ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2255/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Action to support the euro

Following the Ecofin meeting of 8 May 2000, the French Finance Minister, Laurent Fabius, commented that concrete action could be taken to boost the euro.

It was reported that the Finance Ministers agreed that an instrument of intervention exists, and is available, referring to the reserves of the European System of Central Banks.

Could the Council indicate which instruments could be invoked to support the euro, the circumstances under which they could be invoked, and who would be responsible for taking such a decision?

Reply

(30 November 2000)

The ultimate behaviour of the euro depends primarily on the trend in the basic parameters of the euro area economy. The Member States can have a lasting influence on the rate of the European currency by acting on those foundations. The Member States and the Community have therefore undertaken to take concrete measures to bolster the credibility of current economic policy with a view to positioning the economy on a sustained, higher and non-inflationary growth and employment path. The broad economic policy guidelines for 2000 recently adopted by the Council set forth concrete recommendations specific to each country. More generally, they called upon Member States participating in the euro to make sustained efforts to speed up fiscal consolidation and to implement the necessary structural reforms. In that context the Member States were called upon to achieve budgetary positions close to balance or in surplus more rapidly than envisaged by the stability and convergence programmes and, as a general rule, in the course of 2001. With a view to ensuring the efficiency of that policy the Eurogroup would carry out, and if need be strengthen, continuous monitoring of developments in the budget policies of Member States participating in the euro.

Direct intervention in the exchange market obviously remains an available instrument for influencing euro rates which could be used by the ECB. If intervention were to take place, the foreign reserves centralised in the ECB would be used. The bulk of the ECB's balance sheet assets is made up of those reserves (see the ECB's 1999 annual report).

At its meeting on 8 May 2000 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1010/2000, enabling the ECB, if necessary, to call for further foreign reserve assets from the national central banks beyond the limit set in Article 30(1) of the Statute, up to an amount equivalent to an additional EUR 50 thousand million.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2601/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Collapse of a quay at the port of Heraklion, Crete

On 9 July 2000 the western section of quay 2 of the port of Heraklion on Crete collapsed. The construction of the quay had been financed under the second CSF.

1. Were the works inspected by the special quality control committee, and were any anomalies found?

2. Why did part of the quay collapse, and who is responsible?

3. Does the port offer safety guarantees for passenger vessels and car ferries docking there?

4. What action will the Commission take in the wake of these events with a view to imposing sanctions and supervising the reconstruction of the quay?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

The Commission did not part-finance construction of the western section of quay 2 at the port of Heraklion. Its information is that the port authority itself financed the work.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2875/00

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

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Discounts on landing fees for Spanish airlines and the decentralisation of international airport traffic

Does the Commission consider that the royal decree of the Spanish state permitting the practice of offering special discounts on landing fees for Spanish airlines not only constitutes a distortion of competition but also makes it difficult or impossible for airlines from other Member States to use peripheral airports in the Spanish state, even though those airports stand in need of direct flights with every region of the EU while Iberia refuses to operate such flights?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

On 26 July 2000, the Commission adopted Decision 2000/521/EC(1) pursuant to Article 86(3) (ex Article 90) of the EC Treaty. In that Decision, it found that Spain's system of discriminatory landing charges provided by Royal Decrees 1064/91 and 1268/94 and by Law 41/94 constituted a measure incompatible with Article 86(1) read with Article 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty and with the EEA Agreement.

In that Decision, the Commission found that a system of discounts and different landing fees according to the origin of the flight, as prescribed in the above-mentioned legislation, discriminates in favour of national airlines. For all categories of planes, it provides for higher fees for intra-Community flights than for domestic ones. In addition, it provides for discounts which increase with the number of landings per month. The discounts increase from 9 % up to 35 %. De facto, this system favours national carriers, as they alone benefit from the highest discounts.

Accordingly, the Decision required Spain to bring an end to the infringement and to notify the Commission of the measures taken within two months of the notification of that Decision.

Whether the existing system of landing fees in Spain makes it difficult or impossible for airlines from other Member States to use peripheral airports in Spain is a different issue. Up to now, no airline has raised this point with the Commission.

(1) OJ L 208, 18.8.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2757/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: German compensation for detainees who carried out forced labour in concentration camps

In April 1996 a petition (No 987/97) was lodged with Parliament's Petitions Committee by 17 Greek women who during the German occupation had carried out hard labour in concentration camps.

In view of the agreement signed in July 2000 by the German Government undertaking to compensate, by means of a special fund, 1,5 million elderly individuals who were compelled to carry out hard labour during the Second World War, can the Commission say:

(a) whether the Greek women who signed the petition and others in similar circumstances are due compensation by virtue of the above agreement, and

(b) if not, what avenues are available to them to pursue their claims that they suffered treatment similar to those receiving compensation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2000)

It is not possible for the Commission to say whether the terms and conditions of the agreement mentioned by the Honourable Member would entitle the Greek women who signed petition No 987/97, or others in similar circumstances, to compensation. This is a matter for the German government.

