ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2308/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Mont Blanc Tunnel

In view of the tragedy earlier this year in the Mont Blanc Tunnel, which resulted in the deaths of at least 35 people, and the fact that a contributory factor in the accident was the enormous increase over the last few decades in the volume of traffic, has the Commission made clear its willingness to assist France and Italy in providing alternative means of transport, possibly rail, to ease the congestion which, at the same time, would help improve quality of the environment for those people who live directly on the line of the current tunnel route?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Increased road traffic is a general phenomenon in Europe, and the situation is even more acute in the alpine region, which is a central, enclosed area.

In order to help ease the congestion, the Commission is supporting projects due for completion in 2001 relating to the Lyons-Turin-(Trieste) high-speed/combined transport line, the removal of bottlenecks at Modane station, and the Ambérieu-Modane-Turin freight line.

In addition, the inland transport agreement signed by the Community and the Swiss Confederation in June offers the prospect of developing alternative trans-alpine routes for heavy vehicles.

Also, under the fifth research programme the Community will support research and development relating to techniques to reduce the risks and consequences of accidents in tunnels.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2521/99

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Egg collection and dating

In reply to my question No E-1712/99(1), the Commission explained that Sweden and Finland are allowed an exception to EU rules on egg collection to the effect that collection may take place once a week provided that the eggs are kept in cold storage. Does this exception mean that eggs collected once a week may also be dated 25 days ahead?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 18.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2000)

The common marketing standards for eggs provide that the date of minimum durability (best-before date) must be indicated on large and small packs containing grade A eggs (Article 10(1)e) of Council Regulation (EEC) no 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for eggs)(1). According to Article 16(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) no 1274/91 of 15 May 1991(2) implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 the best-before date corresponds to the sell-by date plus seven days.

Regarding the sell-by date, Article 3 of Council Decision 94/371/EC of 20 June 1994 laying down specific public health conditions for the putting on the market of certain types of eggs(3) provides that eggs shall be delivered to the consumer within 21 days after laying. The best-before date is therefore not more than 28 days after laying.

(1) OJ L 173, 6.7.1990.

(2) OJ L 121, 16.5.1991.

(3) OJ L 168, 2.7.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2671/99

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Cards for EU citizens entering Italy

On 15 November 1999 German tourists on a ferry from Tunis to Livorno (Italy) had to have orange cards stamped. Otherwise, according to the Italian authorities, they would have been refused entry to Italy. Customs officials said that without the stamp they would not have been allowed to leave the ship. Entry into Italy was delayed as a result by several hours. The tourists regarded this as harassment pure and simple.

Is there any reason why EU citizens have to present special entry permits for Italy?

If not, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The Commission will make the necessary contacts with the Italian authorities in order to obtain all the details on the facts reported by the Honourable Member. It will not fail to take such action as may be necessary under the procedure provided for by Article 226 (former Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2762/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: The Russian Federation's ultimatum to the city of Grozny

The whole world has condemned the ruthless ultimatum given by the Russian Federation's political and military authorities to the 50 000 inhabitants and the resistance groups in the city of Grozny. However, the only reactions to this ultimatum on the part of the Presidency, the High Representative for the CFSP and the Commission have been verbal condemnations and expressions of concern, warnings and the studying of possible counter-measures.

The changes to the terms of the ultimatum made on 7 December by the Russian authorities do not affect the threat of extermination faced by tens of thousands of civilians because it is virtually impossible to evacuate them under the bombardments.

Does not the Commission believe that actions speak louder than words and that it should suspend, temporarily but immediately, the partnership and cooperation agreements entered into with Moscow as well as any form of direct or indirect aid to the Russian Federation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

Against the background of the situation in Chechnya and the declaration by the European Council at Helsinki last December, the General Affairs Council of 24/25 January 2000 adopted conclusions on concrete follow up measures.

