ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2831/99

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Evaluations of the current research into climate change

What evaluations have been undertaken by or for the European Commission of the current state of the art concerning research into climate change in Europe, in the United States of America, and in other countries?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

The state-of-the-art of climate research on a global scale is evaluated on a periodic basis by the Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) of the United Nations (UN), where a majority of Community project coordinators are directly involved. In addition, a major conference (European climate science conference) was held in Vienna, under the Austrian Presidency in October 1998 at the end of the Fourth framework programme for RTD (FP4) to review the achievements and assess the state-of-the-art of Community funded climate research. The proceedings of this conference have been recently published as a CD-Rom (available from the Research and Technological Development Directorate general see also Recent results of EC's climate research, Eds. Ghazi et al, the Research and Technological Development publication). Clearly, the European climate science community is playing a leading role in research on a worldwide basis. This fact was also confirmed by the reports of the Commission's monitoring panel and the five year assessment panel. One of the improvements recommended is the streamlining of research towards policy objectives and is now being addressed in the Fifth framework programme (FP5).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2789/99

by Paul Coûteaux (UEN) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: The directive on labelling and the sale of French-labelled products in France

The Advocate-General, Mr Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, believes that French legislation making it obligatory that food products in France be labelled in French infringes the European Directive on Labelling.

According to Mr Colomer, an obligation to make exclusive use of the language of a linguistic region which, in this case, coincides with the territory of the Member State, is a barrier to trade. He further believes that the Court of Justice has already made it clear in previous rulings that a language easily understood by the consumer does not necessarily mean an official language or a regional language.

Does the Commission agree with Mr Colomer's assessment?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2000)

The Honourable Member is referring to the conclusions presented by the Advocate-General, Mr Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, on 25 November 1999 in case C 366/98 Public Ministry v Yannick Geffroy.

The Commission does not wish to comment in this answer on the analysis developed by the Advocate-General before the Court has even given a ruling on the matter in question.

The Commission has itself submitted written observations regarding the case.

The Commission has in particular informed the Court in its written observations that national rules may generally require the use of the national language provided that the requirement is not systematic and can be lifted if, where a particular indication must appear on the label, the adequate provision of information to the purchaser can be ensured by an indication in another language or by other means (such as a pictogram).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/99

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Possible breach of Community law

Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(1), imposes on manufacturers the obligation to set up, apply and maintain quality systems, as set out in the Directive, extending right up to the time of placing on the market. However, Decision E 3/833/22-6-99 of the Ministry for Health and Welfare (Government Journal Issue 1329/B/29-6-99) extended manufacturers' obligations, in contravention of the above-mentioned Directive 93/42, to firms trading in such goods and even made their certification compulsory no later than one year from the publication of the ministerial decision referred to above, i.e. by 30 June 2000.

In the light of the above, could the Commission say:

- whether this is a breach of European law, and

- what action it intends to take against the Greek Government to eliminate the adverse consequences of the above-mentioned provision?

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

The Commission knows nothing about the Greek Ministerial Decision mentioned by the Honourable Member, which extends to distributors the obligations on manufacturers imposed by Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. It will take the necessary steps to obtain full information on the matter raised and, if necessary, will not hesitate to initiate infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2401/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Priority of international law over an EU directive, and compliance with provisions of treaties concerning the Iron Rhine

The increase in the budget for trans-European networks confirms their importance for the European Union. Both the construction of new transport infrastructure and the modernisation of existing infrastructure are eligible for co-financing. The question of the Iron Rhine is a matter which is particularly deserving of the Council's attention in this respect. By virtue of Article 12 of the Belgium-Netherlands Arbitration Treaty (19 April 1839) and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties of 5 November 1842 and 13 January 1873 deriving therefrom (the Iron Rhine Treaty), Belgium is entitled to a link via the Dutch district of Sittard to the German frontier. This international right of transit assumed physical shape between 1869 and 1879 with the construction of the first cross-border rail link in Europe. However, after the two world wars the Iron Rhine between Antwerp and the Ruhr in Germany fell into disuse. The Dutch authorities are currently using national legislation to put obstacles in the way of resuming this international rail link.

