ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0485/00

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Continuation of the ornamental flowers promotional fund

1. During the budget negotiations for 2000 Parliament adopted an amendment saying that the existing rules needed to be evaluated in the near future (before the end off 1999) and that the promotional fund should then be continued but on a new legal basis. The Council also adopted a decision on these lines at second reading. A sum of 3 million was budgeted for this. The deadline has now passed without the Commission having responded to the amendment. In what way, and when, does the Commission intend to respond to the express wish of the budgetary authority to take the measures necessary to continue the scheme?

2. Concessions have been made by the Union in respect of ornamental flowers in agreements with Egypt, South Africa and Mexico. For example, in a communication of 18 January 2000 on the free-trade agreement with Mexico, the Commission states: The EC will obtain full and rapid access for a number of its key export priorities such as wines, spirits and olive oil mldr In exchange for these concessions mldr the package includes partial liberalisation for certain products of interest to Mexico such as concentrated orange juice, avocados, and cut-flowers, In order to remain competitive in this open and extremely liberal context, continuation of the promotional fund is essential (bearing in mind that the EU's commercial policy prompted the setting up of the scheme). Does the Commission share this view?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

1. The Commission is aware that additional funds have been allocated for Chapter 38, item 3800 of the Community budget.

Furthermore, it would remind the Honourable Members that Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2275/96 of 22 November 1996 introducing specific measures for live plants and floricultural products(1) stipulates that the measures referred to in Article 1 may be granted Community funding for a period of no more than three years. An evaluation study shall be carried out in the final year.

The results of this study will be available in the second half of 2000. The Commission will not be in a position to decide whether to continue the promotional scheme in the ornamental flowers sector until it has received these results.

2. The Commission considers that the promotional fund may help to guarantee a balanced market in this sector.

(1) OJ L 308, 29.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2041/00

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: High-speed rail link to Málaga

Is the Commission aware of the project for the construction of a high-speed rail link between Córdoba and Málaga?

Will the EU finance this project in whole or in part?

If EU financing is forthcoming, to which of the Community funds will it be charged and what will be the sums involved?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The high-speed train (HST) Cordoba-Malaga link is part of the Spanish HST-Trans-European network (TEN) under the Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 23 July 1996(1). Therefore, studies and works concerning this infrastructure project are eligible for Community funding, in particular for the Cohesion fund and the TEN-budget line B5-700.

The Spanish authorities have requested for the 2000 TEN-budget exercise the financing of 50 % of the technical studies on the HST-Cordoba-Malaga for a total studies cost of 12 million. Following the Commission's proposal, during the last financial committee meeting on 24 May 2000, it was decided to support with 6 million the technical studies of the project.

The HST Cordoba-Malaga is included in the regional development plan for Spanish regions under objective 1 and is one of the most emblematic projects to be developed within the programming period 2000-2006 in the region of Andalusia. The project is also scheduled in the Spanish infrastructure plan for the period 2000-2007. Nevertheless, as the programming documents have not been concluded yet, it is not possible to determine to which of the different Community structural funds the project will be presented by the Spanish authorities.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2231/00

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

(5 July 2000)

Subject: The Colombian government's request for support for the Colombia Plan

Can the Commission confirm that the Colombian government has asked the EU for help in implementing the Colombia Plan?

Is the Commission aware that the CGTD trade union in Colombia is of the opinion that the plan will not contribute to peace, social justice or sustainable development in Colombia?

Is the Commission aware that NGOs and the civil society are not involved in drawing up and implementing the plan?

What is the Commission's opinion of the Colombia Plan and does the Commission intend to support it, despite the criticism?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Colombian government has asked the international community to support Plan Colombia in its various components, as well as its peace efforts. While expressing wide support for the peace efforts of President Pastrana, the Commission has put emphasis on the need to tackle the root causes of the current conflict, namely social inequalities, and the lack of respect for the rule of law. The Commission is aware of the negative stance taken by several non governmental organisations (NGOs) both in Colombia and in the Union on Plan Colombia, particularly on its military component.

