ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2142/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: 1 % GMO limit

Will the Commission indicate what tests will be used to check compliance with the limit referred to above?

Does the Commission agree that it will be difficult for the EU to defend itself before the WTO if such a test is not available?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2000)

The development and validation of detection methods for genetically modified organisms (GMO) and GMO-derived products has been recognised by the Commission as an important element for the implementation of Community legislation in Member States ensuring the safe use and appropriate labelling of these products.

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the Commission has been co-ordinating the development and validation of DNA- and protein-based detection methods for genetically modified foods in the past and will continue to do so. In this context, the JRC has initiated the establishment of a network of authorities and laboratories from the Member States. The main objective is to provide control laboratories with appropriate reference samples and with validated test protocols to improve the existing protocols and to promote harmonisation in the development of test methods and in the interpretation of the data generated by them. Contacts are also maintained with third countries.

A workshop with the authorities of Member States dealing with novel foods on methods for the detection of GMO-derived foodstuffs was organised by the Commission in November 1999 and the minutes are published(1).

In addition, research on the development and validation of appropriate detection methods for GMOs and GMO-derived products are financed under the 5th framework programme for Research and technological development.

Regulation (EC) No 49/2000 of 10 January 2000 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC(2) introducing a 1 % de minimis threshold, recognises that adventitious contamination of foodstuff with DNA or protein resulting from genetic modification cannot be excluded. The Regulation provides for the derogation to the obligation, laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 to label all products derived from two varieties of genetically modified organisms (maize and soya). It is difficult to see how a relaxation of labelling requirements could constitute a barrier to trade, or why it would be challenged under WTO.

The Community regulations on labelling of novel foods have been notified under the technical barriers to trade (TBT) Agreement. Both foreign and domestic operators on the market need to comply with Community labelling requirements. Therefore, the Community labelling practice is not discriminatory in nature.

(1) EUR 19049 EN.

(2) OJ L 6, 11.1.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3129/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Ritual slaughter at Eid-el-Kabir festival

For several years, animal protection societies have produced reports and films showing widespread breaches during the annual Eid-el-Kabir festival in France of Council Directive 93/119/EC(1) on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. The Directive is regularly broken in two separate ways. Firstly, many sheep are ritually slaughtered outdoors; outdoor ritual slaughter is prohibited by the Directive. Secondly, many of the animals are roughly, even brutally, treated while being carried or dragged to the slaughter point, while awaiting slaughter and during the act of slaughter itself, which is often carried out by untrained personnel who in many cases hack and saw at the animals' throats often with blunt or unduly small knives. Despite French claims to have reduced the problem at this year's festival, a huge number of sheep were slaughtered in breach of the Directive at the festival in March 2000.

What steps is the Commission taking to require the French competent authorities to prevent breaches of Council Directive 93/119/EC at the Eid-el-Kabir festival in 2001?

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

The Commission is informed about the treatment of the animals during this event. The inadequate slaughterhouse capacities in certain urban areas of France appear to be one of the reasons for the observations made by animal protection organizations with regard to the treatment of animals during the festival.

Treatment of animals which causes suffering during restraint and slaughter is not acceptable. The Commission considers that the French authorities must find a practical solution for the problem concerning slaughterhouse capacity.

Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Community legislation concerning the slaughter and killing of animals in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993, on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.

The Commission has been in contact with the French authorities concerning the need to improve the arrangements. On this occasion, reassurances were received prior to the festival that French authorities were taking a wide range of measures including close contacts with the different Islamic cultural groups to involve them more widely in discussions on this issue in order to improve the situation with the view to achieve better animal welfare and hygiene conditions.

