ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2171/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 July 2001)

Subject: Development policy versus agricultural policy

At a conference on EU development policy on 20-21 June 2001, the Swedish and Netherlands ministers responsible for development-related issues were amongst those who criticised the CAP, taking the view that it ran counter to the Union's development policies.

The customs duties the Union levies and the subsidies it grants to its own farm sector make it difficult for developing countries to export their main products, and artificially cheap products from the EU are dumped on developing countries' domestic markets, leaving no room for local produce. According to Dagens Nyheter of 22 June 2001, Eveline Herfkens, the Netherlands Minister for Development Cooperation, said as well that the hygiene and health rules and requirements applicable to food imported into the European Union were so stringent for protectionist, and no other, reasons.

What joint steps does the Council intend to take to ensure that the above problems are eliminated, so that developing countries can export agricultural produce to the European Union and do not need to contend with agricultural products dumped at low prices on their domestic markets?

Reply

(6 December 2001)

The Council does not comment on views expressed by the individual Ministers of Member States, in particular where the comments are made outside the framework of the Council.

However, in general terms, the Council recognizes the need for greater coherence between the various policies pursued by the Community. The joint Council and Commission declaration on the Community's development policy, adopted in November 2000, underlines the importance of such coherence.

The Council considers that efforts must be made to ensure that Community development policy objectives are taken into account in the formulation and implementation of other policies affecting developing countries through a systematic and thorough analysis of the indirect effects of proposed measures inter alia in the field of agriculture policy.

The Council has encouraged the Commission to take development problems into account in the exercise of its competences. Following a request by the Council, the Commission's annual report on development policy, which is expected in October 2001, will contain a chapter on problems of incoherence encountered during the previous year and efforts made to remedy them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1267/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 April 2001)

Subject: Protection of the cultural heritage in Turkey

In Helsinki in December 1999, Turkey was designated a candidate for accession to the EU. Nonetheless, the secular State of modern Turkey does not recognise the national

and cultural heritage of the millions of Kurds living in the country, while thousands of Christians (Greeks, Armenians, Roman Catholics, Syro-Chaldeans etc) also encounter numerous obstacles in practising their religion. Typical examples are the persecution suffered by Orthodox Christians in Turkey the Chalki Theological School, for instance, has been closed for 30 years following a unilateral and arbitrary decision by the Turkish administration and the persecution of the remaining Christians in Istanbul, Imvros and Tenedos.

Has the Council raised with the candidate for accession the matter of respect for the cultural diversity and religious freedom of the millions of non-Turkish citizens living on its territory? How specifically does Turkey account for the lack of respect for the Kurdish cultural identity? What specific indications have there been of a change in attitude on the part of the Turkish authorities towards the Christians living in Turkey since the country was designated a candidate for accession?

Reply

(20 November 2001)

In the Accession Partnership for Turkey(1), the Council has identified priorities relating in particular to religious freedom and cultural diversity as follows:

Guarantee full enjoyment by all individuals without any discrimination and irrespective of their language, race, colour, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief or religion of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Further develop conditions for the enjoyment of freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Ensure cultural diversity and guarantee cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of their origin. Any legal provisions preventing the enjoyment of these rights should be abolished, including in the field of education.

It is self-evident that this is valid for all minorities living in Turkey, whether Christian or not, whose rights should be fully respected in practice. The reopening of Heybeliada (Chalki) Theological Seminary is to be seen in this context.

In response to the Accession Partnership, Turkey adopted in March 2001 a National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis. The Commission is in the process of examining the content of this programme and its compatibility with the Accession Partnership. In this context, the Council recalls that incorporation of the EU acquis into Turkish legislation is not in itself sufficient. Turkey will also have to ensure that it is actually applied. The implementation of the Accession Partnership will be closely monitored in the Association Agreement bodies and through the competent Council bodies to which the Commission reports regularly.

(1) OJ L 85, 24.3.2001, p. 13.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2814/01

by Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: Working conditions of crews in inland shipping

Partly on account of manpower shortages on the labour market, inland shipping businesses are employing crew members from outside the EU. However, there are indications that not all businesses are employing them on acceptable terms by EU standards. Their failure to do so has serious consequences for other businesses in the industry (distortion of competition), employees from the EU (social dumping) and safety on and around inland waterways.

1. Is the Commission aware of these phenomena and if so, what is their extent? Can the Commission give an overview of them?

2. Can the Commission provide an overview of the loopholes in the relevant legislation of the Member States which make such practices possible?

3. A Bavarian inland shipping company Meier makes large-scale use of employees from outside the EU. Does it abide by the rules applicable in the Member State concerned regarding employment of workers from outside the EU and are they employed on the customary terms and in accordance with the social provisions in force?

