prisoners held without charge and for prisoners to be treated in accordance with applicable international standards. After the 19 July General Affairs Council, the ICRC has been allowed access to Serbian jails by the Belgrade authorities. It has identified nearly 2 000 Kosovar Albanian prisoners during its visits on the spot. Since June, the ICRC has helped approximately 326 persons to go back home in safety after their release in Serbia.

At its meeting on 13 September 1999, the Council expressed its deep concern that the issue of the disappearance of several thousand persons, predominately Kosovo Albanians, remains open.

The Honourable Member can be assured that the Council will continue to do everything within its power in this context and in particular will consider progress in democratic freedoms and respect for the rights of minorities as one of the key elements for eventual lifting of sanctions against the Belgrade regime.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0621/00

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

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Hallmarking

Further to Answer H-0729/99(1) to my previous question about the hallmarking of silver, will the Commission use its best endeavours to facilitate an in-depth discussion to take place in the Council's

working group concerning the Council's proposal for the E and e distinction between manufacturer-marked and third party marked silver articles, and so enable agreement to be reached to a directive which will finally inaugurate a single market in silver articles?

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999).

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

The Commission agrees with the suggestion by the Honourable Member to distinguish between E and e marking. It will endeavour to facilitate the in-depth discussion in the next Council working group and so to enable agreement about the hallmarking Directive to be reached.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0238/00

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Structural fund additionality

The legal definition of additionality requires that the appropriations of the Funds may not replace public or other equivalent structural expenditure. However, in the UK, this only needs to be demonstrated on a UK basis.

The European component of structural funds for Wales is paid from the EU into the UK Treasury. The annual budget allocation awarded to the National Assembly for Wales is calculated by the Treasury using a mechanism which has not been adjusted to take into account the additional sums which will be available to West Wales and the Valleys under the Objective 1 programme from January 2000. What this means in effect is that EU schemes in Wales have been paid for out of the Wales budget for education, health, social services and so on.

Given the stated intention of the Commission to target the Structural Funds in a more effective and concentrated way between 2000 and 2006, would the Commission consider introducing a mechanism that would reveal to what extent additionality was implemented on a regional basis within the Member States and therefore to what extent the funds were being used to maximum benefit in the targeted areas?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

There is no requirement under the regulation for Member States to apply the principle of additionality on a regional basis.

The rules are set out in the general regulation on the structural funds(1) that was agreed by the Council in June of last year and which establishes the frame of reference for the Commission and the Member States for the implementation of the programmes for the period up until the end of 2006.

Apart from the provisions with regard to additionality, the regulations also required the Member States, firstly, to ensure that Community resources are spent only in the eligible regions to which they have been allocated and, secondly, that these resources are cofinanced by national resources within the limits provided. The programming document adopted by the Commission contains the necessary confirmation on both of these aspects.

(1) Regulation EC No 1260/1999 of 21.6.1999 OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1137/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

The Authority will have the opportunity of communicating directly and openly with consumers. It can provide all interested parties with direct information on its findings on both food safety and food. The Commission will retain responsibility for communicating risk management decisions (section 51).

1. Where, in the Commission's opinion, is the dividing line between informing the public and communication as a result of risk management?

2. Will the Authority be able, on its own initiative, to inform the public of the risks of certain products, for example Listeria? If not, who will communicate this information, given its importance to consumers?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1121/00, E-1124/00, E-1126/00, E-1129/00, E-1130/00, E-1131/00, E-1132/00, E-1135/00, E-1136/00, E-1137/00, E-1138/00 and E-1139/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

In the White Paper on Food Safety(1), the Commission set out the general guidelines it intends to adopt concerning the future establishment of the European Food Authority and invited all the parties concerned to respond and contribute to the discussion during the consultation period. Regarding many of the points raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to finalise its proposals or fix the details of operational mechanisms until it has had an opportunity to consider the opinions expressed during the consultation procedure.

However, with regard to the question of responsibilities, the White Paper states that risk assessment, the gathering of data and providing information to consumers in areas for which the Authority is responsible should be a matter for that Authority. For legal reasons and reasons of democratic responsibility, the Commission believes that, under the current framework, the transfer of regulatory powers to an independent authority cannot be justified. However, any future extension of the Authority's powers would have to be considered in the light of the Commission's assessment of the Authority's performance and the degree of confidence that it has generated without ruling out a possible need to amend the Treaty.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.