ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2056/99

by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Local Exchange Trading Systems

What is the EC doing to promote the growth of LETS (Local Exchange Trading Systems) by including them in Structural Fund possibilities and by disseminating good practice in Member States?

Answer given by Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1999)

As regards the dissemination of information about local exchange trading schemes (LETS), the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it is currently preparing a series of events in the Member States to demonstrate best practices which have been tested in certain businesses and are considered likely to be able to improve the competitiveness of other businesses. If the Honourable Member would kindly send details of the LETS of which she has knowledge, and provided that these do not consist of barter and can be demonstrated to have satisfied the requirements of the tax authorities, the Commission will consider including them in the best practices to be exhibited as described above.

The Structural Fund problems attached to LETS may, subject to the reservations already mentioned, be taken into account as part of the support for local development and employment activities, whether these are a matter of new sources of jobs, or of new forms of business, craft industry or tourism.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2239/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Cost of translation and interpretation

Please indicate the cost of translation and interpretation in the EU in 1999 and estimate the cost in each case, assuming the continuation of present language policies, if one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten or eleven languages were added to the existing official languages.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

The Honourable Member is informed that the cost of translation and interpretation as estimated by the European institutions in the 1999 budget amounts to approximately 686 million. The breakdown by institution is as follows:

>TABLE>

The impact of adding one or more new languages to the existing official languages will be dealt with in a supplementary answer once estimates are available for all the European institutions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2228/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Sustainable inflation rates

Does the Commission agree with Balassa-Samuleson that the inflation rates in the European Union eurozone members will tend to vary in the long run according to their differential productivity growth rates (and the relative productivity growth rates of their tradeable and non-tradeable sectors); if so, would the Commission provide an assessment of the sustainable inflation rates for each Member State in the European Union's eurozone if the average inflation rate was to be (a) 1 per cent a year and (b) 2 per cent a year. In addition, would the Commission please estimate the sustainable inflation rates, on the same assumptions, if Greece, Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom were to join?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The experience from other monetary unions, e.g. the United States, suggests that inflation differentials between regions in a monetary union may persist for extended periods of time, although they cannot be permanent or large. Experience also indicates that current inflation differentials in the euro area are not unusually high.

Across the euro area, there is scope for inflation to vary over a longer time period, especially as current differences in price levels across Member States are expected to diminish. Price level convergence can be expected to be driven by greater market integration, increased price transparency and a process of real economic convergence, i.e. a convergence in living standards and productivity levels which may affect relative price levels via channels such as the Balassa-Samuelson effect. Quite possibly, factors in addition to the Balassa-Samuelson argument may play a role in promoting, or slowing down, price convergence.

It would be fraught with difficulty to provide a quantitative assessment of the scope for sustained inflation differentials across the euro area. Some of the assumptions underlying the Balassa-Samuelson model (e.g. long-run purchasing power parity for tradeables; wage equalisation across sectors within countries; assumptions on production technologies) need not be fully satisfied in practice. The rate of productivity differentials observed in the past need not be maintained in Economic and monetary union (EMU). Structural changes such as liberalisation and deregulation may affect productivity growth, especially in the non-tradeables sectors, and technological advances may be making more and more services tradeable, i.e. shifting the boundaries between tradeables and non-tradeables, as may the single currency itself.

For these reasons, it is very difficult to predict the extent of sustainable inflation differentials in EMU. The hypothetical question of how other potential entrants into EMU might fare is perhaps even more difficult to answer.

Inflation differentials will be closely monitored within the framework of multilateral surveillance and assessed in view of the overall economic situation in order to avoid any harmful divergence in inflation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1961/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(9 November 1999)

Subject: General amnesty in Italy Compatibility with the Schengen Agreement

Whenever it is unable to cope with the persistent infringement of its laws, it is the Italian Government's habit to have recourse the condono or amnesty. This happened again at the beginning of this year when it used this device to legalise some quarter of a million illegal immigrants. The fact that the Italian State is clearly unable to police its borders efficiently does however inevitably affect the other Member States of the EU and the Schengen Agreement.

1. Is the Council aware of this practice?

2. Is this course of action by Italy compatible with the Schengen Agreement?

3. If so, on what grounds is it compatible?

4. If not, what action does the Council intend to take, or what action has it already undertaken?

Reply

(31 January 2000)

In the context of the exchange of information on migration policy taking place routinely within the Council, Member States that have introduced programmes to regularise the situation of illegal migrants, or plan to introduce such programmes in the near future, have informed the Council thereof.

The measures to strengthen the effectiveness of controls by Member States of external borders developed in the Schengen framework (which, following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, have been integrated in the framework of European Union) are without prejudice to the Member States' right to determine the conditions for allowing third-country nationals who have entered or are staying on their territory without the required documentation and who have been staying there for a fairly long period of time, to continue to do so.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2010/99

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(9 November 1999)

Subject: OCT association arrangements

There appears to be some confusion as to the nature of the European Union's relations with the OCT countries, which have links with only four Member States (United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Denmark).

