ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2347/99

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco

Why has the Commission not required Morocco to pay the specific customs duty, as it should do since the prices of that country's exports have been below the entry price established in the Association Agreement and Article 2 of Protocol No 3 to the Agreement should therefore apply?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2344/99, E-2345/99, E-2346/99, E-2347/99, E-2348/99 and P-2483/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission is closely monitoring developments in fresh tomato imports from Morocco.

Having noted that the quantities agreed on for the 1998/1999 marketing year were being exceeded, the Commission drew the Moroccan authorities' attention to the importance of respecting those quantities if the Community market was to remain in equilibrium.

During the current marketing year, developments in imports in October 1999 prompted the Commission to request urgent talks with the Moroccan authorities. Those talks were held in Rabat on 22 December 1999 but did not lead to a solution guaranteeing that the granted quota would not be exceeded. Accordingly, and without prejudice to future talks, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 2767/1999, introduced an import licence system, in accordance with the exchange of letters between the Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on 22 December 1994.

The Commission would remind the Member States that they are responsible for the correct application of the rules in force concerning imports, including the setting of customs duties due.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2776/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Funding of a training school for tourist couriers

There is no school in Greece for training couriers for the tourist industry and the knowledge which those currently working as couriers possess is gained from their experience and in-house courses.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Will it say whether it could provide joint funding to set up a post-secondary school to train couriers for the tourist industry?

2. For which in-house courses for training couriers in Greece did the Union provide funding from 1996 to 1999 and what were the sums involved?

3. How many people received training on those courses?

4. In view of the allegations that some of those who attended these courses were subsequently unable to work as couriers because it is prohibited to do so by their current profession, e.g. civil servants, can the Commission confirm that such people did not take part in the courses run between 1996 and 1999?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

To date, the Commission has not received a request for co-financing for the construction of a school for tourist couriers under the Community Support Framework for Greece for the 1994-1999 programming period. It should also be pointed out that it is the responsibility of the Member State to choose and propose projects for co-financing.

Under the operational programme for Tourism and Culture of the 2nd Community support framework (CSF) for Greece, the European social fund (ESF) provided co-financing for the training of approximately 5 500 people in 480 training courses at a total cost of 7,2 million.

The training courses organised by certified training centres covered a number of subjects on the management and operation of tourist facilities in recreational, sports and cultural activities.

According to information provided by the Greek authorities, the target groups for these courses were the unemployed and those already employed in the tourist sector but threatened with unemployment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2485/99

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Aid in connection with the permanent link across the Øresund Strait

In connection with the opening of the permanent link across the Øresund Strait, will the Commission say whether the Danish and/or Swedish authorities have notified it of any government aid granted to their respective rail administrations designed to reduce the price of train fares to the level of the current bridge toll, i.e. a form of operational aid?

Will the Commission also say whether, in its view, national aid to cover a bridge toll for national rail authorities distorts competition for shipping lines carrying passengers across the Øresund Strait? Does the Commission believe that the above arrangements are consistent with the Treaty's provisions on the granting of government aid?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2000)

On 30 September 1998 the Danish authorities notified to the Commission a state aid scheme concerning an environmental subsidy for the transport of goods by rail. The legal basis of the scheme is Danish Law 289 of 18 May 1998 laying down a legal framework for railway operations in Denmark and contains inter alia provisions on payment of infrastructure charges for the use of the railway infrastructure and on the provision of subsidies to railway undertakings for environmental reasons.

On 21 April 1999 the Commission found the notified aid scheme to be compatible with the common market. In its decision the Commission took into account that the subsidy is significantly smaller than the estimated unpaid external costs of road transport, that the aid scheme is open to any undertaking transporting goods by rail and that it excludes transit traffic to safeguard the interests of maritime transport, another environmentally friendly transport mode.

Any national measure relieving transport companies from charges in any form whatsoever can in principle distort competition between transport modes and may fall under the state aid rules of the EC Treaty in so far as it affects trade between Member States. More specifically, state support in favour of railways may distort competition with ships or vice versa, when such support is granted on a market segment (on a route) where rail and shipping are competing with each other.

