ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2246/99

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Organo-phosphate pesticides

What action is the Commission taking to identify and reduce the long-term effects upon human health of organo-phosphate pesticides in all their different forms?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

Council Directive 91/0414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(1) provides for a review programme for all the active substances which were on the market in 1993. The first phase of the review programme of existing active substances is undertaken for a list of 90 important active substances under Commission Regulation (EEC) 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8 (2) of Council Directive 91/0414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(2). The review of these active substances continues. It covers several organo-phosphates.

The Commission is preparing the second phase of the review programme. A draft regulation would provide also for the evaluation of a second list of high-concern substances. This list includes all the remaining organo-phosphates not covered by the first list of 90 active substances. It would provide for a withdrawal from the market at the latest in July 2003 of active substances for which no complete dossiers would be submitted by industry. For the active substances which would be defended, speeding up procedures should allow early decisions.

In this way it is expected that for most of the organo-phosphates a final decision on their acceptability will be taken by 2003.

In the 4th framework programme(3), the Community FAIR programme supports a research project aiming to develop rapid immunochemical test methods for a screening control system to monitor toxic organophosphorous pesticides in cereals and cereal based products. This research project, therefore, substantially contributes to risk assessment and to the identification of human exposure to such pesticides related to cereals and cereal based products.

In the 5th framework programme, key action 1 within the quality of life programme is currently negotiating two new projects. The first aims, amongst other goals, to harmonise principles, terminology and methodology for risk assessment. This is to improve the scientific basis of risk assessment with respect to food contaminants such as organophosphorous pesticides including possible interactions between individual chemicals and effects of the food matrix for the protection of the consumer. The second aims to develop new and validated software specifically designed for modelling (by using also organophosphorous pesticide data) food chemical and nutrient intake for different target populations such as infants, adolescents, and adults.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2) OJ L 366, 15.12.1992.

(3) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1798/99

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

(1 October 1999)

Subject: Application of the partnership principle in the drawing up of the 2000-2006 Regional Development Plan for Spain's Objective 1 Autonomous Communities, such as Galicia

I have already written to Mr Michel Barnier, Commissioner, to point out that, in drawing up and adopting its 2000-2006 Regional Development Plan for Spain's Objective 1 region, the Spanish central government did not apply the partnership principle since social and economic operators were not involved and there was no provision for democratic participation by the parliaments of the Autonomous Communities concerned, which were even prevented from exercising their political and economic powers.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the partnership principle is upheld and that the Autonomous Communities (such as Galicia) are able to exercise their powers in the drawing up of the 2000-2006 Regional Development Plan and the administration of the 2000-2006 Community Support Framework, which will provide most of the funding to be invested in economic development, job creation and transport networks during the period in question?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1999)

The Commission has not yet received the regional development plan to which the Honourable Member refers. As soon as it does, it will examine the document attentively, especially as regards compliance with the principle of partnership provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1).

Articles 15 and 16 of the above Regulation stipulate respectively that the plans shall be submitted by the Member State to the Commission after consultation with the partners and that they should include an account of arrangements made to consult partners.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2102/99

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 November 1999)

Subject: European Community Mission Monitors

How many European Community Mission Monitors (ECMM) are currently employed and in which country do they operate? What are the annual costs involved and, if any of the monitors is not an EU national, from which country do they come?

What is the purpose of the EC Monitor system and how does it differ from the reporting procedures and information available to EU ambassadors in those countries?

Answer

(24 January 2000)

1. According to the most current personnel figures, the European Community Monitor Mission (ECMM) is composed of 259 internationals and 174 locally employed persons. The two non-EU ECMM members present in the mission are Norway and Slovakia.

The ECMM's area of operation covers the Western Balkans region, i.e. Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FRY/Montenegro, FRY/Kosovo, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania.

2. The current annual common costs for ECMM are about DM 16 million for 1999 which are funded by participating States according to a standard contributions' key. In addition, contributing countries pay the direct cost of the personnel they send.

3. ECMM is unique in its regional approach, as its area of responsibility covers the whole of the former Yugoslavia minus Slovenia, plus Albania. This provides ECMM with a comparative advantage as they have a regional overview which embassies in an individual country do not possess.