Petition No 987/97 was discussed at a meeting of the Parliament's petitions committee on 1 December 1998 and it was decided that as Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971(1) did not apply to schemes in favour of war victims, it would address the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag to try to improve the situation of these victims.

(1) Last consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1918/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Council

(19 June 2000)

Subject: Restrictions on the granting of visas to Bulgarian and Romanian nationals

On 26 January 2000 the Commission proposed to the Member States that Bulgaria and Romania be withdrawn from the black list of third countries whose nationals require a visa to enter Union territory.

The President of the Piedmont region wrote to me on 11 May 2000 informing me that the above proposal had not yet had any practical consequences, and that this was seriously affecting the efforts being made by the region to establish cooperation networks with those countries.

Does the Council agree that the present situation could call into question the entire process which is to lead to Bulgaria and Romania's accession to the Union?

Does the Council not consider it necessary to act on the Commission's proposal concerning visas for Bulgarian and Romanian citizens?

What measures will the Council adopt to facilitate the movement of Bulgarian and Romanian citizens in the European Union?

Reply

(16 November 2000)

On 26 January 2000 the Commission submitted to the Council, on the basis of Article 62(2)(b)(i) of the TEC, a proposal for a Regulation listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement. Bulgaria and Romania are amongst the third countries whose nationals the Commission proposes to exempt. The proposal is currently under discussion in the Council.

The European Parliament was consulted by letter dated 16 March 2000 and delivered its Opinion on 5 July 2000. In the light of that Opinion, the Commission announced that it would be submitting an amended proposal for a Regulation to the Council. The Council has just received this proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2306/00

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: The URBAN programme and Ceuta

Can the Commission estimate the amount of funding to be assigned to the Spanish region of Ceuta under the URBAN programme in the next programming period?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2302/00, E-2304/00 and E-2306/00 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

It is impossible at present to give any precise estimate of the volume and breakdown of Structural Fund appropriations that the region of Ceuta and Melilla will receive for the 2000-2006 programming period. Negotiations on Objectives 1 and 2 funding with the Spanish authorities are still in progress.

Likewise it is too early to say what amounts will be allocated to the region under the Community Initiatives Interreg and Urban.

In the case of Objective 1 the Commission sent each Member State a proposal for distribution of the available appropriations among the regions concerned. These proposals are based on the Commission's method of distributing Objective 1 appropriations among the Member States. The Commission is sending a copy of the proposal for Spain direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

It must be stressed however that these are merely indicative proposals. The actual allocation is agreed by the Member State and the Commission when the Community support framework or single programming document is adopted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2428/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: Removing the national veto on tax and other matters

With reference to the European Union's draft paper on institutional reform, is it correct that it calls for the abolition of the national veto on 39 separate areas of policy to forestall possible blockages in an enlarged European Union?

What are these 39 areas of policy?

The document apparently contains a list of tax matters which are closely linked to the internal market and those which are not closely linked to the internal market.

Can the Commission provide a full list of those tax matters said to be closely linked to the internal market, and those that are said not to be?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Honourable Member is referring to the Presidency's report to the Feira European Council on the Intergovernmental Conference on Institutional Reform(Confer 4750/00(1)). Annex 3.1 to the report contains a list of 39 provisions which should be examined with a view to a changeover to qualified majority voting. Annex 3.2 contains a draft by the Presidency for the reformulation of Article 93 (former Article 99) of the EC Treaty which would retain the principle of unanimous voting with regard to taxation. It also gives a brief list of specific measures linked to the internal market in respect of which voting by qualified majority could be envisaged. The report by the Presidency (Part I, Chapter 3, paras.6 to 8) indicates what stage the negotiations have reached.

(1) http://db.consilium.eu.int/cigdocs/EN/04750f.pdf.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2108/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Reforming the Commission

Paragraph 55 of the Van Hulten report calls on the Commission to carry out a comprehensive reform of human resources policy, including the introduction of a significant independent external element to the disciplinary procedure.

What does the Commission plan in response to the recommendation for this external element?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

The Commission's plans for reform of rules on disciplinary proceedings are set out in the White Paper Reforming the Commission(1) adopted on March 1st.

The document identifies shortcomings in the present system which include the fact that it is based around a disciplinary board that varies in composition and is purely internal. The introduction of an independent external element could contribute to remedying such shortcomings and enhancing consistency and professionalism in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings.

A consultative document on reform of the discipline system, and the adoption by the Commission of a draft decision on administrative improvements to disciplinary proceedings, are scheduled in the Reform Action Plan (published with the White Paper) for October 2000. The consultative document will include proposals for improving procedures and making relevant amendments to the Staff Regulations.