In order to be able to evaluate the compatibility of such subsidy with the EC Treaty, the Commission must be duly notified of such measures in accordance with Article 88(3) (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty. It is however not possible to provide an appropriate answer to this point without previous provision of all the information necessary for such an assessment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2705/99

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Fisheries Reallocation of FIFG

If a Member State does not use its entire allocation of FIFG funds, can the Commission confirm whether than Member State has the discretion to reallocate the funds under a different programme in sectors other than fisheries? If so, can the Commission provide examples of where this practice has been followed?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2705/99 and E-2706/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

A Member State can, within the framework of the regulations on the structural funds, re-allocate Community finance from one programme to another or between funds in a Member State. It can also return the allocation in part or in whole to the Commission for re-distribution to another Member State or for other purposes as appropriate. One or more of these options has been exercised by many Member States.

The total allocation to the Financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) in the United Kingdom for fisheries for the period 1994-1999 was 128,14 million. In 1999 this amount was reduced by 25,25 million at the request of the British authorities due mainly to a reduced financial requirement for a measure to decommission fishing vessels. The amount returned by the United Kingdom was not reallocated to another Member State but was used to help balance the Community budget for 1999.

The 1998 and 1999 FIFG allocations for the whole of the United Kingdom (all objective 1 and 5a programmes) totalled 14,5 million and 41,2 million respectively. All of these FIFG allocations have been committed.

It is important to note that financial amounts allocated to measures in a programme are indicative only and it is normal for changes to be made from time to time as circumstances dictate.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2439/99

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Protection of European companies in Kosovo

In reply to my oral question H-0608/99 of 16 November 1999(1) to the Commission concerning protection of the interests of European Union companies in Kosovo, Commissioner Patten indicated that he had no information concerning pressure being brought to bear or threats being made against European companies in Kosovo. To fill the gaps in his information concerning the subject, I personally gave him a copy of correspondence between the Mytilinaios company and Mr Kouchner and Mr Dixon. I also asked him to investigate the current situation regarding the functioning of telecommunications in Kosovo in order to obtain a full picture.

Effective communications between the European Parliament and the Commission will help to protect the interests of the EU wherever they may be under threat. The sovereign rights of European companies are currently what is at stake in Kosovo. The Greek Telecommunications Organisation (OTE) and the Italian STET International, which have respectively a 20 % and 29 % holding in Srbija Telekom, are suffering losses as a result of non-payment of fees to Srbija Telekom for use of telecommunications services in Kosovo, while, at the same time, the UCK and its covert supporters are insisting on the restoration by the two companies of the damaged network and its subsequent nationalisation by Albania, in violation of international agreements. However the most serious breach of the law occurred recently when a special committee made up of UN representatives and Kosovar Albanians quite illegally transferred mobile telephony rights to the French company Alcatel. These rights are the exclusive property of the OTE and STET International, in accordance with international agreements currently in force, which state that Kosovo is part of the key area in which these two companies are entitled to operate and export their profits.

What action will the Commission take to protect the legitimate rights of European companies in Kosovo which at this moment are under threat by illegal networks in which even UN officials are starting to be involved, contrary to their instructions regarding observance of the law in this area?

(1) Verbatim report of proceedings of 16.11.1999, p. 60.

Supplementary answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for again drawing its attention to the question of the legal protection of European companies in Kosovo and for having forwarded extra documentation on this sensitive subject.

