ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2619/99

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Assistance for the British pigmeat industry

The Commission has acknowledged that for a variety of reasons pig farmers in the United Kingdom are experiencing an extreme financial crisis.

Will the Commission consider either of the following measures to alleviate at least some of the pressures which are forcing many farmers out of business:

1. the reintroduction of export refunds for EU pigmeat?

2. support for the UK's application for state aid to cover its BSE-related costs which have had a detrimental effect on the competitiveness of UK pigmeat?

Can the Commission suggest other measures which the United Kingdom or the European Union may be able to take, in compliance with Community law, to help the UK's ailing pigmeat industry?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2000)

It is regrettable that pigmeat markets in all parts of Europe have experienced some very difficult times. However, the main reason for the poor prices is the continuous oversupply of pigmeat.

It is true that United Kingdom has imposed some national measures, which increase the cost of slaughtering of pigs. Some informal contacts have taken place between the Commission and British authorities to discuss what form an aid might take. At the present time, however, the Commission has not received any formal notification of proposals to grant aid.

In order to be acceptable any aid must of course meet the conditions laid down by the EC Treaty. In particular, the aid should facilitate the economic development of the sector. Aids which are simply intended to offset trading losses are in principle not acceptable under the Community rules.

Export refunds are currently available for a wide variety of pigmeat products including fresh and frozen meat and processed products. Granting of export refunds is a great help for the European pigmeat market, and has facilitated the exports of almost 800 000 tons of pigmeat to third countries in 1999. As the pressure in Community pigmeat markets has prevailed, the Commission has kept the relatively high export refunds available since more than one year. It is true that the Commission no longer pays an extra high refund for fresh and frozen meat destined for Russia. However, these exports still benefit from the normal refund. It should be underlined that the Commission has to take into account in its refund policy the limited demand in export markets, budgetary constraints, as well as the quantitative commitments of the World trade organization agreement.

The Commission has discussed other possible measures (e.g. to create voluntary based funds) with Member States on several occasions, but so far these ideas have received little support from the majority of Member States. However, the Commission continues to reflect on this issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2101/99

by Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) and Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Rejection by the Commission of Italy's proposal relating to Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for the 2000-2006 period

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Communities and to Regulation No 2160/99(1) on the Structural Funds, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What reasons led to rejection of the allocation proposal submitted by the Italian Government?

2. How in particular does the proposal need to be redrafted in order to secure acceptance?

3. How much time is allowed for redrafting?

4. Has any assessment been carried out of the allocations for each region? If so, what is the situation as regards the various regions of Italy?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2000)

On 1 July 1999, the Commission established the ceiling on the population in each Member State eligible under Objective 2. That for Italy was set at 7,4 million inhabitants. On the same day, Member States were invited to forward to the Commission, before 31 August 1999, their proposals for the areas eligible under Objective 2.

1. On 1 October 1999, the Italian authorities forwarded their proposal to the Commission. It was considered inadmissible because it did not comply with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, which requires the areas meeting the so-called Community criteria, listed in Article 4(5) and (6), to include at least 50 % of the population covered by Objective 2 in each Member State. The areas meeting these criteria submitted by the Italian authorities covered only 2,2 million inhabitants, 29,6 % of the total population eligible.

2. On 11 October 1999, the Commission asked the Italian authorities to draw up as soon as possible a revised proposal which conformed to the regulatory requirements. To do that, they will have to add to the original list at least 1,5 million inhabitants from areas meeting the Community criteria and, on the other hand, exclude from this list an identical number from areas presented under paragraphs 7 to 9 of Article 4.

3. So far, the Commission has received no new revised proposal from the Italian authorities and so is not in a position to indicate when it will be able to adopt the list of the areas eligible under Objective 2 in Italy.

4. As soon as it receives the Italian proposal, the Commission will evaluate it, both overall and by region, in the light of the criteria in the Regulation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1883/99

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Urban communities in the proximity of airports

Via Mrs Bjerregaard's response to the written question E-3254/97(1) on 19 November 1997, the Commission undertook to draw up a framework proposal on noise pollution for the start of 1999. This proposal still does not formally exist today.

Could the Commission report upon whether or not measures to combat noise pollution at airports might be introduced into this framework proposal, with the aim of confronting and overcoming the problem of coexistence and quality of life faced by those urban communities nearby?

Does the Commission intend to introduce a directive with the aim of reducing noise pollution in the proximity of airports, as requested by Parliament in its Resolution A4-0183/97(2) on the Commission Green Paper, Noise pollution control policy for the future of 10 June 1997?

(1) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 71.

(2) OJ C 200, 30.6.1997, p. 28.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

As part of the Commission overall environmental policy, the forthcoming framework directive on the assessment and reduction of environmental noise exposure aims at introducing common noise indicators for the perception of noise, establishing common noise exposure assessment methods and allowing for the assessment of the current levels of noise exposure for urbanised areas by means of noise mapping. In this context, this framework directive will establish the general basis for an improvement in the level of noise exposure. It is, thus, not specific for air transport.

