ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0816/01

by Gian Gobbo (TDI) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Support for European and Venetian businesses in Romania

There has been an increasing relocation of businesses from the European Union to Romania in recent years. This has particularly affected the Veneto region, where thousands of companies

have started business and commercial activities, in particular with the Timisoara area. This development could lead to a considerable improvement in Romania's economic situation.

The Commission:

- Will it indicate what action the European Union intends to take to support companies setting up business in Romania?

- Does it not consider it appropriate to step up technical and administrative assistance, e.g. by opening an office in Timisoara?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2001)

The Commission is aware of the increasing interest of Italian companies from the Veneto region to develop commercial and investment relations with Romania, particularly in the Timisoara area. The Commission welcomes this development as it encourages the transfer of managerial and technical know-how, thereby helping to develop the local economy and stimulate competitiveness.

Through its Euro Info Centre (EIC) network, the Commission has provided a service to businesses in this area since 1996 when the Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI) in Timisoara became a relay office to the Euro Info Correspondence Centre in Bucharest. Both offices were selected to become full EICs in 1999. The role of the Timisoara EIC is to give assistance and information to companies in the region about Community policy and programmes, and it may also help companies to find business partners.

The CCI Timisoara also has joint projects with the Chamber of Commerce in Ravenna and one of the Chambers of Commerce in Venezia-Mestre, the goal of which is to reinforce co-operation between Italian companies and companies in the Timisoara region.

During 2001 and subject to a decision of the Association Council it is hoped that Romania will begin to participate in the Multiannual Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship, and in particular for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), 2001-2005(1). This programme includes the Joint European Venture scheme (JEV) in which companies from any Member State may seek support for joint ventures with Romanian companies.

Another support scheme open to Romania is the PHARE-funded SME Finance Facility. This provides credit lines, technical assistance (training) and performance fees to banks in the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as equity investment for venture capital funds, in order to increase the supply of finance to local SMEs.

(1) Council Decision 2000/819/EC of 20 December 2000 (OJ L 333, 29.12.2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1488/01

by Jean-Claude Martinez (TDI) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Fraud involving animal meal

In order to combat BSE or mad cow disease, France imposed a ban on animal meal intended for cattle in July 1990 and, in July 1996, stepped up this measure by excluding specified risk material (SRM) such as the brain, the spleen or the spinal cord.

However, a case has recently come to light revealing the manufacture and fraudulent trade of several thousand tonnes of animal meal intended for cattle which appears to have continued after 1996.

Given the gravity of the situation and the public health risk involved, what steps will the Commission take?

Does it still consider it appropriate to reintroduce animal meal, even for non-ruminants, as it has previously suggested?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The French judicial authorities are investigating the allegation of fraud on meat and bone meal. The European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) is being informed of developments.

Based on the results to date of the inspections carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office, and the differing scale of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) testing in different Member States, it is the Commission's view that it is premature to suggest lifting the complete suspension of the feeding of meat and bone meal to livestock. The current suspension which was due to expire on 30 June 2001, has, therefore, been extended. In the meantime, efforts are continuing towards the adoption by the Council and Parliament, and implementation by Member States, of the Regulation on animal by-products not intended for human consumption(1).

This Regulation requires:

(a) that only animal by-products derived from animals fit for human consumption may be used for animal feed;

(b) a complete separation during collection, storage, transport, processing and use of animal waste not intended for animal feed;

(c) a complete separation of rendering plants dedicated to feed production from rendering plants processing other animal waste; and

(d) stricter rules for traceability of animal by-products (including control on the movement of specified risk material by means of record keeping systems, accompanying documents or health certificates and marking of animal proteins and fats intended for destruction).

(1) OJ C 96 E, 27.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1319/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: System of licensing radio stations in the Attica basin

After many years of ambiguity in the law governing radio stations in Greece, the Greek Government adopted a licensing system. In the Attica basin, it issued licences for 20 radio stations which, in its view, is the maximum number that can operate on the available radio frequencies.