The protection of legal rights of companies in Kosovo is a question falling under the direct competence of the United Nations interim administration mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) according to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999). The complete file concerning the issue is in the possession of UNMIK, which is the only entity in a position to make valid proposals for the requested action.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2865/99

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Structure of the Spanish electricity market and costs of the transition to competition

According to reports in the Spanish press (see Expansión, 7 December 1999), after 22 months of a competitive regime the Spanish electricity companies still have a 98 % share of the market. As the National Commission for the Electricity System has stressed in its reports, competition in the sector in Spain is extremely limited, thanks to the existence of entry barriers (high levels of investment are required) and the fact of Spain's quasi-insular status. In view of this, the costs of the transition to competition may have a double effect: firstly, that of creating yet further obstacles to the entry of new operators who would be at a disadvantage since they would receive nothing under that heading and, secondly, that of producing the paradoxical circumstance of payments being received for the transition to a non-existent competition.

Does the Commission consider that the existing structure of the Spanish electricity market, as described in the press, has repercussions on the determination of the costs of the transition to competition?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Whilst the measures taken by the Spanish Government implementing the Parliament and the Council Directive No 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity(1) are widely viewed as likely to lead to the progressive development of effective competition, it is correct that the market presently remains characterised by a limited number of companies holding high collective market shares, and insufficient interconnector capacity.

It is clear that over time this situation will evolve, partly due to the actions presently under examination by the Commission and the appropriate Spanish authorities with respect to interconnector capacity, and partly through market entry by new generators.

Furthermore, practical and beneficial effects can already be seen from liberalisation. Electricity prices have already decreased significantly as indicated in the table sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. In addition, a number of new plants will be constructed in the coming years.

Clearly all these issues are relevant in any consideration by the Commission of a transitional regime, as by definition any state aid examination must take fully into account all relevant legal and factual circumstance.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2813/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Administration of calls for tenders in connection with common agricultural policy funding

In order to allocate funding in the context of the common agricultural policy, in particular under budget heading B2-5122, the Commission issued a call for tenders for the financing of projects submitted by operators in the sector.

The deadline for submitting projects was 15 November 1999.

Among the entities taking part in the procedure was the forestry consortium Terra dei Santi e Colline del Po, which requested a subsidy for the creation of a centre for agriculture and the sustainable development of the hill area concerned.

All the documentation regarding the project was submitted on 13 November 1999 to Unit VI.AII.1 of the Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture, at 200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 Brussels.

However, the Commission rejected the project, explaining that the final deadline had been brought forward from 15 November to 31 October 1999, and that the project had therefore been submitted after expiry of the deadline.

Can the Commission say whether it considers it right to decide to bring forward an established deadline to the detriment of participants, making it impossible for them to have access to funding?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

The intention behind budget heading B2-5122 was to enhance public awareness of the common agricultural policy. No call for tenders or proposals was made but a guide for potential applicants was published on the Directorate-General for Agriculture's internet site.

The guide initially stated that applications could be sent to the Commission up to 15 November 1999. That date was changed to 31 October 1999 to give the Commission more time to process applications before closure of the budgetary procedures in 1999. The change was notified using the same information medium as the guide, i.e. the internet.

The application by the Consorzio Forestale Terra dei Santi e Colline del Po arrived on 13 November but was in fact carefully examined and found to be ineligible under heading B2-5122.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2840/99

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

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Total number of applications relating to climate change research received in the first round of Calls for Proposals

What is the total number of applications received in the first round of Calls for Proposals under the Fifth Framework Programme which were considered relevant to sub-sections of the Fifth Framework Programme relating to understanding climate change? How many of these were selected for funding, and how many applications considered either good or excellent in terms of their science and technology have not bee funded or selected for negotiations on the award of a research contract?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The total number of proposals in the first round of calls for proposals of the Fifth framework programme relevant to understanding climate change were approximately 85 out of which 35 were evaluated as eligible for funding. Unfortunately, due to the available budget only 15 could be funded.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2183/99

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Committees and working parties in the field of law

Will the Commission say what committees, working parties etc. have been set up in the field of law in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The Commission understands, following a contact with the Honourable Member, that this question concerns justice and home affairs committees and working parties.

