ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0609/00

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Raising the profile of the European School of Restoration across the Community

EU involvement in the project which has made it possible to establish a European School of Restoration in the Albaicín district of Granada has acted as a catalyst enabling the said district to begin finding its place in a new period of economic recovery which may help it to emerge from its sharp economic decline.

It seems reasonable to imagine that, besides providing economic aid to make this project reality, the Commission could take further action and use its privileged cultural contacts to publicise the Granada school in similar circles across Europe.

Will the Commission set out its approach to the establishment it has helped to found in Granada and say how it intends to contribute towards ensuring that a higher profile for the European School of Restoration in similar cultural circles across Europe brings a return on investment in the school?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The European School of Restoration in the Albaicín district of Granada was set up as a part of the measures and sub-measures of the Albaicín urban pilot project(1), which aims to revitalise the district's economy.

Urban pilot projects act as catalysts by nature, but are limited in terms of time. Once they are completed, they no longer receive Structural Fund assistance.

Moreover, the Commission cannot ensure the profitability of the projects it has financed. Community aid beneficiaries are therefore responsible for this and for ensuring that their operations continue to run.

With regard to the cultural sector in particular, the Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that the Commission may grant assistance to initiatives only within the framework of and in accordance with the conditions of the new Culture 2000 programme. The first call for applications was issued during March 2000.

(1) ERDF Decision No 97.11.29.001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0049/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Cologne process: revision of the Poseima programme and aid for organic farming

Organic farming in the Azores is only now beginning to develop, and Regulation (EEC) No 1600/1992(1) makes no specific provision for developing it further.

Both in terms of the needs of Azores promotion strategy and of commercial and environmental considerations, organic farming merits closer attention.

Does the Commission not think that when the aforesaid Regulation is revised, provision should be made for special incentives for organic farmers?

(1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0038/00, E-0043/00, E-0044/00, E-0045/00, E-0046/00, E-0047/00, E-0048/00, E-0049/00, E-0050/00, E-0051/00 and E-0052/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Honourable Member has put a whole series of questions regarding the Poseima Programme for the Azores.

The Commission is currently drafting a report on the measures to implement Article 299(2) (ex Article 227) of the EC Treaty.

At this stage, before the Commission has adopted that report, it is not able to reply to the Honourable Member's questions concerning its content.

Lastly, the Commission's Work Programme for 2000 provides for a report to be presented to the Council and Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products(1) (Poseima), together where appropriate with proposals for any adjustments that prove necessary to achieve the programme's goals. The set of measures relating to agriculture in the Azores will be considered in that connection.

(1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0304/00

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Delays in completing Cohesion Fund projects in Greece: biological sewage treatment and reorganisation of landfill sites in Thessaloniki

Work on two projects of importance for environmental protection and improving the quality of life of the inhabitants of Thessaloniki Extension and completion of the Thessaloniki biological sewage treatment plant Stage II and Reorganisation of a landfill site and survey/construction of a transshipment centre for Thessaloniki has been inexcusably delayed, while the Cohesion Fund financial package for the previous programming period (1994-1999) has already expired.

The above projects were among those financed from the Cohesion Fund since 1995 and should have been completed and operational in 1998.

Will the Commission therefore say:

1. what stage has been reached in the work, what the delays are due to and when the projects are expected to be completed,

2. what amount the Community contributed from the 1994-1999 Cohesion Fund programming period and whether the funds committed were sufficient to complete the projects, and

3. what measures it has taken, or proposes to take, to ensure that these projects are completed and properly operational?

As regards the Greek authorities' commitments concerning the Thessaloniki biological sewage treatment plant, will the Commission say:

- whether the quality of the water in the Thermaic Gulf is being monitored and, if so, by which body,

- whether the relevant sewerage system has been extended, and

- whether the industrial area has been connected to the sewerage system, whether there is quality control of the industrial waste, and from what revenue the operating and maintenance costs will be covered?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 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-0113/00

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

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Cancellation of debt of the poorest countries by EU Member States

Is the Council taking any initiatives, or will it take such initiatives in the near future, with a view to ensuring that all the Member States of the European Union cancel the debts owed to them by the poorest countries as part of far-reaching measures which will help launch a more balanced phase of world development, eradicating the extreme poverty from which many countries now suffer?

