ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0844/00

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Exports of tomatoes from the Kingdom of Morocco

Because tomato exports from Morocco to the Community exceeded the total quantities allowed by 190 % in October 1999 and 37 % in November 1999 (something which the leading Spanish agricultural organisations had already been pointing out for months) a system of import certificates had to be introduced, as set out in the Regulation of 23 December 1999.

When Commissioner Fischler met Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 25 January this year and answered questions from various Spanish Members on the withdrawal of the Regulation, he said that this was due to the fact that the Kingdom of Morocco had offered precise guarantees ensuring that total exports of tomatoes would not exceed the agreed quantities.

Could the Commission say exactly what new and tangible guarantees the Kingdom of Morocco has offered to prevent what it has so far not managed to prevent, i.e. exports exceeding the agreed quantities?

What steps will the Commission adopt to prevent larger quantities than those agreed from entering Community?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

The introduction of a licence system for imports of tomatoes originating in Morocco (Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2767/1999 of 23 December 1999(1)) led not only to representations from the Moroccan authorities but to complaints from importers and other commercial operators in the Community.

The Moroccan authorities asked the Commission for consultations to clarify the situation regarding the overruns of the agreed Community import volumes. Morocco agreed to respect for the marketing year in course the quantities agreed between herself and the Community, i.e. 145 676 tonnes for the period November 1999 to March 2000.

The Commission also called for regular and rapid notification of import volumes. Member States are notifying it each week of the quantities of Moroccan tomatoes imported onto their markets in the previous week.

Under these circumstances the Commission was able to discontinue the licence requirement and so revert to the normal administrative arrangement indicated in the agreement.

(1) OJ L 333, 24.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0562/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Legislation and the manufacturing industry

How many regulations has the EU produced which affect the manufacturing industry in each of the last five years? How many equivalent regulations have been produced by each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2000)

The wide spectrum of the Community's fields of activities makes it difficult to identify all pieces of Community legislation which may have an indirect impact on manufacturing industry. However, for legislation directly applicable to industry, the Honourable Member will find below the required statistics on legal acts adopted during the course of the last five years. These cover, on the one hand, the number of legal acts adopted by the Community (387 in total) and, on the other hand, the number of the corresponding technical regulations notified to the Commission within the framework of Directives 83/189/EEC and 98/34/EC (3 057 in total).

Although one would expect to see a certain disparity between the two sets of figures, because of the nature of the legal instruments used by the Community (regulations or directives), and the timing of their transposition into national law, the Honourable Member will notice the relatively large divergence between these statistics.

This issue was examined by the Commission, with concern, in its 1995 report on National Regulations applicable to Internal Market products(1). In substance, the report confirmed the widespread perception that Member States frequently add (gold-plate) to Community rules in their transposition measures, by failing to opt for the simplest of a range of options or by requiring complicated procedures to achieve requirements set out in directives. This not only increases the limited number of Community rules but also imposes unnecessary burdens on business while contributing, unfairly, to the perception of the Community as a source of red tape.

The Commission is currently updating the above report and is, of course, ready to be of further assistance to the Honourable Member, should he be interested to obtain more precise information on the subject.

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

(1) 28 February 1995-III/2185-EN/final-Experience acquired in the framework of Directive 83/189/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0387/00

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

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Seizure of Galician boats by Irish naval vessels

There have been various incidents in recent days in which Galician boats fishing in the Sole area have been seized by vessels belonging to the Irish navy, on the grounds that the Galician boats had committed technical irregularities. The boats were released following payment of a symbolic fine, but the halting of fishing activity during the seizures caused serious economic damage.

Is the Commission aware of these incidents, which have been recurring constantly, and is it aware of the pressure under which the Galician fleet is operating? Does it consider such behaviour on the part of the Irish authorities to be appropriate?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The Commission was not aware of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to provide precise details so that it can carry out the investigations required.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1508/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Establishment of Limited Companies in Austria

Does not the Commission believe that the financial and bureaucratic rules governing the establishment of limited companies discriminate against non-Austrians trying to do business in Austria? Will the Commission make representations to the Austrian Government seeking the abolition of these barriers to free trade?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

The Commission is not currently aware of the precise financial and bureaucratic rules in Austria, mentioned by the Honourable Member, which it is claimed discriminate against non-Austrians trying to do business in Austria.

Consequently, for the time being, there are no grounds for making representations to the Austrian Government.

However, if the Honourable Member is in a position to provide further details of his concerns, the Commission will re-examine the issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0753/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Regional funding for southeast Ireland.



