ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0636/00

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Repopulation of northern regions in Greece where minorities of Macedonian and Turkish origin are resident

In January 2000 the Greek Parliament adopted a law concerning the return of Greeks coming from former Soviet republics. This legislation states that several thousand citizens are to be accommodated in the northern regions of Greece where sizeable minorities of Macedonian and Turkish origin (Lerin-Florina and Xsanthi regions) are resident.

Can the Council provide detailed information on the practical arrangements for this transfer of population in a Member States of the European Union? Can the Council confirm that thousands of citizens are to be located in the northern provinces where there is a problem with minorities? Is the Council aware of the consequences that significant changes in the demographic situation can produce in sensitive regions?

Reply

(8 June 2000)

The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that it is not up to the Council to comment on matters which are the responsibility of a Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0480/00

by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Allocation from the Structural Funds for the region of Estremedura for the period 2000-2006

Could the Commission indicate the amount of funding the Spanish region of Estremedura is likely to receive under the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

A precise figure cannot be put at this stage on the Structural Funds appropriations for the Extremadura region in the 2000-2006 programming period. Objective 1 assistance is currently being negotiated with the Spanish authorities. The amounts which will be allocated to Extremadura under the Interreg, Urban, Equal and Leader Community Initiatives are similarly hard to estimate at this stage.

In the case of Objective 1, the Commission sent each Member State a proposal for allocating the available funding between the eligible regions, based on the method it had used to allocate the budget for Objective 1 among the Member States. A copy of the proposal for Spain is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

It should be stressed, however, that the proposal is only indicative. The Member State and the Commission will together agree on the final distribution when adopting the Community support framework.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1129/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

The White Paper gives three reasons why risk management is not included in the Authority's mandate (section 33). For example, the EU Treaty says that the control function and legislative powers are the responsibility of the Commission.

Is the Commission prepared to put the question of the control function and delegated legislation for the EFA on the agenda of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference so that solutions for the longer term can be considered? If not, does the Commission not feel it necessary for the EFA to eventually acquire a control function and the power of delegated legislation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1121/00, E-1124/00, E-1126/00, E-1129/00, E-1130/00, E-1131/00, E-1132/00, E-1135/00, E-1136/00, E-1137/00, E-1138/00 and E-1139/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

In the White Paper on Food Safety(1), the Commission set out the general guidelines it intends to adopt concerning the future establishment of the European Food Authority and invited all the parties concerned to respond and contribute to the discussion during the consultation period. Regarding many of the points raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to finalise its proposals or fix the details of operational mechanisms until it has had an opportunity to consider the opinions expressed during the consultation procedure.

However, with regard to the question of responsibilities, the White Paper states that risk assessment, the gathering of data and providing information to consumers in areas for which the Authority is responsible should be a matter for that Authority. For legal reasons and reasons of democratic responsibility, the Commission believes that, under the current framework, the transfer of regulatory powers to an independent authority cannot be justified. However, any future extension of the Authority's powers would have to be considered in the light of the Commission's assessment of the Authority's performance and the degree of confidence that it has generated without ruling out a possible need to amend the Treaty.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1025/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Council

(28 March 2000)

Subject: Council's contradictory attitude to ending the boycott on Austria

At question time to the Council at the Strasbourg part-session, Mr Seixas de Costa, speaking on behalf of the Council, replied to my question about the possibility of the Member States' restoring diplomatic relations with Austria. According to Mr Seixas da Costa it is quite possible for individual Member States, irrespective of the attitude of the other Member States, to depart from the common position and to restore diplomatic relations, and return to normal political cooperation with Austria.

Mr Antonio Guterres, speaking in Paris, replied to a question from the press on the same subject as follows: We adopted a common position and only these fourteen countries can change it one day if there are conditions of change in Austria justifying such a measure (Bulletin Quotidien Europe No 7680, Monday-Tuesday. 20-21 March 2000). According to Mr Guterres, then, a change to the common position requires a joint decision by all 14 countries to end the boycott which began on 31 January 2000.

On the other hand Mr Guterres has also commented on the plans whereby Mr Schüssel, the Chancellor of Austria, would speak to the EU Member States' leaders at a dinner held in connection with the Lisbon summit. According to him Portugal plans that Mr Schüssel should be given the opportunity to speak, but that afterwards there would be no further discussion of the subject and Mr Guterres would himself reply to Mr Schüssel on behalf of all the EU states. This too suggests that Mr Guterres considers himself able to act as spokesman on behalf of all the 14 Member States, even though representatives of Portugal had earlier given us to understand that the sanctions could be ended on a bilateral basis.

I would therefore respectfully ask the Council how these contradictory statements should be interpreted. Is the 14 Member States' decision to freeze high-level relations with Austria bilateral in nature, a matter to be agreed between each state and Austria individually, or is it something else, a Council-minus-one decision? Are the Member States not entitled to take an independent decision on the boycott? Does the EU determine not only the Member States' internal government decisions but also their foreign policy relations with one another and their right to make their own diplomatic contacts?

