ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2260/00

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Liberalisation of the electricity sector

At present various Member States are completing the process of liberalising electricity charges.

Across the continent as a whole and in mainland Spain in particular, liberalisation will have positive effects, although this may not be the case in isolated regions such as the Balearic Islands where, because of their geographical situation, it is not feasible to create a fully liberalised market.

Given the likelihood that in future liberalisation may not have the desired effects in terms of cutting prices, will the Commission say whether it plans to take any measures to promote full liberalisation of the electricity sector in some regions of Europe such as the Balearic Islands where this is not being achieved?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2000)

According to the information available to the Commission, the electricity supply system on the Balearic Islands consists of five power generation plants, three located on Majorca, one on Ibiza and one on Minorca. The systems of these three islands are not interconnected and none of them is connected to the grid system of the Spanish peninsula.

Given the due to the geographical situation extremely small size of the Balearic electricity supply system, it is clear that the positive effects of liberalisation on electricity prices produced by increased competition cannot materialise to the same extent as in bigger electricity markets. Full liberalisation of isolated systems may even produce negative effects, such as price increases stemming from monopolistic or oligopolistic behaviour of the naturally limited number of market players operating in such systems. Therefore, should the Spanish government consider it inappropriate to liberalise such small isolated systems, it has the possibility to refer to Article 24(3) of the Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity(1) and apply for a derogation from the main provisions of the directive whilst at the same time ensuring appropriate price levels for final consumers through effective regulation of the market.

In general, the Commission is fully aware of the specific situation of islands in connection with energy supply, as it was discussed recently at the Azores Conference Energy in the Island Communities. The Commission is currently analysing the situation and is considering possible solutions and measures, in particular with regard to the promotion of renewable sources of energy, which usually have a particularly large potential for expansion on islands, which are not connected to national networks.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1381/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Establishment of a Council of Ministers responsible for equality between women and men

The European Parliament has a Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities which is concerned exclusively with women's issues, and the Commission has a Commissioner responsible for this area.

Does the Council agree that it might be useful to set up a special Council of Ministers for women so that those Member States which do not yet have a ministry for women's affairs are encouraged to set one up?

Reply

(18/19 September 2000)

The Helsinki European Council agreed, in Recommendation No 9 of Annex III to its Conclusions, that the number of Council formations should be reduced in order to improve the coordination and consistency of the Council's work. It assigned to the General Affairs Council the task of taking the steps necessary to achieve that objective.

On 10 April 2000 the Council, in its General Affairs formation, decided to combine certain formations so that their total number(1) would be limited to 16 in line with the Conclusions of the Helsinki European Council.

The Council recalls that questions concerning equal treatment for men and women are covered by the Council in its Employment and Social Policy(2) formation. Furthermore, the Council considers that taking into account the promotion of equality between men and women in all relevant Union policies further guarantees the achievement of the objective set out in the TEC.

Finally, it is for each Member State to determine its representation on the Council, in accordance with Article 203 of the EC Treaty. It is not, therefore, for the Council to express a view on this question. At the very most, the Helsinki European Council (6 October to 11 December 1999) envisaged that each Member State should keep under permanent review its internal coordination arrangements for EU matters so that they are tailored to ensuring the optimum functioning of the Council's machinery.

(1) A list of these formations is given in 7039/1/00 REV 1 and will be published in the Official Journal in June 2000.

(2) The name of this formation has been changed to reflect the changes to the EC Treaty introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1153/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

At present the Commission has no legal instrument for adopting, on its own initiative, safeguard measures for feed or processed food of non-animal origin from one of the Member States (section 80).

Does the Commission believe that a single emergency procedure applicable to all types of feed and food is the means of closing the loophole referred to above? If so, will the Commission create such a legal instrument? If not, why not, and what alternatives does the Commission propose for adopting, on its own initiative, safeguard measures for feed or processed food of non-animal origin from one of the Member States?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1122/00, E-1127/00, E-1128/00, E-1140/00, E-1141/00, E-1142/00, E-1143/00, E-1144/00, E-1145/00, E-1146/00, E-1147/00, E-1148/00, E-1150/00, E-1151/00, E-1152/00, E-1153/00, E-1155/00, E-1156/00, E-1157/00, E-1158/00, E-1160/00, E-1161/00 and E-1162/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member are being studied with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislation according to the time scale set out in the white paper on food safety.

It would be inappropriate at this stage to anticipate the details of each proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2817/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Fulfilment by applicant countries of the convergence and stability pact criteria

Will the Commission state which of the EMU convergence criteria and which of the stability and growth pact criteria countries applying for EU membership are required to meet in full before they can be admitted to the EU, and from which of them they could expect to be granted derogations?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Respect of the convergence criteria has never been a requirement for membership of the Community but is necessary for adoption of the single currency and entry to the euro area. Applicant countries will not be assessed for their readiness to adopt the euro until after their accession to the Community. While progress towards real convergence and macro-economic stability should be pursued by applicant countries during the pre-accession period, respect of the convergence criteria and of the stability and growth pact objectives is therefore not a pre-condition for Community membership.

