ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0256/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: European Union publicity material

In the answer given by Commissioner Oreja to Written Question E-3488/98(1) he indicated that it was Commission policy not to issue publications in the UK except upon request.

The Commissioner also indicated that one million copies of the publication Euroquest were published, targeted at schools.

Will the Commission indicate who requested so many copies?

(1) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 75.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Euroquest, an 18-page illustrated booklet and map suitable for 7 to 11-year-old school children (Key Stage 2), was written by British teachers and published in 1998 by the Commission's Representation in the United Kingdom. A copy is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The booklet was developed after repeated requests from teachers for simple factual material about the Community and its Member States, for teaching purposes and in line with national curriculum requirements.

In anticipation of demand, one million copies were printed. Since publication in June 1998, 460 000 copies of the booklet have been requested by primary school teachers, public libraries, local education authorities and European resource centres for schools in the United Kingdom. Orders continue to be received on a regular basis for several thousand copies a month.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0437/00

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Legal possibilities for Parliament to downgrade or halt political contact with a Member State

Bearing in mind my Amendment No 1 to resolution B5-0101/2000 on the current situation in Austria, can the Commission inform me what possibilities exist, consistent with Parliament's obligations under the Treaty on European Union, for Parliament to downgrade or halt altogether contacts at political level with a European Union Member State?

Could the Commission address this question separately and specifically in relation to the following: access and entry into any of Parliament's premises; diplomatic and protocol contacts between the President and the other Members acting in a representative capacity on behalf of Parliament; participation in the conciliation procedure; representation by a Member State's political representatives during that state's Presidency of the European Union; participation by political representatives of a Member State not holding

the Presidency in European parliamentary hearings, committees and delegations; the possibility of parliamentary delegations or missions to a Member State declining to meet political representatives of its government; the closure of Parliament's offices in a Member State; the possibility of downgrading or halting contacts in any other areas of activity undertaken by Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The Honourable Member will recall that the Portuguese Presidency agreed with the Heads of State and Government of 14 Member States and informed the Austrian Chancellor on 31 January 2000 that a certain number of political measures would be taken in respect of an Austrian government integrating members of the FPÖ.

The Honourable Member will also recall that on 1 February 2000 the Commission issued a statement according to which it will continue to fulfil its duty as guardian of the provisions and values set down in the Treaties, which provide that the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, as set out notably in Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission also pointed out that the working of the European institutions is not affected at this stage and thus maintains its working relations with the Austrian authorities while following the situation carefully.

In that context, the Commission considers, whilst noting that the Parliament is associated with the procedure laid down by Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, that it is the reponsibility of the Parliament itself to fix its own political line of conduct. It should be recalled in that context that the proper functioning of institutional procedures shall be preserved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0153/00

by Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Barriers to free movement by road at French frontiers

From 10 to 12 January 2000, road transport employers' organisations in France blocked the frontiers with Spain, Italy, Germany and Belgium, as well as the ports linking France and the United Kingdom, in protest at the law on the 35-hour week and the increase in the price of diesel oil.

January is usually one of the busiest months for Spanish exporters of fruit and vegetables, with 6 000 million pesetas worth of exports expected to cross French frontiers by road each day, while there is a risk that the blockade will shortly lead to a supply surplus and a collapse of prices on the European market.

What measures has the Commission taken or will it take to ensure that, in accordance with the rules in force, France compensates exporters and hauliers for the losses they have suffered, dealing with the claims promptly and providing adequate compensation commensurate with the damage caused?

What further measures could the Commission take to restore freedom of movement in future if events similar to those in France recur?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission's attention to the considerable economic impact on the Community's fruit and vegetable companies of the border blockades imposed by French hauliers from 9 to 12 January 2000.

The Commission would like to stress that it decided to implement the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free

movement of goods among the Member States(1), in order to restore free movement of goods as soon as possible and hence to keep to a minimum the damage caused to Community operators.

The Commission therefore requested information from the French authorities on 10 January 2000, under Article 3 of this Regulation, calling on them to inform the Commission of measures taken to restore the free movement of goods.

In their reply of 12 January 2000, the French authorities gave the Commission information concerning all the measures they had taken to restore free movement. They also stated that, in order to protect the interests of EU nationals who might suffer as a result of road blockades, the French Minister for the Interior had placed particular emphasis on the measures to be taken by those responsible for law and order to allow subsequent processing of any claims for compensation.

On this point the Commission would like to repeat that, under Community law, it is in fact the responsibility of the Member States to compensate operators whose rights under Article 28 (ex Article 30) may have been infringed.

(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0052/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Tobacco cultivation in the Azores and revision of the Poseima programme

The Commission, via Commission Regulation (EC) No 2848/98(1), has regulated the conditions for redeeming the tobacco quota defined in Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92(2).

The Commission's rules make no explicit reference of any kind to the circumstances of the most remote regions, including those of the Autonomous Region of the Azores.