1. Does the Council acknowledge that by virtue of Article 12 of the Belgium-Netherlands Arbitration Treaty (19 April 1839), and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties of 5 November 1842 ands 13 January 1873 deriving therefrom, Belgium is entitled to a link via the Dutch district of Sittard to the German frontier?

2. Is Dutch environmental legislation pursuant to the habitats directive subordinate to the abovementioned international agreements, given that one of the contracting parties to the Belgium-Netherlands Arbitration Treaty (Russia) is not an EU Member State? (N.B.: The Treaty of Vienna explicitly stipulates that international law takes precedence over national law.)

3. In the light of the answers to questions 1 and 2, will the Council call on the Dutch authorities to comply with their obligations under the treaties, particularly as completion of the Iron Rhine is covered by the general principle of loyalty to the Community? If not, why not?

Reply

(28 February 2000)

The question raised by the Honourable Member is not within the Council's competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2716/99

by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Human rights violations in Iran

What is the volume of EU exports to Iran and imports from Iranian companies into the EU economic area? Is the Commission aware of any arms transfers from EU Member States to Iran?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2000)

Community exports to Iran amounted to 4 389 million in 1998. Imports amounted to 3 980 million. Figures for 1999 are not yet available. The Commission is not aware of any arms deliveries from Member States to Iran. Relevant arms export control regimes are in force.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2851/99

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against EU citizens in implementation of the Netherlands Benefit Entitlement (Residence Status) Act

On 20 October 1998, the Commission replied to my question No E-2744/98(1) about discrimination against EU citizens in implementation of the Netherlands Benefit Entitlement (Residence Status) Act. It said that it would seek information from the Dutch authorities about the scope of the Act and the relevant circular.

What was the outcome of the Commission's inquiries? Does the Commission believe that the question of this legislation and its application to EU citizens has now been resolved in a non-discriminatory manner?

(1) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 132.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The Commission has contacted the Netherlands authorities. They confirm that Community nationals who are entitled to reside in the Netherlands in accordance with Community law as interpreted by the Court of Justice are treated on a par with Netherlands nationals. Notably, this means that there is no discrimination as regards the award of social security benefits or social advantages.

The Netherlands authorities confirm that entitlement to these benefits and advantages is not conditional either on the possession of a residence permit or on enrolment with the communal registers (GBA).

The Netherlands authorities guarantee that the residence permit mentioned in the circular of 28 April 1998 referred to in Written Question E-2744/98(1) by the Honourable Member is of a purely declaratory nature.

In these circumstances the Commission which incidentally has not received any recent complaints on this subject considers that the abovementioned instrument does not discriminate against Community nationals.

The Commission will carefully monitor the enforcement of the instrument in question.

(1) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2431/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Objective 2 in Lazio

The recent redesignation of areas eligible for Objective status and hence of the targets for European Union structural funding has triggered controversy in the region of Lazio, focused on

the new award of such status. In particular, the proposal by the Lazio regional authorities regarding Objective 2 does not appear to reflect adequately the development characteristics of the various areas concerned and therefore does not correspond to the Commission's guidelines to the Member States in this connection.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Has it already intervened regarding the definition of eligible areas in Lazio and if so, in what way?

2. Has it expressed itself in favour of the proposal by Lazio regarding the redefinition of Objective status, and in particular of Objective 2?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

Following the Commission's decision of 1 July 1999 setting, for each Member State, the maximum population eligible for Objective 2 assistance in 2000-2006, the national authorities were invited to send the Commission (at the latest by 31 August 1999) their proposed list of eligible areas within their territory. The Italian authorities sent their proposal on 1 October 1999.

On 11 October 1999, the Italian authorities were informed that their proposal was not acceptable as it did not comply with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(1) of 21 June 1999, which the areas that satisfy the Community criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) must contain at least 50 % of the population eligible for Objective 2 assistance.

The Commission therefore called on the Italian authorities to draw up a new proposal in compliance with the Regulation.