The accession treaty will need to confirm the status of the new Member States as Member States with a derogation, the implications of which are listed in Article 122(3) (ex Article 109k) of the EC Treaty. On becoming members of the Community the applicant countries will become subject to the procedures of the EC Treaty (especially Articles 104 ex Article 104c and 122) and of the stability and growth pact.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2408/00

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: Currency speculation

Would the Commission be prepared to take an initiative to form a global alliance of governments with the objective of ending currency speculation?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Free movement of capital is a principle enshrined in the EC Treaty, of which the Commission is the guardian. While it is involved in assessing the implications of the globalization of financial markets for the financial sector of the Member States, the Commission along with other international organizations has analyzed the idea of introducing capital controls to limit speculation.

Free capital movements contribute to an efficient allocation of resources in the world economy allowing international investment to find the highest rate of return. In this way, liberalized capital flows foster a higher level of economic growth and a more even distribution of growth around the world. Any measure to limit the movement of capital must take account of these important considerations. Moreover, the scale of international capital flows has grown enormously in the last 20 years, making it difficult to distinguish between flows that might be termed purely speculative and those that occur for reasons of investment and trade. Even if speculative flows could be readily identified, the experience of capital controls suggests that they are rarely effective in the medium term, as investors find means to circumvent them.

Because of these considerations, any attempt to re-introduce capital controls or other measures impeding the free movement of capital should not be supported.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1471/00

by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Major Economic Policy Guidelines

It seems obvious that both the Major Economic Policy Guidelines and the General Guidelines on Employment provide the basis for the coordination of economic policies at Community level. Does the Commision not consider that the different publication dates of the two documents make it difficult to devise a comprehensive strategy such as that proposed by the Commission in its recommendation on the Major Economic Policy Guidelines?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The European Council has reiterated over recent years in Vienna, Helsinki and Lisbon the need for ensuring better synergy and full exploitation of co-ordination of economic and employment policies in the Community. The broad economic policy guidelines (BEPGs) and the employment guidelines the Luxembourg Process are the fundamental tools based on the EC Treaty for policy co-ordination.

With its recommendation for the 2000 BEPGs, the Commission has set out a comprehensive economic policy strategy to enhance the capacity of the Community economy to generate durably high, non-inflationary growth and to meet the main economic challenges confronting the Community, in particular to restore full employment. For the strategy to work it is essential that its elements are coherent and mutually reinforcing.

The Commission considers that ensuring coherence and synergies by providing guidance on the full range of economic policies is the key role of the BEPGs which are at the centre of the policy co-ordination process and which have acquired increased significance in view of the Lisbon European Council conclusions. The employment guidelines are turning into a powerful pillar to sustain the overall economic policy strategy as defined in the BEPGs. The distinct role of the employment guidelines is to deal in greater detail with their subject matter, while maintaining consistency with the BEPGs.

The Commission sees no obstacle in the current timetable for each process to ensure the objectives of efficiency, consistency and synergy. Better synergy between processes does not necessarily imply that they should mirror each other in time but calls for a close and effective dialogue and mutual contributions from the very early stages of preparation. The current set-up allows the Commission, the Council, the European Council, the Parliament and others concerned to contribute to the strategy on the overall macroeconomic and structural aspects in spring, with a closer look at employment and labour market policies in autumn. Furthermore, the lead of the BEPGs in setting the overall frame allows policies for employment to be better prepared and articulated.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1263/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Chinese accession to the WTO

Could the Commission state what, on the basis of its present negotiating position, will be the likely budgetary implications in terms of customs tariff revenues and agricultural levies on the one hand, and expenditure,

including projections for agricultural export refunds and any other relevant impacts on budgetary expenditure on the other, both in terms of the volumes involved and as a proportion of annual budgetary appropriations designated for the financing of the Community's external operations, of Chinese accession to the World Trade Organisation?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2000)

The Community already treats China as a World Trade Organisation (WTO) member in so far as it is subject to most favoured nation tariff rates on exports to the Community. Moreover, China's accession to the WTO will not alter the Community's own market access commitments, including tariff rates, in the WTO. China's accession to the WTO is a negotiation on China's future commitments, not those of present WTO members. Levels of customs tariff revenues will therefore be a function of the level of imports. Assuming that China's WTO accession will boost their exports to the Community, an increase in duty revenue can be expected in the longer term.

China will reduce the agricultural tariff rates for import of products from all WTO members, including the Community. This will improve the market access possibilities for Community products but will not alter the Community's export commitments undertaken in the Uruguay Round. Consequently, the Community's budgetary expenditure will have to stay within the committed limits.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1823/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Commission report on the situation in Austria

The Austrian Federal Chancellor has put forward the proposal that the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, should draw up a report on Austria. That document should investigate the situation in Austria from the standpoint of compliance by the Austrian government and authorities with the fundamental principles of the EU Treaty. On the basis of that report, an investigation should be conducted into whether there are in fact any grounds for sanctions against Austria.

