ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0555/00

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Discrimination by a Member State against its own citizens

The Danish Government has put forward a draft law to amend Danish legislation on holidays. The proposed law will enable employees covered by a collective agreement to carry over more than 20 days' holiday to the following year. The new rule does not apply to workers not covered by an agreement.

The effect of the proposed law will be to discriminate between Danish citizens on the basis of whether they are covered by a collective agreement or not.

In the Commission's view, is it consistent with the Treaties for a Member State to discriminate against its own citizens within its own borders?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time(1) states that Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that every worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks in accordance with the conditions for entitlement to, and granting of, such leave laid down by national legislation and/or practice.

Provided that Danish legislation, if amended, guarantees that Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC is respected, the issue falls within the competence of the Danish authorities.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0161/00

by Ole Andreasen (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Information policy

At the European Council meeting in Helsinki of 10 and 11 December 1999, it was decided that the Commission should be invited to study the general question of the Union's information policy.

How does the Commission plan to proceed with this study? Will it ask an external body to carry out the study? If not, which service or directorate-general will be responsible for the study? Will the Commission involve the European Parliament? If so, in what way, and which bodies or committees will it contract? How will the Commission coordinate this study and its recommendations with the work done by Commissioner Kinnock on a Communication on Strategic Reform?

What is the timetable for the study?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2000)

The Commission has taken note of the conclusions regarding information policy as agreed at the European Council meeting in Helsinki of 10-11 December 1999 and has started its preparations for a communication on the Dialogue with Citizens. The new strategy will be based on partnerships with Member States and the civil society and make use of appropriate decentralized networks in the Member States. The Parliament will be fully associated in the process.

The new communication strategy which will be developed in the perspective of the broader reform of the Commission will be presented in the near future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0310/00

by Lutz Goepel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Studies by the Institute for Economic and Consumer Law for the Commission

Can the Commission provide a list of the studies it had carried out by the Institute for Economic and Consumer Law in Berlin from 1991 to 1999?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Between 1991 and 1999 the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection commissioned three studies from the European Institute for Economic and Consumer Law (Vereinigtes Institut für Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Verbraucherrecht).

The first study concerned the collection and analysis of German case law on unfair terms in consumer contracts. The contract, concluded in 1995, was for 81 000 Euro. The second study concerned doorstep selling, pyramid sales and multi-level marketing. The contract, concluded in 1998, was for 67 900. The third study concerned the feasibility of a general legislative framework on fair trade. The contract, concluded in 1999, was for 78 400.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0185/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Failure of Greece to comply with Community Directive 92/43.



Official Journal 280 E , 03/10/2000 P. 0197 - 0197



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0185/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (31 January 2000) Subject: Failure of Greece to comply with Community Directive 92/43 Under Judgment C-329/96 Greece has been found guilty of failing to transpose in good time Directive 92/43(1) on the conservation of the natural habitats of wild fauna and flora. Will the Commission say whether, following this ruling against Greece, the latter has complied with the Directive in question and, if not, what measures it intends to take to ensure that Greek legislation is brought in line with Community legislation? (1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. Answer given gy Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (22 February 2000) Acting on the judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 June 1997(1), the Greek authorities notified the Commission in January 1999 of Joint Ministerial Decision No 33318/3028 of 11 December 1998 transposing into Greek Law Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. (1) Case C-329/96.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0186/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Unsupervised burial of radioactive materials in Albania and the southern Balkans

At a recent meeting in Rome between the Greek Minister of Public Order and the Italian Minister of the Interior (in the presence of their Albanian counterpart), the parties involved expressed concern at the possible pollution of the Adriatic from attempts to bury radioactive materials at uncontrolled sites and discussed means of stamping out the smuggling of radioactive materials and the channelling of these materials to Albania and the southern Balkans.

1. What information does the Commission have concerning the smuggling of radioactive materials in Albania and other Balkan countries?

2. What measures is it taking to limit the pollution of the Adriatic from the uncontrolled dumping of radioactive materials?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2000)

1. The Commission regularly receives information on cases involving illicit trafficking in nuclear materials and radioactive substances uncovered by the authorities. The Commission is aware of the specific problems relating to the former Yugoslavia and Albania. The Environment DG's Radiation Protection Unit has therefore set up an extensive awareness-raising and training programme with the aim of helping the Balkan states, amongst others, to establish effective measures to combat illicit nuclear traffic.

The Institute of Nuclear Physics, which comes under the aegis of the Albanian Academy of Sciences, has set up two inspection teams in the customs divisions of Durres and Tirana. Their duties involve dealing with illegal trafficking in radioactive waste.