These include strict application of trade provisions in cases where Russia has violated the partnership and cooperation agreement or related sectoral agreements. In this context on 26 January 2000, the Commission submitted a proposal to the Council for a 20 % reduction in the import quota for certain Russian steel products.

In addition, preparation of the Tacis indicative programme for Russia for 2000-2003 has been suspended. Meanwhile, work is going ahead to identify possible components of a core programme covering promotion of democratic values, and the rule of law as the Council requested. The Commission will keep the situation under review over the coming months in order to assess whether programming of Tacis 2000 should go beyond this core programme.

On humanitarian assistance, the Commission in 1999 already committed 2,4 million for actions in the North Caucasus region. This is being delivered through international relief organisations on the spot. In January 2000, the Commission has earmarked a further 5 million for the Northern Caucasus, of which 1,32 million have already been allocated to further aid projects. For the remaining funds to be disbursed quickly and effectively, we need to work with the Russian authorities to improve security conditions on the ground to enable relief agencies adequately to distribute and monitor humanitarian aid. In this regard, the recent visit to the region by the Member of the Commission in charge of humanitarian aid was a valuable opportunity to raise the needs expressed by international relief agencies directly with the competent authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2820/99

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Asbestos ban

What action has the Commission taken and what action does it intend to take to introduce a ban on the use of asbestos in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

The Commission adopted Directive 1999/77/EC on 26 July 1999 adapting to technical progress for the sixth time Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (asbestos)(1) introducing a ban on the marketing and use of all forms of asbestos from 1 January 2005, at the latest. There are only very limited exceptions and these will be reviewed by the Commission before 1 January 2003.

In the light of the ban, the Commission is reviewing Directive 83/477/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 91/382/EEC of 25 June 1991 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 80/1107/EEC)(2).

(1) OJ L 207, 6.8.1999.

(2) OJ L 206, 29.7.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2280/99

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Promise of financial aid to Kosovo

On Tuesday, 9 November 1999 Mrs Schleyer, speaking at a meeting of the Committee on Budgets that was open to the public, said by way of elucidation of the Commission's proposal to make 500 million available to Kosovo that a number of representatives of the Union had promised at various conferences to come up with approximately half of the money needed for Kosovo.

1. Which representatives have made such promises?

2. On what occasion?

3. What sums have been promised?

4. Were the representatives authorised to make such promises?

5. Were the promises made subject to Parliament's approval having to be obtained for the sums involved?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The European Council of Cologne (June 1999) confirmed the European Union's commitment to take a leading role in the reconstruction efforts in Kosovo and called on other donors to participate generously in the reconstruction effort. In this statement, the Union recognised the importance of assisting in the recovery of Kosovo and the responsibility the Union has in supporting the province in this process.

In its proposal for the creation of the agency(1), submitted in the context of a proposal for the modification of the Obnova Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 851/98 of 20 April 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 relating to aid for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(2)), the Commission indicated for the first time its estimates of the needs for the reconstruction effort in Kosovo. The first phase of reconstruction efforts have been estimated between 500 million and 700 million per year over the three years 2000-2002. Overall financial assistance of USD 2 300 million, on highly concessional terms, has been estimated to support a four to five year reconstruction and recovery programme.

Based on a comprehensive assessment report: Towards stability and prosperity: a programme for reconstruction and recovery in Kosovo jointly prepared by the World Bank and the Commission, an external financing requirement of USD 1 100 million has been estimated for 2000, with housing, energy and private sector development as being priority areas. The Commission expressed its willingness to support this programme. During the second donors' conference in November 1999, an indicative figure of 500 million for Community assistance was pledged, in the light also of the first reading of the draft 2000 budget.

The 2000 budget for Kosovo is targeted to immediate needs for reconstruction. The global amount finally agreed by the budgetary authorities for 2000 is 360 million. It breaks down into 270 million for the budget line B7-546 for the reconstruction of Kosovo (including 30 million carried over from 1999), 50 million for the budget line B7-210 for humanitariam emergency aid (including 30 million committed in 1999 as reserve which has to be allocated in 2000) and 40 million for redemployment.

