ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3363/00

by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Subject: Family producers of natural spirits

What is the Commission's position with regard to family producers of natural spirits (or home distillers)?

Is the Commission thinking of putting forward any legislation in the near future applying across the board to all citizens in the European Union carrying out activities of this kind?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

The Commission has no intention for the moment of making a proposal on the status of home producers of natural spirits.

However, the Commission will soon be proposing the introduction of a common organisation of the market in agricultural alcohol to the Council. Within this context, special provisions for certain alcohol producers could be envisaged.

The Commission would also like to draw attention to Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages(1), Article 22 of which stipulates that Member States can apply reduced rates of excise duty to ethyl alcohol produced by small distilleries; these would certainly include home producers of spirits.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2691/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Czech Republic

1. What is the Commission's estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support policies were extended to the Czech Republic on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2690/00, E-2691/00, E-2695/00, E-2699/00, E-2700/00 and E-2701/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

To estimate the extra annual cost of agricultural support resulting from the accession to the Community of Poland, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia and Estonia it would be necessary to know with a reasonable degree of certainty the date, the terms and conditions of the accession of these countries to the Community. These aspects will have to be defined in the accession negotiations with these countries, the agricultural chapter of which was opened for negotiation in June 2000. Consequently, any cost estimate made on the basis of assumptions indicated by the Honourable Member would necessarily be of a hypothetical, speculative and uncertain nature. At the present state of the negotiating process the Commission is, therefore, not in a position to answer the questions asked by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2917/00

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Employment

Could the Commission please state the breakdown by age group of all its employees by the following categories: under 25, 25-34, 35-49 and over 50?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2509/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Spanish and Italian wine in Calais

Would the Commission regard the import of duty-paid beers and wines from France to the UK as a serious problem for the single market if it affected Member States other than France and the UK?

Is the Commission aware that the proportion of Italian and Spanish wines sold to UK shoppers in France is around half the proportion of UK domestic sales of wine from those countries?

Would the Commission agree with UK brewing industry estimates that Spain is losing approximately 7 million litres of wine sales per year as a result of duty-paid imports from Calais to Dover and Italy over 10 million litres per year?

Will the Commission be reviewing these facts as part of the research project into excise duty differentials which will be completed by external consultants at the beginning of next year?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 2000)

The Commission has not received any information about the scale of a possible reduction of sales of Spanish and Italian wines in the United Kingdom as a result of increased cross-border purchases of wine by British customers in France. As a consequence, the Commission cannot express itself on the figures cited by the British brewing industry.

As part of its next report on the levels of the minimum excise duty rates and the excise duty rates applied by Member States, which the Commission intends to submit at the beginning of 2001, the Commission has to examine these rate levels in the light of the proper functioning of the internal market. To the extent that data are available, phenomena such as that cited by the Honourable Member will be addressed in this report as well as in the study that has been commissioned from external consultants. This study will deal, more in particular, with the issue of competition between different categories of alcoholic drinks and will try to identify and explain trends in their consumption. The Commission would therefore invite the Honourable Member to submit any relevant information he has on this issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2495/00

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

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Structural Fund budget items earmarked for environmental protection in Madrid

EU environment ministers, meeting recently in Oporto, expressed the need for the EU to abandon its unfocused and confused political action for cities and make environmental protection a priority. At their meeting, the 15 ministers acknowledged that the big cities are a source of serious economic problems, which stem from their failure to use energy efficiently and organise their activities and services adequately.

The focus of the political priority is protection of the urban environment, which is home to 80 % of EU citizens. To that end, existing funding, particularly the considerable amounts under the Structural Funds, must be put to better use.

In view of the above, will the Commission state which Structural Fund budget items Madrid, one of the most polluted cities in the EU, has received, and say how it can call for the spirit of the statement made at the aforementioned Oporto meeting to begin contributing, without delay, towards making Madrid a fitter and more comfortable place for people to live in?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Protection of the environment is a key priority for the structural funds programmes and the Commission recognises the importance of high quality environmental infrastructure for regional socio-economic development.

Support under the regional programmes cofinanced by the structural funds is targeted on the weakest areas of the Union. The city of Madrid, which is relatively prosperous in European terms, has therefore benefited less under the structural funds than the poorer regions of Spain eligible under Objective 1.