The objectives of ECMM are, inter alia:

- to provide reliable information from observation on the ground which can serve as a basis for policy and decision making for the EU. This information is available in all member States (also those who do not have embassies in all countries concerned) and Commission.

- planned and complementary co-operation with relevant international organisations, avoiding unnecessary duplication in operations, taking into account the Stability Pact for SEE and the forthcoming EU Common Strategy for Western Balkans.

- early warning in the event of conflict or unrest in the region.

- to contribute to the establishment of an environment of confidence and security.

- fulfil special temporary tasking (e.g. border monitoring, embargo monitoring) as necessary.

- give visibility to the EU's strong interest in developments in the region.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2316/99

by Niall Andrews (UEN) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Failure of Malian company to pay outstanding funds, as contracted, to an Irish firm, Cormer Machinery International

An Irish company, Cormer Machinery International Ltd. Entered into contract with Itema, a government-backed Malian company, to supply and install second-hand textile machinery. The contract price was USD 2,5 million, and an initial deposit of USD 850 000 was approved by the Malian Minister for Finance and received by the Irish company in 1996. An amount of USD 1,65 million has not been forwarded by Itema to Cormer Machinery International and is, therefore, still outstanding. Many discussions have taken place regarding this issue between the Irish company involved and the Development Directorate of the European Commission, as well as informally under the auspices of the ACP/EU Joint Assembly.

Will the European Commissioner for Development, Mr Nielson, request an urgent meeting with the Malian representative to the European Union for an explanation as to why this Malian company has still not paid to Cormer Machinery International Ltd. The monies which it agreed to pay to this Irish firm, and will the Commissioner, as a matter of course, keep me informed about all developments regarding this issue until such time as the serious problems detailed above have been satisfactorily and fully resolved?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

The Directorate general for development in Brussels and the delegation of the Commission in Bamako are aware of the dispute between Cormer Machinery International Ltd and Itema. Indeed, the head of delegation in Bamako has informally raised the matter with the Malian authorities including, in particular, the Minister for finance. However, it is clear that the Commission has no competence in this matter which is a commercial dispute between two companies for which international arbitrage arrangements are the appropriate settlement channel.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2194/99

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Microwave radiation and electromagnetic fields

Can the Commission inform us what research, if any, has been undertaken into the dangers caused by microwave dishes for mobile phones? Are there any plans for further investigation in this area? How does the Commission react to claims that people exposed to microwave radiation could be prone to leukaemia and other cancers? Is there any EU legislation in place which deals with this subject? How do different states differ in their approach and regulation on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

On 9 March 1999, the Council and the Parliament adopted Directive 1999/5/EC on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity(1). This lays down the requirements that radio transmitters need to meet in order to be placed on the market and be operated. It envisages that Member States may restrict operation for health reasons, e.g. by imposing minimum distances between the transmitter and the public.

On 12 July 1999, the Council adopted Recommendation 1999/519/EC proposed by the Commission on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields(2). This takes account of the scientific opinion of the International commission on non-ionizing radiation, supported by the Commission's scientific steering committee referring to established effects on human health of exposure to electromagnetic fields.

In this context, it should be noted that the extensive research done in Europe through the co-ordinated action of the COST 244 and 244bis projects over the last decade has not demonstrated any reproducible detrimental effects on health at the levels of radio-frequency emissions typical of mobile phones and cell masts.

If there is any adverse health effect, it can only be a longer term effect, which is as yet unknown. Therefore, research should further continue to measure such longer term effects. The results of on-going and future research in this area will be considered in the context of the reporting procedure provided for in the text of the Recommendation.

In the context of the Fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration, the programme on Quality of life and management of living resources foresees in its key action 4 environment and health specific research on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation and in particular epidemiological and biomedical studies to determine possible effects linked to non-ionising radiation, particularly from cellular phones and antennas (point 2 of the quality of life work programme)(3). Several applications relevant to this field are now being evaluated and are processed for possible funding for the 1999 budget.

(1) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.

(2) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.

