ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1486/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Identity checks at Charles de Gaulle airport

One of the major steps forward for a People's Europe was the Schengen Agreement and its incorporation, through the protocol adopted at the European Council in Amsterdam, into the body of law on the basis of which the European Union functions. However, one of the essential principles of the free movement of persons within the Union, that is to say an end to systematic identity checks on Europeans travelling in

the Schengen area, is currently being flouted at Charles de Gaulle airport in Roissy in France. Each passenger travelling towards a destination within the Union is required by the Air France company to undergo identity checks carried out by a security firm prior to entry into the departure lounges, requiring them to pass through metal detectors.

What action does the Council intend to take in response to this new obstacle to freedom of movement?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1486/01 and P-1595/01given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

The Schengen acquis, which has been incorporated into European Union law, provides that internal borders may be crossed at any point without checks on persons being carried out purely on the grounds that an internal border has been crossed.

Regarding checks carried out by airlines, a distinction should be drawn between three different types of check:

- identity checks carried out within a commercial framework, i.e. when the passenger checks in, with a view to ensuring that he/she is the person indicated on the ticket or that he/she is entitled to certain discounts;

- checks carried out for security reasons in exceptional cases and circumstances, for instance where there are concerns that a passenger's conduct might disturb public order or jeopardise the safety of other passengers;

- checks with a view to avoiding penalties under carriers' liability legislation in the event of persons who do not have the requisite travel documents being carried.

The Commission takes the view that checks of the third type are not compatible with current Community law. Articles 26 and 27 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement on carriers' liability should apply only to journeys originating in a non-Schengen country. They should not be carried out in a border-free area, being prompted by the sole fact that an internal border has been crossed.

The controls referred to in the first two indents also apply to domestic flights and are not incompatible with the idea of a border-free area in so far as passengers on domestic flights are treated in the same way as passengers on intra-Schengen flights.

With a view to determining which type of check was carried out in the instance referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission will contact the appropriate authorities for further information on the circumstances surrounding this complaint. If necessary, it will institute proceedings pursuant to Article 226 (former Article 169) EC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2523/01

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 September 2001)

Subject: Infringement by FIFA of EU competition rules

The Commission has previously ordered FIFA to amend its regulations on players and agents, in particular to abolish the rules concerning the provision of a guarantee of CHF 200,000. This guarantee has now been reduced to CHF 100,000 but has still not been abolished completely. There is also evidence that FIFA threatens players and clubs that do not use FIFA agents with fines.

In addition, FIFA has offered the possibility of taking out an insurance policy instead of providing the CHF 100,000 guarantee, though the terms of the policy are such that only FIFA itself can settle disputes under them.

Does the Commission intend to take action against FIFA once again for infringing EU competition rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2001)

As a result of the Commission's intervention, the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) has adopted new regulations on players' agents. The aim of these regulations is to protect football players and clubs by ensuring that players' agents are properly qualified for the job and comply with a code of conduct. Recent incidents involving forged passports and irregularities in transfers of under-age players, in which unscrupulous agents acted as intermediaries, confirm that this is a valid objective.

FIFA has accordingly introduced regulations providing for an exam for prospective players' agents. The successful candidates must then take out professional insurance and sign a code of conduct in order to obtain a licence. Players and clubs are required to use licensed agents. The regulations provide for fines and disciplinary measures to enforce this requirement.

On the specific point raised by the Honourable Member about insurance and the provision of a guarantee, it should be noted that the regulations provide for two alternative ways of compensating players and clubs for damages caused by an agent: professional insurance or a guarantee of CHF 100 000. The Commission believes that taking out professional insurance is not an insurmountable barrier to becoming a professional agent. Several insurance companies in the Community have already concluded such contracts with players' agents.

