ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2164/00

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Importation of agricultural products under preferential arrangements from third countries

In his answer of 17 March 2000 to my Written Question E-0314/00(1) Commissioner Fischler confirmed that, although the Union is self-sufficient in production of olive oil, it imports very substantial amounts from third countries at very favourable customs duties.

Will the Commission say precisely what quantities of fruit and vegetables, citrus fruits, tobacco, wine and cotton are imported under preferential arrangements from third countries, what these arrangements consist of, what purpose they serve and what countries are concerned?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 120.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2000)

Since Community olive oil production may vary by 15-20 % from one year to another, preferential imports which amount to approximately 2,5 % of average production do not appear excessive as the Honourable Member seems to be saying.

The preferences granted to third countries for importing the products referred to in the question concern reductions in, or exemptions from, customs duty ad valorem. For each particularly sensitive product in the fruit and vegetable sector a system has been maintained whereby a specific duty is charged depending on the level of imports, in order to prevent products from being imported at low prices likely to unbalance the internal market. Most of the concessions fall within tariff quotas corresponding to traditional imports from third countries and are subject to very strict import timetable conditions. In the context of relations with Mediterranean third countries, the Mediterranean concessions impact study(1) (which the Commission presented to the Council in 1997) established that these measures which are intended to liberalise imports do not result in disruption of the Community market. The Commission is sending a copy of the unpublished corrigendum to the study direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. It should be borne in mind that the preferences granted to third countries form part of agreements likewise containing concessions which those same third countries have granted in favour of Community agricultural exports.

More specifically, the Commission has updated the detailed information which the Honourable Member requested. There are no preferential imports of tobacco into the Community. Preferential imports of wine amounted to 1 663 million hectolitre (hl) in 1997, 1 727 million hl in 1998 and 1 633 million hl in 1999. There are no preferential terms for imports of cotton from third countries, since customs duty is zero whatever the source. For fruit and citrus fruit the information requested cannot be provided within a reasonable timescale because obtaining it would entail an official undertaking several weeks' full-time research. However, the Honourable Member will find useful information in the 1997 impact study referred to above.

(1) COM(97) 477 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2735/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Opening of negotiations between the EU and Bulgaria

In line with the work programme of the French Presidency as regards the opening of negotiations with the applicant countries, talks between the European Union and Bulgaria are initially expected to address only five areas of EU legislation, which will lead to a further delay in the country's accession process.

Does the Commission believe that the number of areas to be covered in the negotiations is sufficient, or should more areas be addressed, with a view to speeding up the process of Bulgaria's accession to the EU?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2000)

The Member States have decided to open accession negotiations with Bulgaria on five additional chapters under the French Presidency, on top of the six that were opened under the Portuguese Presidency. This was in line with suggestions by the Commission. It brings the total number of chapters on the negotiating table to eleven (free movement of capital, company law, statistics, small and medium-sized enterprises, science and research, education and training, telecommunications, culture and audiovisual policy, consumers and health protection, external relations and common foreign and security policy). Of these, four chapters have already been provisionally closed during the Portuguese Presidency (small and medium-sized enterprises, science and research, education and training, and common foreign and security policy).

Given the fact that negotiations with Bulgaria started only in March 2000, the Commission considers that the progress achieved so far constitutes rapid progress.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2693/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Lithuania

1. What is the Commission's estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support policies were extended to Lithuania on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2692/00, E-2693/00, E-2694/00, E-2696/00, E-2697/00 and E-2698/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

To estimate the extra annual cost of agricultural support resulting from the access to the Community of Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania it would be necessary to know with a reasonable degree of certainty the date, the terms and conditions of the accession. These aspects will have to be defined in the accession negotiations with these countries, the agricultural chapter of which has not yet been opened for negotiation. Consequently, any cost estimate made on the basis of assumptions indicated by the Honourable Member would necessarily be of a highly hypothetical, speculative and uncertain nature. At the present stage of the negotiating process the Commission is therefore, not in a position to answer the questions asked by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2232/00

by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Agreement between South Africa and the European Union

According to Portuguese exporters, despite the agreement concluded between South Africa and the European Union, there are still cases of dumping, in violation of Article 2 of the agreement and to the detriment of Portuguese industry.

What action has the Council taken to prevent the occurrence of situations of unfair competition and what has it done to ensure that no harm is caused to Portuguese industries?

Reply

(7 November 2000)

The Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation signed on 11 October 1999 between the European Community and South Africa confirms the commitment of both parties to encourage the process of economic restructuring currently underway in South Africa and to promote the expansion and reciprocal liberalisation of mutual trade in goods, services and capital. In encouraging such mutual trade flows however, both parties have underlined their commitment to the principles and rules which govern international trade, including the application of anti-dumping and countervailing measures. Article 23 of the Agreement confirms that it does not in any way prejudice the GATT rules on measures to be undertaken in the case of dumping, and Article 24 outlines the circumstances in which WTO-compatible safeguard measures may be taken, either by the European Community or South Africa, where any product is being imported in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to domestic producers. Article 26 provides that before such safeguard measures are taken the Cooperation Council established by the Agreement should be supplied with all relevant information, with a view to seeking a solution acceptable to both parties, although in exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action precautionary measures may be applied without consultation. It should be noted that the Agreement does not cover trade practices by European Community and South African producers or exporters in third countries.