2. The Albanian authorities say that they are unaware of any such pollution in the Adriatic.

The negotiating directives for the future stabilisation and association agreement with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) mention increased supervision and inspection of the transport of sensitive products, including radioactive materials, as a potential area for cooperation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0094/00

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

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Possible merger between the Astano and Bazan state shipbuilding companies in Galicia

The chairman of the Astano state-owned shipbuilding company in Galicia has said that one way of safeguarding the shipyard's future would be to arrange a merger with Bazan (another state-owned company), which also has a shipyard in the Ferrol area. This would enable Astano to resume constructing conventional vessels. Can the Commission confirm this possibility?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The possibility of a merger between Astano and Bazan is a matter for the Spanish government. However the Commission would need to ensure that the Community's state aid rules for shipbuilding were respected.

As regards the possible impact of such a merger on Astano's activities, the current limitations on the yard would remain unaffected. As the Commission has explained in its reply to written question E-0095/00(1) and previous similar questions by the Honourable Member, the continued closure of the Astano yard to shipbuilding was one of the conditions for approval by the Commission in 1997 of substantial state aids for the publicly-owned shipyards in Spain.

(1) See page 176.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0955/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Production of nuts in Catalonia

In 1989 the COM in fruits and vegetables was reformed, and a plan was instituted for improving the quality and marketing of the nut producers' organisations, to be implemented over a 10-year period. The measures adopted in support of this sector will, therefore, come to an end in May 2000.

Catalonia dedicates a large proportion of its cultivated land to the production of nuts and carobs: these account for 12,3 % of all cultivated land in the region, but as much as 40-50 % in Tarragona province, while Lleida (Lérida) province is also characterised by a high degree of specialisation in these products. Nonetheless, this sector has had to face considerable competition in the form of cheap imports from Turkey, the US and the countries of northern Africa, which are benefiting from the reduction in customs duties on these products.

What action does the Commission intend to take to encourage and promote measures to guarantee the income levels of nut and carob producers?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0955/00 and E-0962/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

The majority of the nut area in Catalonia has benefited from financial support for 10 years under the provisions of Title IIa of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(1) in order to improve nut productivity and competitiveness. Community-wide expenditure on nuts in this scheme from 1990 to 1999 was 725 million. Further expenditure of over 250 million for improvement plans still in operation is foreseen until 2006.

Nearly all the hazelnut area in Catalonia has benefited from the specific flat-rate aid for hazelnuts which was granted for the period 1997-2000 under the provisions of Article 55 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(2).

These measures were always intended to be temporary and degressive, in order to allow a shift of financial responsibility on to the growers.

Since 1997, aid is available for nuts and locust beans, as for all other products in the fruit and vegetable sector, through the operational fund scheme of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 which provides financial support for all fruit and vegetables marketed through producer organisations.

Member States may also include nuts in their rural development plans under conditions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(3).

(1) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972.

(2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0430/00

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Development, validation and legal acceptance of alternative methods to animal testing experiments

On 22 October 1997 the European Parliament approved a report by Mrs Roth-Behrendt (A4-0277/1997(1)) in which the Commission was called upon, inter alia, to:

- bring forward without delay a proposal to ban testing of finished cosmetic products,

- take positive and urgent measures to give new momentum to the development of alternative methods.

Could the Commission state what action has been undertaken to date, or what action it proposes to take, to meet the calls made by Parliament in the report?

Could the Commission state whether it favours a complete ban on the use of animals to test finished products, and if so what timetable and strategy it envisages to achieve such a ban?

Could the Commission state what action it proposes to take in conjunction with the Directorate-General for Research through the Framework Programme or by other means to promote the development of alternatives?

(1) OJ C 339, 10.11.1997, p. 47.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

The Commission is presently working on a draft proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive amending for the seventh time Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products(1). The draft in its current form introduces a permanent and definitive prohibition on the performance of experiments on animals for finished cosmetic products in the territory of Member States. This proposal would be in compliance with the request of the Parliament quoted by the Honourable Member. The proposed time-table for the entry into force of this ban would be the date of entry into force of the Directive.

The Commission is taking measures to continue the promotion of research into the development and validation of alternative methods in the field of cosmetic products. The fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration (RDT) activities 1998-2002(2) makes provisions for such research. In particular, within the third key action The Cell Factory of the specific programme on quality of life and management of living resources, the Commission supports the development of novel in vitro testing and screening methods as alternatives to animal testing.

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(2) OJ L 26, 1.2.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0372/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Implementation in the UK of Article 33 of the EC Treaty

Is the Commission satisfied that the United Kingdom is honouring its obligations under Article 33(1)(b) of the EC Treaty (consolidated version)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

Article 33 (ex Article 39) of the EC Treaty sets out the objectives of the common agricultural policy. As the Court of justice has stated, it is the responsibility of the Community institutions, in adopting the common organisation of agricultural markets under the EC Treaty, to secure the permanent harmonisation between the various objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 33, which may prove to be contradictory, and, where necessary, allow any one of them temporary priority in order to satisfy the demands of the economic factors or conditions in view of which their decisions are made. The Court has repeatedly referred to the broad discretion which the Community institutions have in this respect.