Given that the provisions which were largely responsible for the restrictive effect of the old regulations, such as the large bank guarantee and the un-transparent exam, have now been abolished, and given the objective being pursued, the new regulations are likely to be exempted under Article 81(3). The Commission has therefore begun the procedure to reject the complaints which were at the origin of its intervention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2463/01

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

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Spanish Government policy on beef and dairy farms and its impact on Galicia

The Spanish Government has announced the launching of a programme for beef and dairy farms, from which an essential part of the Galician farming sector, which provides over a third of all Spanish milk, would be excluded. Trade unions in the farming sector claim that of the 77 660 beef and dairy farms in Galicia, 53 258 would be excluded from the aid provided under the programme; this means that 78.76 % of the 37 625 of these farms dedicated to milk production would suffer the same fate. The application of the programme would create a crisis which would have a negative impact on a highly sensitive section of Galicia's population, cutting off at the root any possibility of survival and modernisation of many small farms, whose inadequate allocated milk quota constitutes the sole obstacle to their development. The Spanish Government programme, which claims to meet EU rules, would run contrary to the multi-purpose approach to be imposed on European agriculture in place of the production-driven trends which have hitherto prevailed, since within Galician farming, small farms are part of a way of life in which agricultural production co-exists with work in other economic sectors undertaken by members of the same family unit. The Galician Government is adopting a deplorable Malthusian attitude, and is prepared to support the Spanish Central Government's programme, with the Galician Minister for Agriculture himself claiming that small farms are doomed by market forces. In view of the foregoing, does the Commission believe that the Spanish Government's programme corresponds to the Commission's guidelines, at a time when European agriculture is radically changing direction in favour of a more ecological and diversified approach encouraging regional development, which is exactly what Galicia's agriculture and economy require?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

The Commission is unaware of the programme referred to by the Honourable Member.

In Spain and especially Galicia, the Commission is making a positive contribution through various regional development programmes under the Structural Funds. A number of agricultural and rural development programmes are benefiting from Community support.

None of these programmes includes measures designed to reduce investments in agricultural holdings for the rearing of livestock.

The Commission would suggest, however, that the Honourable Member provide further information that would enable it, where necessary, to identify the programme referred to.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2216/01

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Consumer choices

Since products manufactured from animal organs or using child labour are being sold in the EU, does the Commission not consider that such products should be clearly labelled, so that consumers can choose whether or not to buy products made from animal organs or made by children?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2001)

There are specific provisions relating to the exclusion of Specified Risk Material including animal organs in food and foodstuff laid down in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001(1) and it's implementing provisions. In addition, the Commission recently submitted a proposal to the Member States in the Standing Committee on Foodstuffs to make the labelling of meat based products more transparent and precise. The definition of meat will be improved and other parts of animals for human consumption, such as offal (heart, intestine, liver etc.) or fat, will have to be labelled.

The Commission is aware of a growing number of ethical or social labels originating from individual manufacturers, industrial sectors, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or governments. Such labels can assist the consumer in making informed choices. However, they need to be independently verified to ensure that the product has been manufactured without exploiting and abusing e.g. children and that consumers are not being misled. This verification is difficult and complex to carry out.

The Commission has published a Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility(2) which aims to launch a debate on the best means to develop, evaluate and ensure the effectiveness and reliability of corporate social responsibility instruments such as ethical or social labels. Consumer organisations will have the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

(1) Regulation (EC) 999/2001 of the Parliament and the Council laying down the rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopothies. OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.

(2) COM(2001) 366 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2555/01

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: GMO and wine-growing

Wine is a typical product not only in Italy but throughout the Mediterranean region. The use of genetically modified organisms would destroy its essential features (typical character, tradition, links with culture and the land), impair its taste and flavour and detract from its commercial value.

In some regions wine is seen as an essential aspect of culture and tradition, from an economic as well as a gastronomic point of view, with strong links with the environment and landscape and with an influence on many other rural activities.

For example, Tuscany alone has five wines with registered and guaranteed designation of origin (DOCG), 34 wines with registered designation of origin (DOC) and 6 wines with typical geographical indication (IGT), and is a prominent exporter with annual production of around 2.8 million hectolitres.