However, it did not issue licences to many stations with high audience ratings, a high turnover and a large number of staff. Following a number of protests, therefore, and a technical recommendation which met certain requirements laid down by the government itself, it raised the number of licences provisionally to 28. Again, however, several stations of recognised quality with high audience figures were not included. Meanwhile, reports by professors at the Athens Institute of Technology maintain that the number of frequencies can be increased to 35 without difficulty.

The Greek Government uses the National Broadcasting Council as a vehicle for issuing opinions based on various government technical recommendations, a situation which even led a pro-government member of the NBC to resign in protest against interference by the minister responsible.

1. In the light of Article 6(1) and (2) of the Treaty on European Union concerning fundamental human rights, and Article 11 of the Charter of Human Rights concerning freedom of the media, does the Commission consider that the Greek Government's actions are consistent with European law?

2. Will the Commission address a recommendation to the Greek Government?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2001)

The Commission recently received a complaint regarding the system of licensing of radio stations in the Attica basin. The Commission is in the course of examining this complaint and has asked the Greek authorities to provide it with additional information. Since the case presents a rather complex situation, it is too early to say yet whether the actions taken by the Greek government are consistent or not with European law. The Commission attaches great importance to the creation of a single radio broadcasting market within the Community and will pay due attention to this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1274/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 May 2001)

Subject: Study on North-African Muslim fundamentalist movements

Muslim fundamentalist movements in North Africa have grown in importance to the extent that they now constitute a true political, if not parliamentary, opposition. Moreover, their ability to mobilise support, notably in suburban areas and in universities, give serious cause for concern to all in the Southern reaches of the Union.

For this reason, this sociological phenomenon should be closely monitored in order to continually assess future developments and prevent possible adverse consequences of it gaining broad support in the countries of Northern Africa.

Does the Commission therefore consider that it should support a detailed and exhaustive study on North-African Muslim fundamentalist movements in order to assess their development and their potentially decisive influence in this geopolitical area?

Reply given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2001)

The Commission has no plans to conduct such a study.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0827/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Publication of limits on residues by the fifteen EU Member States

On 30 March 2000, John McCartin, MEP, tabled a written question to the Commission concerning maximum permissible residue limits and residue surveillance policy (E-1114/00(1)). On the basis of data provided by the pharmaceutical industry, the CVMP in London determines maximum permissible residues for the active ingredients of veterinary medicines destined for use in food-producing animals.

The fifteen EU Member States are required by law to submit their food-residue monitoring programmes for the coming year and the results for the previous year to the Commission. The results indicate the incidence of residues from veterinary medicines in food samples from the European Union.

Only one EU Member State - the United Kingdom - publishes such detailed results every three months. The other Member States fail to comply or else publish incomplete information, in some cases on the Internet. Yet complete and transparent publication of such residue results by all EU Member States could promote consumer confidence.

Can the Council confirm that only one EU Member State - the United Kingdom - publishes a detailed overview of residues of veterinary medicines detected in food samples every three months? If not, do other EU Member States similarly publish (at the same intervals and in the same degree of detail) the quantities of residues detected in food samples?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 77.

Reply

(16 July 2001)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the Treaty entrusted the Commission with ensuring that Community regulations are applied. The Commission alone, therefore, is in a position to confirm the information he has given.

The Council would, moreover, draw attention to the reply given by the Commission on 29 May 2000 to Mr McCartin's question, containing useful information in the fields referred to by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0658/01

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Lisbon European Council and the open method of co-ordination

The 2000 Lisbon European Council stated that policies for combating social exclusion should be based on an open method of coordination combining national action plans and a Commission initiative for cooperation in this field to be presented by June 2000. What steps has the Commission taken towards presenting such an initiative and when exactly does it envisage making this presentation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

In response to the mandate of the Lisbon European Council, the Commission adopted on 16 June 2000 a proposal for a decision of the Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme of Community action to encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion(1). Article 137 (ex Article 118) of the EC Treaty (paragraph 2, subparagraphs 2 and 3) provides the legal basis. The aim of the proposal is to support transnational exchange of good practice and policy-oriented cooperation in the field of social inclusion. The initiative is expected to contribute to the commitment to make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty, and the open method of co-ordination. The active involvement of the Member States, regional and local levels of government, as well as the social partners and civil society is envisaged.