Reply

(28 March 2000)

At the annual World Bank/IMF meetings in Washington in September 1999, the donor community took an ambitious set of political decisions closely linking poverty alleviation strategies, structural adjustment programmes and the debt reduction initiative.

In this context, the ACP-EU Council of Ministers decided in December 1999 that unallocated programmable resources from the eighth European Development Fund and earlier Funds could be used in the form of grants for meeting the outstanding debt and debt servicing obligations to the Community of the ACP countries which qualify under the highly indebted poor countries initiative (EUR 320 million) and for contributing to the overall financing of the highly indebted poor countries initiative for the ACP by providing up to EUR 680 million for the highly indebted poor countries Trust Fund managed by the World Bank.

Separate decisions will be adopted in accordance with the appropriate procedures to deal with the external indebtedness of highly indebted poor countries other than members of the ACP group, and budget resources will be used for this purpose as part of the Community's development aid policy for the countries of Asia and Latin America.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0257/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Intergovernmental Conference

Can the Commission list those areas where it would like to see an extension of qualified majority voting at the next Intergovernmental Conference?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2000)

As it made clear in its Opinion adopted on 26 January 2000(1), the Commission believes that, apart from cases where the Council decides by simple majority, decision-making by qualified majority should be the general rule in the Council, and insistence on unanimity the exception. In Annex 1 to the Opinion the Commission listed the provisions of the EC Treaty that might remain subject to unanimity on the grounds that serious and lasting reasons justify departing from the general rule. Annex 2 to the Opinion lists the provisions of the EC Treaty which would then be subject to qualified majority voting in the Council.

(1) Adapting the institutions to make a success of enlargement. Commission Opinion in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union on the calling of a Conference of Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to amend the Treaties COM(00) 34 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0196/00

by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Irregularities and fraud at the Joint Research Centre at Ispra

A number of alarming reports of irregularities and fraud at the Joint Research Centre at Ispra have recently appeared in the Italian press, in particular in the province of Varese. The reports claim that the Centre has misused Community funds. The JRC is said to have shown a lack of professionalism by awarding contracts on the basis of recommendations and to tenderers who fail to meet the tender requirements. The same newspapers also report that the '1998 Report on combating fraud' mentions the JRC and that the Centre is still under investigation.

What reports have been produced on the aspects of the investigation which are considered closed? Above all, what steps have been taken to deal with those responsible for fraud affecting the EU budget?

What has emerged from the on-going aspects of the investigation and what action has been or will be taken?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

The Commission would point out that the 1998 annual report Protecting the Community's financial interests and the fight against fraud, which contains only a selection of the cases investigated, does not refer to the case mentioned by the Honourable Member(1).

The case in question relates to presumed irregularities or fraud in the management of public contracts at the Joint Research Centre in Ispra, notably with regard to the provision of services. The events took place between 1994 and 1996.

Administrative inquiries carried out by the Commission concluded that irregularities had been committed in the award of contracts. A decision was taken to take disciplinary action in respect of four members of staff. The files have been sent to the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) for examination.

(1) COM(1999) 590 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: EU respect for powers and responsibilities

Please indicate in the occasions on which the European Court of Justice has found the Union to be acting ultra vires (i.e. exceeding its powers).

