ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0247/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Withholding of the premium for tobacco producers for the Community Tobacco Fund

In its resolution of 17.7.1997(1) on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco, the European Parliament called on the Commission to supply information on the activities so far of the Tobacco Research and Information Fund as a precondition for any agreement to increase the resources available to it.

1. Has any information been published about the use of the resources withheld between 1993 and 1988 by the Tobacco Research and Information Fund? Which programmes have been funded for Greece so far?

2. Given that no implementing regulation has been issued to increase the deduction decided by Council Regulation 1636/98(2) on the Community Tobacco Fund, does the Commission intend to examine the possibility of not withholding the premium for tobacco producers for the above Fund in 1999?

(1) OJ C 286, 22.9.1997, p. 237.

(2) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 23.

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

1. In connection with the Community fund for tobacco research and information, set up pursuant to Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco(1), the Commission issued two invitations to submit proposals (on 1 July 1994 and 30 April 1996) covering both the fields for which the fund was set up: information and research.

On the research side, the first invitation resulted in three projects being selected for a Community contribution of 5,9 million, the second in six projects being selected for a Community contribution of 6,5 million.

On the information side, the first invitation resulted in eleven projects being selected for a Community contribution of 5,5 million, the second in seven projects being selected for a Community contribution of 7,9 million.

None of the projects submitted in response to the above invitations for proposals has been carried out entirely in Greece.

2. As regards the deduction in favour of the fund for the 1999 harvest, the Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that Council Regulation (EC) No 1636/98 of 20 July 1998 which amends Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 stipulates the deduction to be made and applies as from the 1999 harvest. Consequently, there is not a regulatory void with regard to implementing the deduction provision.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0856/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Eurostar socio-economic data

What is the measure of statistical error in the socio-economic data produced by the Statistical Office of the European Community for GDP/PPS 1994-1996 and for the unemployment rate in 1995-1997?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

As regards GDP/PPS, the Commission does not have the necessary information to calculate the error rate requested by the Honourable Member. However, as part of its ongoing project to improve the quality of its statistics (Qualistat), the Commission has implemented various measures with the general aim of improving the accuracy of these indicators.

As regards unemployment rates, calculated using the Community Labour Force Survey, Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 of 9 March 1998(1) on the organisation of a labour force sample survey in the Community requires Member States to ensure that, for a group of unemployed people representing 5 % of the working age population, the relative standard error for the estimation of annual averages at NUTS II level shall not exceed 8 % of the sub-population in question.

(1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1386/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Expiry of the NOW Programme

From 1994 to 1999 the NOW Programme was a key instrument for promoting the interests of women in the employment sector and it basically supported training and labour market integration projects.

The new Structural Fund regulations do not, however, make any provision for an instrument specifically geared to women; instead, the EQUAL Programme is to be used to reduce all forms of discrimination on the labour market.

Since women do not constitute a separate discriminated category, but are represented in all social groups (i.e. women are also to be found in the groups such as the disabled, foreigners etc. who are subject to clearly defined discrimination) and are thus in some cases subject to double discrimination, will the Commission say whether this will be taken into account in the new EQUAL Programme and in the aid criteria based on this Programme?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The guidelines for EQUAL have taken into account the double discrimination of women, in particular by requiring the Member States to include in their programme proposals a description of the actions and methods planned to implement the gender mainstreaming approach effectively(§ 61)(1).

In addition, the guidelines specify that one of the selection criteria for development partnerships will be the submission of an agreement presenting its strategy and mechanisms for implementing a gender mainstreaming approach (§35).

(1) OJ C 127, 5.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0122/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Protection of the designation ouzo in the EU-South Africa agreement

The new EU-South Africa agreement for easier access to the Community market for South African products, including wines and spirits, came into force on 1 January 2000. The agreement on drinks provides for the protection of the designations port and sherry, whereas there is no provision for similar protection for the production and distribution of Greek ouzo, a product with a designation of origin that is produced in Greece and is entirely and exclusively associated with Greece, nor for Italian grappa.

Why did the Commission make no provision for the protection of the designations of the traditional Greek drink ouzo and the Italian grappa? Does it intend to do so now?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks(1) sets protective restrictions on the use of certain geographical and traditional designations applied to spirit drinks marketed within the Community. Among these are ouzo and grappa. Ouzo can be used only for aniseed-flavoured spirit drinks produced in Greece to defined specifications.

Annex X to the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the Community and South Africa, signed on 11 October 1999(2), makes specific protective provision only for the designations of origin port and sherry and mentions no others. It does however make clear that a separate agreement would be negotiated on wines and spirits, inter alia defining in more detail the commitments made on port and sherry. In these negotiations, held in parallel with those on the global agreement, the Commission has never left any doubt as to its determination to have the Greek name ouzo and the other traditional names such as grappa included in the agreement. For some time the South African delegation was unwilling on grounds of principle to accept such restrictive protection for traditional names and this prevented the wines and spirits agreements from being concluded to the timetable originally planned. It was only in mid-February that the South African Government accepted a proposal from the Community whereby it will protect ouzo and the other traditional Community spirit names(3) after a five-year transitional period. The spirits agreement, to be concluded before 1 June and enter into force together with the wine agreement on 1 September, will set out the commitment in detail.