(1) COM(1999) 312 final.

(2) OJ L 122, 24.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2756/99

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Regulation of the poultry sector

The problems which have affected the poultry sector in some regions of the Union over the past year have brought about a change in the public's pattern of consumption, and the resulting surplus supply

has brought the price of chicken down to a level below production costs, which is damaging production areas which had nothing to do with recent scandals.

In view of the consequent losses confronting the sector and the calls made by poultry producers for the sector to be reorganised in such a way as to restrict numbers of breeding hens, has the Commission taken or will it take action to respond to this request and mitigate the crisis which this situation has caused?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

The difficulties encountered by the Spanish poultry sector in 1999 do not appear to be the direct result of the fall in consumption caused by the dioxin crisis. The difficulties have instead been caused by the increase in poultry meat production in Spain in 1999 compared to 1998.

Indeed, the Spanish poultry industry estimates that production increased between 1998 and 1999 by about 15 % because the profitable results recorded at the end of 1998 brought about a drop in prices from the beginning of 1999, well before the dioxin crisis. That crisis then had an additional effect on the Spanish market for poultry meat from June 1999 on.

As regards the issue of production surpluses since early 1999, the common organisation of the market in poultry meat excludes stabilisation measures, such as public intervention on the market. The poultry sector itself must match supply to demand while complying with the Community rules on competition.

The Commission can only support the Community market through export aids intended to bring it into balance. These measures are subject to the restrictions laid down by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Despite these restrictions, however, the Commission introduced export refunds in the summer of 1999 for destinations other than the ones usually laid down, in order to facilitate exports from all Community regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2702/99

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Approval procedures for projects seeking ERDF support

Applicants seeking ERDF funds to support the construction of an industrial estate will frequently argue that the project will provide new employment opportunities.

What steps does the Commission take to ensure that such claims are justified and, in particular, to verify that such employment as may be created will represent additional jobs rather than jobs transferred from other industrial locations?

In the case of industrial parks being built on greenfield sites, what steps does the Commission take to ensure that the development complies with EU requirements promote environmental sustainability by, for example, (a) protecting habitats, (b) giving priority to the development of brownfield sites, (c) discouraging the additional use of motor transport?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Commission has developed a systematic approach to assessing job creation targets. This is summarised in the booklet Counting the Jobs published in the series Evaluation Documents, which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament. The specific concern raised, that claimed jobs will actually consist of transfers from other locations, is a type of displacement and this issue is addressed specifically as part of the calculation of net jobs created. It is true that most ex-ante predictions of employment effects are based on gross job creation, but the net effect is examined in intermediate evaluation and particularly in ex-post evaluation.

Concerning sustainable development, the Commission stressed in its indicative guidelines for programmes in the period 2000-2006(1) that priority should be given to the rehabilitation of brownfield industrial sites over the development of greenfield sites. Moreover, the Commission has emphasised that transport interventions to be assisted should be integrated into strategies for sustainable transport systems. Whilst the guidelines are not legally binding, compliance with Community legislation such as Council Directive

92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2), and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(3) is a condition for any assistance from the structural funds.

(1) OJ C 267, 22.9.1999, p. 2.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2846/99

by Michel Raymond (EDD) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Article 30(1) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 (forestry support)

Article 30(1) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999(1) of 17 May 1999 states that support for forestry applies to the processing of forestry products and (in the next line) that investment related to the use of wood as a raw material shall be limited to working operations prior to industrial processing.

This constitutes an ambiguity which makes the European Union's position vis-à-vis its support for the processing of forestry products incomprehensible.

Could the Commission clarify its position with regard to this important matter?

Does this mean that support for the first stage of timber processing (the work of sawmills) will be discontinued?

If so, such a decision would deal a severe blow to the development of the timber trade in several European countries at a time when the latter's economic impact is constantly increasing.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, to which the Honourable Member refers, restricts support from the EAGGF for investment in improving and rationalising the harvesting, processing and marketing of wood as a raw material to operations prior to industrial processing. The Honourable Member has interpreted the Regulation correctly in saying that first stage timber processing is excluded.

