ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0471/00

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: JOP Programme

1. Is it true that the Commission has decided to end the JOP Programme?

2. If so, was it because of the difficulties encountered? If so, what were these difficulties?

3. Alternatively, was the decision taken because of problems arising from fraud? If so, what was the extent of the programmes at issue (funds allocated), compared with those which were not?

4. Will the Commission put forward another similar programme or does it take the view that the thinking behind the existing programme fails to take sufficient account of the specific needs arising in each particular case?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

Over the years, PHARE has developed into an instrument of support for the preparation of the partner countries for their accession to the Union. The required priority actions are identified in the accession partnerships which were approved by the Council on 6 December 1999. This re-orientation of PHARE on a targeted number of accession priorities has indeed also lead to the decision to reduce the number of multicountry sectorial programmes. The decision to terminate the Joint venture programme (JOP) should be seen against this background. No other reasons were at the basis of that decision.

However, support to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in candidate countries continues through the new framework for investment support from PHARE to promote economic and social cohesion in the candidate countries. These actions are considered annually within the national PHARE programmes for each candidate country. Also the new pre-accession instrument Special accession programme for agriculture and rural development (Sapard) will, under certain conditions, be in a position to provide investment support for SMEs in order to meet the acquis requirements in the agricultural and rural development sector. In addition, PHARE funds are made available in co-operation with international financial institutions for providing loans to SMEs in the partner countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1467/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Town twinning

What is the Commission's attitude to town twinning?

In particular, is the Commission convinced that town twinning is an important means of enabling citizens genuinely to participate in and work together for Europe?

What political and financial support does it intend to provide for town twinning?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1366/00, P-1446/00, E-1467/00 and E-1519/00 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2000)

In the interview in La Repubblica mentioned by the Honourable Members, Vice President Kinnock was asked about the review of all tasks and resources which was then being proposed in the Commission and has since begun, as publicly announced. The Vice President referred inter alia to the fact that there are some activities undertaken by the Commission which could not formally be regarded as core activities in terms of the Treaty, but which are nevertheless considered to have value for the development of the Union. In response to a request for examples of such activities he referred to town twinning.

The reference was factual and implied no decision or intended decision to withdraw commitment from town twinning.

Support for town twinning activities across the Union has been provided from the Community budget for several years. In the current year, 10 million is provided for that purpose. The finances are administered by two grade A officials in the Directorate general for Education and culture.

The comprehensive review of all tasks and resources is being undertaken as a requirement of responsible management by the Commission and with the intention of improving and increasing the transparency of the relationship between Commission activities and the staff available to provide them efficiently. A report based on the review will be compiled and presented to the Commission and, subsequently, to Parliament and Council, later this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0924/00

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Council

(24 March 2000)

Subject: Stockholm Declaration on education about the Holocaust

What steps has the Council taken to act on the Stockholm Declaration on education about the Holocaust in the EU and the Member States?

Reply

(8 June 2000)

The Council attaches great importance to the role of education in promoting tolerance and respect for people, and by implication, drawing lessons from history This was exemplified by the Declaration of the Council and the representatives of the Member States of 16 December 1997 on respecting diversity and combating racism and xenophobia(1). Indeed, it is also important to raise awareness about these issues among young people in general outside the formal education context, as was acknowledged in the Declaration by the Council and the Representatives of the Member States of 24 November 1997 on the fight against racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism in the youth field(2). However, as

far as teaching about the holocaust is concerned, it should be pointed out that Article 149 TEC (education) clearly indicates that the European Community should fully respect the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems.

(1) OJ C 1, 3.1.1998, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 368, 5.12.1997, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0476/00

by Joseph Daul (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Forest damage following Hurricane Lothar

On 26 December 1999 Hurricane Lothar caused enormous damage to forests in France, Southern Germany and Austria, and particularly to farmer-owned private and communal forest, threatening the livelihoods of many family farms.

In the EP debate of 18 January 2000, the Commission referred to possible changes to the Structural Funds, though without promising a specific aid for this dramatic situation. However, changes alone are not enough since structural assistance goes to smaller businesses which frequently also have an agricultural operating unit that is vital for their survival.

