ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2005/99

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) and Rosa Díez González (PSE) to the Commission

(9 November 1999)

Subject: Replacement of drift nets

Council Regulation 1239/98(1) prohibiting the use of drift nets from 2002 states that there must be a gradual reduction in the use of these nets by fleets currently using them. No more than 60 % of fishing boats which used one or more drift nets during the period 1995 to 1997 would be allowed to use them in 1998.

The regulation also obliged Member States to provide the Commission with a list of those boats authorised to fish with drift nets by 31 July 1998.

Given the tensions that the use of these nets tends to generate in the fleets fishing in the Bay of Biscay and reports from various fishermen's organisations in the area indicating that nothing like the planned gradual reduction has occurred, would the Commission honour statements made by President Prodi and the undertaking given by Commissioner Fischler to the Committee on Fisheries to provide reliable, transparent information to this Parliament, and answer the following question:

What are the figures on boats operating in the area which have used drift nets from 1995 to the present given to the Commission by Member States in accordance with Regulation 1239/98, or compiled internally?

What figures does the Commission have on developments in coastal fishing for albacore tuna in 1998 and 1999 as regards catch, nets used and the level of stocks in ICES areas 5b, 6a, 7a, 8a, 9a and 10a? What boats from which countries have fished in these zones during the two years in question?

Would the Commission give details of compliance with the ICCAT recommendation on the fishing effort for albacore tuna?

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 1999)

The Honourable Members are requested to refer to the answers given to written questions P-1537/99(1) and P-2067/99(2) by Mrs Fraga Estévez and E-1945/99(3) by Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna.

The Commission would point out that it takes an active part in the work of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and of its Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS), which, following its meeting on 11 to 15 October 1999, has drawn up a report evaluating the state of the various stocks, including the target species for drift netting: the albacore.

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000.

(2) See page 82.

(3) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 94.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1712/99

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Rules on egg collection

In northern Sweden, the distances between producers and the central depot where the eggs are quality-controlled and packed are extreme. Before accession to the EU, the eggs were collected once a week and

could still be dated 25 days ahead. This system never created any problems, particularly as the eggs were kept in cold storage throughout. Since accession, this system has been changed and the eggs have to be collected twice a week in order to be dated 25 days ahead. Can the Commission envisage allowing an exception to this rule in view of the great distances involved?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1999)

The Commission has already provided for an exception to the general rule for collecting eggs for Sweden and Finland as requested by the Honourable Member. By Commission Regulation (EC) No 505/98 of 3 March 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1274/91 introducing detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs(1), the following provision was added to Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1274/91 of 15 May 1991(2) on the common marketing standards for eggs:

However, in Finland and Sweden delivery or collection from producers to packing centres or to the industry may take place once a week only in those cases where the temperature at which eggs are kept at the farm in artificially maintained below 14°C.

(1) OJ L 63, 4.3.1998.

(2) OJ L 121, 16.5.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2232/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Publication of the econometric model

Is the Commission willing to make available to interested researchers its econometric model of the EU and the eurozone, stripped, where necessary, of all assumptions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2232/99 and E-2243/99 by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

Models in the public sector of Member States are not always developed by ministries of finance or central banks (e.g. in Belgium and the Netherlands, they are developed by their planning bureau). The existence of such models varies through time, is of course not under the control of the Commission and is not always publicised. Information about their availability should thus be requested from the Member States authorities.

As far as the Commission is concerned, it has been a constant policy to transfer its multinational macro model QUEST to all universities and public sector research units that request it. The transfer is made under the following conditions. The user cannot modify the structure and equations of the model in any way and simulations made with the model should always state that they only represent the views of the authors and in no way those of the Commission. The model has been developed in a specific software package that is not the property of the Commission. The user must thus provide the same software, acquired under his own responsibility. The Commission cannot provide any technical help to the user. It is the responsibility of the latter to entrust the model to a fully qualified econometric team having a proven experience of running macro-economic models.