(3) Commission decision no C/99/493 of 4.3.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2604/99

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Promoting and safeguarding lesser-used languages

Will the Council outline its policy on the safeguarding and promoting of lesser-used languages in the European Union and will it back new initiatives aimed at promoting cultural and linguistic exchanges between, for example, young people living in peripheral regions?

Reply

(31 January 2000)

The Council has constantly underlined certain principles with respect to linguistic diversity within the Community, and recalls that the Lingua action under the current education programme Socrates specifies priority support for the least widely used and least taught languages of the European Union. Due consideration would moreover be given by the Council to any future Commission proposals concerning lesser-used languages.

As far as taking into consideration the peripheral regions of the Community is concerned, the attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the provisions of:

- the current Socrates programme under Chapter I (Erasmus), Action 2 § 2 which states that with regard to student mobility, the Commission will take any measures necessary to encourage balanced participation between various disciplines and regions

- Action A.I § 4 of the Youth for Europe programme which enumerates geographical remoteness as one of the factors on the basis of which the apportionment of the assistance shall take account of the need to guarantee a balance in the flow of exchanges and equal opportunities for access to young people of every Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1856/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Progress made in implementing the operational health and welfare programme under the Community support framework for Greece

From the Commission's answer to a previous question by me, it emerged that implementation of the operational programme for health and welfare under the Community support framework for Greece was encountering difficulties and that the take-up of funds earmarked for this purpose was extremely slow.

Can the Commission indicate the present take-up rate of the relevant funds? Have the problems affecting implementation of the programme been overcome and, if not, what is the reason for such long delays?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1999)

The take-up rate of the Health and welfare programme under the 1994-1999 Community support framework for Greece currently amounts to 41 %.

This low rate is explained by the fact that the programme started rather late. Moreover, a large part of the appropriations is intended for capital expenditure on hospitals built under the regional programmes, and so dependent on the progress made in constructing those buildings.

According to the information sent to the Commission by the Greek authorities, all the contracts for projects in the programme have been or are being signed. Given the nature of these projects, namely mainly purchases of equipment and the construction of small medical facilities, it is expected that all the appropriations allocated to this programme will be used by the established deadlines.

With regard to assistance for human resources, the delays recorded during the first years of implementation may be put down to work on developing systems and procedures to ensure better training and introduction of the changes required to improve response to highly specialised needs in the field of health. The implementation of these measures is proceeding in satisfactory fashion and the Greek authorities expect all the appropriations to be used.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2367/99

by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Budget nomenclature encouraging the practice of false subsidies

The Committee of Independent Experts' Second Report on Reform of the Commission strongly criticises the layout of the budget, which makes a distinction between Part A and Part B appropriations. Point 2.1.8. says With regard to subsidies, the Part A/part B nomenclature, far from leading to clarity, adds to the confusion mldr a large proportion of subsidies are in fact disguised contracts which the Commission refuses to treat as such, for a whole series of reasons, the main one being that transparency is even less fully assured for subsidies than for contracts.

Can the Commission say:

1. whether it intends, when drafting the next budget, to maintain only the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure;

2. what the subsidies disguised as contracts mentioned by the Committee are, who those responsible are and what steps it intends to take and according to what time-scale?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2000)

I would inform the Honourable Member that the distinction between compulsory expenditure (CE) and non-compulsory expenditure (NCE) stems from the rules on budget procedure laid down in Article 272 (former Article 203) of the EC Treaty. The budget that is adopted and published in the Official Journal does not make this distinction for the different headings. It is only at the preliminary draft budget stage that the Commission states its position, in an annex, on the classification to be followed throughout the budget procedure. Otherwise, the distinction is unlikely to be relevant in the grants debate.

In July 1998 the Commission approved a Vade-mecum on grant management(1), which came into force on 1 January 1999. Among other things, this laid down a clear distinction between procurement spending, defined as a purchase of some product or service from the market and the object of a commercial contract, and grants, defined as a direct payment of a non-commercial nature by the Commission to promote an EU policy aim. Awards of both contracts and grants are subject to rigorous but different rules.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/intro_funding.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2569/99

by Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Crisis in the SISMA (Società Industrie Siderurgiche Meccaniche) undertaking in Villadossola, Piedmont

For the last fifty years, the SISMA undertaking in Villadossola was the most important industrial undertaking in the Ossola Valley because of its high production capacity, the fact that it specialised in the production high-quality special steels, and the numerical strength of its workforce.