While the European Union plays an essential role in the development of the former OCTs that have become ACP states, it appears to have abandoned the remaining OCTs, which are viewed as hybrids. Ambivalence in terms of legal status, unanimous decision-making in the Council and artificial trade flows which contribute little to development in the OCTs but have a highly disruptive effect on the Community market are just some of the very real difficulties experienced by these countries.

With the signature of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Intergovernmental Conference invited the Council, acting in accordance with the provisions of Article 136 of the Treaty (mldr) to review the association arrangements (mldr) by February 2000, with [a] fourfold objective.

What specific measures does the Commission intend to propose to the Council to further the aims of economic and social development, progress in EU-OCT relations, taking greater account of the diversity and specific characteristics of the OCTs and, finally, improving the financial instrument?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1999)

The Honourable Member rightly refers to the declaration on the overseas countries and territories (OCTs) in the Final Act of the Amsterdam Conference.

Following that declaration the Commission entered into consultations with the four Member States to which the 20 OCTs are linked and also, under the partnership arrangements, with the authorities of the 20 OCTs in question, who met in Brussels at the highest level for the first time.

The main ideas to emerge from these wide-ranging consultations are set out in the Commission's communication of 20 May 1999, The status of OCTs associated with the EC and options for OCT 2000(1) in which the Commission describes the OCTs and their position under Community law, opens a fundamental debate on the OCT association and offers policy proposals for 2000.

Shortly, the Commission will draw up a proposal to present to the Council concerning arrangements to succeed the current Association Decision after 1 March 2000.

The substance of the proposal is still under discussion and should be largely based on the suggestions of the OCTs themselves. Proposals will include: a better definition of their status under secondary legislation, substantial simplification of the Community's aid by more decentralisation of its management to the beneficiary countries and territories; extension of cooperation to new areas in order to help the OCTs meet the new challenges of the global economy; and a greater effort to meet the OCTs' wishes on the subject of non-reciprocity of the rules of establishment.

(1) COM(1999) 163 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2854/99

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Stockholm information office scandal

Moderate Party MEP Per Stenmark was quoted in Aftonbladet on 20 November 1999 as saying that the Commission should close its Stockholm office.

Sweden is outraged at the latest scandal at the Commission's information office in Stockholm involving payments of money to non-existent people. What action has the Commission taken against those responsible for the false payments and does the Commission consider that the then head of the office is ultimately responsible for the scandal?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-712/99 by Mr Schori during question time at Parliament's December 1999 part-session(1).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1909/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Progress in implementing the Community's Leader initiative in Greece

Will the Commission say what progress has been made in implementing the Community's Leader initiative in Greece in terms of payment of scheduled appropriations? Does it consider that progress has been satisfactory and, if not, to what does it believe any delays are attributable?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 1999)

The Commission's answer to Written Question No E-0001/99 by Mr Alavanos(1) on a similar subject gave details of progress in implementing Leader II in Greece.

Further to its abovementioned answer, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the current situation with regard to commitments and payments from the Structural Funds involved in Leader II in Greece is as follows:

- European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF): commitments 93,02 million, payments 57,61 million,

- European Regional Development Fund (ERDF): commitments 66,69 million, payments 41,04 million,

- European Social Fund (ESF): commitments 2,90 million, payments 1,45 million.

To sum up, in relation to the total appropriation under the Structural Funds of 167,65 million, the commitments of the three Structural Funds together amount to 162,61 million, i.e. 97 %, and the payments to 100,10 million, or 60 %.

Of course, the figure for payments is the best indicator of the situation on the ground.

(1) OJ C 289, 11.10.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2100/99

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(9 November 1999)

Subject: Infringement of the EU Code of Conduct for arms exports: Germany supplying the Leopard 2 A5 to Turkey

In response to my earlier question (E-0436/99) of 10 March 1999 to the German Presidency concerning the role played by human rights violations in arms export recipient states, I received the answer (on 10 June 1999) that respect for human rights was one of the main conditions to be met when taking decisions and that export licences were not issued if human rights were being violated.

In its decision of 13 October 1999 on the enlargement of the EU, the Commission noted that the conditions required for negotiations to start with Turkey did not exist, especially in the sphere of human rights.

The German government decided on 20 October 1999 to issue a licence for the export to Turkey of the Leopard 2 A5 tank, which is particularly well suited to use in civil war situations owing to its thermal-imaging devices.

1. Were all EU Member States informed in accordance with the Code of Conduct before the decision was taken on the German government's plans to export such equipment? Is the Council of the opinion that Germany's export plans are compatible with Criterion Two of the Code of Conduct? Did any Member States express misgivings in this connection about the German export plans? If so, what were they?

2. Did Germany carry out a full assessment of the human rights situation in Turkey and submit it to the other Members of the Council? If so, when?

3. Did Germany examine whether or not the Leopard 2 A5 could be used for internal repression within Turkey? If so, with what results?

4. Is the Council aware that the Turkish military is conducting offensives against the PKK, inter alia on the border with Iraq, and that there are regular large-scale incursions into northern Iraq? To what extent is this compatible with Criterion Two of the Code of Conduct, which does not permit violation of the territoriality principle by end-users?