During the 1994-1999 programming period, a disadvantaged area in the centre of the city benefited from the URBAN Community Initiative with an allocation of 11,9 million. Environment improvement measures were supported under this programme. For the 2000-2006 period, certain areas are eligible under Objective 2. Madrid also benefits from the Cohesion fund which applies on a national scale and which has financed several environment related projects in the city with aid totalling 146 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0112/00

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

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Diversion of a high voltage power line in the locality of Merza (Galicia)

A 400 kv high voltage power line between Mesón del Viento in Galicia and the locality of Lindoso on the Portuguese border, which was included in an operational programme in Galicia for the period 1990-1993 and received funding under the ERDF, was diverted from the route approved by the Commission on the initiative of the publicly-owned company Red Eléctrica de España S.A. and following a decision by the Galician Government with the result that, counter to the project which was originally approved, it now passes through the locality of Merza, which has 800 inhabitants. The Galician Government's decision, taken in 1996, is also in breach of EU regulations on combating the harmful effects of non-ionising radiation, which recommend that such power lines should pass through corridors which have no permanent activity or dwellings and stipulate that prior impact assessments must be carried out and that, at all events, compensation and expropriation schemes must be set up. Moreover, an action under the Leader programme is currently underway in Merza, which has been seriously affected by the existence of an unauthorised high voltage power line. Even though they have been approached on many occasions, neither the Galician nor the central Spanish authorities have taken the necessary measures to remedy this situation. Can the Commission report on the action it will take to remedy all the infringements of EU regulations which have been committed in Merza, thus giving its inhabitants the satisfaction which they deserve?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

According to information received from the Spanish authorities, it does not appear that any transgression of Community legislation has taken place in regard to the project mentioned by the Honourable Member. The change in the route taken for the electricity line in question appears to have been made in accordance with the rules in force at the time.

If the Honourable Member has information to the contrary the Commission would be pleased to investigate the matter further with the Spanish authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3065/00

by Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Olive pressers

The olive sector is in the throes of a serious crisis. The situation in Italy last year was already problematic, with 30 % of the crop not picked and olive oil from third countries, of an inferior quality, being marketed at reduced prices, with adverse effects on the entire Italian olive sector.

The impact of Regulation (EEC) No 2366/98(1), which places onerous obligations on olive pressers to buy electronic weighing systems, adapt ENEL electricity meters, keep compulsory records of loads entering and leaving the mills, issue certificates for each individual pressing and standardise yields (unworkable given that olive yields vary according to the characteristics of the area), will worsen the crisis in the olive sector.

Could the Commission:

1. draw up measures to give olive pressers access to special tax and credit facilities, as part of the planned reform of the COM for olive oil production aid,

2. endeavour to promote the reinstatement of agricultural loans, placing them on a biennial basis,

3. consider giving olive pressers a year's extension to acquire the equipment set out in Regulation 2366/98?

(1) OJ L 293, 31.10.1998, p. 50.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

The Commission believes that the present level of olive oil prices in the Community is connected with the Community's high production, and that imports accounting for less than 2,5 % of that production are not on the whole likely to influence the Community market.

Given the level of production in Italy for 1999/2000, the Commission remains puzzled by the Honourable Member's assertion that 30 % of the Italian olive crop was not harvested.

Since Member States are responsible for tax policy and lending facilities, the common agricultural policy cannot introduce tax exemptions or loans for mills. What is more, if a Member State decided to introduce credit facilities or tax concessions, these could be regarded as state aid of questionable compatibility with the EC Treaty. That is why Member States must notify the Commission whenever they grant business- or producer-specific tax concessions or loans, so that it can examine whether the aid complies with Articles 87-89 (formerly Articles 92-94) of the EC Treaty. The Commission also considers that (despite the administrative constraints, costs and possible post-inspection penalties to which they are subject under the common market organisation for oils and fats) mills benefit greatly from the CMO which has enabled them to maintain, increase and improve production and hence their income.

As regards a possible one-year deferral of the standards stipulated by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2366/98 of 30 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of production aid for olive oil for the 1998/1999, 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 marketing years(1), the Honourable Member should refer to the Commission's answer to Written Question P-3026/2000 by Mr Musotto(2).

(1) OJ L 293, 31.10.1998.

(2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 161.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2272/00

by Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE), Giovanni Procacci (ELDR) and Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Protecting the method of production, and quality, of mozzarella cheese

1. Is the Commission aware that, in Italy, only fresh milk may be used to make mozzarella cheese, and milk derivatives, and powdered milk in particular, may not be used for that purpose?

2. In order to guarantee the authenticity of the products in question, would it not be appropriate for the Commission to draw up a proposal for a regulation laying down rules concerning their production that would apply to all producers in the Community, thus maintaining both the quality and the authenticity of the products, which would also benefit consumers?

3. Could the Commission state its position on this subject in the near future in order to give producers in the sector more certainty?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

1. Yes, the Commission is aware that mozzarella may be produced in Italy only with liquid milk and not milk powder.

2. To preserve the traditional character of agricultural products intended for human consumption the Community has introduced protection for those products and foodstuffs whose characteristics link them to their geographical origin, and also special arrangements for traditional specialities. Two regulations have been in place to this end since 1992.

Under the first regulation, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of the Council of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), Mozzarella di Bufala Campana produced from buffalo milk, was granted protected designation of origin (PDO) status within the 15 Member States by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications and designations under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92(2). Under Article 13(1) of the second regulation, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 of 14 July 1992 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs(4), mozzarella produced from cow's milk was also registered in the 15 Member States as a traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG) by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2527/98 of 25 November 1998 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2301/97 on the entry of certain names in the Register of certificates of specific character provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92(3).