As a result, in principle no single one of the objectives listed in Article 33 constitutes, in itself, an appropriate yardstick by which the acts of any individual Member State are to be judged, and it therefore does not fall to the Commission to make any such judgment. Of course, the Member States, in applying the common agricultural policy within their competence, are subject to the general principles of Community law, and specific rules laid down in Community legislation, and it is the Commission's task to ensure compliance with these requirements in specific cases.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1078/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Failure to publish the explanatory directive of 19 July 1999 (COM(1999) 372 final) in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Communities

Following the biased translation into German of the explanatory directive of 19 July 1999 (COM(1999) 372 final) on the free movement of Community citizens in EU Member States, it has emerged that this document, originally drafted in French, was not published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Communities, which regularly publishes communications and information of this kind.

Given that by acting in this way the Commission is failing to publicise the legitimate decisions that the institutions of the Member States will subsequently have to transpose in order to comply with Community legislation, will it take action to resolve a serious problem which is jeopardising the inalienable rights of the Italian community in Germany?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2000)

The Honourable Members ask why the Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the special measures concerning the movement and residence of citizens of the Union which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health(1) was not published in the C series of the Official Journal.

The Honourable Members are reminded that it is not compulsory to publish Commission communications in the Official Journal.

In any case, the said communication is available online in all languages on Europa, the Commission server at the following address:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/people/right/index.htm.

(1) COM(1999) 372 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0429/00

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE), Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) and Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Funding of agricultural development in Greece

Agricultural development now constitutes the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy and its legal basis is Regulation 1257/1999 of 17 May(1).

The Commission is currently negotiating the third Community Support Framework with the Member States.

In the case of Greece which has a particularly large agricultural population it accounts for some 20 % of the total population of the country agricultural development is a particularly important sector which requires special attention.

However, for the third Community Support Framework (CSF) the Greek authorities have proposed a mere 11,87 % which covers both agriculture and fisheries, compared to 36,7 % for transport. The amount allocated under the first CSF was 12,9 % and at the time there was no special regulation covering agricultural development and the amount under the second was 13,7 %. The amount proposed for the third CSF thus represents a significant reduction.

Will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to prevail upon the Greek authorities to attach due importance to the countryside and the Greek farming community?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

First, the Commission would like to assure the Honourable Members that rural development does indeed constitute the second pillar of the common agricultural policy (CAP). It must also be noted that its legal basis, Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, sets out measures financed either by the Guidance Section or by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF.

As regards areas covered by Objective 1 (such as is the case in Greece), measures relating to the above Regulation are cofinanced from two sources EAGGF Guarantee and EAGGF Guidance.

As regards funding for those programmes dealing specifically with rural development (to be cofinanced by both EAGGF sections) which have already been submitted to the Commission, the Greek authorities have requested 2 600 million drachmas (at 1999 prices) for the period 2000-2006. This figure accounts for 16 % of the total allocated for all development programmes to be cofinanced by the Community, more specifically under the Community Support Framework (CSF), the Cohesion Fund and the EAGGF Guarantee Section.

Finally, it must be pointed out that, in addition to funds from the EAGGF, the Greek agricultural community will benefit from financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). These funds, which finance transregional, regional and local projects, have a direct and beneficial impact on the inhabitants of rural areas.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0076/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Possible exclusion of the municipalities of Barberino, Tavernelle and S. Casciano from the areas eligible for funding under the Leader+ project

In October the eight municipalities of the Chianti area around Florence and Siena opened a planning conference for the development of Chianti, with a view to forming a rural district whose main purpose would be to attract Community funding available under the Leader+ project, with the help of the Eurochianti local action group, with which cooperation was established several years ago.

Despite an enthusiastic response on the part of economic operators and trade associations in the area, the policy pursued by the Tuscany Regional Council may well lead to the exclusion of the municipalities of Barberino, Tavernelle and S. Casciano from the area eligible for funding under the Leader+ project.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the above municipalities are not excluded for political reasons?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Under the draft guidelines for the Community Initiative for Rural Development (Leader+) approved by the Commission on 13 October 1999 all rural areas are eligible for consideration or inclusion. However, only a limited number of areas will in fact benefit from Community support, following a transparent, objective and rigorous selection procedure designed to concentrate many Community resources on the most promising pilot proposals and derive maximum lever effect from them.

It will be up to the Member States' authorities in the case of Italy and the regions to propose the most appropriate procedures and criteria for defining classification requirements for interested local groups. The draft Commission guidelines set out minimum criteria? to be supplemented by more specific ones due to the particular needs of the region and the objectives to be obtained. These criteria will be an integral part of the programme and subject to Commission approval. Member States will be able to restrict the application of Leader+ to particular rural areas if this can be justified using criteria based on their rural development policy objectives.

The Commission will on approving Leader+ programmes verify that the abovementioned requirements are strictly complied with.