The Honourable Member is also asked to refer to the reply to Written Question E-121/00 by Mr Souladakis(4) on the same topic.

(1) OJ L 160, 12.6.1989.

(2) OJ L 311, 4.12.1999.

(3) Grappa, Korn, Kornbrand, Pacharan, Jägertee.

(4) See page 27.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0607/00

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

(3 March 2000)

Subject: EU social and economic protection cover for Malaga's shellfishers

Over five hundred shellfishers have been affected by the Andalusian regional government's decision to close off four fishing grounds in the province of Malaga because the toxicity levels in shellfish caught there makes them unfit for consumption.

This decision is nothing short of a disaster for the working lives of the fishermen, whatever the appropriateness of the measure in health terms.

What provisions does the common fisheries policy make for social and economic cover for workers like the Malaga fishermen, whose working lives have been catastrophically affected by factors entirely outwith their control?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about the Malaga fishermen affected by closure of the shellfish fishery for health reasons. It points out that under the terms of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1) Member States may grant compensation to fishermen for temporary cessation of activities under unforeseeable circumstances, in particular cessation for biological reasons.

Such support is additional to that of the general structural measures for fleet adjustment, modernisation and renewal. Each case of restructuring a fleet affected by reduced fishing potential requires approval by the Commission following examination of the proposal in the light of the rules applicable.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0603/00

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

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Setting up the Southwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation

The EU is taking part in the talks on setting up the Southwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, a new multilateral body for fishing in West African waters. Since the fishing industry may be affected by this new body, what position will the EU be adopting with regard to consulting the industry?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Commission takes care to consult the fishing industry when preparing for negotiations within the international fishery organisations.

For instance, it organised a meeting (Brussels, 17 March) to consult the organisations with an interest in the work of the Resource Allocation Group of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

Such consultation would be premature in the case of the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation since the instruments to establish it are only at the preparatory stage. The industry will be consulted when it has been set up.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0237/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Enforcement of inspection for ships

What measures have been taken to ensure that all Member States are meeting their commitments under Article 5 of Council Directive 95/21/EC(1) of 19 June 1995 to ensure that at least 25 % of the ships entering their ports are inspected, and are there any plans to increase the number of structural inspections of ships, especially of those registered under a flag state with a poor record in meeting its international obligations in this area?

(1) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2000)

The Commission is monitoring Member States' efforts to meet their commitments regarding the inspection of ships. Compliance with the requirement of at least 25 % laid down in Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port state control)(1), cannot be assessed until the Directive has been transposed into national law and been in force for at least a year. Delays in the transposition of the Directive have also held up the assessment.

The provisions of Directive 95/21/EC have now been tranposed into national law by all the Member States except Italy. The Court of Justice ruled against Italy on 24 November 1999. Fresh infringement proceedings have been brought against this Member State for failing to comply with the Court's judgment.

The Commission has noted that, on the whole, the requirement of at least 25 % is being met in the Community. However, it also noted that in 1999 some Member States were significantly below this figure. If this continues in 2000, it intends to bring infringement proceedings against those Member States whose competent authority does not carry out a total number of inspections corresponding to at least 25 % of the number of individual ships which enter their ports during a representative calendar year under the conditions laid down in Article 5 of Directive 95/21/EC.

Generally, the Commission takes the view that the Erika disaster has drawn attention to the need for more thorough inspections in Community ports. It is preparing a draft communication on the safety of oil tankers, which includes inter alia a proposal amending Directive 95/21/EC on port state control. The measures planned will take account of the flag States' safety record and the need to pay greater attention to structural aspects.

(1) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1495/00

by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Infeuro

What does it cost to publish Infeuro in all the languages?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1411/00, E-1495/00 and E-1496/00 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The InfEuro newsletter is published in 11 languages and has a total circulation of 380 000. Some 7 000 copies are printed for the Swedish edition. The cost of publishing and distributing one issue is as follows: 65 000 for pre-press work, 45 000 for printing and 70 000 for distribution (mailing lists). In other words, the total cost per issue is 180 000 (the single unit cost per issue is 0,47).

With regard to overall budgetary aspects, the Honourable Member may refer to the tables sent directly to him and to the Parliament's General Secretariat. These tables show the details of agreements concluded with the Member States which decided to enter into partnerships with the Union, the breakdown by category of the cost of activities planned in 2000 and the breakdown of expenditure in the previous two financial years.

A list of all the main products developed can be found in the annex to the Commission Communication on communications strategy in the last phases of the completion of EMU(1), approved on 2 February 2000.