As soon as it receives the revised Italian proposal, the Commission will evaluate the eligibility of the Italian region of Lazio for Objective 2 assistance.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds: OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2774/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Progress of work on Athens underground rail system

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What was the initial budget for the construction of the Athens underground rail system and how much is the final cost of the work expected to be?

2. Will the 619 serious shortcomings on the Syntagma-Sepolia and Syntagma-Ethniki Amina sections referred to in the report by the ATTIKI METRO consortium and published in the Eleftherotypia newspaper of 5 December 1999 be remedied and not prevent the opening of the network at the beginning of January as planned?

3. Does it not agree that, if the same set-up had been used as for the construction of the airport at Spata, i.e. a single contractor instead of a consortium as is the case with the underground rail system, self-financing and operation of the system by the constructor, the results in terms of the date of completion and the quality of the work would have been better?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

1. The initial budget, in the contract signed in 1991, was DRA 261 500 million (November 1991 prices). After adjustment to inflation, as provided for in the contract, this amounts to DRA 420 000 million at December 1999 prices.

However the project's total budget currently stands at DRA 530 000 million (December 1999 prices) for two reasons. The Greek Parliament in 1994 approved a 14,64 % increase to make certain improvements to the project, particularly regarding stations. A further 10 % increase (March 1998 prices) was adopted, as allowed for in the contract, to cover unforeseen geological difficulties and increased safety for city buildings.

2. The 619 technical problems identified in November 1999 have been resolved, and the metro started running on 28 January 2000.

3. The differences between the two projects makes it impossible for the Commission to draw any such conclusions. The information available to it, however, is that the Greek authorities are examining the possibility of other approaches, e.g. franchising agreements, for planned further extensions to the Athens Metro to be co-funded by the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2788/99

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Discrimination of the remote and peripheral regions of the EU assessing the research task Climate variability and abrupt climate change of the EESD programme

Will the Commission give an assurance that within the assessment of research task 2.1.4 Climate variability and abrupt climate change of the EESD programme it will try to ensure that remote and peripheral regions of the EU which lie outside direct human influence and are therefore crucial for the understanding of natural climate variability and where research may be expensive will not be discriminated against on grounds of cost?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

As is the case for all the topics of the key action on global change, climate and biodiversity (including the research tasks climate variability and abrupt climate change) of the Energy, environmental and substainable development) (EESD) specific research programme(1), the most important criterion for evaluation of research proposals is the scientific quality and relevance to the work programme. The Commission's evaluation manual for proposals within the Fifth framework programme clearly states that the projects are selected based on quality, while ensuring equality of treatment and impartiality.

Obviously, sound and high quality climate variability research will continue to be supported subject to evaluators' recommendations and the available budget. Several ongoing projects of the Fourth framework programme for Research and technological development (RTD) deal with research undertaken in remote and peripheral regions of the Community and beyond e.g. Arctic and Antarctic.

(1) OJ L 64, 12.3.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2753/99

by Ole Krarup (EDD) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Criminal use of large denomination euro notes

Surveys in the USA have shown that only part of the total quantity of 100-dollar bills printed is used in the official, domestic US economy and that it must therefore be concluded that these banknotes form part of other economies, including the black economy, and are also used for payment in drug- trafficking transactions.

What are the Commission's views concerning the large denomination euro notes (the value of which may be more than five times that of the largest dollar bill), in the light of the international role that the euro may play in criminal circles as a form of payment for drugs?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

Some participating Member States Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria, currently have high-value banknotes in a range of 200 to 600. A banknote of DM 1 000 is, for instance, in circulation in Germany. Hence, at least part of the European population is accustomed to using high-value banknotes for transactions and as a store of value. In this respect, high denominations of euro banknotes are replacing some high denominations of current national banknotes.

Euro banknotes, once they are introduced, will in all likelihood also circulate in noticeable quantities outside the euro zone since the euro is one of the most important currencies of the world. It is, of course, difficult to assess to what extent the euro will be used in unlawful transactions.