The Agreement does provide, however, for specific procedures to be undertaken in the event of Member State industries suffering harm as a result of unfair competition from South African producers within the European Community market. The companies concerned should ask their Trade Ministry either to approach the Commission directly or to raise the issue within the relevant Council committee. At the last Cooperation Council between the Community and South Africa on 31 March 2000 no case of dumping was raised by any of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2646/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Dangers, similar to those posed by asbestos, from transitional fibres in children's chalks

According to the New York Times of 14 June 2000 in the United States the Consumer Product Safety Commission recently tested 25 wax-covered chalks and discovered that 21 of them contain an asbestos-like substance known as transitional fibre.

Although, in the Safety Commission's view, the risk of dangerous exposure to asbestos or asbestos-like substances is small, because the chalks are covered in wax, it felt action was needed on the basis of the precautionary principle in order to protect children's health.

Earlier studies have also established that asbestos or transitional fibres are present in children's chalks. Major manufacturers in the United States have voluntarily agreed to replace these fibres within one year.

Is the Commission aware of this problem concerning chalks manufactured in or imported into the European Union and, if so, what action does it propose in order to deal with the possible danger to children's health?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Earlier this year the Commission became aware of reports in the United States press concerning the possible presence of asbestos and the so-called transitional-fibres in talcum powder used in the manufacture of children's crayons.

The Commission has since contacted the United States consumer product safety commission (CPSC) to seek factual information on these reports and in particular the levels and types of fibres found and the types and brands of products. The CPSC has shared its preliminary findings as presented in the press release quoted by the New York Times of 14 June 2000 mentioned by the Honourable Member. The CPSC is in the process of finalising the results of the study and has agreed to provide the Commission with a copy of the report.

In parallel, the Commission has informed the members of the emergencies committee of Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992, on general product safety(1) of this potential problem and has requested any pertinent information which may be available to the Member States.

If the reports are confirmed, the Commission will inform the Member States in order to ensure that products containing the asbestos fibres are considered for appropriate market restrictions in line with the current provisions of Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations(2).

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2022/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Transfer of Greek national from an Egyptian to a Greek prison

Mr Georgios Lembidakis, who has since 1984 been serving a life sentence to hard labour in Egypt for a drugs related offence, has, since 1988, been seeking a transfer to serve the remainder of his sentence in Greece, with the assistance of the Greek Ministers of the Interior, Foreign Affairs and Justice, in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement of 22 December 1986 between Greece and the Arab Republic of Egypt concerning the transfer of convicts.

In the past, Member State nationals of the European Union (such as Otto Kraling and Gunter Leonhardt from Germany, Roland Devaux from France and Paul Collet and Maureen Plesehet from the United Kingdom) convicted for the same offence as Mr Lembidakis were allowed by Egypt to return to their respective countries to serve the remainder of their sentences.

In the light of Community legislation in general and relations between Europe and the Mediterranean countries, in this case Egypt, does the Commission believe that it can help to bring about the transfer of Georgios Lembidakis from Egypt to Greece to serve the remainder of his sentence?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2000)

The Commission notes the efforts being made to arrange for Mr Lempidakis to be transferred to a prison in Greece from Egypt. Such arrangements are normally covered by bilateral agreements such as that concluded between Greece and Egypt in 1986. There is, unfortunately, no provision under existing agreements between Egypt and the Union, either bilateral or within the context of the Barcelona Process, that would be relevant to this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3734/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Conversion costs of the euro

Will the Commission please estimate what the conversion costs of the euro (for slot machines, software changes, production of notes and coins etc.) are likely to be for each Member State participating in the euro area?

Will it also cite alternative estimates available from national central banks, public authorities, academics or private research groups including business organisations?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2741/00 by Mrs Villiers(1).

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 219.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3392/00

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Taxation of Community aid to farmers

Is it the case that the income support made available to farmers from Community funds may be taxed in the country of residence and hence be partially clawed back by the Member State concerned?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

The Commission is of the opinion that income support made available to farmers from Community funds may be subjected to national duties, taxes and charges, although not to taxes specifically levied on income support. The taxation in the Member State of residence and hence a possible claw back by the Member State concerned is determined by the relevant national tax laws and, in cross-border situations, by the bilateral tax agreements between the Member States. Member States' taxation systems vary considerably both in scope and in levels of taxation. In cross-border situations, the bilateral tax agreements apply a range of different rules to prevent double taxation between the two Member States involved in the case of income arising in one Member State and paid to a resident of another.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2900/00

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Road accidents

Article 2 of Decision No 1692/96/EC(1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the development of the trans-European transport network states that the objective of the network is to ensure the sustainable mobility of persons and goods mldr under the best possible social and safety conditions.