However, the workprogramme of the Commission for 2000, which was adopted on 9 February 2000, includes a specific measure targeting noise around airports. The Commission intends to present later this year to the Parliament and the Council a proposal for a directive on the establishment of a common noise index, a common method of computing noise and minimal requirements for monitoring noise around airports. This initiative should contribute to a reduction of noise in the areas surrounding airports.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2258/99

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Tax discussions

1. What changes to EU tax systems does the Commission believe should be considered at the next Intergovernmental Conference?

2. In particular, does the Commission support the introduction of qualified majority voting for any tax matters and, if so, which ones?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

As it made clear in its Opinion of 26 January 2000(1), the Commission believes that because they reflect the fundamental views of national legislators on matters of economic policy, social cohesion and solidarity, tax and social security heavily influence voters' domestic political choices justifying the retention of unanimity voting in these fields. Nevertheless, it considers that certain aspects of these two areas are inseparable from the working of the internal market and should be subject to qualified majority voting, particularly when obstacles lead to discrimination, double taxation or tax evasion. It should be stressed that it is not the intention to move towards general harmonisation of national systems, tax bases and tax rates.

In addition, qualified majority voting should be applied when legislation has already been harmonised, in order to simplify and modernise existing rules and ensure they are applied more uniformly. This applies in particular to the common VAT system and the movement of and controls on goods subject to excise duty.

Finally, the Commission is firmly committed to fighting fraud, which has become an increasing problem with the removal of tax frontiers for goods and the liberalisation of capital movements. Qualified majority voting should therefore also apply to measures aimed at preventing tax evasion and tax fraud.

The Commission will present detailed proposals on this issue at the Intergovernmental Conference.

(1) Adapting the institutions to make a success of enlargement: Opinion of the Commission under Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union on the calling of a conference of representatives of the Governments of the Member States to amend the Treaties COM(00) 34.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2836/99

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Future of research on climate change

When does the Commission expect that research on climate change will no longer be needed, or could be limited to a few areas, and on what basis?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2836/99 and E-2837/99 given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

Research on climate change is a long-term approach since it involves basic understanding of the complex earth system, its evolution and change, prediction, detection and monitoring or documentation of changes. Given the non-linearity of earth system and the political significance of the issue it is desirable to continue Community support for an undetermined period of time. Priorities need to be set as is the case for the recent call.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2839/99

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Climate change in previous research programmes and in the Fifth Framework Programme

Are there areas of research or research methodology relevant to understanding the processes of climate change which have been represented in previous research programmes and are also in the Fifth Framework Programme? If so, are they included because resources devoted to this area in previous years were inadequate, or too few applications for the funding were received, or because the research required is very extensive and was unlikely to have been adequately dealt with in a single Framework Programme?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Climate process research continues in the Fifth framework programme, in particular, in the context of climate variability and abrupt climate changes. Understanding of such processes is a basic requirement to differentiate between natural and anthropogenic variations of climate. Indeed, the research required is very extensive and long-term.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2346/99

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Tomato imports from Morocco

Why has the Commission not monitored the quota nor taken the necessary action to prevent Morocco from exceeding the volume of tomato exports laid down in the Association Agreement and in Protocol No 1 thereto on the arrangements applying to imports into the Community of agricultural products originating in Morocco, in particular in Article 3 thereof?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2344/99, E-2345/99, E-2346/99, E-2347/99, E-2348/99 and P-2483/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission is closely monitoring developments in fresh tomato imports from Morocco.

Having noted that the quantities agreed on for the 1998/1999 marketing year were being exceeded, the Commission drew the Moroccan authorities' attention to the importance of respecting those quantities if the Community market was to remain in equilibrium.

During the current marketing year, developments in imports in October 1999 prompted the Commission to request urgent talks with the Moroccan authorities. Those talks were held in Rabat on 22 December 1999 but did not lead to a solution guaranteeing that the granted quota would not be exceeded. Accordingly, and without prejudice to future talks, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 2767/1999, introduced an import licence system, in accordance with the exchange of letters between the Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on 22 December 1994.

The Commission would remind the Member States that they are responsible for the correct application of the rules in force concerning imports, including the setting of customs duties due.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2704/99

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Transport of animals

Recent investigations carried out by animal welfare NGOs have shown that many farm animals suffer during long-distance transportation to slaughterhouses.

The Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, will be presenting a summary of these investigations to the European Commission prior to a review of the Directive on the Protection of Animals during Transport (91/628/EEC(1) as amended by 95/29/EC(2)). It is clear that the enforcement of the transport rules is not being taken seriously by Member States. What steps is the Commission proposing to take to ensure better enforcement?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

The Commission is aware, both from information gathered during inspection missions and as a result of complaints from animal welfare organisations (such as the report from Eurogroup for animal welfare mentioned by the Honourable Member), that journeys which are in breach of the provisions of Council Directive 91/628/EC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 concerning the protection of animals during transport(1), notably in relation to time limits and resting, feeding and watering requirements, still frequently take place in the Community.