Official Journal 046 E , 13/02/2001 P. 0038 - 0038



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0753/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission (13 March 2000) Subject: Regional funding for southeast Ireland Being in mind that the southeast region of Ireland has been classified as an Objective 1 in transition area, would the Commission pay special attention to the region while negotiating the dispersal of the various funding programmes in the light of recent figures published(1) by the Central Statistics Office of Ireland and which show that the region is not benefiting from the growth in the Irish economy as much as many other areas in Ireland hitherto classified as more needy? (1) Published on 21 February 2000. Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (11 May 2000) The classification of the Southern and Eastern region of Ireland as an Objective 1 region in transition provides scope for more balanced economic growth across the region. A dedicated operational programme (the Southern and Eastern operational programme) with planned expenditure of almost 4 000 million will complement expenditure through the inter-regional operational programmes in the region of 31 000 million. Sub-regions found to be lagging behind in terms of infrastructure and industry or services will be targeted with differentiated assistance according to need with a view to eliminating imbalances within the region as a whole.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0953/00

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

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Supply of tuna loins to the European fish-canning industry

At the Fisheries Council meeting of 30 March 1999 the Commission undertook to initiate a study reviewing the supply of tuna loins to the Community market, which was published at the beginning of this year under the title Tuna Loins Supply and Demand Study Evaluation of the Supply of Tuna Loins to the Community Market in the Short and Medium Term. The study concluded that in order to help the Italian industry carry out its restructuring without prejudicing the other European Union countries, a quota of between 1 000 and 2 000 tonnes could be opened for third countries.

How could the Commission therefore propose, on 21 February 4000 tonnes at a customs duty of 6 % for the year 2000, if, as stated in the study, this will jeopardise the vast majority of fish-canning industries in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the study carried out by the Commission on supply of tuna loins to the Community market.

As mentioned in the reply to his Written Questions E-0756/00 to E-0761/00(1), the Commission considers this study to show a limited deficit of a seasonal nature for this product.

Its proposal for the year 2000 was certainly for a higher quantity than advocated by the study, but at 6 % duty whereas the study advocated nil.

That quantity and duty level are moreover in line with the political agreement signed by the Council and the Commission on 17 December 1999.

The Council confirmed this line of action by unanimously adopting the Commission's proposal.

(1) See page 104.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0994/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Procedures for implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)

The recent adoption by the European Parliament of the Swoboda Report(1) on the negotiation of a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia establishes a suitable framework guaranteeing the security and development of the country so as to allow FYROM gradually to come into the European fold.

Will the Commission say what steps it intends to take next to implement in the near future all the measures announced and promised in the Swoboda report for FYROM?

(1) Verbatim Report of Proceedings of 17 February 2000, p. 81.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2000)

The Commission has taken the necessary measures to ensure that Mr Swoboda's report on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is swiftly followed up.

Firstly, negotiations were quickly started. Following the adoption of the negotiating directives by the Council (General Affairs) on 24 January 2000, the Commission organised the first session of formal negotiations (attended by delegations from the Member States) on 5 April 2000 in Brussels. A second session should take place by the end of June. At the same time, technical work meetings between the Commission and the relevant FYROM ministries are being held. In line with Parliament's recommendation, the text drafted by the Commission contains a series of measures on regional cooperation. The Stabilisation and Association Agreement with FYROM will contain a future developments clause which will reflect the EU's position on integrating the countries of the Western Balkans into its structures, as stated at the Cologne and Lisbon European Councils.

Furthermore, Community technical assistance to FYROM will also take into account the priorities set out in the context of the stabilisation and association process, for example the approximation of legislation and cooperation on justice and home affairs. Community technical assistance programming for the 2000 budget year already incorporates these new priorities, which will also be reflected in the new programme to succeed Phare in the western Balkans. In addition, FYROM benefits greatly from the European initiative on democracy and human rights (Chapter B7-70) which includes several projects concerning FYROM, notably on the development of civil society, the media, and enhancing the rights of national minorities.

Lastly, in line with Parliament's request, the Commission upgraded its representation in Skopje to the status of a delegation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1663/00

by Jas Gawronski (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Information campaign on enlargement of the Union

Many official statements by Members of the Commission indicate that one of the most serious threats to enlargement of the Union comes from public opinion in the Member States and candidate countries concerning this change.

If the fear of enlargement is so great, why has the Commission decided to allocate only 150 million to an information campaign for 28 countries over seven years ( 765 306 a year per country)?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The Commission is aware that information is crucial to the success of the enlargement process. However, it has no desire to usurp the role of the Member States and candidate countries in informing domestic public opinion. The Commission intends to act as a complementary catalyst, creating synergies on the ground. The Commission's strategy is to supply information to target groups which can have a multiplier effect.

The total amount provided for, to which the honourable member refers, is an estimate, which the Commission considers sufficient at this stage. The amount is comparable to that spent on similar campaigns, previous and current, such as the campaign in favour of the Euro.

Moreover, because these are decentralised campaigns in the candidate countries, the financial resources take into account the availability of appropriations allocated by the budgetary authority in the Expenditure on administrative management part of the relevant budget lines. For expenditure in the Member States and in Brussels, the appropriations available are limited by allocations to specific budget lines, such as the line for the Prince public information programme, approved by the budgetary authority.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0747/00

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

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Jobs reliant on EU membership

The British government has stated that 3 445 000 jobs depend solely on exports to the EU. Is this comparable with Commission estimates?