The Commission would, of course, welcome an increased involvement of civil society in the formulation and implementation of projects and programmes, and has conveyed this message to the Colombian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1683/00

by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Vehicle inspection monopoly on Swedish market

AB Svensk bilprovning (the Swedish Motor-Vehicle Inspection Company) has a monopoly on vehicle testing in Sweden. As this monopoly is unable to keep pace with its commitments, both private and commercial vehicles are banned from the roads because they cannot be inspected within the deadlines. There is a waiting period of up to 79 days and road haulage firms lay off their workers. The solution would be competition but the Swedish Parliament has legislated against that.

Does the Commission consider that the Swedish monopoly is consistent with EU law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The Honourable Member asks the Commission whether the monopoly the Swedish State has granted to AB Svensk Belprovning (hereinafter ASB) in the roadworthiness control of motor vehicles is compatible with Community law.

The Commission received a complaint concerning an alleged abuse of the monopoly of ASB and conducted a preliminary analysis of the information brought to its attention. It replied to the complainant, by letters of 15 June 1999 and of 21 February 2000, that it did not intend to take any further action in this matter unless the complainant provided further elements in support of the allegations. Since the latter letter, no such further elements were submitted.

According to the information at hand (the State auditors' [Riksdagens revisorer] report 1999/2000:6), the Swedish government decided, back in 1994, that the monopoly should end, but later the same year postponed the implementation of this decision indefinitely. It is also worth noting that in 1998 the Swedish competition authority recommended the government either abolish the exclusivity of ASB in obligatory vehicle testing or limit its activity to this testing and thus not to allow it to compete in other related activities to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. It moreover appears that in 1998 ASB set itself the target to reduce waiting times.

The existence of the exclusive right for obligatory motor vehicle control could be put into question only if ASB could be shown to abuse its dominant position contrary to the Community competition rules. The information presented did not suffice to consider that such abuse takes place. In addition, there was no sufficient indication in the information received of at least potentially appreciable effects on trade between Member States. On the basis of these elements, the Commission did not pursue the case.

As the existence of a monopoly is not illegal as such, the Commission could consider reviewing this position only if it were presented with clear indications of an abuse of the dominant position by ASB and of at least potentially appreciable effects on trade between Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2013/00

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 June 2000)

Subject: Tourism and European small businesses charter

The European Council meeting in Lisbon called on the Council of Ministers and the Commission to draw up a European small businesses charter and ensure that their needs are met, recognising that their contribution, in terms of job creation, is the most important.

Will the Council take account of the specific situation with regard to tour companies, given the seasonal nature of their work and their particular importance in stimulating employment and the development of less-favoured areas of Europe?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The European Council meeting in Lisbon on 23/24 March 2000 set the European Union the objective of becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.

In the context of that objective, the European Council meeting in Lisbon asked the Council and the Commission to draw up a European Charter for small companies to be endorsed in June 2000 which should commit Member States to focus in the abovementioned instruments on small companies as the main engines for job-creation in Europe, and to respond specifically to their needs.

In response to that request, the Council meeting on General Affairs on 13 June 2000 adopted the European Charter for Small Enterprises and submitted it for approval to the European Council meeting in Feira on 19/20 June 2000, which welcomed its adoption.

The European Council meeting in Feira also underlined the importance of small firms for growth, competitiveness and employment in the Union and requested its full implementation as part of the comprehensive framework for enterprise policy under preparation on the basis of the Commission's Work Programme for Enterprise Policy 2000-2005, the proposals for benchmarking enterprise policy as well as the Multiannual Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship 2001-2005. First results of these exercises must be achieved by the end of 2000.

It must be pointed out that the European Charter for Small Enterprises is essentially horizontal and is intended to take account of the particular requirements of small firms, whatever the sector they operate in, in order to reinforce their innovatory capacity and their job-creation potential. With that in view, the principles and lines of action stated in the Charter apply to all small firms, and therefore to firms in the tourism trade.

Furthermore, within the framework of the Opinion that it will be invited to deliver on the proposal for a Council Decision on a Multiannual Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship (2001-2005)(1), the European Parliament will have an opportunity of stressing the sectoral aspects to which it attaches particular importance.