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 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-0207/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: WTO reform

What is the Commission doing to contribute to the essential work to be done on the root and branch reform of the WTO? Will the Commission set a deadline of one year in order to ensure that attention is given to the need to build credibility for the organisation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0207/00 and E-0342/00 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission made extensive proposals before the Seattle Ministerial Conference for more transparent procedures in the World trade organisation (WTO). Following the Seattle Ministerial Conference, the member responsable for trade outlined the Commission's views on this subject to the committee for industry, external trade, research and technology during his intervention on 25 January 2000. Whilst acknowledging that clear deficiencies of processes became visible during the Seattle Conference, the Commission nonetheless also believes that it would be counterproductive to launch a complete overhaul of the WTO at least until we have launched a new Round. Many of the problems that surfaced in Seattle were clearly attributable to differences on substance and punctual problems such as insufficient preparation of the Conference.

The Commission therefore favours a two-stage approach, in which a first step could lead to improvements in the preparation and organisation of ministerial conferences, improved participation particularly of developing countries, and increased transparency for the broader public interest.

More in-depth reforms, such as for instance the reform of structures and decision-making systems would need to be explored in a second stage (perhaps by a group of eminent people entrusted with this task by the General Affairs Council) to examine what might be feasible before launching any concrete proposals.

It should need no mention that all short term and long term reform measures will have to be discussed and agreed with the partners in the WTO.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0930/00

by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Earthquake victims in Lazio

On 11 March 2000, several municipalities in Lazio, Italy, were struck by a large earthquake. The municipalities affected are situated in an upland area with particular social and economic problems, together with a lack of transport links.

Because of the historic nature of the towns and villages in question, many buildings had not been brought into line with recent legislation on protection against earthquakes, and were therefore highly vulnerable.

The initial estimate of the visible damage subject to investigations being made by the authorities is tens of billions of lire (tens of millions of euro).

The people affected have had to find temporary accommodation in tents, containers or with relatives living far away. Generally speaking, these people are in difficult financial circumstances or are elderly, and are therefore particularly upset by the situation.

Given the above:

1. what urgent measures does the Commission intend to take in order to begin, without delay, the process of restoring the areas in question?

2. what action does it intend to take to encourage the regional and national authorities to take appropriate measures?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

The Commission is fully aware of the social and economic consequences for the Lazio municipalities struck by the earthquake on 11 March.

Although there is no longer a budget heading specifically for emergency aid in the event of natural disaster, the Commission will do all in its power to assist rebuilding in the areas concerned and to provide the necessary help to the people affected.

It is important to stress that, while the main aim of the Community's structural and cohesion policies is to help reduce economic and social disparities, the Structural Funds do not constitute emergency aid. However, their scope is such that they are able to provide significant assistance towards economic and social reconstruction in disaster regions.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), which covers the 2000-2006 programming period, provides for several instruments which can be used in future to provide assistance with rebuilding the infrastructures, capacities and means of production which are essential to the economic development of the Community's regions.

Areas which are chosen for the new Objective 2 in Italy will be able to receive Structural Fund support; disaster areas which are not selected to come under that new Objective but which were previously eligible under the old Objectives 2 and 5b will also be able to obtain appropriations by way of transitional support. Disaster areas which are not eligible will not be able to receive support under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds.

Within the framework of these rules, the Commission will examine any applications from the national and regional authorities with the utmost care.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0463/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Legal challenges to the extension of An Post's contract to issue social welfare payments in Ireland

Bearing in mind the legal challenges made by a firm of Dublin-based solicitors(1) to the extension of An Post's contract to issue social welfare payments in Ireland, and the importance of such a service to the viability of rural post offices and rural communities, would the Commission outline the current status of the legal challenges, give an approximate date when the proceedings will be concluded, and make a statement on the matter?

(1) McCann Fitzgerald Solicitors, on behalf of Transaction Network Services, Dublin.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2000)

The Commission has received a complaint pursuant to Article 86 (ex-Article 90) in conjunction with Articles 43, 49 and 82 (ex-Articles 52, 59 and 86) of the EC Treaty. The complaint is directed against the decision of the Irish Government to extend the existing contract for the delivery of payment services for social welfare payments in Ireland held by An Post, the state owned monopoly provider of postal services, for a further three year period, starting as from 1 January 2000. The complaint raises both competition aspects and internal market aspects.