4. Does the Commission believe that introducing a driver attestation, such as has been proposed in the case of road haulage(1), could help to prevent and solve the problems described here? If it does, will it take steps to bring this about?

(1) Cf. the Van Dam report regarding a uniform driver attestation for the carriage of goods by road (PE 286 659; COM(2000) 751). The attestation would certify that all social requirements applicable in the Member State of establishment had been complied with in the case of the driver concerned. In the event of a check being performed anywhere in the EU, this would make it possible to ascertain whether or not social legislation had been contravened.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

The Commission knows there is a certain shortage of manpower, in particular crew members, in the inland shipping sector and that inland shipping businesses seek to employ personnel from outside the EU.

However, it has not so far received any complaints or requests from the sector or Member States for it to intervene in the market because of social dumping.

It therefore does not have any information which would justify measures similar to those taken in the road haulage sector along the lines of introducing driver attestation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2622/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 September 2001)

Subject: Council meeting of 27/28 June 2001

Will the Commission state whether any votes were taken in the Transport and Telecommunications Council on 27/28 June 2001 and if so, how many and on what matters?

Will it further record the votes of all those who voted on each issue during the meeting?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2620/01, E-2622/01, E-2624/01, E-2626/01 and E-2628/01given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that, under Article 9 of its Rules of Procedure, it is for the Council to make public the results of votes and explanations of votes by its Members.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2015/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) and Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Lefke Copper Mines, Cyprus

Has the Commission any concerns about possible future damage to the ecology of the Mediterranean Sea as a result of cyanide and other pollutants escaping from the workings around the abandoned copper mines at Lefke in occupied northern Cyprus?

Will the Commission give consideration to the possibility of using funds allocated for bi-communal activities on Cyprus to carry out a study into this issue?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The Commission is aware of the Lefke copper mine in northern Cyprus and the environmental fears that have been expressed from some quarters. The Commission will decide whether there is scope for a Community initiative in this area on the basis of the results of an assessment study being launched by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2582/01

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2001)

Subject: Accession of Poland and the Czech Republic to the EU and its effects on the German Federal government's funding of German associations in the former German territories in these countries

I have been informed that, after Poland and the Czech Republic have joined the EU, it will no longer be possible for the German Federal government to fund German associations in the former German territories in these countries.

1. Is it true that the accession of these countries will have effects on the funding of these associations? If so, what are the reasons for this?

2. What opportunities does the Commission see for supporting the cultural life of the ethnic Germans living there?

3. Is it possible for the associations in question to receive subsidies from the Phare programme?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

1. The Commission, on the basis of the acquis does not interfere with any Member State's bilateral aid programmes and therefore the accession of these countries would have no effect in this respect. As far as culture is concerned, enlargement is about removing barriers and promoting understanding and contact among the different peoples which will make up the enlarged Union. Many Member States fund networks promoting their language and culture internationally, including within the other Member States e.g. the Goethe Institute or the British Council, both of which are active in the Czech Republic and Poland. Accession should not affect this.

2. German cultural associations within the Poland and Czech Republic will be able to participate in the Culture 2000 Programme on the same basis as any other cultural associations.

3. Non governmental organisation's (NGO) programmes are currently being funded under Phare in the context of the development and strengthening of civil society. These will continue to be funded in the future. Therefore, such associations could receive subsidies from these programmes depending on the basis of eligibility and project selection criteria and subject to the regular budgetary process of the Commission.

In addition, the Phare programme concentrates on institution building (for example building up the capacity of national and regional administration) and investment projects (helping to meet Community norms in areas such as the environment). Programming is based upon Accession Partnership priorities. Cross Border Co-operation measures also exist, whereby European Regions contribute to programming involving the Czech, Polish, German and Austrian authorities as appropriate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2913/01

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Sale and distribution of animal medicines in the EU

Does the Commission have plans to control or restrict the sale and distribution of animal medicines throughout the EU?

If so, what is the Commission intending to propose?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

In the framework of the current revision of the pharmaceutical legislation, the Commission decided to propose amendments to Directive 2001/82/EC(1) some of which concern Title VI, dealing with the possession, distribution and dispensing of veterinary medicinal products. The main objective of this part of the amendments is to ensure consumer protection in association with maximum benefit for animal health and welfare.

As a contribution to the protection of the consumer against exposure to possible harmful levels of residues in food of animal origin, the Commission proposal now clearly spells out that a veterinary prescription is required for all veterinary medicinal products used in food producing animals. Moreover, it aligns the requirements for record keeping imposed on owners or keepers of food producing animals and on holders of a authorisation for retail distribution with the relevant provisions of Directive 96/23/EC(2) on residue control. Additionally wholesale distributors are required to maintain an emergency plan for the effective recall of a batch of a veterinary medicinal product should it become necessary.