Reply

(8 June 2000)

The declaration to which the Honourable Member refers was issued by the Prime Minister of Portugal on behalf of the governments of 14 Member States. It is not for the Council either to take a view on this declaration, or to elaborate on it. The Council has not therefore taken a position on any of the issues raised in the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0575/00

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Structural Funds

On the basis of the Commission's estimates and in accordance with the relevant criteria, how much are the Balearic Islands due to receive form the Structural Funds in the 2000-2006 period, and what will the breakdown of the amount be?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

On 22 December 1999 the Commission took a decision of principle on the list of the areas of Spain eligible under Objective 2 during the 2000-2006 programming period. Following consultation of the three committees at the end of January, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), the Commission will shortly take a final decision on this list. The Balearic Islands will appear in part on this list and will therefore benefit from Objective 2 appropriations.

On 1 July 1999 the Commission adopted the indicative distribution among the Member States concerned of the commitment appropriations for Objective 2 for the 2000-2006 programming period. The appropriations allocated to Spain comprised EUR 2 553 million for the eligible areas and EUR 98 million for the Objective 2 areas receiving transitional support. Immediately it has taken a final decision on the list of areas eligible under Objective 2, the Commission will send the Spanish authorities a proposal for the distribution among the regions concerned of the appropriations available under this Objective using the method it employed to distribute the Objective 2 appropriations among the Member States.

However, it should be stressed that this proposal is indicative in nature. Final distribution will be decided by mutual agreement between the Member State and the Commission, when the various single programming documents concerned are adopted. It is therefore impossible at this stage to assess the amount which the Balearic Islands will receive under Objective 2.

This is also true of the other structural assistance which the Balearic Islands could receive, Objective 3, the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance and the Interreg, Urban, Equal and Leader Community Initiatives.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0519/00

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Transparency

In the Briefing of the European Parliament Press Service for the part session 12-16 February 1996, it is stated that, regarding the matter of the Wild Birds Directive, the Commission is also proposing that in future such decisions would be taken in secret by a special committee, away from the glare of publicity and not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.

Can the Commission provide details of the context of this statement? Has the Commission specified a lack of Parliamentary scrutiny on other occasions? If so, in what circumstances is this deemed appropriate?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2000)

The statement of the Parliament Press Service was made in the context of the first reading at the Parliament session of 15 February 1996 of the Commission's proposal(1) to modify Article 7(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(2).

The Commission does not share the sentiment of the statement quoted by the Honourable Member. On the contrary, from the seven amendments voted by the Parliament(3), the Commission immediately agreed with amendment No 4 concerning the transmission of the composite report of the application of the Directive to the Member States and the Parliament.

Furthermore, the Parliament is informed by the Commission of committee proceedings on a regular basis, as set out in Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(4).

(1) OJ C 100, 9.4.1994.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(3) Bulletin, 1996/1/2, p. 1.3.152.

(4) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0501/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(25 February 2000)

Subject: Council staff working hours

What are the expected working hours in total per week and in start and finish times each day of members of the Council's staff? What arrangements are proposed to staff to cover flexitime?

Reply

(18 May 2000)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that Council staff working hours are governed by Title IV, Chapter I, Articles 55 to 56b of the Staff Regulations Regulations and Rules applicable to officials and other servants of the European Communities. Under those Articles, the normal working week may not exceed 42 hours in accordance with a general timetable laid down by the appointing authority. In the Council General Secretariat that general timetable makes provision, for full-time work, for a minimum working week of 37,5 hours, from between 08.00 and 08.45 to 17.00, including a lunch break between 12.15 and 14.15 depending on arrival time, with the proviso that this must not prevent meetings from continuing until 18.00.

The Council would also point out that the first paragraph of Article 55 of the Staff Regulations also stipulates that officials in active employment shall at all times be at the disposal of their institution, although the total overtime which an official may be asked to work is not to exceed 150 hours in any six months (Article 56). It also seems necessary to make it clear that in the framework of the provisions described above, the rhythm of work of staff of the Council General Secretariat is closely linked to and dependent upon the volume and rhythm of the activity of the Council itself, which means that the statistics requested in the question should be regarded more as indicative than strictly mathematical. In practice, therefore, most staff directly involved in the proceedings of the Council's subordinate bodies work until at least 18.00. Lastly, as part of the continuing discussions on the working conditions of staff of the General Secretariat, a draft reform of the timetable is being studied.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0986/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Loi Evin Case

Will Commissioner Bolkestein give an assurance that if these negotiations do not result in a solution which is compatible with the Treaty and which provides legal certainty to private interests, he will refer the matter to the European Court?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0984/00, E-0985/00 and E-0986/00 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

The Commission would reiterate that it is examining this case very carefully, not only because of the great concern in the Parliament but also because it is keen to ensure that the rules of the internal market are respected.