The Commission has not yet taken a position on the complaint. To that end further information is required and the Commission has therefore sent recently a request for information both to the complainant and to the Irish Government.

Depending on the information provided by the parties the outcome of the case may either be a letter of formal notice to the Irish Government or a rejection of the complaint. The Commission will take action without undue delay after receipt of the requested information.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0897/00

by Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Crisis in the citrus fruit sector in southern Italy

Farmers in Sicily and southern Italy are worried about the crisis the sector has been going through. Although Sicily is in a good geographical position for the cultivation of quality oranges it is at a disadvantage because of its backward economy and its distance from European markets.

All these factors, aggravated by competition from citrus fruits from third countries produced at lower cost, are seriously threatening the survival of tens of thousands of farms, with serious social repercussions on employment and hence on the economy of a region with very high unemployment, where the major source of jobs is, precisely, agriculture.

No less important is the environmental impact and the enormous genetic resources which would be lost if this type of farming were abandoned.

In order to reassure citrus fruit producers, can the Commission say:

1. what steps it intends to take to support citrus fruit production in Sicily and southern Italy;

2. whether it intends, with regard to the COM in citrus fruit, to revise the aid system by giving preference to aid per hectare, which would be more compatible with the principles of Agenda 2000, replacing the current system of aid per product sent for processing?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

1. To solve the structural problems of Italian citrus-fruit growing, Community legislation envisages two types of measure: operational programmes run by producer organisations as provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(1), and schemes forming part of rural development as set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/99 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops(2).

2. The Commission feels that the introduction of aid per hectare is not the right way to go in the Community citrus-fruit sector. Aid of this kind does not encourage the conversion to new varieties which is necessary to keep up with trends in demand.

Furthermore, area aid is only worth considering if it applies to all land under cultivation, including areas growing fruit for the fresh-fruit market.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0577/00

by Niall Andrews (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Spring and MCI WorldCom merger

In 1998, the Commission reviewed the proposed merger between MCI and WorldCom and estimated that the combined company would control 50 % or more of the US backbone. It concluded that this concentration would have an adverse anti-competitive impact on European carriers, ISPs and Internet users. As a result, the Commission forced the divestiture of the MCI Internet backbone business.

1. Is the Commission now aware of the proposed merger between Sprint and MCI WorldCom and that it would result in the largest market capitalisation in the world and domination of the global Internet and would have a consequent anti-competitive impact throughout Europe?

2. Is it further aware that such a merger between the number one and number two US backbone providers would lead to an 80 % US market share with significant European and transatlantic capacity?

3. European IP-networks are configured in such a way that intra-European traffic is frequently routed via the United States. MCI WorldCom, with its major Internet switching facility in Washington DC handles 85 % of all intra-European Internet traffic. Sprint owns the only other switching facility on the east coast.

Together they will be in a dominant position. This will enable them to charge higher prices for carrying and switching global Internet traffic. Will the Commission carry out an urgent review of the proposed new merger between Sprint and MCI WorldCom and ensure that such a merger does not go ahead as it would have serious consequences for European wholesale (ISP) and retail customers (Internet users)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the Commission is carefully assessing the merger between MCI WorldCom and Sprint. The Commission decided on 21 February 2000 to enter into a four months full investigation of the impact the merger may have on competition in the common market.

The Commission already in 1998 examined the effects of the merger between MCI and WorldCom on the market for the provision of Internet connectivity. The Commission's investigation in the current transaction is also this time first and foremost focusing on the market for the provision of top level connectivity services in the Internet (i.e. those networks to which anybody must directly or indirectly have access in order to get universal reach on the Internet). In addition, the Commission is investigating the market for the provision of global telecommunications services to multinational corporations and the market for termination into the United States of international calls originated in the Community.

If the Commission's investigation concludes that the merger will lead to a creation or a strengthening of a dominant position in any of these markets, the parties have the possibility to propose remedies to eliminate these concerns.

The final decision on this transaction is expected by early July 2000.