This is not a change in Community policy. The activities of sawmills have not been part-financed by the EAGGF since approval in 1990 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 867/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for forestry products(1).

Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 does not abandon the timber industry activities previously financed by the EAGGF. On the contrary the same criteria continue to apply.

There is nothing to stop Member States proposing a State aid scheme for certain timber industry activities under specific circumstances. Schemes in Objective 1 and 2 area could be part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) if proposed under a regional development programme.

(1) OJ L 191, 6.4.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2586/99

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

20 November 1999 was the tenth anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. All Member States of the European Union have ratified this agreement. Somalia has neither signed nor ratified the agreement. While the USA has signed the agreement it has not ratified it.

As far as is known, the Commission intends to publish a communication on the rights of children.

Does the Commission intend to draw attention in this communication to the fact that Somalia and the USA are the only countries not to have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Is the Commission considering taking steps to encourage Somalia and the USA to ratify the agreement as soon as possible?

If so, what measures does the Commission plan to this end?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The Commission attaches the highest importance to the support of the rights of children as set out in the United Nations (UN).

The Commission notes that all countries with the exception of Somalia and the United States (US) have ratified the UN Convention. It would welcome its ratification by those two countries.

Although the decision whether to ratify a UN Convention is a matter for the individual state concerned, the Commission will continue using its close bilateral contacts with the US to bring up this issue in an appropriate manner. However, as far as Somalia is concerned, it is evident that this country will not be able to sign any Convention, as long as it has no government.

The UN Convention has attained an unprecedented level of ratification. With 191 States Parties, the Convention is the first legally binding international human rights instrument which is close to universal ratification. The Union has issued frequent appeals to the remaining States, not yet parties to the Convention, to ratify it as a matter of priority.

However, ratification alone is not enough. The Convention also needs to be implemented through the enactment of national legislation. The Union is concerned at the large extent of reservations to the Convention. It continues to make known its objections to reservations which are contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. These reservations raise doubts as to the true commitment of the States concerned to implement the Convention. The Union also urges the States Parties to review regularly other reservations with the aim of withdrawing them.

As regards a communication by the Commission on the rights of the child, no final decision has yet been taken. Specific actions in different fields in favour of children are already in fact in place.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2798/99

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Extension of the lorry depot at the customs post of S. Andrea, in the province of Gorizia (Italy), despite the Slovenia's forthcoming entry into the EU

The local government of Gorizia intends to carry out further work to extend the lorry depot facilities at the Italian customs post in the district of S. Andrea, on the border with Slovenia, despite the unfavourable opinion of all the parties involved (the neighbourhood council, various organisations and the population, which is in favour of breaking away from the commune of Gorizia) and despite Slovenia's imminent entry into the European Union.

The city council has signed an agreement with the communes of Nova Gorica and Vrtojba on the other side of the border, which makes provision for projects and funding for alternative facilities;

The customs formalities and facilities will therefore have to be abolished;

The lorry depot facilities are already underused, despite the occasional demand for back-up facilities;

The area concerned which has been invaded for some years by the mass of concrete structures involved in the lorry depot is the historic site of a Slovenian-speaking community, which has seen its territory reduced by more than half,

In view of these facts:can the Commission say whether the projects involved in the extension of the lorry depot facilities envisaged by the authorities of Gorizia at the customs post are sustainable and compatible with the pre-accession phase and Slovenia's entry into the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

The extension of the lorry depot in the customs post of S. Andrea, in the province of Gorizia, concerns mainly infrastructure and, from a customs point of view, is not incompatible with the implementation of the customs acquis, with the pre-accession strategy in the customs field, nor with the possible accession of Slovenia to the Union.

On the compatibility of the measure with the existing agreement between Gorizia and Nova Goriza, the Commission has no competence.