It is even more difficult to predict whether the 200 and 500 banknotes will have an influence on such use. In fact, as the Honourable Member rightly points out, dollar notes seem to play an important role in the black economy and drug-trafficking transactions despite the limited range of their nominal values.

The Commission will, within the limits of its competence, endeavour to detect any evidence of disproportionate use of euro banknotes in unlawful transactions after 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2551/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Financial services ombudsman

Would the Commission please state whether it is satisfied with the adequacy of consumer redress procedures in the case of an internet bank which is based in one Member State but takes deposits or makes loans in others?

If not, will it consider making proposals for means of redress for consumers/borrowers/bank depositors such as the ombudsman scheme in the UK or other 'soft law' schemes which fall short of having to take civil action in the host country of the bank concerned?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

The possibility of obtaining out-of-court consumer redress in case of a conflict between a bank and its customer exists in nearly all the Member States. These schemes also normally cover bank services which are offered via the Internet. With regard to cross-border transactions, the present situation is unsatisfactory since there is little cross-border co-operation between the existing complaint bodies.

As said in the action plan for implementing the framework for financial markets(1) the Commission is encouraging networking between these bodies with a view to resolving cross-border disputes by development of an Union-wide complaints network. The operation of this network will be based on the Commission Recommendation 98/257 of 30.3.1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes(2).

A first meeting on cross-border redress with representatives from national complaint bodies in the banking and insurance sectors was held in October 1999 and the second in February 2000. There is wide-spread support from national complaint bodies to co-operate effectively cross-border. Progress will be reported in the regular progress report on the action plan.

(1) COM(99) 232 final.

(2) COM(98) 198 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2507/99

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Fishing

On 7 November 1999, French vessels prevented over 50 Spanish fishing boats from leaving the port of Lorient, thus stopping the fishermen concerned from fishing for anchovy in waters in which (unlike their French colleagues) they are fully entitled to do so.

This is not, unfortunately, an isolated incident, since French fishermen are widely known to have behaved in such a way on previous occasions.

Could the Commission say what action is to be taken in order to guarantee the safety of Spanish fishermen?

What penalties is the Commission to impose by way of punishment for such behaviour?

What compensation is to be made available to the fishermen who suffered as a result of the incident?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission is aware of the closure of the port of Lorient by French fishermen and notes the rapid resolution of the conflict pursuant to a meeting between all interested parties.

All fleets exploiting resources in Community fishing waters do so in the pursuance of Community legislation and, when operating in the same area, resolve any conflicts arising from their fishing activities by common agreement between all fleets concerned.

The security of fishermen in the port of Lorient is the responsibility of the authorities in that port. These authorities are also responsible for citing any infringements which are committed and the subsequent prosecution of these infringements. Compensation for any damage, as a consequence of the above closure of the port, must be claimed in accordance with the applicable rules in France.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2392/99

by Jean-Claude Martinez (TDI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Lethal flooding in the south of France

In November 1999, torrential rain, floods, landslides and broken material swept through four southern French départements, Aude, Hérault, Tarn and the Pyrénées Orientales, causing widespread devastation and more than 30 deaths, destroying roads, railway lines and all public electricity,

water and telephone networks. Is the Commission prepared immediately to set in motion the budgetary procedure aimed at getting emergency financial aid to the victims of natural disasters? Does it intend to draw this aid from the 1999 budget so as to enable the first of these payments to be made before the end of the year, as was the case with Turkey which received 180 million euros (or more than one billion francs) for the financial year 1999 following the earthquake on 17 August?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The Commission immediately expressed its great concern about the floods in the south of France in November 1999.

It would, however, remind the Honourable Member that for several years there has been no special heading in the Community budget to provide emergency aid for natural disasters in the Member States.

The Commission informed the French authorities that, under the next programming period for regional and cohesion policy (2000-2006), it could contribute to repairs to infrastructure and eligible equipment in the disaster areas, provided those areas were eligible under the Structural Funds (new Objective 2 or transitional arrangements for Objectives 2 or 5(b)). Further assistance for agricultural structures could also be provided from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.