This is not to mention the employment capacity of the sector and the image and reputation enjoyed by vineyards (often handed down from one generation to the next) in the EU and elsewhere, which must be protected.

The use of genetically modified organisms would have adverse effects not only on producers, but also and above all on consumers and consumer health.

What policies does the Commission intend to pursue to support and develop the high quality of typical agricultural products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that, under the new arrangements introduced by Council Regulations (EC) Nos 2702/1999 of 14 December 1999 on measures to provide information on, and to promote, agricultural products in third countries(1) and 2826/2000 of 19 December 2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market(2), the Community plans to implement a comprehensive and coherent policy providing information on and promoting agricultural products, including foodstuffs, on the internal and third-country markets.

Such a policy that supplements and provides useful back-up for measures implemented by the Member States is intended in particular to promote the image of these products with regard to quality, typical character, nutrition, food safety and methods of production.

(1) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.

(2) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2749/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Antibiotics in animal feed

According to the Accession Treaty Sweden was entitled to maintain its ban on the use of antibiotics, chemotherapy products, coccidiostats and growth promoters in foodstuffs until 31 December 1998. The EU is now reappraising certain special risk antibiotics and all substances in this field are to be reappraised by 1 October 2003. Just before the end of 1998 the Commission decided that four types of antibiotics should be banned in animal feed. Sweden however has a ban a further four types of antibiotics and therefore invoked the safeguard clause on the protection of human or animal health in Council Directive 70/524/EEC(1) concerning additives in feedingstuffs. Sweden forwarded the documentation to the Commission for assessment.

What was the result of that assessment?

(1) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Acting in compliance with Article 11 (2) of Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feeding-stuffs(1) the Commission examined the grounds provided by Sweden and consulted the Member States within the Standing Committee for Feedingstuffs and the Scientific Committee for animal nutrition.

The evaluation by the Scientific Committee for animal nutrition was meanwhile overshadowed by the general report on antimicrobial resistance adopted in June 1999 by the Scientific Steering Committee. The report recommended the phasing out and final abolition of the growth promoting use of antibiotics. The Commission considered it necessary to amend Directive 70/524/EEC acting thus in compliance with Article 11(3) of the Directive. This action is part of the Commission White paper on food safety.

Currently a draft proposal on feed additives is being prepared for Commission adoption by the beginning of 2002. The proposal will provide, inter alia, for the phasing out of all antibiotics for use as growth promoters in the Community.

(1) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970, as amended by Council Directive 1999/20/EC of 22 March 1999, OJ L 80, 25.3.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1972/01

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: Kashmir

Given the recent Indian Government offer of talks with Pakistan over the disputed region of Kashmir, what initiatives will the European Union be taking to ensure that this opportunity is fully realised?

Reply

(10 December 2001)

The Council expressed its position on the Indo-Pakistan dialogue in its declaration of 19 July 2001 on the occasion of the Indo-Pakistan Summit in Agra (15-16 July 2001). The Council, inter alia, welcomed the resumption of the dialogue and encouraged both parties to take further steps in the direction of the final resolution of all their differences in a constructive manner.

The Council also conveys this message in the regular and ad hoc political dialogue meetings which it holds with both countries.

As far as the Union's support for a negotiated settlement of the Kashmir issue is concerned, the Council would like to refer the Honourable MEP to its reply to Brian Crowley's Oral Question H-0375/2001, given in the May Plenary session.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2711/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Operational methods of the Gastouni Agricultural Cooperative Producers' Organisation

The Greek Ministry of Agriculture's Directorate of Plant Produce has produced a document (reference 384498/17.07.2001) stating that the committee's report on the operation of the Gastouni Agricultural Cooperative Industrial Tomato Producers Organisation' has revealed that it is not operating in accordance with Community regulations and national provisions.

In particular:

(a) There is no guarantee of a democratic decision-making process (Regulation (EC) No 412/97(1), Article 3) since the rules of procedure make no provision regarding decisions by the governing board.