During the debate, Commissioner Barnier did, however undertake to consider reinstating the budget line for emergency aid deleted two years ago.

Is the Commission prepared to look beyond the existing framework of the Structural Funds and to examine the 2000 budget of the Commission for mobilisable reserves for immediate emergency aid, for instance from the LIFE and ECHO programmes, and possibly to reinstate a budget line for disaster aid within the European Union for 2001?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

With regard to the Structural Funds, the Honourable Member is requested to refer to the answers given by the Commission to written questions 0024/00 from Ms Patrie, 0159/00 from Mr Lang and 0307/00 from Mrs Thomas-Mauro, and to oral question H-0008/00 from Ms Patrie.

There are no provisions in the LIFE Regulation, which is currently under review, for the allocation of a portion of its funding to emergency measures, without a call for projects procedure being initiated. We cannot, therefore, envisage the funding, under the LIFE programme, of any general measures to repair environmental damage caused by the natural disasters which struck France, Germany and Austria in December 1999. We do not, however, rule out the possibility that proposals for new projects under LIFE-Nature or LIFE-Environment could, while meeting the LIFE criteria, also serve to repair the damage to the environment. Any application meeting this profile will be examined (on a case by case basis) under the project monitoring procedures or the tendering procedure for LIFE.

Article 1 of the Regulation governing the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) specifies that: The Community's humanitarian aid shall comprise assistance, relief and protection operations on a non-discriminatory basis to help people in third countries, particularly the most vulnerable among them, and as a priority those in developing countriesmldr(1). It cannot, therefore, provide assistance in respect of the severe damage caused by natural disasters in the Member States in December 1999.

Since there are provisions for a number of different aid schemes in the Structural Funds Regulations, the Commission currently has no plans to reinstate a specific budget heading for emergency disaster aid within the Community.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid. OJ L 163, 2.7.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1904/00

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: EC Phare programme tender li 9701.01.04.02

Understanding that bids for contracts under this programme can only be accepted for full lots and that all the equipment must be of EC or Phare programme country of origin, can the Commission please advise who won the contracts under this tender, lot by lot, and what equipment (make and model) was included in the successful bids?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1668/00

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Discriminatory entry tax in Greek waters

1. Is the Commission aware that the Greek Government has decided as from January 2000 to charge an entry tax on leisure boats over seven metres long which are not permanently anchored in Greek waters?

2. What is the Commission's view of the fact that this entry tax (GRD 15 000) is more than seven times the normal entry price for tourist boats (GRD 2000)?

3. What does the Commission intend to do to counter discrimination against non-Greek shipowners, who are the main victims of this decision?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1062/00 by Mr von Wogau(1).

(1) See page 150.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0528/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Reduced VAT rate for electronic news media products

Under the sixth VAT directive, Member States are permitted to apply a reduced VAT rate to the supply of certain goods and services. Some Member States include newspapers and periodicals under Annex H to the directive in question, levying a reduced VAT rate on such products. The fact is, however, that news media services are increasingly being provided electronically, and this is resulting in distortion of competition between paper and non-paper publications.

Will the Member States have the possibility in future of extending the reduced VAT rate to electronic news media products, and in particular CD-ROMs and on-line publications?

Reply given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

In principle, under current Community VAT legislation, particularly Article 12 of the sixth Directive (77/388/EEC)(1), the standard rate of VAT applies to newpapers and other news media.

However, Member States wishing to do so may allow a reduced rate for books, newspapers and periodicals.

Where intagibles are concerned, in June 1998 the Ecofin Council approved the principle by which an operation that makes a product available in digital form via an electronic network should be regarded for VAT purposes as a service provided.

The question whether some services of this kind may be added to the list of goods and services eligible for a reduced rate will be examined more widely in the course of a forthcoming revision of the scope of reduced rates of VAT. However, at this stage, it would be premature to anticipate the Commission's work by commenting on the future VAT treatment of electonic news media products.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, as last amended by Directive 1999/85/EC (OJ L 277, 28.10.1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0659/00

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

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Sinking of the trading vessel Zafir

Some days ago, the Zafir, a Portuguese-registered trading vessel, belonging to a Swiss-based shipping company, sank after being struck by the Italian vessel Expresso Catania in south Italian waters, with the loss of thirteen lives. Most of those who died were Galician seamen.