1. Under what circumstances would the Commission draw up a report on compliance with the principles of Article 6 of the EU Treaty in Austria?

2. The Commission is the guardian of the Treaties and continuously monitors for Member State compliance with the Treaties. Under what circumstances would the Commission draw up reports on compliance with the principles of Article 6 of the EU Treaty in all Member States?

3. Does the Commission consider the sanctions imposed by the 14 against Austria as a violation of the EU Treaties?

4. Does the Commission consider that there are grounds in the Treaties for the measures taken by the 14 against Austria?

5. What have been the results of permanent monitoring of Austria by the Commission hitherto?

6. Are there grounds for concluding that the fundamental values of the EU have been violated by FPÖ (Freedom Party of Austria) participation in government? If so, what are they?

7. The 14 Member States claim to have imposed bilateral sanctions. The decision was announced by the Portuguese President of the Council. The 14 continue to claim that they could lift the sanctions only if they acted jointly. Does the Commission see this as indicating that the action taken, far from being bilateral, is in fact multilateral, and consequently is tantamount to a decision by the Council?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1746/00 and P-1823/00 given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 August 2000)

As the Commission has already stated in reply to several questions by Members of the Parliament, the bilateral measures taken by the governments of 14 Member States with regard to the government coalition in Austria are not matters relating to the EU-Treaty or EC-Treaty and do not affect the rights and obligations of any Member State under Community law.

The Commission also repeatedly stated that it will continue to accomplish its role as the guardian of the provisions and values set down in the Treaties and on which the Union is founded and that it confirms its determination to do so.

As the Honourable Member will be aware, a report on the Austrian Government's compliance with the European Union's shared values is being drawn up, at the request of the Member States, by three leading figures appointed by the President of the European Court of Human Rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1513/00

by Imelda Read (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Data on incidences of dwelling fires

In the light of the 3000 dwelling fires in my constituency (East Midlands, UK) in 1998, could the Commission inform me which other Member States keep records of dwelling fires? In the interests of safety, what steps does the Commission plan to take to ensure that data collection in this field is harmonised across the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2000)

The Commission is aware of the weaknesses as regards information on dwelling fires. Indeed, the data collected in this area by the Member States are far from being exhaustive and comparable.

However, safety in the event of major fires is one of the intended priorities accompanying the implementation of the Community action programme in the field of civil protection adopted by the Council on 9 December 1999 via Decision 1999/847/EC(1). Action in this area, together with the work currently being carried out at professional level and more particularly by the federation of fire-brigade associations within the Community, should enable the situation to be improved.

Moreover the Commission is currently giving thought to a new more comprehensive approach towards preventing natural and technological hazards.

Finally, it should also be pointed out that the community cooperation on civil protection is currently expanding. On 30 May 2000 the Commission decided to lay a proposal before the Council with a view to boosting the Union's resources in this area. More detailed information on civil-protection activities within the Community is available on the following website:

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/.

(1) OJ L 327 E, 21.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1076/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: PHARE programme

Given that its overall strategy is to develop and support small and medium-sized undertakings, will the Commission say why programmes for which it is issuing calls for tenders as part of the PHARE programme, such as Lot 1, project title: Assessment of PHARE national programmes, are on such a large scale as to make it practically impossible for small and medium-sized undertakings to cover the large number of countries involved, thus in effect excluding them from bidding for tenders?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2000)

The PHARE programme indeed has as one of its main planks the support and development of local small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) through specifically designed programmes and facilities. The case raised by the Honourable Member refers to a tender issued by the Commission for the assessment of the programme. It is a single tender covering all accession countries.

The services required are highly specialised. It is anticipated that replies to this tender will come from consortia which are likely to include smaller but specialised companies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1331/00

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Possibility of EU citizens bringing cases of violations of fundamental rights before the Court of Justice

Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam on 1 May 1999, Article 7 (TEU) now provides for a procedure for determining the existence of a failure to respect and protect human rights by a Member State and for penalising such failure.

Can the Commission state whether this procedure can also be invoked by individual citizens with a view to penalising the Member State at fault?

Can an EU citizen bring cases of violations of fundamental rights within a Member State before the European Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, only one third of the Member States or the Commission may present to the Council, meeting at the level of Heads of State or Government, a proposal determining the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1).

Under the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to the Court of Justice (Article 220 (formerly Article 164) et seq.), a private individual does not have any direct means of redress before the Court against acts of the Member States. By contrast, requests for preliminary rulings may or, where appropriate, must be made to the Court under Article 234 (formerly Article 177) of the EC Treaty by national courts, including in disputes where a private individual invokes a breach of fundamental rights as general principles of Community law by a Member State acting within the scope of Community law.