ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1328/00

by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Proposal for an European Parliament and Council regulation on the closure of the ECIP programme

On 31 January 2000 the Commission published a proposal for an European Parliament and Council regulation on the implementation of the European Communities Investment Partners financial instrument (ECIP), in which it proposed the liquidation of the existing set of programmes (COM(1999) 0726).

Is it true that in the more recent years of this programme's life there have been procedural delays in the Commission in allocating projects? Can the Commission state whether in fact ECIP virtually ground to a halt in 1999, in the wake of the creation and entry into operation of the Joint Service for the management of Community Aid to Non-Member Countries, the resignation of the Commission and the reorganisation carried out within the new Commission? Is it true that these circumstances have led to certain requests, including Nos 3749 (Mercosur) and 3750 (Mexico), being accepted but not subsequently processed by the Approvals Committee?

Does the Commission not believe that the proposed measures run totally counter to the notions of continuity and sound management, despite being presented as a piece of sound financial management? In view of the circumstances, does the Commission not consider that the best solution would be to provide the interested parties with a detailed explanation of the underlying reasons for the liquidation of these projects?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2000)

The European Community Investment Partners scheme (ECIP) was launched in the 1990s and quickly flourished. It became increasingly difficult to manage, geared as it was initially to a small number of operations, because of various factors: the marked rise in the number of projects quickly outstripped the capacity of the available Commission staff to manage them -- recourse to a technical assistance unit (in 1997) and a financial assistance unit (in 1999) gradually helped to offset the staff shortage, but only in part -- and the tightening up of the Commission's financial procedures in line with the observations of the Court of Auditors led to a delay in procedures (requiring a written procedure involving the Commission rather than the delegation procedure) and the separation of the technical and financial functions.

As a result, payment arrears built up, though these have now largely been dealt with, and decision-making slowed down. Since the legal basis for the scheme expired on 31 December 1999 the ECIP programme has been in the process of closure, despite continued demand for financing, following the Commission's decision to give exclusive priority in 2000 and 2001 to financial execution and closure of existing ECIP contracts and to recovering unused funds to be repaid. A letter to this effect has been sent to all the financial institutions concerned.

Applications for operations Nos 3 749 and 3 750, received in June 1999, were not presented for approval by the Steering Committee for the reasons outlined above.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/00

by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: IGC

How does the Commission distinguish between an open market and a social market economy?

Does the Commission support a revision to the wording of Articles 4 and 98?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2000)

The distinction between an open market and a social market economy is, in the view of the Commission, that the former refers to the regulatory and institutional framework for the markets in which firms compete, while the latter denotes a guiding principle for economic policy in which governments may wish to adhere. Specifically, open markets mean that competition is free and without barriers to entry. By comparison, a social market economy embodies policy objectives as reflected in Article 2 of the EC Treaty, namely that a harmonious, balanced, and sustainable development of economic activities and a high level of employment and of social protection should be promoted. Evidently, as in any other area of policymaking, a balance has to be struck between various objectives, but it is important to stress that there is no intrinsic contradiction between seeking to have an open market economy and the aspiration for an economy with a clear social dimension.

The Presidency conclusions from the European Council in Lisbon on 23 and 24 March 2000 bear witness to the policy objective of making sure that economic and social policy goals are pursued in a coherent fashion. The Council has decided to monitor developments in the area of social protection and coherence as part of a broader monitoring effort which, in addition, covers employment, innovation and economic reform. The monitoring efforts underpin the objective of attaining economic progress and coherence by setting and pursuing policy targets, comparing best practice, and benchmarking structural indicators. It follows from this, that the objectives laid down in Articles 4 and 98 (ex Articles 3a and 102a) of the EC Treaty must be seen in the context of the EC Treaty as a whole and, consequently, the Commission sees no reason for modifying the wording of these articles.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0073/00

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Sewage sludge in animal feedstuffs

Can the Commission allay EU consumers' fears that there is absolutely no risk to human health following alleged reports of animal feedingstuffs being contaminated by sewage sludge? Is the Commission also certain that diseases which threaten human health cannot be passed from any contaminated feed back into the human food chain?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The animal nutrition sector is undoubtedly an important factor in obtaining healthy food products from animal origin.