Has the Commission made any assessment of how many UK jobs would be at risk if Britain failed to integrate further into the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Commission has not made an estimate of how many jobs in Britain depend solely on exports to the Community. It would not therefore dissent from the estimate of the British government.

The Commission has not made any assessment of how many British jobs would be at risk if Britain failed to integrate further into the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0705/00

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Amendments to the Netherlands Exceptional Medical Expenses Act

In the Netherlands, everybody is covered by the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ). Since 1 January 2000, Netherlands nationals living abroad who are not insured with a health insurance fund have no longer been covered by the AWBZ. However, Netherlands nationals residing in Belgium cannot subscribe to a health insurance fund because Belgian social legislation regards this as incompatible with the Dutch AWBZ facilities.

This is very much a Catch 22 situation: Netherlands nationals residing in Belgium must subscribe to a health insurance fund in order to be entitled to AWBZ facilities, but Belgian health insurance funds refuse to accept them as members because they are entitled to AWBZ facilities.

1. Does the decision by the Netherlands Government to exclude Netherlands nationals who reside abroad and are not insured with a health insurance fund from AWBZ facilities as of 1 January 2000 violate European law, inter alia the freedom of citizens and patients to settle in other EU Member States (ECJ, 28 April 1998, no. C-158/96)? (a) If so, what will the Council do to remedy this situation? (b) If not, does not the Netherlands Government's measure detract from European law, inter alia the freedom of citizens and patients to settle in other EU Member States (ECJ, 28 April 1998, No C-158/96)?

2. Does the decision by the Netherlands Government violate the principle of trust, since the persons concerned have moved abroad in good faith in the knowledge that they will continue to enjoy full cover for medical expenses under the AWBZ? If not, does not the Council consider that the Netherlands' measure detracts from the principle of trust?

Reply

(2 May 2000)

The matter raised by the Honourable Member does not fall within the Council's powers. In accordance with the Treaty, it is for the Commission to ensure that Community law is applied and, where appropriate, to submit to the Council, or jointly to the European Parliament and to the Council, legislative proposals on matters within the Community's sphere of competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0778/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Less Developed Countries in the WTO

The Commission has recently announced a package of trade concessions to the Less Developed Countries in the WTO. This package consists of tariff-free access to essentially all products from LDCs.

In a separate question I have asked the Commission to specify exactly which products are not covered by these concessions.

Could the Commission also specify the value of trade in those products not covered by the package, for both the LDCs in question and the EU (by Member State).

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0772/00 and E-0778/00 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the Community initiative granting free access to industrialised countries' markets for essentially all products from the least developed countries (LDCs), and greater access to developing countries' markets. His question follows on from Oral Question H-206/00 made by Mr Howitt at Parliament's plenary part-session in March(1).

The mandate given to the Commission in 1997 and confirmed in 1999 covers essentially all products exported by the LDCs. At present 99 % of LDC exports enter the Community market freely. All non-agricultural LDC exports have free access to the Community. An initial measure in December 1998 introduced arrangements equivalent to the Lomé Convention for all LDCs(2). The Commission is drawing up additional proposals which will be put before the Council when they are ready. Only then can a quantitative evaluation be made.

These proposals will concern additional unilateral concessions for agricultural exports from the LDCs to the Community market. It should be noted that under the current mandate which covers virtually all or essentially all agricultural exports the LDCs will have greater quota and tariff free access for agricultural products.

The few agricultural products which will not be fully liberalised under the Commission proposal to the Council will be covered by preferential access arrangements.

As the Member of the Commission responsible for trade told Parliament in March, other developed partners do not provide anything like the same access, although their markets are much more attractive to LDCs primarily because the rate of penetration of their products on these markets is extremely small.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (March 2000).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 of 21 December 1998, OJ L 357, 30.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1077/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Terms and conditions to which several Italian credit institutions subject their current account-holders

Italian banks normally pay an annual interest rate of between 0,05 % and 1 % to their current account-holders, whilst demanding figures of around, or even above, 10-12 % when granting loans (credit lines).

Is this compatible with Community legislation?

Will the Commission take action to prevent the absurd and short-sighted attitude of most Italian credit institutions, which unjustly appropriate substantial amounts from private individuals, businesses and public and private bodies?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

Community legislation does not contain provisions aimed at regulating the interest that credit institutions apply to their customers concerning their bank accounts or loans. The level of such interest should be left to market forces.

The treaties do not provide any basis to propose legislative measures on the matters raised by the Honourable Member and do not give the Commission any powers of direct intervention in this area.

Therefore, the Commission, the national central banks and the European central bank cannot regulate directly the level of prices that credit institutions charge for their services, nor the remuneration capital. These aspects are to be established by each credit institution on the basis of its commercial strategy and according to the principles of a free market.

Consequently, the Commission does not foresee any initiatives aimed at regulating the practices of the Community credit institutions toward their customers.