While the above-mentioned proposals are intended to clarify and complement certain provisions of Title VI of Directive 2001/82/EC, no changes have been proposed to the existing rules on retail distribution permitting only authorised persons to engage in such operations under the legislation of the Member States.

(1) Parliament and Council Directive 2001/82/EC of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

(2) Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC, OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2301/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Foot-and-mouth disease recovery plan

If the UK Government made a request for a financial allocation for a recovery plan in areas affected by foot-and-mouth disease (for both agricultural and non-agricultural sectors), what financial parameters would the Commission work within?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2300/01 and E-2301/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

As the Commission indicated in response to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1407/01(1), there is a degree of flexibility in the use of Community support under the respective Rural Development Plans which may be able to assist any recovery plans and, depending on the nature of the proposals, these may require Commission approval. However, the Commission has not received any proposals from the British authorities for financing its recovery plans for rural areas affected by foot-and-mouth disease.

If such proposals are submitted to the Commission, these will be examined on their merit prior to giving any response. There have been a number of proposals to modify existing state-aid schemes, partly in order to target resources on sectors most badly affected by foot-and-mouth. These are in the course of being approved.

For British Rural Development Plans, the Commission will work within the financial parameters established by Commission Decision 2000/426/EC of 26 June 2000 amending Decision 1999/659/EC fixing an indicative allocation by Member State of the allocations under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section for rural development measures for the period 2000 to 2006(2) in which the annual allocation of EAGGF Guarantee resources for all Member States was determined.

The Commission is aware of decisions made by some of the Programme Monitoring Committees of the relevant British Objective 1 and 2 programmes to ensure a fast-track approval of projects in the worst-off areas and to ensure that adequate resources are made available to assist with the economic recovery in those areas.

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 104.

(2) OJ L 165, 6.7.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1878/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Luxembourg)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Luxembourg have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Luxembourg have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01,E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01,E-1882/01, E-1883/01 annd E-1884/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) was used as a source to determine the number of holdings with an area of less than 50 hectares and of 50 hectares or more under cereals, oilseeds and protein plants (COP). Though that database is weighted by the results of the Farm Structure Survey (Eurostat), it is generally acknowledged that large holdings are over-represented. The figures given below should accordingly be regarded as upper limits. The year used is 1997, the last year for which data for all Member States are available in the FADN database.

Columns A and C of the table below give the percentages per Member State of holdings with an area under COP of, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more.

Columns B and D of the table below give the percentages per Member State of the area under COP of holdings with, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more under COP.

Column F gives the percentages per Member State of the area under COP that would be excluded if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied.

Lastly, Column I gives the savings in millions of euro per Member State if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied. The yields used are the reference yields supplied by the Member States. The total reduction in cost to the Community would amount to EUR 4 billion.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1595/01

by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Passport control contrary to the Schengen Agreement

KLM check-in staff at Schipol airport ask passengers travelling to Italy to show a passport or other document valid for entry into that country.

Since this is contrary to the principles of the Schengen Agreement, which does not envisage systematic border controls between the member countries, what steps will be taken to put an end to this annoying practice?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1486/01 and P-1595/01given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

The Schengen acquis, which has been incorporated into European Union law, provides that internal borders may be crossed at any point without checks on persons being carried out purely on the grounds that an internal border has been crossed.

Regarding checks carried out by airlines, a distinction should be drawn between three different types of check:

- identity checks carried out within a commercial framework, i.e. when the passenger checks in, with a view to ensuring that he/she is the person indicated on the ticket or that he/she is entitled to certain discounts;

- checks carried out for security reasons in exceptional cases and circumstances, for instance where there are concerns that a passenger's conduct might disturb public order or jeopardise the safety of other passengers;

- checks with a view to avoiding penalties under carriers' liability legislation in the event of persons who do not have the requisite travel documents being carried.

The Commission takes the view that checks of the third type are not compatible with current Community law. Articles 26 and 27 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement on carriers' liability should apply only to journeys originating in a non-Schengen country. They should not be carried out in a border-free area, being prompted by the sole fact that an internal border has been crossed.

The controls referred to in the first two indents also apply to domestic flights and are not incompatible with the idea of a border-free area in so far as passengers on domestic flights are treated in the same way as passengers on intra-Schengen flights.

With a view to determining which type of check was carried out in the instance referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission will contact the appropriate authorities for further information on the circumstances surrounding this complaint. If necessary, it will institute proceedings pursuant to Article 226 (former Article 169) EC.