The use of sewage sludge as feed material is not acceptable. Even after processing under a high-pressure, high-temperature treatment, due to the presence of heavy metals, sewage sludge might present a risk for public and animal health if used as feedingstuff. Therefore, in order to deliver a high level of public health and consumer protection, Commission Decision 91/516/EEC of 9 September 1991, establishing a list of ingredients whose use is prohibited in compound feedingstuffs(1), specifically prohibits the use of sludge from sewage plants treating wastewaters.

In order to avoid any doubts as to the scope of existing prohibition, the Commission has already drafted a decision making clear that all materials obtained from the various phases of the waste water treatment process are prohibited in compound feedingstuffs, irrespective of any further processing of these materials and irrespective also of the origin of the waste waters. The standing committee for feedingstuffs is currently examining this draft decision.

Unfortunately, feedingstuffs can be vehicles of diseases, which are transmissible from animal to man, (i.e., zoonoses). For example: compound feedingstuffs contaminated with species of Salmonella might be the source of a contamination with these dangerous bacteria. Consequently, to reduce possible hazards to public health, Community law requires that only materials, which do not pose any risk, shall be used for feeding purposes. Furthermore, the importance of implementing good manufacturing practices has to be emphasised.

(1) OJ L 281, 9.10.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0724/00

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(14 March 2000)

Subject: Support of the peace process in Djibouti

A framework agreement designed to bring peace to Djibouti was signed in Paris on 7 February 2000 by the country's government and by the Front for the Restoration of Unity and Democracy (FRUD).

The Council Presidency has since welcomed the suspension of hostilities between government and rebel forces.

In what ways is the Council intending to encourage and support the implementation of the agreement?

Reply

(25 May 2000)

The signing on 7 February last of a framework agreement for reform and civil concord by the government of Djibouti and the Front for the Restoration of Unity and Democracy (FRUD) envisages the suspension of hostilities between government and rebel forces, as well as the liberation of prisoners held by both sides. This agreement to which the Honourable Member refers to was welcomed in a Presidency declaration issued on 21 February 200. The European Union expressed the hope that this agreement, in addition to the one signed in December 1994, would contribute to reinforcing civil peace and consolidating democracy and the development process in this country.

With respect to the question of the Honourable Member regarding encouragement and support for the implementation of the framework agreement, the Council recalls that Djibouti is a beneficiary of Community assistance allocated in the context of the Lomé agreement. A possible additional assistance which would target objectives of a political nature and be funded through the budget lines of the general budget of the EU dedicated to support human rights and democracy can always be considered, depending on a proposal from the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0732/00

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Subject: Objectivity of information provided by public broadcasters

Will the Commission say whether the broadcasts by RAI (Radio Televisione Italiana), particularly the Telegiornale news programme (TG1) on the station Rai Uno, which fails to respect the rules of parity in reporting the activities of political parties but gives certain parties special treatment, meet the requirements of European legislation regarding the reporting and dissemination of news in the multimedia sector?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Community legislation regarding the freedom of movement for services, and, in particular, the provisions of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities(1), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997(2), does not concern the issue of objectivity and impartiality of political programmes broadcast by television stations.

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.

(2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0449/00

by Harlem Désir (PSE) to the Council

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Political situation in Austria and amendment of the Treaties

As was pointed out by Commission President Romano Prodi in his statement to Parliament on 2 February 2000, the Treaties as they stand make no provision for the departure voluntary or otherwise of a Member State of the Union even in the event of serious and repeated infringements of the founding principles enshrined in Article 6 of the Amsterdam Treaty.

On the eve of the Union's enlargement and at a time when an extreme right-wing party has joined the government of a Member State thus prompting the Portuguese Presidency and the heads of state or government of the 14 other countries to suspend their bilateral relations with that country, should not this question be placed on the agenda for the next IGC? Indeed, would it not be appropriate to envisage an amendment to the Treaties to include a clause providing for suspension or expulsion in the event of a country infringing the European Union's founding values and principles of freedom, democracy and respect for human rights?