In the Azores, there are virtually no producers of tobacco alone, as a rotation system prevails. The basic agricultural infrastructures, like those for curing, are owned and managed by local undertakings, which purchase and process Azorean tobacco.

The application of the Commission's rules on redeeming quotas can mean that a producer who occasionally reaches the quota on the rotation system is entitled to full compensation.

In addition, the continued operation of the system of redeeming quotas in the Azores is seriously jeopardising the future existence of tobacco production there.

Tobacco production is only possible if buyers exist, and buyers will only continue to purchase tobacco from farmers and retain ownership of the primary processing apparatus for tobacco leaf (e.g. for curing) if there is a certain minimum production level. Otherwise, the buyers will lose their viability, and with them will disappear the entire tobacco production sector.

In these circumstances, does the Commission not consider that the rules on tobacco should be included among the regulations which need to be adapted in the wake of the Cologne process?

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.1998, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 70.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0038/00, E-0043/00, E-0044/00, E-0045/00, E-0046/00, E-0047/00, E-0048/00, E-0049/00, E-0050/00, E-0051/00 and E-0052/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Honourable Member has put a whole series of questions regarding the Poseima Programme for the Azores.

The Commission is currently drafting a report on the measures to implement Article 299(2) (ex Article 227) of the EC Treaty.

At this stage, before the Commission has adopted that report, it is not able to reply to the Honourable Member's questions concerning its content.

Lastly, the Commission's Work Programme for 2000 provides for a report to be presented to the Council and Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products(1) (Poseima), together where appropriate with proposals for any adjustments that prove necessary to achieve the programme's goals. The set of measures relating to agriculture in the Azores will be considered in that connection.

(1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0270/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Council

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Functioning of the internal employment market between the EU and Switzerland

A European citizen, Kosta Parlavanzas, has submitted a substantial set of documents in which it is stated that Switzerland pursues a deliberate, systematic policy of restricting employment opportunities for foreign workers to a period of between 20 and 30 years, after which they are sent back to their country of origin with no transfer of pension rights.

Does the Council consider it possible or desirable for relations between the EU and Switzerland to continue and to be deepened (particularly in the context of the European Economic Area) if the latter country fails to implement the basic employment rules of the single market?

Reply

(10/11 April 2000)

1. Although Switzerland took part in the negotiations for the EEA Agreement, it is not part of the European Economic Area (EEA) because, by referendum in December 1992, the majority of the Swiss people rejected the Agreement. As a result, Switzerland was unable to ratify it and become a member of the EEA, and the rules of the singe market do not apply to it.

2. Essentially, relations between the European Union and Switzerland are now governed by the Free Trade Agreement of 1972(1). The Agreement, concluded at the time of the first enlargement of the EEC, focuses exclusively on consolidating and extending existing economic relations between the EEC and Switzerland and ensuring the harmonious development of their respective trade.

The Swiss Confederation has, however, concluded a number of Conventions with various Member States of the European Union regulating bilaterally certain sectoral aspects of the free movement of persons and in particular the coordination of the social security system.

3. The Council considers that the best approach in order to obviate situations such as those put forward by the Honourable Member will be precisely to maintain and strengthen relations between the European Union and Switzerland. To this end, on 21 June 1999 the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, signed an Agreement on the free movement of persons.

4. The Council considers that promoting closer relations between Switzerland and the European Community, as sought by the agreements signed, obviously substantially improves the situation of nationals of Member States of the Community in Switzerland, and that the Agreement on the free movement of persons is an essential aspect of new relations with Switzerland in the future.

5. The Council of the European Union hopes that this Agreement, along with the other six signed with the Swiss Confederation on the same date, can enter into force as soon as possible.

(1) OJ L 300, 31.12.1972, p. 189.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0211/00

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: The Commission's new information policy

I understand that the Commission has instructed its representations in the various countries to alter their information policy in such a way that, rather than aiming to state the facts for the benefit of the public, they put across a particular political line. This will impair the credibility of the information disseminated by the EU and increase its propaganda content. What is the justification for the change?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The Commission has no intention of substituting politically correct information for information targeted at the citizen. It has not therefore issued any instructions to this effect to its representations in the Member States.

Moreover, as part of its departmental restructuring operation the Commission will shortly be presented with a draft communication on the role of its representations in the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0458/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Structural policy and employment

In its answer of 20 December 1999 to written question E-1877/99(1) concerning studies of the effect of Structural Funds transfers on employment, the Commission says It is, therefore, not possible to provide figures on total impact of the funds on job creation.

The Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of the Regions of the European Union (SEC(99) 66 final), states as regards the relevant models for assessing the performance of Structural Funds transfers that Both are very strong assumptions to make and, in reality, it is not possible to know what would have happened in the absence of Union support. (p. 155).

1. Is this confirmation by the Commission that there are no scientifically based studies capable of demonstrating the link between the use of Structural Funds transfers and employment?

2. What means of assessment do the Commission and/or the relevant national departments use in order nevertheless to provide details of newly created jobs or jobs that have been saved?