Further to the Parliament's opinion on its first reading, the Commission adopted an amended proposal for this Decision on 24 November 2000(2). The Council formally adopted a common position on 12 February 2001(3) which, together with the Commission's comments on it, has been transmitted to the Parliament for second reading.

(1) COM(2000) 368 final.

(2) COM(2000) 796 final.

(3) OJ C 93, 23.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0332/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Measures to protect the Skhinia wetlands

In its reply to a question I had tabled (P-2323/00)(1) on the protection of the Skhinia wetlands within the framework of the objectives of Natura 2000, the Commission stated that the facilities which had been planned for Skhinia as part of the 2004 Olympic Games were the subject of a complaint to the Commission which would examine the matter within this framework.

Have the Commission's investigations made any progress? Can it provide any information on the results so far?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 193.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0300/01 and E-0332/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

As mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission has already registered a formal complaint related to the proposed construction of a canoeing and rowing centre in Skhinias. In the framework of the investigation of the case, the Commission has sent a letter to the Greek authorities drawing attention to the value of the site for nature conservation and requesting information concerning any intended designation of the site for the Natura 2000 network by virtue of the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1). Commission officials discussed the case with the Greek authorities at a meeting in Athens on 13 and 14 December 2000.

The Commission is currently investigating the file, taking into account the conservation value of the site, and the elements supplied by the Greek authorities in their reply. A clear position on this issue is expected very soon.

With regard to the question of funding, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the Greek authorities have not requested any Community financing for the above-mentioned project.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0806/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Unequal treatment of Greek fishermen

In its answer to my question concerning the unequal treatment of Greek fishermen compared with fishermen from other countries owing to the difference in the range of their exclusive fishing zone, the Commission stated that this situation arose because Greece had fixed the boundary of its territorial waters at 6 nautical miles and that the Commission was unable to intervene over the consequences of that fact (answer No P-0149/01(1)).

Regardless of whether the Member State or the Commission is competent in this case, Greek fishermen continue to be unfairly treated because their exclusive fishing zone is less wide. Does such discrimination constitute sufficient grounds for compensatory aid?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 129.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to his Written Question P-0149/01 on 16 February 2001(1).

In the Commission's view, the size of the exclusive fishing zone, which is determined by the Member State, does not constitute grounds for granting compensatory aid at Community level.

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 129.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1365/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Cooperation agreement between the European Community and Pakistan

Reliable sources have long maintained that Pakistan is supporting the violently repressive, obscurantist Taliban regime in Afghanistan, providing it with a huge amount of economic and military aid. That regime has for some time been quite rightly criticised by all the EU Member States and the European Parliament for a policy which shows total disregard for human rights. In a recent visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Commander Massoud, the courageous leader of the opposition to the regime in Afghanistan, provided ample proof of Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan's internal affairs.

Given that the Commission is currently conducting negotiations with Pakistan with a view to concluding an important and far-reaching co-operation agreement under which enormous amounts of economic aid are to be provided to Pakistan:

1. Can it say what stage has been reached in the negotiations?

2. Does it consider it to be reasonable and politically appropriate to continue to negotiate the agreement in its present form, particularly those sections which entail the provision of substantial amounts of aid to Pakistan?

3. Does it consider such an agreement appropriate as long as Pakistan is keeping an unpopular, cruel and obscurantist regime in place by means of the direct aid which it provides?

4. Would it not agree that the negotiations on an agreement which Pakistan considers to be of such importance would be better used to exert political pressure on that country with a view to persuading it to stop supporting the Taliban regime, or at least to reduce the amount of aid provided?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2001)

Signature of the EU's Co-operation Agreement with Pakistan was deferred sine die following the military take-over of 12 October 1999. Negotiations had already been concluded with the paraphing of the Agreement on 22 April 1998. Pending signature of the new Agreement, the previous one dating back to 22 April 1986 remains in force.

The Commission is fully aware that the new Agreement features respect for human rights and democratic principles as its basis under Article 1. It is for this reason that the Council and the Commission did not proceed with the signature of the Agreement following the military take-over.

During ad-hoc political talks with Pakistan in November 2000, the Union Troika made it clear that further progress on improving relations is linked to concrete steps on return to democracy.