The model covers all Member States and a description of it could be found on the Internet at the address; http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg02/document/ecopap/ecp/123en.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1592/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Discrimination against footballers

In view of the fact that the Bosman Ruling should have covered EC nationals, EEA nationals and certain countries with which the EC had association agreements including Turkey, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic States, can the Commission confirm that it would be illegal for football or national authorities to discriminate against nationals of states with association agreements that were already playing football within the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 1999)

The Community association or cooperation agreements with Turkey, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco and the Europe agreements with Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic states contain a provision on equal treatment of workers as regards working conditions and remuneration.

On this basis, the Commission considers that workers who are nationals of these countries should be treated on the same basis as Community nationals when they are legally employed in the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2091/99

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Reports concerning the carcinogenic risks of Roundup

1. Is the Commission aware that a press report (in the Berliner Zeitung) indicates that the Commission has been given evidence that Monsanto's genetically engineered Roundup causes cancer?

2. Can the Commission provide evidence that Roundup poses no risks to humans, animals or the environment?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Glyphosate, the active substance contained in the plant protection product Round-up, is currently under evaluation in the framework of the first review programme of existing active substances undertaken under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/2 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(1). The draft evaluation report on glyphosate was submitted by the rapporteur Member State, Germany, on 1 February 1999 to the Commission and the Member States.

According to the usual procedures provided in Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 the draft report was immediately forwarded for expert consultation (peer review) with specialised experts from five Member States to examine in detail the draft report in all areas of human health and environmental safety (physico-chemical properties, toxicology, residues, ecotoxicology, fate and behaviour in the environment).

Notifiers were informed that certain data were necessary to finalise the risk assessment. In particular when during the evaluation laboratory studies raise concerns, notifiers have to provide evidence that such concerns do not appear under appropriate field conditions. For glyphosate most of this information should be available within the coming months.

Final results from the peer review will be discussed with the 15 Member States within the framework of the standing committee on plant health. Before a decision is taken by the Commission, the scientific committee on plants will be consulted.

In any case, as provided in Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(2), the Commission will only include glyphosate in Annex I to the Directive if it has been demonstrated that there are no harmful effects on human or animal health or on groundwater or any unacceptable influence on the environment.

(1) OJ L 366, 15.12.1992.

(2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2110/99

by SIR Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 1999)

Subject: Air Traffic Control

What discussions have been held with IATA about Air Traffic Control problems and delays? What is the nature of those discussions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2106/99, E-2107/99, E-2108/99, E-2109/99, E-2110/99, E-2111/99, E-2112/99, E-2113/99, E-2114/99, E-2115/99, E-2116/99 and E-2117/99 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission has issued a communication(1) on the current situation of air traffic delays and on new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management (ATM) system it needs to ensure the proper functioning of its internal market. Most questions raised by the Honourable Member are answered in this document which has been adopted on 1 December 1999 and communicated to the Council and the Parliament.

When preparing this communication the Commission worked in close cooperation with interested parties, in particular airspace users, airports, workers, and air traffic services providers, through their representative organisations. It also consulted the civil aviation authorities of all Member States on the various actions to take to rectify the situation.

Reduction of air traffic delays is primarily a responsibility of Member States and their co-ordinating body, Eurocontrol. In this context operational procedures and technical improvements are for specialists to define and implement. The role of the Community is essentially to create the organisational framework at national and European level so as to ensure that such solutions are universally agreed and implemented in a co-ordinated and consistent manner. This is why the Community decided in 1998 to join Eurocontrol so as to exercise political control on this organisation. Negotiations to that end are nearly completed, but ratification procedures may take several years. The Commission therefore will ask early implementation of Community membership.

The ATM 2000 strategy is a document produced by Eurocontrol and it is the responsibility of that organisation to adopt and implement the proposals contained in the strategy. The Commission has contributed to the production of this document along with aviation users, Member States, and international organisations. The Commission supports the general objectives and strategic principles as indicated in the strategy, but wonders whether more work is required in order to develop a mature, reliable and robust plan which addresses the technological developments necessary to meet the estimated doubling of traffic by 2015.