3. What methods do the Commission and/or the relevant national departments use in order to be able to provide information on planned new jobs?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 78.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 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-0358/00

by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: European standardisation of machinery and equipment

On the basis of research by the Cancer Institute, the Commission has identified a new risk related to wood dust which causes genetic alterations and cancer. What measures has CEN-Cenelec been asked to take to remove the health hazard caused by existing equipment and machinery?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

Acting on a proposal from the Commission, the Council adopted Directive 1999/38/EC(1) on 28 April 1999, amending for the second time Directive 90/394/EEC(2) on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work and extending it to mutagenic agents.

This Directive adds work involving exposure to hardwood dusts to the processes referred to under Annex I. Consequently, all the protection and preventive measures provided for by Directive 90/394/EEC must be applied to workers exposed to such dusts.

Moreover, Council Directive 89/655/EEC, as amended by Directive 95/63/EC of 5 December 1995, concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391 EEC)(3) lays down in the second paragraph of point 2.5 of Annex I that work equipment presenting hazards due to emissions of gas, vapour, liquid or dust must be fitted with appropriate containment and/or extraction devices near the sources of the hazard. It is for the Member States to define the arrangements for practical application.

As the task of the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and of the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (Cenelec) is to focus on standardising new equipment, no request in this context has been made to these organisations.

(1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 196, 26.7.1990.

(3) OJ L 335, 30.12.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0351/00

by Rosa Díez González (PSE), Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Consumer interests in connection with the Spanish electricity market examination of the public aid granted by the government

According to the Spanish media, in connection with the CTC (costs of transition to competition) the Commission is to forward the independent report to the Spanish Government so that it can justify its action.

In view of the fact that in this area the Spanish Government does not represent the interests of the general public but those of the electricity companies, will it also forward the report to Spanish consumers' representatives? Does the Commission realise that not to do so would be contrary to the principle of a level playing field?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

In accordance with Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC/EC/Euratom of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission documents(1), the report in question cannot be disclosed because it would undermine the protection of commercial and industrial secrecy. Furthermore, it is broadly based on data supplied by the Spanish Government, which has requested that it be left confidential. The Commission does not therefore plan to forward the report to the Spanish consumers' representatives.

Moreover, the Commission does not consider that failure to disclose is in breach of the principle of a level playing field as the decision to be adopted concerns Spain alone. This is why in the case of State aid only the Member State concerned has access to the dossier.

(1) OJ L 46, 18.2.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0128/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Bank charges in Italy

Various European banks are suspected of having cartel agreements to maintain high commission charges on foreign exchange transactions following the introduction of the euro.

On the basis of the investigations already begun, and those currently in progress, will the Commission:

1. indicate which Italian banks have already been investigated, and with what results;

2. state what measures it intends to take to put an end to such practices, which have been condemned many times by consumers' associations but have always been denied by the banks.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

The Commission has begun investigations into the bank charges on foreign exchange transactions in the Member States participating in the euro, following various complaints from consumers' associations and others.

1. The Commission has conducted on-the-spot checks on two Italian banks. These checks were made with the assistance of the national authority responsible for competition matters.

This authority, the Bank of Italy, has adopted two decisions on bank charges. The first was adopted on 25 November 1999 and related to a recommendation by the Associazione Bancaria Italiana (Association of Italian Banks) that its members introduce a new schedule of bank charges following the introduction of the euro on 1 January 1999; this recommendation was deemed a restrictive practice incompatible with the rules on competition. The second decision, which was adopted on 18 January 2000, was directed at a group of banks known as the Friends of the Bank and dealt partly with bank charges on cross-border payments. The Bank of Italy concluded that there had been collusion in the fixing of these charges and that this constituted a restrictive practice; it consequently decided to impose fines on the banks concerned.

2. The Commission's investigations are still in progress. Any measures it takes will depend on what proof can be found as to the existence of restrictive practices.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0718/00

by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: 300 million cut in appropriations under heading 1

Further to the statements that Mrs Schreyer, Commissioner in charge of budgets, made on 22 February 2000 to the European Parliament's Committee on Budgets and the answers she gave to the questions put by members of that committee regarding the annual reduction of EUR 300 m that the Commission intends to make in appropriations entered in respect of heading 1, to the effect that under no circumstances would heading 1B be involved, can the Commission say exactly which budget line within heading 1A it intends to make that cut from?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

In its orientation debate in February 2000, the Commission decided on the priorities for the 2001 budget and proposed that an amount of 300 M per year for the reconstruction of Kosovo and its extension to the Western Balkan should be transferred from heading 1 to heading 4 for 2001 and 2002.

In 2001, expected needs for agricultural expenditures in heading 1(a) have been adjusted as compared to the very first estimates in late December 1999. This was in particular possible in the light of more favourite evolution of the American dollar exchange rate and recovery in world cereal markets. Proposals to amend the existing legislative framework are therefore not required and support to farmers will remain unchanged. Consequently, no budget line has to be cut in order to permit the transfer of 300 million to heading 4.