The Commission abides by the Union policy of neutrality between the conflict parties in Afghanistan. The Union's Common Position on Afghanistan of 22 January 2001(1) calls on countries concerned to stop any further involvement of their military, paramilitary and secret service personnel in Afghanistan and cease all other military support to parties in the conflict. Commission humanitarian aid in Afghanistan is targeting groups at risk irrespective of whether they live on one or the other side of the conflict.

(1) OJ C 21, 23.1.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1337/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Dubbing of film soundtracks

Given that language is the principal means of communication and expression, cultural works such as films, can only be appreciated fully if they are shown in the original language whereas if the soundtrack is dubbed into another language and spoken by other actors, this may seriously detract from the identity and recognisable characteristics of the actors actually appearing on the screen. This effectively creates an artistic split and deceives the viewer, who sees one actor, and hears another. It would be possible to make a long list of actors whose artistic careers have suffered as a result of their scripts being dubbed into other languages using the voices of other actors.

Hence, the dubbing of film soundtracks in languages other than the authentic original undeniably detracts greatly from the quality of the films concerned particularly film classics, where scripts are mutilated, the quality of the original acting notably diminished and nuances of expression lost.

What view does the Commission take of unrestricted dubbing of films and can it say whether any legislation exists establishing rules and restrictions regarding dubbing?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

The Honourable Member has raised an important issue concerning the cultural integrity of cinema works, when dubbed into other languages. There is not any Community legislation establishing rules and restrictions regarding dubbing of films.

Whilst the Commission has not taken a position on this specific issue, it should be noted that it has, through the programme MEDIA (now replaced and updated by MEDIA PLUS) encouraged the circulation of non-national films throughout the Community. In addition, the issue of cultural diversity figures high on the Commission's cultural agenda.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0705/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Similarity of the euro logo with that of Thomas Cook and the claim for GBP 25 million

1. Is the Commission aware of the article in the Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad of Saturday, 3 February 2001, entitled Euro gaat Brussel ponden kosten [Euro will cost Brussels pounds]?

2. Is the Commission aware of the problem referred to in the article of the similarity between the euro logo and the logo of the British company Thomas Cook which, the company maintains, has been registered since 1993?

3. Was any preliminary research carried out into other registered logos comparable with the euro logo? Did this include the Thomas Cook logo? If so, what was the outcome and what is the Commission's interpretation of the outcome?

4. What is the Commission's opinion of Cook's view, referred to in the article, that the considerable similarity between its own logo and the euro logo will devalue its own logo?

5. The board of Thomas Cook has let it be known that it has been endeavouring since 1998 to reach a solution to this problem with the Commission. Can the Commission confirm this?

6. What is the Commission's view of the statement by Thomas Cook's board that the Commission has never given a serious response to the problem raised by Thomas Cook? What was the reason for this?

7. Has the Commission been informed by Thomas Cook of a possible claim for damages of GBP 25 million (according to the article)?

8. Can the Commission confirm that Thomas Cook has set a deadline for a reply and that, in the absence of a reply, it will file its claim for damages at the end of February?

9. Does the Commission agree that given the legal process this could result in a long drawn out court procedures?

10. Does the Commission agree that this could effect the planned date of introduction of the euro?

11. If the problems assume such proportions that the planned introductory date of 1 January 2002 cannot be met, is the Commission prepared, in cooperation with the 12 Member States involved, to draw up an emergency plan for maintaining the existing currency on a provisional basis?

12. Is the Commission prepared to inform Parliament of the issue and of any follow-up?

13. Finally, what is the Commission's view of Cook's claim for damages totalling GBP 25 million?

14. Does the Commission agree that steps must be taken to prevent it being manoeuvred into a position where there is no solution but to hand over the damages requested - European citizens' tax - to prevent even bigger problems?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2001)

The Commission is aware of the actions launched by Thomas Cook on the euro logo.

The whole of the dossier being subject to an action with the Court of the First Instance of the Communities, no written or spoken declaration can be made by the Commission.

Nevertheless, the Commission considers that this action cannot affect the date of the introduction of the euro.