ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0547/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Corpus Juris and staff

Further to the reply given to my Written Question E-2596/99(1), will the Commission indicate the positions currently held by the authors of the reports on Corpus Juris?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 79.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The group of researchers working on the Corpus Juris were chosen for this purpose because they are well-known experts in criminal law in their respective Member States.

As far as the Commission is aware, these researchers are still working in their respective Member States, where they hold independent posts in universities and higher education and are recognised as authorities in jurisprudence. Some of them hold other national posts (as judges).

Mrs Mireille Delmas-Marty, who was given the task of drawing up the summary report on the Corpus Juris follow-up study, was recently appointed, on the basis of a joint agreement between Parliament, the Council and the Commission(1), as a member of the Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

(1) OJ C 220, 31.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1542/00

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Sponsorship for Euro 2000

UEFA has sold the commercial rights for the 2000 European Championship for ca. 9 million to ISL (International Sports Leisure), a promotional agency, which gives ISL the exclusive right to market Euro 2000. ISL has concluded bilateral agreements with most of the cities in the Netherlands and Belgium which will be hosting matches. This gives the cities the right to use the Euro 2000 logo.

The Dutch Ministry of the Interior estimates that in the Netherlands alone some NGL 59 million additional costs have already been incurred for extra policing, security, public information, extra public transport and judicial measures.

1. What is the Commission's view of the fact that the cities hosting matches are de facto obliged to deal with ISL for the right to promote their involvement with Euro 2000, while the same cities are making great efforts to take the measures needed to protect public areas, so that the championship can actually take place?

2. Does the Commission believe that the contracts between ISL and the cities in question are in line with European rules on competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

The sale of sponsorship rights in relation to events such as Euro 2000 is common and does not, in itself, violate European law. Whether it is appropriate for the holder of Euro 2000 sponsorship rights to require payment from Dutch and Belgian city authorities in return for the right to use the Euro 2000 logo, taking into account the latter's funding of additional security, transport and other initiatives in relation to the event, is a contractual matter to be determined by the parties themselves. As regards the specific terms contained in those agreements, the Commission is unable to take a view as to their compatibility with European competition rules on the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1604/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 May 2000)

Subject: Anti-competitive conduct of Motorola

Following the complaints by my constituents Wordsworth Technology Ltd. concerning the anti-competitive conduct of Motorola, would the Commission please confirm that it is actively investigating this case and indicate any conclusions that it has so far reached? Can it give some indication of whether it expects to take action or not and, if so, when?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The Commission can confirm that, on 8 January 1999, Wordsworth Technology Ltd lodged a complaint against Motorola Computer Group under Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17/62: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 (ex-Articles 89 and 90) of the EC Treaty(1). The Commission is actively investigating the case.

The Honourable Member will understand that the Commission cannot discuss the application of general rules of competition law in individual cases with anyone apart from the parties involved as long as investigations are under way. The Commission expects to reach its provisional conclusions in the coming weeks.

(1) OJ 13, 21.2.1962.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1415/00

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(3 May 2000)

Subject: Investigation regarding state aids to the Crédit Mutuel

To what extent is it possible to speak of state aids in the case of the French cooperative bank, Crédit Mutuel, since the bank in question raises funds and supports private savings and the sums concerned are allocated to general interest purposes as defined by the public authorities, such as local development and low-cost housing. Furthermore, Crédit Mutuel' is required in return to comply with a number of specific additional requirements (notably restrictions on its network and field of operation).

In the very few disputes concerning savings examined by the Commission, the solutions reached have never involved fines. Does the Commission not believe that in such cases emphasis should be placed on finding a fair and progressive solution to any dispute, since support for savings, particularly private saving, must be a major priority for Europe and indeed is recognised as such in most Member States?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to her oral question H-0386/00 during question time at Parliament's Mai II 2000 part-session(1).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (May 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0751/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 March 2000)

Subject: Rome Convention

What meetings have taken place on the proposed legislation on non-contractual obligations (Projet de communication sur la loi applicable aux obligations non-contractuelles (Rome II)) to replace the Rome Convention in the last six months? Where did these meetings take place? Have ministers of Member States discussed this proposal in the last six months? If so, on what occasions and what were their conclusions? If ministers were not involved, what level of civil servants attended the meetings? Which officials attended the meetings?