(1) COM(2000) 57 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Teaching of Greek-language interpreting

The Germersheim campus of the University of Mainz (Germany) has a teaching programme which includes a very useful training course for interpreters from and into various European languages. Despite the fact that there are several dozen students studying interpreting from and into Greek, I am informed that the university plans to discontinue the teaching of interpreting from and into this language. At the same time, I am told that the university receives funding from the European Union precisely to support the teaching of interpreting.

In the light of this information, could the Commission say what plans the University of Mainz has with regard to the teaching of interpreting from and into Greek?

Since there does not seem to be any good reason for its abolition, could the Commission request the University of Mainz or its supervisory authority to maintain the teaching of this language, which is particularly useful for the operation of Community bodies and many other European organisations and undertakings?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honorable Member's comments on the importance of Greek as an official Community language. In the field of interpreting, the Joint Interpreting and Conference Service is making the utmost effort to guarantee multilingualism and the equal dignity of all the languages. Nevertheless, the Commission cannot take the place of national authorities when it comes to the training of interpreters.

In fact, in keeping with the EC Treaty, each Member State is responsible for the content of the education it provides and for the way in which its education system is organised. The decision to discontinue the teaching of interpreting in Greek is therefore the responsibility of the university authorities and ultimately of the Member State concerned.

Finally, it would appear in the present case that the information received by the Honorable Member does not entirely reflect the situation as it stands. The University of Mainz has in fact confirmed that Greek is not and never has been one of the languages in the syllabus for the training of interpreters. Moreover, the Commission does not contribute financially to the interpreter training programme at this university.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

To what extent have traditional conflicting relations between national and local levels of governments, in EU Member States, created difficulties for T-TEN project development?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, Member States are responsible for the implementation of the network within their own territory. The respective roles of national, regional and local government in infrastructure project development vary between Member States, but in each case negotiations between the different national actors take place within the Member State concerned, without direct involvement from the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0292/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Zimbabwean defence of asbestos industry

In view of the fact that EU Member States have until 2005 to remove all white asbestos from the market, how does the Commission intend to deal with the claim made by the Zimbabwean government that their white asbestos mine is safe?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

In August 1999, the former Member responsible for development, Mr Pinheiro, on behalf of the President of the Commission, wrote to the Zimbabwean minister of industry and commerce, Mr Shamuyarira, regarding a request for assistance to restructure the asbestos industry and communities affected by the Community ban on asbestos.

The Commission maintained that the Community proposal to ban chrysolite asbestos was based on solid scientific evidence taking due regard of the independent scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment, which stated that no safe threshold for crysolite asbestos can be identified; of the absence of contrary evidence to dispute the fact that all types of asbestos may cause lung cancer and mesothelioma, a form of cancer of the lining of the lungs and of the fact that evidence indicates that the main substitutes for chrysolite asbestos are likely to be less dangerous and should therefore be used in all cases.

In respect of Zimbabwe's request for assistance for transitional arrangements for the asbestos industry, the Commission suggested that the National authorising officer contact directly the Commission head of delegation in Harare to further discuss the possibilities and resources for assistance available under the national indicative programme or the System of stabilization of export earnings from mining products (SYSMIN) facility. To date, the Zimbabwean government has not replied to this offer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1409/00

by David Sumberg (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Consumer protection fire prevention in the home

In view of the relationship between household electrical goods and the incidence of fire and the need, therefore, to educate consumers as to the potential causes of fire in the home, what data does the Commission have on television fires in the European Union and can the Commission specify which models of television sets are most frequently involved in fires?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

The Commission attaches a high priority to fire safety.

The safety of electrical household appliances is regulated primarily by the low voltage Directive, Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits(1). Aspects relating to fire safety of television sets are more specifically addressed in harmonised standard EN 60065:1998, Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus Safety requirements adopted by the European committee for electrotechnical standardisation Cenelec.

The Commission has received no information from national authorities about types of television sets most likely to be the source of an ignition consequently leading to a fire. The Commission is aware of studies in Sweden but the final report will not be available before this autumn.

The Commission raised with national authorities in charge of the enforcement of the low voltage Directive during their meeting in April 2000 the data on television sets being involved in incidents of fire. The Commission has asked Member States to provide more detailed information on this subject.

The need for further action will be considered on the basis of the data received from Member States.

(1) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0469/00

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: European Union measures in the Île-de-France region

Can the Commission provide synoptic tables and comprehensive statistical information concerning the various aids and subsidies received by the Île-de-France and each of its departments for the period 1994-1999 from the various European funds (ESF, ERDF, EAGGF, etc.), from the EIB, from urban policy resources and other financial instruments and from other sources?

Can it indicate the extent to which these numerous measures have affected employment levels in the Île-de-France region and give estimates or, if possible, precise figures, by sector of activity concerning the number of jobs directly or indirectly created or saved as a result?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0469/00 and E-0470/00 given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.