(1) COM(1999) 614.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2242/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Wage bill and employees of the EU institutions

Please state the number of employees of the European Commission, European Parliament and European Council at the end of each year for the last five years, together with the total wage bill for each institution, and the average paid per employee.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 1999)

For the Commission, the figures are as follows:

>TABLE>

These figures represent the number of staff, including staff posted outside the Community, covered by the establishment plan and paid on 31 December of each of the past five years. The total pay bill relates to those posts paid from the general budget (part A), and therefore does not include research, or agency staff.

The Commission does not have the information sought in respect of the other institutions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2453/99

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: State aid to shipbuilding

Can the Commission indicate what action has been taken against the Government of the Republic of South Korea on the issue of state aid to shipbuilding in order to enforce fair competition rules?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2453/99 and E-2454/99 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The Commission has received numerous submissions from European industry and the Member States containing allegations about the use of subsidies or dumping in South Korea.

On 9 November 1999 the Council instructed the Commission to initiate certain measures to put a stop to the unfair practices encountered in the industry.

The Commission plans to enter into a joint (government/industry) bilateral dialogue with South Korea with a view to resolving the problems. The first such meeting took place in Paris on 14 December 1999 to coincide with a meeting of the OECD's Working Party No 6 on Shipbuilding.

On the multilateral front the Commission is also considering anti-subsidy proceedings against Korea in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). If the European industry lodges a complaint backed up by the necessary evidence it could open an investigation under Council Regulation (EC) No 3284/94 of 22 December 1994on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community(1).

The Commission will be reporting on the situation to the next Council meeting of industry ministers and this should enable the Community to decide whether other measures may be necessary to remedy the situation.

(1) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2379/99

by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 December 1999)

Subject: UN/ECE Regulations R 108 and R 109

The controlled use of natural resources is a vital component of sustainable development and the EU's waste management strategy gives priority to prevention, and where that is impossible to recycling, re-use and recovery.

The development of a high-quality European tyre retread and remould industry would allow such tyres to be re-used and would reduce non-renewable raw material consumption while ensuring high safety levels for consumers.

At present the quality of retread and remould tyres on the Single Market varies widely and these disparities help cast doubt on their reliability, thus depriving the consumer of some of the aforementioned benefits.

The aim of international regulations UNO/ECE R 108 and R 109 is to improve the quality of remould and retread tyres.

In view of the Commission's answer to Question 68/H-0114/99(1), could the Council state its position on the early accession of the EU to these two Regulations?

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (March 1999).

Reply

(31 January 2000)

As indicated in the Honourable Member's question, the aim of international Regulations UNO/ECE R 108 and R 109 is to improve the quality of remould and retread tyres. At present, Community legislation does not cover remould and retread tyres.

Council Directive 92/23/EEC relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting applies to any new pneumatic tyre designed for the equipment of vehicles to which Directive 70/156/EEC applies.

At this stage, the Commission has not forwarded to the Council either a proposal for Community legislation on remould and retread tyres or initiatives which could enable the issue of the Community's accession to Regulations R 108 and R 109 to be examined.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1865/99

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: European Union funding for culture

With reference to the allocation of European Union funding for culture can the Commission indicate how much money is distributed to subsidise and promote the arts within and outside the EU borders and from which budget sources?

What is the national breakdown of monies received for cultural projects within each of the EU Member States?

Is Title IX, Article 128 of the Treaty the only legal base for funding cultural projects/programmes? How much of the budget for culture is dedicated, as is stated in Article 128, to bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1999)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that support for purely cultural projects is based on Article 151 (ex-Article 128) of the EC Treaty. During the last financial exercise of 1998, support was provided from the posts B3.2000, B3.2001, B3.2003 of the budget. It is under these posts that the Commission supported projects under the Raphael programme (B3.2000), under the Kaleidoscope programme (B3.2001), under the Ariane programme (B3.2002) and cultural co-operation projects (B3.2003) within and outside the Community borders.