Which Council officials and/or department have overall charge of negotiations on Rome II? Is the inter-service consultation document (DG JAI D (99) 495 Communication de la Commission sur la loi applicable aux obligations non-contractuelles), which is in circulation at the present time, available in English? If the answer to this question is yes, from whom may a copy be obtained? If the answer is no, why is no copy available in English? What is the content of the inter-service consultation document? When is the outcome of the inter-service consultation expected?

Are any outside bodies being consulted on this proposal? If so, which groups are being consulted and how are these groups selected?

When is publication of a formal legislative proposal expected in this area? When is the legislative process expected to be completed?

Reply

(26 June 2000)

One of the priorities laid down in the Action Plan drawn up in Vienna in December 1998 to establish an area of freedom, security and justice concerned the feasibility and advisability of introducing an instrument on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II).

Discussions on this question were entered into within the Council at working party level under the provisions of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty). Within the General Secretariat of the Council, Directorate-General H (Justice and Home Affairs) is the department responsible for dealing with this dossier.

The Council suspended these activities pending the submission of a Member State initiative or a Commission proposal pursuant to Article 67(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

Although the Council is aware that the Commission is preparing a communication in this area, it has no information concerning either the scope or the content of the measures envisaged. It is therefore unable to answer the Honourable Member's questions concerning the Commission communication and requests her to approach the Commission directly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0482/00

by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Funding under the Interreg Community initiative

Could the Commission indicate the amount of funding the Spanish region of Estremedura is likely to receive under the Interreg Community initiative?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The guidelines for the Interreg Community initiative are expected to be approved by the Commission by end of March 2000 or early April 2000. Member States are invited to present programme proposals to the Commission within six months of the publication in the Official journal.

The Community initiative will be financed jointly by the Member States and the Community through the European regional development fund (ERDF). The total contribution by the ERDF to Interreg during the programming period 2000-2006 is fixed at 4 875 million, at 1999 prices. The indicative allocation of the commitment appropriation for Spain is 900 million. The guidelines do not specify any regional allocation of the funds.

As the Commission, when approving the programme or programmes for e.g. the Spanish-Portuguese border, grants a single contribution from the ERDF per programme without financial breakdown by Member State, the amount allocated from the Interreg Community Initiative for the Extremadura region in Spain can not be indicated even then.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0606/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: European Day for Tolerance

The past century bore witness to countless attacks on freedom of expression, killings for crimes of conscience, cases of torture on racial and religious grounds and other atrocities contrary to the notion of the human being as a free entity. The sense of collective shame we must feel as a result of this should form the basis for a constant refusal ever to repeat the countless mistakes made in this respect.

As the spectre of a possible return to the errors of the past looms once more on the horizon threatening the peaceful co-existence of European democratic society, perhaps we might consider the creation of an annual European Day for Tolerance.

Will the Commission indicate whether it would consider using its right of initiative to propose that each year the European Union set aside a day to celebrate tolerance as the very cornerstone upon which European co-existence is built?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission deplores all crimes against people's fundamental rights and supports the notion of peaceful co-existence. However, the Commission does not intend to propose an annual European day for tolerance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0605/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Possibility of granting the outermost regions permanent Objective 1 status

The outermost regions of the European Union face particularly severe difficulties because of their geographical remoteness and the distances separating them from the nerve centres of the respective Community countries to which they belong.

Because of this, and the fact that some of the outermost regions of the EU may exceed the ceiling of 75 % of average Community income, which would exclude them from the group of regions covered by Objective 1, with the risk that they would end up rejoining that group as a result of lack of assistance, it has been suggested that the outermost regions should be considered as belonging by definition to Objective 1.