Four years later, however, the number of people injured in road accidents remains constant in all 15 Member States, according to European Union statistics, while the number of fatalities in countries such as Greece, Spain and Portugal is steadily rising.

What does the Commission intend to do, therefore, to increase the level of safety on European roads?

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2000)

From a human, social and economic standpoint, road safety is a very serious concern in the Community. There are enormous differences between the Member States.

The improvement of road safety is a responsibility shared by all concerned: the Community, the Member States, regional authorities, businesses and of course, the individual.

The Community, for its part, has clearly defined responsibilities and is exclusively responsible for certain measures, such as technical standards for vehicles, rules on driving licenses and measures promoting the use of certain innovative technologies, in the field of traffic management for example.

Other initiatives are under way or in the pipeline concerning education, controls and cooperation between police forces. Efforts are being made to pay closer attention to road safety in road schemes and improvements and encourage the exchange of information and experience in areas such as training and awareness-raising.

All these measures should have a positive impact, especially on the Member States with the highest fatality rates.

Measures under way or due to be taken in the short term at Community level are outlined in the Commission communication of 17 March 2000 entitled Priorities in EU road safety Progress Report and ranking of actions(1). This follows on from the 2nd Community Action Programme (1997-2001) in the field of road safety.

In addition, the Commission will continue with the current programme and in 2001 it will prepare an action programme for 2002-2010 aiming to reduce the number of fatalities and serious casualties on European roads, which will include all the measures described above and address the problems mentioned by the Honourable Member.

With regard to the trans-European road network, the Commission is supporting several projects promoting the use of telematics in traffic management and information systems, which are also helping to improve road safety.

(1) COM(2000) 125 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2594/00

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: MEDA programme

During his appearance before the Committee on Development and Cooperation at its meeting in Strasbourg in June 2000, Mr Patten, Commissioner responsible for Foreign Affairs, gave a comprehensive and excellent report on his plans for the reform of the Commission's services responsible for external relations and the management of foreign aid.

Nevertheless, some of the questions which I put to him during the debate were not answered, doubtless owing to lack of time.

With a view to a more leisurely answer in writing, on the subject of the European Union MEDA programme in the Kingdom of Morocco, which currently stands at only 25 % of the total resources available, what measures might be adopted in the future, in the short and medium term, in order to remedy this situation, which is preventing the achievement of a strategic objective set by the Union with regard to development cooperation and, even more seriously, is preventing the Kingdom of Morocco and its citizens from reaping the benefits of this cooperation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2000)

Between 1996 and 1999 commitments in Morocco under the MEDA programme amounted to 630,29 million, fully in line with the target levels.

However, the structural adjustment programme worth 120 million is the only one to have been completely disbursed. The third and final tranche was paid in December 1999.

The low rate of payments for the other cooperation projects with Morocco is partly due to the length (5 to 10 years) of typical cooperation projects. Having said that, it is also the result of the slow start-up of MEDA projects, which is a problem common to all Mediterranean non-member countries, partly due to the time spent in negotiating the Framework Convention. The situation improved in 1999 and it should be possible to increase payments from this year. It is clear that the cumbersome Community decision-making and administrative procedures have also contributed to the delays in the implementation and payment of MEDA projects.

In Morocco's case statistics show that until now the administrative delays have been attributable to the Moroccan authorities and the Commission in equal measure.

The Commission's recent decision to reform the management of external assistance aims to address the Honourable Member's concerns. The reform would focus on the quality of the preparation of operations financed by the Community budget, while ensuring that an operation will be implemented quickly once financing has been agreed. This should step up the real rate of absorption.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2904/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Employment in UK tobacco manufacturing

What is the Commission's estimate of the number of jobs (if any) in the UK tobacco manufacturing sector which may be lost or created as a result of provisions in the proposed directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products relating to:

1. new limits on the amount of tar per cigarette;

2. restrictions on the export of tobacco products not conforming to EU standards?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2000)

The further proposed reduction from 12 mg to 10 mg of the tar level in cigarettes(1) continues a process begun with Council Directive 90/239/EEC of 17 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the maximum tar yield of cigarettes(2). On the occasion of the substantial reductions introduced in the 1990 directive, no negative economic or employment consequences were brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission is not aware of any evidence to the effect that the much smaller decrease in tar level presently proposed would have serious economic or employment consequences.

As regards the proposal to apply the tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide ceilings to all products whether imported or manufactured in the Community, this provision is considered essential to ensure that no diversion occurs, that the application of the product rules are open to control, and that a high level of public health protection is ensured. There has been no evidence presented to the Commission of serious negative economic or employment consequences.

However, in order to allow manufacturers sufficient time to adapt to these new Community standards, to seek new markets or to change marketing and manufacturing processes, the Commission has proposed an extended transitional period.

(1) COM(2000) 428 final.

(2) OJ L 137, 30.5.1990.