For 1998 there were supported 84 projects under Raphael with a total budgetary allocation of approximately 10 million; 147 projects under Kaleidoscope with a total budgetary allocation of approximately 10 million; 292 projects under Ariane with a total budgetary allocation of 2,9 million, and over 70 projects under the post B3.2003 for cultural co-operation with a total budgetary allocation of approximately 6 million.

Each project concerned a network with the involvement of at least three partners from three different Member States or countries eligible for participation in the cultural programme (European Economic Area and Central and eastern European countries). In this sense, Community funding is given to encourage European co-operation, as it is clearly stated in Article 151 of the EC Treaty and it cannot, therefore, be broken down as monies received for cultural projects within each of the Member States.

Article 151 of the EC Treaty is the only legal basis for funding purely cultural projects. However, paragraph 4 of the article provides also the basis for the consideration of projects with cultural aspects from other Community policies and programmes.

One of the priority areas of Article 151 referred to as bringing the Common cultural heritage to the fore is covered by the Raphael programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2116/99

by SIR Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 1999)

Subject: Air Traffic Control

Is the European Commission intending to adopt the ATM 2000+ strategy in full or in part?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2106/99, E-2107/99, E-2108/99, E-2109/99, E-2110/99, E-2111/99, E-2112/99, E-2113/99, E-2114/99, E-2115/99, E-2116/99 and E-2117/99 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission has issued a communication(1) on the current situation of air traffic delays and on new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management (ATM) system it needs to ensure the proper functioning of its internal market. Most questions raised by the Honourable Member are answered in this document which has been adopted on 1 December 1999 and communicated to the Council and the Parliament.

When preparing this communication the Commission worked in close cooperation with interested parties, in particular airspace users, airports, workers, and air traffic services providers, through their representative organisations. It also consulted the civil aviation authorities of all Member States on the various actions to take to rectify the situation.

Reduction of air traffic delays is primarily a responsibility of Member States and their co-ordinating body, Eurocontrol. In this context operational procedures and technical improvements are for specialists to define and implement. The role of the Community is essentially to create the organisational framework at national and European level so as to ensure that such solutions are universally agreed and implemented in a co-ordinated and consistent manner. This is why the Community decided in 1998 to join Eurocontrol so as to exercise political control on this organisation. Negotiations to that end are nearly completed, but ratification procedures may take several years. The Commission therefore will ask early implementation of Community membership.

The ATM 2000 strategy is a document produced by Eurocontrol and it is the responsibility of that organisation to adopt and implement the proposals contained in the strategy. The Commission has contributed to the production of this document along with aviation users, Member States, and international organisations. The Commission supports the general objectives and strategic principles as indicated in the strategy, but wonders whether more work is required in order to develop a mature, reliable and robust plan which addresses the technological developments necessary to meet the estimated doubling of traffic by 2015.

(1) COM(1999) 614.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1780/99

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Accident databases

At the same time as promoting improved efficiency in rail transport operations, will the Commission ensure that EU crash and casualty databases are improved so that policies can be monitored and safety improved?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1999)

Council Decision 93/704/EC of 30 November 1993(1) was instrumental for the development of a Community database on road accident statistics. This decision was implemented in April 1994 and all Member States now supply copies of their national data records of the Community database. Some key data sets commonly reported in national data are transformed to account for definitional and reporting differences so that comparisons of the incidence of different types of road accident can be better compared between Member States. This model for road accident data exchange between Member States has provided a firm basis for evaluating and monitoring road safety on a more comparable basis between Member States. Similar developments are in place to enhance the evaluation of the occupant protection offered by cars.

As regards railway safety, individual Member States monitor safety and investigate railway accidents within the scope of their national legislation. The Commission will consider whether improving crash and accident databases at Community level would improve railway safety within the Community, taking full account of subsidiarity.

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.