The existing programmes in the fields of justice and home affairs (OISIN(1), Falcone(2), STOP(3), Grotius(4) and Odysseus(5)) are implemented through committees managed by the Commission. These committees have their legal basis in the joint actions adopted by the Council which established the programmes themselves. Their aim is to assist the Commission in carrying out the measures provided for in the joint actions. They consist of one representative from each Member State and are chaired by the Commission.

So far as the Honourable Member's question concerns committees and working parties set up by and assisting the Council, these are not within the competence of the Commission, and the Honourable Member is invited to address his question to the Council.

(1) OJ L 7, 10.1.1997.

(2) OJ L 99, 31.3.1998.

(3) OJ L 322, 12.12.1996.

(4) OJ L 287, 8.11.1996.

(5) OJ L 99, 31.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0130/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Administration of OLAF

Will the Commission ensure that officials do not make public pronouncements on guilt when a national prosecuting authority has decided to drop its inquiries into a case begun at the prompting of UCLAF/OLAF?

Will the Commission ensure that funding for approved projects may not be withheld simply because the Commission believes it has outstanding claims against other projects when no legal proceedings have begun to enforce its claim?

These questions relate to the Commission's behaviour in the case against the Nordvestjysk Folkecenter for Vedvarende Energi (North-West Jutland Renewable Energy Centre), which was publicly branded a fraud by a Commission official although the fraud squad in Denmark had concluded that there is no evidence for the accusations.

The Commission has also blocked payments of a subsidy to a group of recipients, among which the Centre is only one party, and is thus punishing undertakings having absolutely no involvement in this case.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 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 P-0143/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Town planning in an area with high seismic activity

In the Commission's reply to my question No E-1882/99(1) concerning town planning in the Community of Rio, it indicated that the Rio town planning survey was not receiving cofunding under the Community support framework for Greece for the period 1994-1999. However, the Ministry of the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works categorically stated in its report (of 5 November 1997, No 32533/10402) that the studies in question were being funded under the second Community support framework running until the end of 1999. In view of this, can the Commission re-examine the question and give a definitive reply?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Town planning surveys are included in the projects that can be part-financed under the Environment Operational Programme (EPPER II in Greek) of the 1994-99 Greek Community support framework. Given their number, however, the mode of financing (Community or national) is decided by the Greek authorities using specific criteria.

The Commission can confirm that the town planning survey for Rio was not, according to its information, part-financed under the OP but from national funds.

The Greek authorities probably intended, when publishing the report dated 5 November 1997 to which the Honourable Member refers, to propose this survey for part-financing under EPPER II but subsequently did not do so.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0133/00

by Frank Vanhecke (TDI) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Commission support for staging political events

On 9 December 1999, a debate was held in the European Parliament between MEPs Dirk Sterckx and Frédérique Ries on The press: Europe's lukewarm lover. Both speakers are members of the Liberal Group

According to the poster advertising the debate, the evening was supported by the Belgian Foreign Affairs Ministry, the EP's Belgian Office and the European Commission.

1. What did that support consist of?

2. What criteria must political organisations comply with to qualify for such support?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

1. The event to which the Honourable Member refers did not receive financial support from the Commission. It was organised by the Parliament's Belgian Office and the Movement Européen Belgique asbl, which receives support from the Commission to organise public debates.

2. The Commission does not finance political parties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0067/00

by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Latin America and budget headings

Could the Commission provide information concerning the rate of implementation of the budget headings intended to support the development of the various Latin American countries during 1988 and 1999?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2000)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0283/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 February 2000)

Subject: CITES Listing of basking sharks

The UK Government has proposed that the basking shark should be listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

1. Will the Commission list other Member States which have indicated to date that they also support the listing of the basking shark?

2. Will the Commission indicate whether it intends to support such a listing at the next Conference of the Parties in April 2000?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

There are good scientific arguments for supporting the proposal to list the basking shark in Appendix II of Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES). However, the Commission itself has yet to adopt a formal position on this point.

Member States will indicate their views in the Council, which will in due course determine the Community's common position on the basis of a proposal from the Commission for the CITES conference of the parties.