Has the Commission taken any steps to clarify the causes of the sinking of the Zafir, recover the bodies of the men lost and provide support for the families of the crew, both as regards their immediate needs and any compensation to which they may be entitled?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

Like the honourable Member, the Commission learned through media coverage that the trading vessel Zafir sank off the coast of Calabria, Italy. The Commission regrets the tragic consequences of the accident and the irretrievable loss of human lives and extends its sympathy to the victims' families.

As regards the causes of the accident, we must await the results of the inquiry that the Italian authorities are carrying out. The Commission must emphasise that sea rescue and salvage do not come under its jurisdiction, which explains why the authorities involved in the aftermath of the accident did not seek its assistance.

For its part, the Commission places great emphasis on safety at sea in the context of transport policy. In this perspective, it believes that measures must be taken at Community level to improve safety. To this end, it has submitted a number of specific proposals on this topic to the Council, in particular regarding oil tankers(1).

Other specific proposals designed to improve safety at sea will be put forward by the end of the year.

(1) COM(2000) 142 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1682/00

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

(7 June 2000)

Subject: Lisbon-Ferrol high-speed rail line linking Portugal and Galicia

Despite the statements of the President of the Galician regional government, Mr Manuel Fraga, to the effect that the planned high-speed rail link to Galicia will not be operative until the distant date of 2006, the Mayor of Oporto, Mr Nuno Cardoso, has called for the construction of a high-speed rail line which would link Lisbon, Coimbra and Oporto in Portugal to Vigo, Pontevedra, Santiago de Compostela, La Coruña and Ferrol in Galicia, with a maximum journey time of four hours. The Mayor of Oporto believes that this railway would also greatly facilitate travel from northern Portugal to the European heartland, via the proposed link connecting Galicia to Valladolid and to Irún on the French frontier.

At a recent meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Portuguese Minister of Transport and President-in-Office of the Transport Council, Mr Jorge Coelho, replying to the author of this question, expressed his support for this Portuguese proposal for a Lisbon-La Coruña link, in the context of the need to define a joint project for the creation of a high-speed rail connection between the Iberian peninsula and the European heartland, to be implemented immediately by the Spanish and Portuguese governments.

Can the Council state what progress has been made on this matter? Can it also state what potential political and economic obstacles need to be overcome or removed with a view to the implementation of this project, which is of vital importance for the economic and social development of the Portuguese regions and of Galicia, given that the Atlantic seaboard area is home to 11millionpeople and is of major strategic importance for the Union?

Reply

(29 September 2000)

A high-speed rail network was provided for in the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996)(1). However, a line such as that mentioned in the Honourable Member's question is not included.

New guidelines concerning the trans-European transport network are currently being prepared by the Commission, and the Council expects the relevant proposals to be referred to it. The Council will give its opinion when the time comes and is therefore not able at this juncture to anticipate what its position will be.

The Council will nevertheless bear the Honourable Member's question in mind when looking at all aspects of the matter as a whole.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2097/00

by François Zimeray (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Relations between the EU and Iran

On 16 September 1999 the European Parliament unanimously adopted a motion for a resolution on the situation of prisoners accused of spying in Iran (R5-0029/99). The fifth paragraph of this resolution stresses that the European Parliament insists that any dialogue between the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Iran must be made dependent on respect for fundamental human rights.

Nine months after the adoption of this resolution, 13 Members of the Jewish community of Iran are still in prison; their right of defence has been violated, and they are the victims of a show trial.

Would the Commission provide a detailed account of any discussions, acts of political and/or economic cooperation and, more generally, any relations that have existed or exist at present -between the EU and Iran since September 1999?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

The Commission fully shares the concern over the lack of respect for human rights in Iran expressed in the draft resolution B5-0079/1999 by the Parliament. In the comprehensive dialogue between the Union and Iran, questions regarding human rights are consistently raised by the Union.