5. Has Germany made sure that the exported equipment cannot be diverted to an end-use that is incompatible with the Code of Conduct? If so, what assurances are there? Did the Council consider such assurances to be adequate? If so, why?

6. Would the Council allow further major deliveries to Turkey of the Leopard 2 A5 tank or components thereof? If so, on what grounds?

Answer

(24 January 2000)

The European Union's position on arms exports is reflected in the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports adopted on 8 June 1998. Decisions are taken by each Member State individually taking full account of the Code of Conduct. The Council does not receive any information about the grounds on which export licences are granted or refused by Member States. In any case it does not lie in its purview to exercise any judgement on them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1825/99

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

(13 October 1999)

Subject: Reforming the Amsterdam Treaty so as to make job creation policy a European policy

Given that within the European Union there is a correlation between low per capita income and unemployment in the sense that in general it is precisely those areas which are less developed which most frequently suffer from high rates of unemployment, does the Council intend, in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference, to tackle a reform of the Amsterdam Treaty which would go beyond Articles 125 to 130 thereof and make job creation policy a European policy, along the lines of regional policy?

Answer

(24 January 2000)

It is for the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, and not the Council, to determine by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

The Council reiterates that a Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States will be convened at the start of the year 2000. In accordance with the conclusions of the Cologne European Council, the purpose of that Conference will be to resolve the institutional issues left open in Amsterdam that need to be settled before enlargement (namely, the size and composition of the European Commission, weighting of votes in the Council and possible extension of qualified-majority voting in the Council). Other necessary amendments to the Treaties arising as regards the European Institutions in connection with the above issues and in implementing the Treaty of Amsterdam, could also be discussed (point 53 in fine of the Presidency conclusions of the Cologne European Council on 3 and 4 June 1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2271/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: The sale of pharmaceutical products on Internet

The availability of pharmaceutical products for sale on Internet is causing concern and raising questions among not only the experts in the field (doctors, pharmacists) but also among consumers in general. These concerns relate to the safe use of pharmaceutical products, the distribution of banned substances and the compilation of data from patients' medical files by bodies which are not authorised to do so.

Can the Commission indicate the extent to which pharmaceutical products are now being sold over the Internet? What steps will it take to protect consumers in general and patients in particular from this method of selling pharmaceutical products?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2000)

According to the information available to the Commission, it is currently not possible to obtain reliable quantitative data on the amount of medicinal products which are sold via the internet in the Community.

On all other points raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would refer to the answer to written question E-1852/99 by Mr Valdivielso de Cue(1) on the sale of medicinal products via Internet.

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 69.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1967/99

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Restructuring of Commission departments

As the restructuring of Directorate-General X is justifiably giving cause for concern and raising question marks about the fate and future of the information for women unit of former DG X, will the Commission say whether that unit will be transferred to the Directorate-General for Employment, as originally planned? Can the Commission also provide details about the progress and development of the campaign for combating domestic violence?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 January 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-726/99 by Mrs Valenciano Martínez-Orozco during question time at Parliament's December 1999 part-session(1).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1456/99

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Functional foods

Can the Commission explain its objections to the new Unilever cholesterol-lowering margarine which was initially approved by the Novel Foods Committee in the Netherlands?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1455/99, E-1456/99, E-1457/99 and E-1458/99 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1999)

The Commission does not intend to propose new Community provisions for the labelling of so-called functional foods. This category does not currently exist in Community law, and the products concerned are therefore subject to the general provisions of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978(1) on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer.

In 1997, Unilever submitted in the Netherlands a request for placing on the Community market a yellow fat spread with added phytosterol-esters, under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients(2). Unilever must have considered that its product was not substantially equivalent to the product made in Finland by Raisio, as it did not invoke Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 which lays down an abbreviated procedure for products which are substantially equivalent to existing foods or food ingredients.

The Commission itself did not formulate objections to the initial assessment report of the Dutch authorities concerning the Unilever product. Reasoned objections were however presented by several Member States; hence an authorisation can only be granted under the procedure laid down in Article 13 of

Regulation (EC) No 258/97. As the objections presented by the Member States related to public health, the Commission consulted the scientific committee for food, in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97. The opinion of the scientific committee for food is currently awaited.

As far as the Raisio product is concerned, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer given by the Commission to written question P-1506/99 by Mr Mulder(3).

(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.

(2) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(3) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 4.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2560/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Sea water cleanliness

Would the Commission please publish the latest available figures showing the cleanliness of sea water at the principal European Union coastal resorts, together with the equivalent figures for each resort for each of the last five years?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The annual reporting obligations under Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water(1) imply that a quality assessment of Member States' bathing waters is made after each bathing season.

The Directive requires that the data be reported to the Commission by 31 December by the responsible authority of the Member State. The Commission collects all these data for its annual report that is presented before the next bathing season around mid-May. The data on the 1999 bathing season will therefore be presented in May 2000.

The latest available data are at the moment those of the 1998 bathing season. The references of the annual paper report are: Quality of bathing water (1998 bathing season), May 1999 EUR 18831. This information can also be found on the Europa internet site at http://europa.eu.int/water/water-bathing/index_html. The atlas on the internet site gives the quality status of each individual bathing area since 1992.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.