The French authorities have sent a formal report on the event as requested by the Commission. The Commission is studying this report. In the light of the information provided by this report as well as from other sources, further initiatives might be considered including if necessary the opening of infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2870/00

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

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Spanish airport model

The Minister of Public Works of the Spanish central government stated last month that his governments intends to define a Spanish airport model. In view of the risk of such a definition favouring a model aimed at blocking Europeanisation and furthering a centralised airport policy for Spain that would run counter to the EU's moves towards decentralisation and the single European sky, and given further that Cohesion Fund monies could be used to implement such a policy, can the Commission state what role it intends to play in the definition of this Spanish airport model?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Decisions on airports development policy fall under the responsibility of the national authorities. The Commission and the Community have no role to play at this level of the decision process.

Should the Spanish authorities request Community support for an airport project, the Commission would have to assess this application on the basis of the relevant requirements and procedures for the use of Community funds. In relation to the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) these rules are laid down in Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European network(1) and in Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 laying down the general rules for the granting of aid in the field of trans European networks(2).

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(2) OJ L 228, 23.9.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2907/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Homogenised milk

It has been reported that homogenised milk can lead to increased sensitivity to milk in children and that it aggravates arthritis.

Potentially more serious, homogenisation appears to increase the dangers posed by the chemical xanthine oxidase (which is directly attributable as a cause of heart disease).

Since homogenisation seems to be carried out for cosmetic as opposed to hygiene reasons, does the Commission take the view that it should seek to limit interference with milk production in the form of homogenisation? If not, what action does it propose to take, perhaps in the form of new labelling requirements?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any established scientific proof that the reported effects (increased sensitivity in children, aggravation of arthritis, and heart disease) could be linked particularly to the homogenisation of milk.

The research programme on the relation between food, health and nutrition deals, among other things, with different aspects of allergy. It may be that these projects will provide more accurate information on the relation between milk and allergy in the future.

If evidence is provided in the future that the process of homogenisation poses a threat to public health, the Commission will examine what course of action should be followed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2656/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Bullfighting

Will the Commission please confirm or deny reports that a new 5 000-seat arena to accommodate the barbaric activity of bullfighting is to be built in the Azores, with reported financial support from the European Union?

Will the Commission also comment on the Portuguese Parliament's decision on 1 June to introduce a new law that will effectively legalise lethal bullfights, for the first time in 70 years, because organisers and participants are likely to have no difficulty in paying whatever fines are levied, from the event revenues?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2000)

According to the information that the Commission has obtained from the national authorities, no Community financial support has been provided for the construction or upgrading of an arena in the Azores.

As far as the Commission knows, the new law adopted by the Portuguese Parliament does not legalise the death of bulls in bull-fights and continues to levy fines on those who perform such acts or organise shows of this kind.

The Commission's responsibilities towards animal protection have increased under the recent amendment of the EC Treaty(1), which includes a protocol requiring the European institutions and Member States to pay full regard to animal welfare when drawing up agriculture, transport, single market and research policies. In doing so, however, Community institutions and the Member States are required to respect the legislative and administrative provisions and customs of Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.

Bullfighting is an example where the Community is not considered to have legal competence. This domain is therefore under the responsibility of Member States.

(1) Protocol on protection and welfare of animals, (OJ C 340, 10.11.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2366/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Economic viability of Spata airport

According to Greek press reports, the Vice-President of the European Investment Bank which is co-funding the construction of Spata airport has expressed his concern about the economic viability of the project in letters to the management of Athens International Airport.

1. Will the Commission say if it is aware of the content of these letters?

2. What are the grounds for the concerns expressed by the Vice-President of the EIB?

3. What view does it take of this matter?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

On the basis of information given by the European Investment Bank (EIB), there was an exchange of letters in February 1999 between Mr Gennimatas, former EIB Vice president and Dr Jorg Schill, then Chief executive officer of Athens international airport. This exchange mentioned routine aspects concerning the airport's construction and operation. At the time, the key issue on which most parties focused was construction, and operational and business planning was at a relatively early stage.

The EIB considers that since that time, as is to be expected considering the project's good physical progress, the emphasis has moved increasingly towards the operational and business aspects. In July 2000, an EIB monitoring mission confirmed that, overall, the project implementation status was fully satisfactory, and that it should be operational on time and on budget.