3. As regards future policy on the matter, the Commission believes that current legislation and the quality policy conducted under the above two regulations both adequately defend the status of mozzarella, a cheese produced using traditional methods.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 148, 21.6.1996.

(3) OJ L 317, 26.11.1998.

(4) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3291/00

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Publicising the work of the EU

The European Union has a wide-ranging impact on social and economic life in Europe; its initiatives are supported by a large majority of the population in most Member States, at least according to the public opinion surveys regularly carried out by Eurostat in the 15 Member States.

What Community legislation exists to publicise the work of the EU institutions through the Member States' media? Is publicising the work of the EU institutions the sole preserve of the Member States or do the Commission's departments take additional measures and, if so, what are they?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Community institutions together with the Member States provide the citizens with information on Community policies and initiatives, decision-taking and the progress of European integration in order to help bring them closer to the Community.

The Community budget has a title (B-3) specifically for communication and information activities; in 2000 it was allocated 93,5 million.

An interinstitutional working party consisting of representatives of Parliament and the Commission lays down the themes of common interest and coordinates information activities.

Information measures are implemented by the Commission and Parliament often in partnership with the Member States. There are three types of measure: those carried out by the Representations in the Member States (direct communication and dissemination of information), those carried out from Commission headquarters (analyses of public opinion, publications on Community policies for the general public) and those carried out in partnership with the Member States under agreements for information campaigns on European citizenship (euro, Intergovernmental Conference).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2282/00

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Subject: European Schools

To date, 15 European schools have been established with a view to educating the children of EU civil servants at vast expense to EU taxpayers. Each year, many of these children are sent on European holidays, again funded by the EU taxpayer. Would it be possible for all children in Europe to have an annual holiday abroad paid entirely out of the EU budget? Could the Commission justify their reasons for providing free holidays for these children? Could the Commission justify the general and often excessive costs of these schools?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The European schools were set up to provide an education for the children of the staff of the European Institutions from all Member States, thereby facilitating the operation of those Institutions. Other children may, however, be admitted. In accordance with the Convention of 12 April 1957, the schools, of which there are currently ten not fifteen situated in six Member States, are run by a board of governors which is an intergovernmental body that is made up of the Ministers of the Member States responsible for education and/or foreign cultural relations. A Commission representative also sits on the board.

Pupils at the European schools are not sent on holiday at the expense of the European taxpayer. As in the national education systems, the schools organise trips designed to enable pupils to acquire new knowledge and widen their experiences. Such trips are, however, school activities with clear educational objectives. They are prepared for, and used, as a basis for educational activities during lessons. They are arranged for a particular class or around a particular subject and not as an annual holiday. The board of governors approved the guidelines for school trips at its meeting on 27/28 April 1999.

The question of whether all children in Europe could be given a free annual holiday abroad is a matter for the Member States, not the Commission, since it is Member State governments which have responsibility for the education of the children of their countries.

The general costs of the European schools are set out in the budget for the schools, approved each year by the board of governors. The representative of the board of governors sends the President of the Parliament a copy of the budget as soon as the board adopts it each year. The Council and Parliament set the Commission grant to the European schools each year when they adopt the Community budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2996/00

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(25 September 2000)

Subject: Democratic Republic of Congo

Is the Council aware of the predicament of the media in the Democratic Republic of Congo since the assumption of power by Kabila in 1997? Since his inauguration more than 130 journalists and media workers have been harassed, beaten, arbitrarily imprisoned, or forced into exile.

In view of the plight of the two Kinshasa journalists held and charged with high treason against the state, what are the Council's intentions?

Reply

(20/21 December 2000)

The Council has been fully aware of the difficult situation faced by the media in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for many years, and unfortunately the situation has not improved since President Kabila came to power. Although the cases raised by the Honourable Member have not been specifically brought to its attention, the Council has reacted on several occasions to events in the country and has a well-established policy on the crisis in the Great Lakes region. During its discussion on 22 May 2000 on conflicts in Africa, the Council expressed its deep concern specifically concerning the continuous human rights violations that are perpetrated by both state and non-state parties in the Great Lakes region. Recently, in a declaration made on 22 September 2000, the Union also recalled that a return to peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Great Lakes region is conditional upon respect for the rules of international law, protection of the population and of human rights and the restoration of democracy.

Within the United Nations framework, the European Union has also taken the initiative, in the Third Committee and the Human Rights Committee, of putting forward texts with a view to adopting resolutions on the human rights situation in that country.

The Council can assure the Honourable Member that it will continue to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in all cases, including respect for freedom of the press, and will pay close attention to the fate of journalists who are wrongfully accused. Moreover, the Council will continue to exert diplomatic pressure, notably through the work undertaken by its Special Envoy for the Great Lakes region to support the implementation of the Lusaka agreement, which is the only instrument capable of producing a negotiated solution to the conflict and restoring peace, stability and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.