Concerning future activities the Commission is considering measures based on an opinion of the scientific committee on animal welfare adopted on 8 December 1999, on standards in the vehicles transporting livestock. This proposal is foreseen for the first quarter of 2000.

A working group of the standing veterinary committee has recently been established to consider particular problems of the enforcement of the Directive in respect of long-distance transport operations including the import of horses from third countries. Copies of the report from Eurogroup mentioned above have been distributed to the Member States during the first meeting of the group. During the next year the Commission will consider proposals to amend current Community legislation on the basis of the conclusions of this working group.

During the first quarter of 2000, as provided by Article 13 of Council Directive 91/628/EEC(2), the Commission will present to the Council a report on the experience acquired by Member States since the implementation of this Directive. The report will take into consideration all the information transmitted by Member States, the result of the inspection carried out by the food and veterinary office in this field and the data derived from the complaints from non-governmental organisations.

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2533/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of Greek maritime law with community legislation

With a view to bringing Greek legislation in line with Directive 75/34(1) (Article 7) and Regulation 1251/70(2) (Article 7) and the ECJ judgment of 27 November 1997 the Greek Government recently issued a presidential decree abolishing Article 5 of the Code of Public Maritime Law which states that only vessels which are more than 50 % owned by Greek shipowners are deemed Greek vessels.

Seamen's and shipowners' union organisations are concerned lest vessels with owners from other Community Member States receive more favourable treatment than vessels with Greek owners.

Given the concerns expressed by these trade union organisations, will the Commission say:

1. Is there any possibility that foreign vessels which will be based in Greece may receive more favourable treatment?

2. Will the Greek legal provisions applicable to Greek vessels apply to such vessels without discrimination, such as the provisions on the composition of crews, the establishment of a common working language, the granting of licences, manning, rescue measures etc.?

(1) OJ L 14, 20.1.1975, p. 10.

(2) OJ L 142, 30.6.1970, p. 24.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The draft Presidential Decree amending Article 5 of Order No 187 of 29 September 3 October 1973 promulgating the code of public maritime law follows up the EC Judgment of 27 November 1997 in Case C62/96 on the conditions attached to ship registration. That draft was submitted for scrutiny by the Commission and considered to be in line with Community law and, once it has been published, will enable the infringement procedure to be filed.

Under Article 43 (former Article 52) of the EEC Treaty, ships belonging to Member State citizens or companies that have been entered in the Hellenic Register, must be subject to the same conditions as those applying to all other Greek ships. The provisions of Greek law relating to crew composition, the introduction of a common working language, the issue of operating licences, safety staff and other requirements of Greek law will also apply, without distinction, to such ships.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1935/99

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Commission staff

How many full-time Commission officials are working either directly or indirectly in the administration of the EU's development and assistance programmes?

What proportion of the total full-time staff of the Commission does this represent?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2000)

Following the recent reorganisation of the Commission services, there are approximately 2 600 headquarters staff working in the six external relations services (external relations, trade, development, enlargement, humanitarian aid office and joint service for external relations). This represents 10 % of all personnel working in the Commission headquarters.

Of this number, almost 400 are employed in DG Development, with an estimated further 900 staff working in other external relations services on development cooperation and assistance programmes.

In addition, around 650 Commission officials are employed in the delegations in third countries. These staff are occupied on a wide range of external relations functions, including management of external aid programmes.

The staffing of the external relations family is as follows:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2834/99

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Approximate amounts of funding for research directly linked to climate change

What are the approximate amounts of funding for research directly linked to climate change allocated in the first, second, third, fourth and fifth Framework Programmes for Research and Development?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Approximately, the allocated budgets for climate research were ECU 17 million in FP1, ECU 40 million in FP2, ECU 90 million in FP3, ECU 150 million in FP4 and 240 million in FP5.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2668/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Regulations on advertisements during election campaigns

In Italy one of the great topics of debate at the moment is equal opportunities in the field of television advertising during election campaigns; in fact, for parties and individual politicians, a ban on interrupting television programmes with advertisements could be in force as early as the next local elections. According to the proposal for legislation submitted by the Italian Government, only private local television advertising slots would be granted. For national television, on the other hand, the parties would be granted self-managed slots for transmission between television programmes.

In the light of the above:

1. Can the Commission say how the other Member States deal with television advertising during election campaigns?

2. Are there any relevant EU directives?

3. What is the Commission's assessment of the issue?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

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), includes provisions relating to advertising, sponsorship and teleshopping. However, these provisions do not govern political broadcasts or political advertising, but relate to advertising spots without distinction in terms of time. The Commission has not received any complaints concerning arrangements in the Member States similar to those described by the Honourable Member. The Community rules in force in this area do not make provision for any examination of national regulations at the draft stage, such as the proposal referred to, unless the text contains provisions relating specifically to information society services, which are subject to the prior

notification obligation under Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(3) (as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998(4)).

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.

(2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.

(3) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(4) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998.