The Commission shares the view expressed that the implementation status of the Spata airport project is today fully satisfactory, and that the project should be operational on time and on budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Accident involving a UN jet in Kosovo

On 12 November 1999 an ATR jet rented by the United Nations World Food Programme crashed into Mount Picelli, killing the three crew members together with 21 volunteers from Rome who had come to Kosovo to help a country torn by hatred and misery. According to reports in the European press, the officer in charge of the control tower was a British soldier who did not have sufficient training to carry out the duties entrusted to him, having only followed a five-hour course.

1. What steps will the Council take to assist the inquiries being conducted by the Italian authorities into this accident, which cost 24 lives?

2. Should it not seek the cooperation of the British Government in an effort to shed light on these events?

3. With the same end in view, should it not also seek to secure the cooperation of the United Nations, which also has responsibility for the administration of Kosovo?

Reply

(9 November 2000)

On 15 November 1999 the Council expressed its condolences and deepest sympathy to the families and friends of the twenty-four victims of the accident to the aircraft chartered by the World Food Programme (WFP), which had crashed on landing at Pristina three days before. The aircraft in question, an ATR 42-300, was registered in France and operated by the Italian airline Si Fly.

However, the Council would point out to the Honourable Member that it has no jurisdiction when it comes to inquiries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2367/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Consequences for rice growing of the Commission's proposals for a review of the regulation

The Community rice market is facing serious problems, mainly owing to the increase in imports after 1994/1995 as a result of the implementation of the GATT agreement and the preferential arrangements (tariff quotas, ACP). Between 1996 and 1999 average domestic prices fell to levels far below the intervention price, and in Greece prices of Indica rice were particularly low. The Commission has proposed addressing the problem of the large rice stocks and the impact of these stocks on the Community budget by abolishing the intervention mechanism, a move that will deprive Community producers of even the minimal protection provided by intervention. The producers' organisations COPA and Cogeca are opposed to abolishing intervention and have proposed changes in the method of calculating the tariffs and the renegotiation of the preferential agreements with third countries.

1. What impact will the proposed changes in the regulation have on rice production and the incomes of rice producers?

2. How will it protect Community rice production and the incomes of rice producers, given that the proposal itself takes the view that they will fall as a result of the abolishment of intervention?

3. Does it intend to accept the proposal by COPA and Cogeca firstly to renegotiate the EU's trade agreements and then to examine the review of the COM in rice, if necessary?

4. The abolishment of intervention will generate savings of 38 million a year. Will it examine the possibility of funding programmes for improving the quality of, and modernising, the rice sector from the savings in question?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2000)

There is a serious imbalance on the European rice market.

This situation results in high financial outlays because rice in intervention deteriorates after two or three years of storage.

Having carefully weighed up all the possible options, the Commission concluded that including the rice sector in the arrangements for arable crops and abolishing the intervention price would achieve a balance between supply and demand while also maintaining rice growers' incomes.

The proposed changes are expected to increase the competitiveness of Community rice but also market volatility.

Producer incomes will be maintained because any market price fluctuations in the absence of the intervention price will be compensated for by the increase in the compensatory payments, which will be 63 a tonne for cereals as from the 2001/2002 marketing year, in place of the current 52,65 a tonne.

The Commission intends to act on import arrangements in accordance with its international obligations on agriculture under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

The Commission does not intend to fund quality improvement or modernisation programmes in the rice sector.

The Commission feels that this proposal will enable the Community rice growers to benefit from market balance, while complying with its obligations under the GATT.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2254/00

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Persecution of 13 Iranians of the Jewish faith in Iran

13 Iranians of the Jewish faith have been held in prison on groundless charges of espionage for approximately one year and their trial, which began in camera on 1 May, provides no guarantees of a fair, objective and impartial verdict. Since the verdict is due in the next two weeks, will the Commission exert further pressure, in the context of the critical dialogue with Iran, to ensure that the human rights and religious freedom of the 13 Jewish Iranians are respected and that they receive fair judgment?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission follows with deep concern the issue of human rights in Iran. Questions regarding human rights, including the trial in Shiraz, feature prominently in the comprehensive dialogue between the Union and Iran, and are consistently raised by the Union.