(1) COM(2000) 256 + COR 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1934/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Budget Item A-3029

Could the Commission indicate which international non-governmental youth organisations receive Community funds from Item A-3029 and the selection procedure that is used?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

The list of organisations supported in 1999 under budget heading A-3029 Support for international non-governmental youth organisations is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and the Parliament Secretariat. As happens each year, this list was transmitted to Parliament by the Commission. The list is also posted on the Commission's Internet site at the following address:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/beneficiaries_fr.htm (at present, the most recent list available on this site is 1998).

The selection procedure for the financial year 2000 is currently being finalised, therefore the Commission is not able to this stage to communicate the list of beneficiaries for this year, but it will certainly do so in due course.

As regards the selection procedure used for allocating the appropriations, this is based on the selection and award criteria published in the call for proposals in the Official Journal (OJ)(1), and on the provisions of the Commission's Vade Mecum on Grant Management, which have been applicable since 1999. A call for proposals has been published in the OJ, placed on the Internet with all the necessary supporting documents (primarily the grant application form and the Vade Mecum on Grant Management) and sent to those organisations which requested it. The grant applications submitted have been analysed on the basis of the published selection and award criteria (over and above the formal eligibility criteria, the selection criteria primarily include the quality and volume of European youth activities carried out, the nature of these activities, the European dimension and the multiplier effect). Following this, an interdepartmental selection committee has met and proposed a decision for the apportionment of the appropriations available.

(1) OJ C 379, 31.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1628/00

by Jonathan Evans (PPE-DE) to the Council

(9 June 2000)

Subject: HRP Refrigerants Ltd imminent adoption of new Regulation to replace Regulation 3093/94 on substances that deplete the ozone layer HCFC import quota

The Council and the European Parliament are soon to adopt a new regulation to replace Regulation 3093/94(1) on substances that deplete the ozone layer. The new regulation will bring about a change in the way in which HCFC import quotas will be allocated. From 1 January 2001 the total available import quota will be shared out between individual importers in the same proportions as their market shares in 1996 (Article 4(3)(i)(h)). As a result, with effect from the end of this year, those companies which started importing HCFCs after 1996 will be arbitrarily deprived of their quota. This could result in job losses across the EU. It will result in unnecessary interference in the HCFC market and may be a breach of EC law. Reliance on 1996 as the reference year

will put jobs needlessly at risk and could result in claims against the European Community for damages. The reference year should be the most recent year for which market figures are available. Using 1999 as the reference year instead of 1996 would not result in any diminution in the level of environmental protection afforded by the regulation.

I have been informed that, in 1999, 32 companies from almost every Member State of the European Union were allocated import quotas by the European Commission. Only five of those companies imported HCFCs in 1996. HRP Regrigerants Ltd. (HRPR), an SMU based in South Wales, distributed EU-produced HCFCs in 1996 but did not import any HCFCs that year. HRPR was allocated an import quota by the European Commission in 1998, 1999 and 2000. As the new regulation is currently worded, HRPR is one of some 27 companies which will be deprived of its HCFC import quota from the end of 2000.

What is the Council doing to resolve this problem as a matter of urgency and to ensure that European Community legislation enables the Commission to allocate HCFC import quotas in the future without infringing the rights of EU-based businesses?

(1) OJ L 333, 22.12.1994, p. 1.

Reply

(10 October 2000)

The Commission has announced that it will soon submit a proposal which will address a number of these issues. This proposal will be examined by the Council and the European Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1470/00

by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Internal reform of the Commission

In connection with the internal reform of the Commission a number of senior appointments are being made in apparent disregard for the principle

of geographical balance. Has the Commission forgotten about this principle which, by any reckoning, is essential to the balanced functioning of the institutions? Is it normal that, in certain Directorates-General, both the Director-General and some of the heads of the division should be of the same nationality?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2000)

There is no evidence to substantiate the Honourable Member's assertion that In connection with the internal reform of the Commission a number of senior appointments are being made in apparent disregard for the principle of geographical balance. On the contrary, on 18th September and 8th December 1999 the Commission adopted rules and procedures governing senior appointments which it is following scrupulously.

Appointments are made according to basic principles of merit which means that thorough and objective assessment is made of the aptitudes of a qualified applicant for a specific post, with proper account being taken of the need to sustain the geographical balance which is an essential consideration in this multinational Institution.