Will the Commission examine the idea that the outermost regions should be included by definition under Objective 1, without taking into account their level of income, in order to alleviate the problems posed by their extreme geographical remoteness from their respective metropolitan centres?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2000)

When it adopted the regulations on the Structural Funds(1), the Council decided that the seven outermost regions of the Community were eligible under Objective 1 under the criterion of 75 % of average gross domestic product (GDP). At that time, the statistical data available showed that all these regions satisfied that criterion. They remain eligible throughout the 2000-2006 programming period.

As regards the period from 2007, the Commission stated in the report(2) that it has just forwarded to the Council on the implementation of Article 299 (former Article 227)(2) of the EC treaty that it intends to consider how best to reflect the individual situations of these regions recognised by Article 299(2) in eligibility for the Structural Funds.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) COM(2000) 147 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0450/00

by Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Regional policy and the structural funds operational plan for the region of Sicily

As the Commission has pointed out, the regional operational plan submitted by the Region of Sicily does not seem to respect the guiding criteria for the new Structural Funds. In particular, it appears to envisage an excessive number of intervention measures and there are substantial shortcomings in the implementing projects to back up the requested funding. In other words, the Plan submitted is too general and fragmented, which arouses various concerns about the added value of the numerous microprojects drawn up and the possible loss of Community co-financing if its content and structure are not changed in agreement with the Commission.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. whether these fears are justified;

2. what conditions the Region of Sicily has failed to comply with;

3. what changes should be made to the above-mentioned Plan;

4. whether there is real collaboration between Palermo and Brussels on the content of the Plan;

5. whether there is any real possibility that the Region of Sicily may lose the co-financing in the event of the plan not fulfilling the criteria established by the Structural Funds?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

As part of the programming for 2000-2006, the Italian authorities included with the development plan for the Mezzogiorno a series of proposals for operational programmes, including those in Sicily. These documents are currently being studied by the Commission.

With particular regard to the regional operational programme for Sicily, which was declared admissible, the Commission made certain comments during the negotiations with the Italian authorities. These points are currently being discussed with those authorities in order to arrive at the final version of the document which will be the subject of a Commission Decision.

It should be stressed that assistance for 2000-2006 is prepared in full partnership with the national, central and regional authorities concerned. At this early stage in programming, it is not possible to talk of the under-utilisation of funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0584/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

How can the Commission continue to actively support the Council of Ministers in setting up a strategy for further integration and reinforcing the integration of environmental issues into transport systems?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The European Council in Helsinki approved the conclusions of the Transport Council of October 1999, according to which the Commission must come up with a global strategy by June 2001 to integrate the environment and sustainable mobility into transport policy and implement the appropriate measures.

As announced in its work programme for 2000, the Commission will be presenting a communication on the revision of the common transport policy. This communication will take account of the undertakings made under the Kyoto Protocol by both the Commission and the Member States.

The Commission will be assisted in its task by the group of joint experts on the environment and transport, whose work and findings will add to the Commission's information and make it more detailed.

This group of experts was already involved in the preparatory phase of the integration strategy adopted by the Transport Council on 6 October 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0822/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN), Sergio Berlato (UEN) and Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Blood oranges a peripheral market

Sicily is in a peripheral geographical position as far as the marketing of its produce is concerned.

The cultivation of citrus fruit is a tradition in Southern Italy, in particular Sicily, and the whole community in small towns there revolves around this type of farming.

Blood oranges grow in Sicily, in particular in the plain of Catania area, and they have special organoleptic qualities which are recognised even by medical science.

Can the Commission say whether it intends to devote resources and projects to developing this special product, which is unique in the world.

Whether it intends to facilitate promotion and marketing by bringing the Sicilian market closer to the European market?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Current Community legislation in the fruit and vegetable sector already covers measures which can be applied to blood-orange production, in the framework of operational programmes run by producer organisations (Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96(1)).