The Commission's main objective in this case is to ensure that the extra-territorial effects of the Loi Evin are compatible with Article 49 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 59), namely that they are proportionate to the objective of protecting public health, an objective which the Commission fully supports. In this respect, the Commission is of the view that the 1995 Code of Conduct could in principle be an adequate means to ensure that the requirement of proportionality is satisfied. However, the Commission takes the view that the French authorities need to further improve the Code with a view to limiting its application to a limited number of well defined cases and to ensuring that it provides greater legal security and predictability for all parties, including organisers of sports events in other Member States. The Commission intends to discuss these points in the near future with the French authorities. When the Commission reaches a final decision on this case this decision will be made public according to the normal procedures and the Commission would, of course, be pleased to answer any further questions Honourable Members may have.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0833/00

by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Right to apply for compensation for expropriated property in Poland

New rules in Poland have meant that only Polish nationals who have resided in Poland for more than five years may apply for compensation for private property expropriated after the second world war. This means that people who were forced to flee from Poland during and after the second world war cannot apply for compensation from the Polish state.

Can the Commission state whether it is aware of this issue and, if so, whether it has been discussed in connection with Poland's negotiations for EU membership?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

As indicated in the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0642/99 by Mr Titley during question time at Parliament's November 1999 part-session(1), the Commission follows with great interest the debate in Poland on the new draft law of the Polish government regarding the restitution of confiscated property.

The Commission is fully aware that this issue is complex and primarily for Poland's internal policy. As for existing Member States, the creation of schemes for restitution falls within the competence of Poland.

Amendments proposed to the restitution law which relate to nationality and residence clauses are currently contested in the Sejm and subject to a review by the Constitutional Tribunal for their conformity with the Polish constitution. It remains to be seen what the final scope of the new legislation will be.

The Commission would welcome any progress in passing the law, will continue to monitor the issue closely, and will report on this in the next regular report.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0779/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Common commercial policy and the IGC

In the Commission's opinion on the Intergovernmental Conference it proposed that the provisions of the common commercial policy, including qualified-majority voting in the Council, should be extended to agreements on services and intellectual property.

Can the Commission confirm that the extension of the CCP will cover all services without exception, including those in the cultural field and audiovisual services in particular?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission's opinion on the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) does not make any distinction between types of services for the purposes of extending the provisions on commercial policy in Article 133 (ex Article 113) EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0239/00

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

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Territorial employment pacts

Following the adoption of the territorial employment pacts, can the Commission say:

1. Exactly how many pacts have been established in the cohesion countries?

2. Give an assessment of their progress hitherto in each of the cohesion countries?

3. Set out the underlying principles of the new pacts for the period 2000-2006?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

A detailed list and an initial assessment of the 89 territorial employment pacts launched in 1997 on the initiative of the Commission was published in the Second interim progress report on the Territorial Employment Pacts(1).

The basic approach which the Commission intends to follow during the next programming period is to encourage the consolidation of the territorial pacts and their dissemination through the operational programmes of the Structural Funds. Detailed guidelines to that end may be found in the Commission's Guide to Territorial Employment Pacts 2000-2006(2).

(1) SEC(1999) 1932.

(2) SEC(1999) 1933.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0409/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Reduction of peat use in horticulture

What steps is the Commission taking to encourage a reduction in the use of peat in domestic and commercial horticulture and to promote the use of alternatives in order to protect lowland peatbog habitats?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

With regard to the search for alternatives to the use of peat in horticulture, the Commission is evaluating the possibility of regulating the production of compost from the biodegradable fraction of municipal waste. Compost of suitable quality (in terms of presence of heavy metals, organic compounds and pathogens) may replace peat in a number of applications in domestic and commercial horticulture.

However, the key mechanism involving the Community for the protection of lowland peatbog habitats is the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1).

The Community has also supported many projects for the conservation and restoration of peatbogs under the Life Regulation.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, as amended by Council Directive 97/62/CE of 27.10.1997, OJ L 305, 8.11.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0796/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Transport of farm animals

Following the commitments given by Commissioner David Byrne at the meeting of 16 February of the Eurogroup on Animal Welfare regarding enforcement of legislation

concerning the transport of live farm animals and the Commissioner's implication during this meeting that there is only one inspector in the Food and Veterinary Office dealing specifically with transport matters, will the Commission indicate: what additional steps it intends to take to ensure that Member States enforce the relevant legislation, and exactly how many staff will be employed to undertake this task as a specific objective?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The Commission has constantly been concerned with the welfare of animals during transport

The first directive on the protection of animals during transport was adopted in 1977 (Council Directive 77/489/EC of 18 July 1977(1)). It was replaced by Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991(2) and later amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995(3).

The day by day implementation of Community rules falls under the competence of the authorities of the Member States.

Article 13 of Council Directive 95/29/EC provides for the Commission to submit a report to the Council on the experience acquired by the Member States since the implementation of the Directive, possibly accompanied by proposals. The report will be presented to the Council before June 2000 taking into account all available information. The Commission will put forward proposals to amend the current legislation to ensure better enforcement in the light of the conclusions of the above-mentioned report.

Three Commission veterinary experts are currently working in the Commission's food and veterinary office (FVO), Dublin, specifically in the field of animal welfare. The missions to the Member States that they carry out include aspects of animal welfare during transport. The implementation of Council Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport will continue to be given a high priority in the work of the FVO animal welfare group.

In addition, welfare issues are included in missions carried out by other FVO inspectors, notably in relation to the welfare of laying hens in battery cages and at the time of slaughter.

(1) OJ L 200, 8.8.1977.

(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(3) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.