For details of appointments to senior posts during the time that this Commission has been in office the Honourable Member is referred to the reply which Vice President Kinnock made to Oral Question O-52/00 from Snr Pomés-Ruiz in the Plenary of 3 May 2000 and to the full list of A1 and A2 appointments provided to Parliament at that time. The factual details demonstrate that the principle of geographical balance has been, and is being, respected in practice and not disregarded.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1390/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Long-term programmes concerning women

Most EU programmes such as the educational programmes Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and the Youth Programme are planned on a multiannual basis so as to ensure maximum continuity. However, this is not the case with the two programmes concerning women, Daphne and STOP, and the financial resources thus have to be negotiated afresh every year.

Does the Commission agree that it would make more sense to adopt a multiannual overall budget for these programmes too so as to promote continuity and concerted measures rather than just short-term actions?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

The new Daphne programme (2000-2003) is a multiannual programme, according to decision No 293/2000/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 January 2000 adopting a programme of Community action (the Daphne programme) (2000 to 2003) on preventive measures to fight violence against children, young persons and women(1). As a consequence, the Daphne programme allows the setting up of multiannual projects (1, 2 or 3 year projects).

As regards the STOP programme, it is now in its last financial year. The Commission intends to propose a renewal of the programme, including a mechanism allowing for multiannual projects.

(1) OJ L 34, 9.2.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0696/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Streamlining procedures for drawing up Court of Auditors' reports

The European Parliament attaches great importance to up-to-date reporting by the Court of Auditors. The impression has been created that current procedures from conclusion of the audit proceedings as such to the issuing of reports could be streamlined. That applies in particular to European Commission opinions on the Court's sector letters and the Court's contradictory draft report procedures.

What options can the Commission envisage for streamlining these procedures?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2000)

The Commission, like Parliament, attaches great importance to the Court of Auditors' reports. In fact, their findings have provided an important contribution to the Commission's current reform programme.

The Financial Regulation(1) provides for a period of ten weeks from emission of the draft report by the Court of auditors to the publication of the final annual or special report. During these ten weeks the replies of the audited institution are included and production of the eleven language versions takes place. The last activity takes just under half of the total time. This regulatory period can prove to be tight, especially when Member States or other third parties have to be consulted prior to answering the Court of auditors' observations.

The Commission is therefore currently exploring with the Court of Auditors ways in which procedures could be streamlined. So far, three main avenues have been identified: to clarify factual aspects as far as possible at the stage of the preparatory sector letters and implement harmonised and modernised rules for their transmission, to spread the workload of the annual and special reports as evenly as possible throughout the year, and to make full use of the advantages offered by electronic transmission.

The Commission much appreciates the question and the interest of the Honourable Member and looks forward to receiving her valuable input during the forthcoming discussions on this subject in the budget control committee.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2673/1999 of 13 December 1999 amending the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the Communities (OJ L 326, 18.12.1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1736/00

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(20 May 2000)

Subject: Route of the Atlantic highway and Porriño (Spain)

Following the presentation of various options for the route of the Atlantic highway in relation to the locality of Porriño (Pontevedra province, Spain), the Spanish Ministry of Public Works and the concessionaire enterprise have chosen the least environment-friendly option, namely the route running next to the Gándaras de Budiño lagoon, within the area which has been proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network.

This area is included in the register of natural habitats of the Galicia region, pursuant to the order of 28 October 1999 which lists, on a provisional basis, the areas proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network, as natural habitats qualifying for a general protection regime.

Is the Commission aware of the choice of this route for the Atlantic highway, affecting as it does a locality of European importance pursuant to Council Directive 93/43/EEC(1) on the conservation of natural habitats?

Can the Commission state whether the construction of this section will benefit from Community cofinancing?

What action does the Commission intend to take with the Spanish and Galician authorities in defence of the integrity of Gándaras de Budiño?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2000)

The Spanish authorities have indicated that the stretch of the Atlantic highway affecting Porriño will not be receiving Structural Fund cofinancing during the 2000-2006 programming period as it is to be built by a private company through a concessionary arrangement.

As Spain has proposed the area in question, Gándaras de Budiño, as a site of Community importance (ES 1140011), the Commission decided to launch an own-initiative investigation of the matters raised in the Written Question. As part of its examination of the dossier, it has questioned the Spanish authorities to check that Community law is being observed in this instance.