Meanwhile, the nomination of people who are not serving officials to serve as chairpersons of the disciplinary board is, together with related matters, under consideration. Under the present Staff Regulations that is the only way to introduce an independent external element into disciplinary proceedings because the provisions of Article 5 of Annex II of the Regulations require that the members of the board must be serving officials.

Further to that, the Honourable Member will have noted that the intention to propose the establishment of an inter-institutional Disciplinary Board was set out in the White Paper. That proposal will be included in the forthcoming consultative document with the purpose of increasing the continuity and consistency of the Board by ensuring that it will be composed of a single group of officials, for all cases, who are chosen for a period of office of up to three years, and come from the administrations and from staff representation.

(1) COM(2000) 200 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2230/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 July 2000)

Subject: Compensation for damage caused by natural disasters (earthquake) in the Emilia Romagna region

An earthquake registering 4,8 on the Richter scale struck the region of Emilia Romagna on 18 June, with its epicentre in the plains of the province of Reggio Emilia, between the municipalities of Bagnolo in Piano and Novellara.

Although no one was killed, the earthquake caused various damage to housing, buildings and churches.

Other powerful earthquakes had already struck the region of Emilia Romagna in 1996 and 1999 with their epicentre in the Province of Reggio Emilia, causing considerable damage including the collapse of housing and infrastructures, with many people losing their homes.

Given that the area is highly susceptible to earthquakes and given the frequency with which such events have occurred in recent years, will the Commission provide the region of Emilia Romagna with funds to compensate for the damage caused which can be made available to the inhabitants of the municipalities concerned?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

The damage caused by the earthquake of 18 June 2000 in the Emilia Reggio province is not in itself entitled to receive Community financing under the Structural Funds. The Italian authorities can intervene, if they deem it necessary, with their own funds allocated for emergency intervention.

On 25 July 2000 the Commission adopted the list of Italian areas eligible for Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006. Within the Emilia Romagna region, the zones eligible for this Objective will include approximately 388,000 inhabitants. Funds will be available to these areas, in particular for measures aiming to repair infrastructures necessary for economic activity.

Furthermore, the areas that were eligible for Objective 2 or Objective 5(b) during the previous programming period and which no longer feature on the above-mentioned list can continue, nonetheless, to receive assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) until the end of 2005 within the framework of transitional decreasing support.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2369/00

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Commission fisheries policy

What is the position of the Commission on the discard and dumping of fish, in view of dwindling fish stocks in our waters?

Will the Commission pledge to concentrate on finding a solution to this serious problem, before and throughout the preparations for the review of the CFP in 2002?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

It is clear that the capture of fish, mainly juveniles, which are then discarded, dead or moribund, is contrary to the conservation and sustainability of fish stocks.

The Commission is committed to finding means by which such practices are significantly reduced and, wherever possible, completely eliminated. Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms(1) dealing with factors such as mesh sizes and closed areas represents a considerable revision of its predecessor. The Commission will keep abreast of future developments leading to improvement in selectivity of fishing gears and will make every effort to ensure that such progress is reflected within Community legislation.

This issue will be addressed in the Commission's green paper on the common fisheries policy after 2002, which will be issued early in 2001.

(1) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2843/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Fine imposed on Greece

Following the recent landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice that Greece must pay a daily fine for failure to comply with environmental legislation, will the Commission state how much Greece has paid to date or when it is expected that Greece will make a first payment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2000)

In its judgment of 4 July 2000(1) the Court of Justice required Greece to pay to the Commission's EC own resources account a penalty payment of 20 000 for each day's delay in taking the action needed in order to comply with the Commission/Greece judgment of 7 April 1992, dating from the time when that judgment was handed down, and continuing until that action has been taken.

Since this is an initial judgment based on Article 228 (former Article 171) of the EC Treaty requiring the payment of a penalty by a Member State, the Commission, taking account of the existing rules(2), will send a letter to the Greek authorities setting out the conditions attached to payment of the amount involved in the daily penalty payment which began to take effect on the date when the abovementioned judgment was handed down and which will continue to be due until Greece meets the requirements of the order.

(1) Case C-387/97.

(2) Decision of 14 December 1994 on the internal-procedure provisions governing the recovery of lump sums or periodic penalty payments required by the Court of Justice under Article 171 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3640/00

by António Campos (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Common Agricultural Policy

One of the Union's most important objectives if not the most important for the next few years is enlargement. This will require extensive political reforms, including reform of the CAP.

Will the Commission therefore state by how much the EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure is to be increased as a result of enlargement in relation to the three countries mentioned below, assuming that these countries will be entitled to the same treatment as currently applies to the fifteen EU Member States:

1. Increase in EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure, following the accession of Poland.

2. Increase in EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure, following the accession of Hungary.

3. Increase in EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure, following the accession of the Czech Republic.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2690/00 by Mr Huhne(1).

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001.