From 1947 to 1980 the undertaking's employment policy was one of expansion, so that it ultimately employed 1 800 people.

In 1989, the undertaking was taken over by the Leali Group. In 1993, the Leali Group sold the hydroelectric power plants. The sale of those plants, which produced low-cost electric power, coincided with the start of a management policy which led to the dismantling of the undertaking. Nevertheless, a night shift and working on public holidays were introduced so as to save on the cost of electricity. At the same time, Dario Leali informed the local authorities of the commune of Villadossola that he also wished to take account of other factors affecting the steel industry and that he did not intend to put the SISMA undertaking in Villadossola on the list of undertakings to be restructured as provided for in the European plan for the restructuring of the steel industry. He nevertheless confirmed that the undertaking would be able to continue production

In October 1999, the Leali Group announced that as it did not have the 200 thousand million lire necessary for the restructuring of the Villadossola undertaking, the latter would cease production on 31 October 1999. As a result of this unexpected decision, 320 workers immediately lost their jobs, but the Leali Group still owns all the production plants in Villadossola.

It also appears that the Leali Group received aid from the Regional Fund and /or the Funds for the conversion of undertakings and /or the Funds for the restructuring of the steel industry.

Can the Commission provide the following information:

1. What was the amount of that aid?

2. How did the Leali Group use that aid?

3. What checks does the Commission carry out with regard to aid which has been granted?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

According to the information forwarded at this stage by the Italian authorities to the Commission, it appears that the Gruppo Leali has not received aid from the European Regional Development Fund.

The Commission has, however, requested additional information from the Italian authorities and will pass it on to the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2497/99

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: The Millennium Round, the ultraperipheral regions and changes in the COM in bananas

The Millennium Round in Seattle is going to be thrashing out trade issues involving agriculture, and there is considerable social concern in the Community's banana-producing regions, all of which are designated ultraperipheral under the Amsterdam Treaty, with regard to the Commission's announcement that the COM in bananas is to be reformed because of hypothetical conflicts with the rules of international trade. What are the fundamental background reasons underpinning the Commission's proposal to change the COM in bananas, and what measures, if any, does it intend to adopt when laying down the conditions for the application of the Community provisions included in the CAP to the ultraperipheral banana growing regions, pursuant to Article 229(2) of the EC Treaty, above all in view of these regions' vulnerability thanks to their fragile environments and their dependency on outside energy sources?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

In April 1999 a World Trade Organisation disputes settlement panel found that some aspects of the Community banana scheme were not entirely compatible with the rules of the WTO.

After wide-ranging consultations with all the parties concerned, on 10 November 1999 the Commission adopted a proposal(1) for the amendment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas(2) with the aim of introducing arrangements complying with the WTO rules, at the same time respecting the commitments entered into under the Lomé Convention in relation to the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, with due regard for the interests of Community producers and consumers.

As far as Community banana producers are concerned, it should be borne in mind that the decision of the WTO panel did not call into question the system of Community compensatory aid under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1858/93 of 9 July 1993 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the aid scheme to compensate for loss of income from marketing in the banana sector(3).

The Commission considers that the earnings of Community banana producers are assured by the present compensatory aid scheme with the amount being set each year to reflect the difference between the flat-rate reference income increased by 5 % in 1998 and from 1999 by up to 8 % and the average prices achieved during the banana marketing year. The scheme ensures the disposal of Community output on the market through the grant of full compensation irrespective of the trend of prices on the European Union market. The effectiveness of these arrangements was borne out in 1999 when banana prices on the world market experienced a sharp fall. The compensatory aid scheme made it possible to dispose of the entire Community output and in this way secured the earnings of growers of bananas.

(1) COM(1999) 582 final.

(2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993.

(3) OJ L 170, 13.7.1993.