The aims of these measures include improving the quality of products, developing their commercial exploitation, promoting products to consumers, creating organic product lines, promoting integrated production and other environment-friendly production methods, and reducing the volume of market withdrawals.

In addition to these measures, schemes are also available in the context of rural development as covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/99(2).

Finally, under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1201/90(3) on measures to increase citrus-fruit consumption, the Associazione Siciliana Produttori Agrumicoli ed Ortofrutticoli is currently conducting a citrus-fruit promotion programme focusing particularly on blood oranges.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(3) OJ L 119, 11.5.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1031/00

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Petrol and MTBE

With reference to the use of MTBE as an additive in petrol to raise the octane after removal of aromatics, benzene and lead, is the Commission aware of the problems created by MTBE in the USA through seepage into ground water?

Will the Commission take steps to investigate alternatives to MTBE, such as bioethanol extracted from sugar cane?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2000)

The Commission is well aware of the political and public concern about the contamination of water supplies in the United States and recent statements by the American Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and will keep abreast of developments.

Methyl-tertiary-butylether (MTBE) is on the third priority list, published in 1997, of priority substances for assessment, as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances(1) (Commission Regulation (EC) No 143/97 of 27 January 1997 concerning the third list of priority substances as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93)(2). The Community risk assessment will address the possible environmental and human health concerns in the Community, taking into account the American findings. When the risk assessment report is finalised, it will be presented to the scientific committee for toxicity, eco-toxicity and the environment for independent peer-review.

The Commission addressed in August 1999 a letter to Member States asking for information on whether they have encountered any problems with (water) pollution due to MTBE. As, until now, most Member States have not sent any information at all, the Commission is not in a position to make a firm assessment of the situation. To the Commission's present knowledge based on limited information there are no significant problems with MTBE in water at Community level. Concerning drinking water, it should be pointed out that under the new Drinking Water Directive (Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption(3)) a Member State is obliged to set values for additional parameters not included in the Directive where the protection of human health within its territory or part of it so requires (Article 5.3).

Risk reduction measures will be recommended in those areas where concerns have been indicated and legislative measures taken, if appropriate. At this stage, the Commission will review the need to investigate alternatives to MTBE.

In any case, in the framework of the agricultural non-food set-aside scheme, the production of raw materials like sugarbeet or cereals intended for renewable energy purposes like bio-ethanol is allowed, which offers processors access to raw materials at relatively low prices.

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.

(2) OJ L 25, 28.1.1997.

(3) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0909/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Subsidies under the CAP for cruelty to animals

The Commission's answer to Question E-0039/00(1) states that bovine animals are castrated at a very early age (in order to minimise their suffering). However, according to specialised literature (Compassion in World Farming Trust, For their own good a study of farm animal mutilations, October 1994, p.18) quoting Robertson et al, 1994, any method of castration causes severe pain, irrespective of the animal's age (the test covered animals 6, 21 and 42 days old).

Furthermore, the answer mentions practices which are common in 3 out of the 15 Member States of the European Union. Whilst the description of the situation in these 3 countries may be true, this does not mean that in many other cases the situation is not different.

In particular the situation described does not apply to the Autonomous Region of the Azores. In view of the fact that European Union regulations apply throughout EU territory and that no exemption is envisaged for any geographical area, does the Commission not consider that it is incomprehensible that the CAP should encourage the castration of bovine animals, thereby promoting the suffering of animals for no valid reason?

When does the Commission intend to propose the revision of Regulation No 1254/1999(2), so as to stop encouraging cruelty to bovine animals?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 134.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

The Commission asks the Honourable Member also to refer to its reply to Written Question E-0876/00(1) on the same topic.

While common agricultural policy schemes take account of traditional farming practices, the Commission gives due consideration to questions of animal welfare. Available information gives no grounds, however, for proposing the regulatory change desired by the Honourable Member.

(1) See page 125.