Reply

(2 May 2000)

1. Pursuant to Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union, it is for the Conference of the representatives of the governments of the Member States, and not for the Council, to determine by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

2. The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, as far as the present Intergovernmental Conference is concerned, provision has been made for two observers from the European Parliament to attend meetings of the representatives of the governments of the Member States and intervene to express the European Parliament's view on all matters discussed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Leader+ funding for Ireland

Bearing in mind the success of and the importance of the previous Leader programmes to Ireland's rural areas, and bearing in mind the current uncertainty regarding the scope and distribution of the next round of Leader+ funding, would the Commission provide an update on the state of negotiations between itself and the Irish Government, give an approximate date when detailed plans for the Leader+ initiatives will be published, comment on which areas are likely to receive what amounts, and make a statement on the precise arrangements for the delivery of the funds.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Commission is finalising the texts for Leader+ and the final version will be formally agreed and published in the Official journal shortly. Member States will be invited to present their proposals for programmes within six months of publication. Member States have been informed of the proposed allocations. Negotiations with Ireland will only commence when the proposal for a Leader+ programme has been presented to the Commission. The detailed information requested will become available with the proposal when Ireland has made its selection of local action groups for funding.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0167/00

by Rosa Díez González (PSE), Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Competition transition costs (CTC) and market variables for the Spanish electricity sector

Bearing in mind the funding system introduced by the sixth transitional provision of Law 54/97 on the Spanish electricity sector enabling electricity companies to receive aid to cover competition transition costs, has the Commission urged the Spanish government to amend this provision and link the granting of CTC to market variables (demand, price, interest rates, etc.), as the Commission advocated in its analysis methodology for state aid linked to CTC?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

The Spanish authorities promised the Commission that they would not authorise electricity companies to transfer to third parties the right to receive aid to cover the costs of transition to competition (CTC) as referred to in the sixth transitional provision of Act No 54/1997 before the Commission adopted a final decision on the matter. So far no such transfer has been authorised by the Spanish authorities. Even if any transfer had taken place, mechanisms exist in Spanish law to adjust the amounts of CTC to genuine past costs arising from market variables. The Commission will adopt its decision on the CTC in accordance with the principles laid down in its draft methodology, and in particular it will make sure that arrangements for the payment of aid take account of future trends in competition. Such trends will have to be measurable by quantifiable factors i.e. prices, market shares and other relevant factors.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1056/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(6 April 2000)

Subject: Cyprus

Accession negotiations with Cyprus pose special challenges to the EU.

What is the total amount of finance which has been made available to date so as to aid Cypriot accession? What commitments have been made as to future funding?

What, if any, funds have been made available for projects designed to foster reconciliation between the two communities in Cyprus?

If such funds have been made available, can the Council give details of the nature and number of such reconciliation projects?

UN Resolution 1283, adopted in 1999, states that links and contacts between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities remain very limited, largely because of the restrictions imposed by the occupying Turkish regime (the Denktash regime). Have the Council or its agents or employees experienced any difficulties in implementing projects designed to foster reconciliation between the two Cypriot communities?

If so, could the Council give details of these difficulties and state whether they have still to be resolved? In particular, could it state what role the Denktash regime played in blocking or otherwise hindering such reconciliation projects?

Is the Council aware of any non-EU initiatives aimed at reconciliation between the two Cypriot communities which have been blocked or in any way hindered by the Denktash regime?

Reply

(8 June 2000)

Council Regulation 555/2000 on the implementation of operations in the framework of the pre-accession strategy for the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Malta took over from the 4th Financial Protocols with both countries and is intended to support cooperation projects and operations to prepare them for accession in line with the priorities identified in their respective Accession Partnerships. In the specific case of Cyprus, operations may also be financed which contribute to the reconciliation of the two Cypriot communities.