(b) There is no list of members approved by the county court.

(c) There is no separate account kept for the Gastouni Agricultural Cooperative Industrial Tomato Producers Organisation', but in terms of accounting the producers' organisation shares the Gastouni Agricultural Cooperative's bank account, so that the money in the operational fund is also available for the Gastouni Agricultural Cooperative's activities.

(d) The items in the operational programme (administrative personnel, supplies management etc.) also cover the activities of the Gastouni Agricultural Cooperative.

(e) The requirements of Regulation (EC) 2201/96(2) and the Agriculture Ministry's Decision 351665/20.04.2000 concerning the production and distribution of industrial tomatoes are not being met, according to the monitoring report dated 14 March 2001 by the three-member committee of the Directorate for Agricultural Development. Because of these shortcomings, the directorate responsible did not make payments for the operational programme for 1997 to 2000, with the result that Community contributions amounting to 170 000 000 drachmas have not been paid over, while producers who are members of the Gastouni Agricultural Cooperative Producers' Organisation have had to pay their own contributions, since the programme's activities are co-financed.

Although the Ministry of Agriculture is aware of these facts, no steps have been taken to ensure that the above cooperative complies with Community regulations and national provisions.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the cooperative complies with Community legislation?

(1) OJ L 62, 4.3.1997, p. 16.

(2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

The Commission has taken note of the situation involving the Gastouni producer organisation.

It is contacting the national authorities to obtain details of the situation involving the producer organisation so it can consider what action should be taken.

The Honourable Member will be informed of the results of the Commission's enquiries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1880/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Austria)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Austria have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Austria have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01,E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01,E-1882/01, E-1883/01 annd E-1884/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) was used as a source to determine the number of holdings with an area of less than 50 hectares and of 50 hectares or more under cereals, oilseeds and protein plants (COP). Though that database is weighted by the results of the Farm Structure Survey (Eurostat), it is generally acknowledged that large holdings are over-represented. The figures given below should accordingly be regarded as upper limits. The year used is 1997, the last year for which data for all Member States are available in the FADN database.

Columns A and C of the table below give the percentages per Member State of holdings with an area under COP of, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more.

Columns B and D of the table below give the percentages per Member State of the area under COP of holdings with, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more under COP.

Column F gives the percentages per Member State of the area under COP that would be excluded if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied.

Lastly, Column I gives the savings in millions of euro per Member State if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied. The yields used are the reference yields supplied by the Member States. The total reduction in cost to the Community would amount to EUR 4 billion.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3096/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Implementation of directives on health and safety at the workplace

To what extent are the following directives observed in Greece:

- 89/391/EEC(1) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work,

- 89/654/EEC(2) concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace,

- 89/656/EEC(3) concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use by workers of personal protective equipment at the workplace, and

- 1999/92/EEC(4) on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres?

Has Greece taken the implementing measures required to comply with each of the above directives? If so, are they correctly applied? If not, have proceedings been initiated for infringement of Community legislation and what stage has been reached in those proceedings for each separate directive?

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p. 18.

(4) OJ L 23, 28.1.2000, p. 57.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

Directives 89/391/EEC(1), 89/654/EEC(2), 89/656/EEC(4) have been implemented in Greek national law, and the implementation measures have been notified to the Commission. Transposition of the Community Directives by the legislation notified has been found to be satisfactory. As far as Directive 1999/92/EC(3) is concerned, the transposition deadline set down in Article 13(1) is 30 June 2003, which means that Member States are under no obligation to adopt implementing measures before this date.

The correct application of national health and safety measures adopted to transpose the Community Directives is the responsibility of the Member States. In this context, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that a complaint has recently been lodged concerning the application of the Directives on the health and safety of workers in Greece.

The Commission will take all appropriate measures in connection with this complaint and may, if appropriate, initiate infringement proceedings concerning the Directives in question.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(2) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.

(3) OJ L 23, 28.1.2000.

(4) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.