On the specific situation of the 13 Iranian Jews tried in Shiraz on charges of espionage, a number of demarches have been made by the Union as well as by individual Member States in the course of last year. The Union stressed the importance of a free and fair trial and its disappointment that the trial was not open to observers. Following the verdict on 1 July 2000, the Union stated its concern and its wish that the court of appeal would retract the sentences. It also stated its intention to continue to follow the issues closely.

The political situation in Iran remains ambiguous. However, positive developments at the recent Parliamentary election and Iran's growing sensitivity to international concerns, open new possibilities to develop a constructive dialogue on human rights issues with the Iranian government. The Commission will continue following the situation closely and seize any opportunity to support this positive change.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3110/00

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 September 2000)

Subject: Advisory Committee on Fisheries

1. Does the Commission consider the present composition of the above committee to be balanced in terms of the number of people belonging to it, their geographical distribution and nationality and other factors designed to ensure that the committee's assessments can be as balanced as possible?

2. What were the findings of the promised evaluation of the work of the committee?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2000)

1. When selecting the new Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Commission sought to strike a balance between the various interests involved in the common fisheries policy. It appointed the Committee's 31 members for a three-year term. In addition to the 21 members (or over two thirds) representing the fishing industry, the Committee was expanded to include aquaculture (4 members) and non-governmental organisations concerned with the environment, development and consumer protection (6 members).

Of that membership, 22 were appointed on the basis of proposals from European associations or interest groups (with each of the 11 associations concerned nominating a member and an alternate). The other 9 members comprise the chairmen and deputy chairmen of the Committee's Working Parties.

The Committee's current membership originates from the following Member States: Belgium (2), Denmark (6), Germany (2), Spain (6), France (6), Ireland (1), Italy (3), Portugal (1), and the United Kingdom (4).

Committee members are nominated through European associations not in order to achieve a geographical balance among Member States, but so that those various associations can choose their own representatives. Committee members thus represent their European association rather than their Member State of origin.

The Commission also seeks to draw on expertise from all the Community's fishery activities when selecting the Working Parties, whose 20 members are nominated on a case-by-case basis by the European associations according to the agenda. The Working Parties and the plenary Committee interact with the aim of reaching a balanced and, if possible, common view.

2. Since being set up on a permanent basis in July 1999, the Committee has held all the meetings which it had scheduled at that date and is carrying out most of the programme which it set itself. Specific lessons regarding new working methods for the sector and for the Commission cannot yet be drawn. A survey is currently being conducted and is due to be published in a forthcoming issue of Fishing in Europe. The findings should show what the sector itself thinks of the reform.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2472/00

by Juan Izquierdo Collado (PSE) to the Commission

(12 July 2000)

Subject: Madrid-Levante highspeed train link

Is the Commission aware of the proposed route (A modificado A modified) by the Spanish Minister of Works, Mr Álvarez Cascos, for the announced Madrid-Levante highspeed rail link?

Is the Commission aware of the sheer environmental impact of the proposed route, which cuts through specially protected bird sanctuaries and areas of nature of ecological significance?

Does the Commission agree with the European Parliament's position as stated in its resolution on the Annual Report on the 1998 Cohesion Funds (A5-0140/2000) adopted in June 2000, in which it urges the Commission to ensure that, if various alternatives exist for one and the same project, preference is given to those which have least impact on the environment?

Under these conditions, could a project which ignores Parliament's recommendations obtain Community funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

At this stage the Commission does not have any detailed information on the various alternative solutions proposed by the Spanish authorities for the route of the future high-speed train link between Madrid and Levante, which is the sole responsibility of the Member State. In any event, the route will have to undergo an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Community legislation.

If this project is submitted for Cohesion Fund part-financing, the Commission will carefully examine the documentation submitted with the aid application to ensure that it complies fully with Community environmental legislation.