While the financial reference amount for the period 2000 2004 for Cyprus and Malta together has been fixed in the above-mentioned Regulation at 95 million, the annual appropriations for each country will be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the financial perspective.

As for bicommunal projects in Cyprus, the Council attaches importance to promoting reconciliation projects between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities and will do everything to facilitate them. The Union is hopeful that the proximity talks launched by the UN Secretary-General in New York in December 1999 will allow for a rapprochement of both communities and thus further the reconciliation process.

The Commission is now studying bicommunal projects in Cyprus for financing under the above-mentioned Regulation. This work is currently in the pre-programming phase. Of the 9 million already committed for 2000, 6 million will be for projects and operations within the pre-accession strategy for Cyprus and 3 million will be reserved for bicommunal projects.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0272/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Legal basis of PPPs

In the first two paragraphs of its reply to question E-2218/99(1) the Commission takes the view that the use of PPPs in Community rules is based on these texts, i.e. on Community rules themselves.

It may be inferred from this that, as far as the Commission is concenred, the credibility of PPPs is based on the fact that they are used in Community rules, whilst the use of PPPs in Community rules is based on the fact that they are credible.

Does the Commission not regard this as a tautological and circular argument?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 124.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

The argument put forward in the first two paragraphs of the answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-2218/99(1) was not intended to be tautological or circular but to give a full explanation.

Firstly, it was necessary to refer to the political agreement reached at the Berlin European Council (24 and 25 March 1999) and to the assent of the European Parliament (6 May 1999). On 21 June 1999 the Council formally adopted the new Structural Funds Regulations for the period 2000-2006. These include Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(2), Article 3 of which provides that the regions covered by Objective 1 shall be regions corresponding to level II of the Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units (NUTS level II) whose per capita GDP, measured in purchasing power parities and calculated on the basis of Community figures for the last three years available on 26 March 1999, is less than 75 % of the Community average. They also include Council Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 of 21 June 1999 establishing an Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession (ISPA)(3), Article 4 of which provides that an indicative allocation between beneficiary countries of the total Community assistance under ISPA shall be made by the Commission on the basis of the criteria of population, per capita GDP in purchasing power parities and surface area.

The use and therefore the usefulness of purchasing power parities (PPPs) have thus been shown officially by both Council and Parliament even without a legal basis for the production of the PPPs themselves.

Secondly, it was necessary to underline the fact that for several years international institutions World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN), Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) public authorities, universities, research institutes, public and private enterprises, banks, the media and individuals have themselves been using PPPs.

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 124.

(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(3) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0093/00

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

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Investment in Galicia's railways during the 2000-2006 period

The Spanish Government Minister Mariano Rajoy and the Galician Government Economics Adviser Xosé Antón Orza have publicly stated that the Spanish Government is to invest 150 000 million pesetas (901,4 million euros) in Galicia's railways during the 2000-2006 period. Can the Commission confirm this figure and state categorically that, as a result of such investment, Galicia will definitely be linked to the trans-European high-speed rail network and that its internal network will also be modernised?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0088/00, E-0092/00 and E-0093/00 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

At the current stage of the thought being given to the revision of the Community approach towards the trans-European transport network Parliament and Council Decision No 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996(1), the Commission has not been aware of any specific new high-speed projects in Spain. The amounts mentioned by the Honourable Member have, in the main, been set aside for upgrading the

conventional railway lines to Galicia in order to achieve speeds of roughly 200 kilometres per hour (km/h) between Madrid and Monforte de Lemos, and upgrading the conventional lines to Orense and Santiago and towards La Coruna, Vigo et Oporto (Portugal).

As regards the development study of the Vigo-Oporto Atlantic corridor referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission would confirm that 50 % of the total cost of that study was co-financed in 1999. Its basic aim covered the following two areas: launching transport infrastructure projects in the areas being examined (Galicia and Northern Portugal) while seeking practical joint public/private funding options, and gradually helping to integrate the ground, sea and air transport infrastructure networks, thus guaranteeing the lasting mobility of persons and goods. The results of the study are expected in 2001.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.