On the specific situation of the 13 Iranian Jews and 8 Muslims detained on charges of espionage, a number of demarches have been made by the Union as well as by individual Member States in the course of last year. The Union has stressed the importance of a free and fair trial and was disappointed to see that the trial was not open to observers. Following the verdict on 1 July 2000, the Union stated its concern and its wish that the Court of Appeal would alleviate the punishments.

The comprehensive dialogue between the Union Troika and Iran, which started in 1998, continues with meetings at the level of deputy minister or state secretary every six months. A meeting was held in Helsinki in December 1999 and the latest was held in Tehran in June 2000. All issues of importance, including human rights and also this trial, are regularly raised.

The Commission has for some years funded assistance to Iran in the area of refugee assistance through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and through international non-governmental organisations. A care and maintenance project implemented by Médecins sans frontières (MSF)-France was launched early this year. Together with a humanitarian project (hospital) launched following an earthquake some years ago, these are the only cooperation activities with Iran currently being implemented.

While the political situation in Iran remains a matter of concern, the positive developments with the recent parliamentary election and Iran's growing sensitivity to international pressure, open new possibilities to develop a constructive dialogue on human rights issues with the Iranian government. The Commission will continue to follow the situation closely in order to seize any opportunity to support this positive change.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1838/00

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Attendance by representatives of Central and Eastern European countries at meetings of scientific and management committees on veterinary and plant health questions

In the forthcoming accession negotiations with Central and Eastern European countries, the question as to whether, and how, those countries can meet present European legislation will be one of the problem issues.

Does the Commission therefore not think it desirable for those countries to be able to attend meetings of the relevant committees as permanent observers? Is the Commission prepared to act accordingly?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

Attendance at the meetings of the scientific committees is restricted to the members of a committee and to Commission officials. Representatives of Member States' governments and of interest groups never attend committee meetings, in order to ensure the independence of the committees.

For the same reason of independence of the committees, it is thus not possible for government representatives of the Central and Eastern European countries to attend those meetings.

However, membership of scientific committees is not restricted to scientists who are citizens of the Union. Scientists from third countries can thus apply for membership and may be selected.

Representatives of the 13 candidate countries can participate, as observers and for the points which concern them, in management committees responsible for monitoring the Community programmes in which these countries participate and to which they have contributed financially.

For other matters, in particular the implementation of Community legislation, the Association Council (composed of representatives of the Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and of each of the candidate countries, on the other) has to establish to which degree the acquis communautaire has been not only transposed into their internal order but applied by the candidate country in question. It is related to this statement that the Commission will decide on a case-by-case basis on their participation.

In the meantime the Commission will inform the candidate countries of the most important developments in the regular meetings held in the framework of the pre-accession strategy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1646/00

by Ward Beysen (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Abuse of monopoly position by the German Post Office (DPAG)

In June 1994 a complaint was made against the DGAP, on the grounds that it abused its monopoly position by diverting the proceeds of the monopoly to the parcel service which was not part of the monopoly, which amounts to an unauthorised cross-subsidy, and also that it received unauthorised government support. With the profits it has amassed, the DPAG has even succeeded in building up a pan-European network, which is of course against European competition rules. The investigation is taking some considerable time to reach a conclusion. When can the decision be expected, and will the Commission in its decision enforce European competition rules fairly and fully and set firm guidelines with regard to State support, in order to guarantee both viable competition and free choice for the consumer? If the cross- subsidy is proven, will the Commission impose effective sanctions, such as ordering the DGAP to refund the subsidy? Finally, what steps will the Commission take to prevent future cross-subsidies and distortions of competition?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1621/00 and E-1646/00 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Commission decided on 20 July 1999 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88 (2) (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty in respect of possible state aid granted to Deutsche Post AG.

The procedure covers the whole range of state aid allegations concerning Deutsche Post AG.

The Commission is currently examining the observations received from the German Government and interested parties. Since the examination is still pending no indications about the possible outcome of the investigations can be given at this stage.