ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3834/00

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Monitoring of animal transport

It has been established that hitherto the authorities of the Member States have only been formally monitoring certification pursuant to Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation 615/98/EC(1) and, if necessary, formally checking the reports upon unloading in the third country of final destination pursuant to Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation 615/98/EC, while even the design of the forms gives the impression that more detailed statements by official vets are not called for or cannot even be made and that, in carrying out their duty of investigation, the national authorities do not substantively, either at all or fully, require compliance with the Directive on the protection of animals during transport pursuant to Article 1 of Commission Regulation 615/98/EC in conjunction with Directive 91/628/EEC and have not adopted adequate procedural precautions.

What will the Commission do, therefore, to ensure that, before granting export refunds, the authorities of the Member States adequately check that all preconditions for payment pursuant to Commission Regulation 615/98/EC and Council Regulation 805/68/EEC(2) have been complied with?

(1) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998, p. 19.

(2) OJ L 148, 28.6.1968, p. 24.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2001)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport provides in its Articles 2 and 3 respectively for checking of all consignments on exit from the Community and for targeted checks when the animals are unloaded in the non-EU countries. Under Article 5(3) of the Regulation the national authority responsible for refund payments decides, in the light of the check report and/or any other relevant information at its disposal, whether the provisions of the Directive on protection of animals during transport were respected and the refund is to be paid.

A summary table showing the financial impact of Member States' application of the Regulation is being sent to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat for information. Between 1 September 1998 and 30 June 2000 refunds were refused on 3150 animals.

Application of Regulation (EEC) No 615/98 features on the agenda of the committee within whose remit its management falls. Discussions will continue with the Member States in order to arrive at more uniform application.

The Commission is also in contact with Member States' paying agencies in order to assess application of Regulation (EC) No 615/98 more thoroughly.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3739/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(28 November 2000)

Subject: Destruction of a Kurdish town

What grounds are there for giving any support for the GAP (South-East Anatolia Project) which would dam the Tigris and Euphrates and submerge large parts of south eastern Turkey, including an ancient Kurdish town of great historical significane to the Kurdish people?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The Commission has no intention to use Community budget funds for the financing of dams on the Tigris and Euphrates.

But it plans to co-finance a regional development programme in the GAP region, whose specific objectives are to increase employment opportunities, to support income generating activities for the rural population, to renovate and restore important cultural heritage sites and to promote cultural and touristic potential, as well as to improve the environmental conditions in the region.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3826/00

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Improper use of the Valpolicella brand name in a publicity campaign against drink-driving

An article published on 12 November 2000 in the Verona newspaper Arena reveals that Valpolicella Consortium advertisements have been used in Ireland in a campaign against drink-driving in an improper and damaging way. The Valpolicella brand name is shown in the campaign with the letters police, which appear within the word, highlighted in red so as to create an obvious connection between the name of the wine and checks by police officers.

Although a publicity campaign against drink-driving is a legitimate and praiseworthy initiative, does the Commission not consider that the use of a specific registered appellation of origin, such as the Valpolicella Consortium, constitutes a defamatory act resulting in considerable commercial damage to the brand name?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to resolve the situation?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

The Irish authorities have informed the Commission that no official campaign against drink-driving has been organised in that Member State in the way described by the Honourable Member.

The publicity cited in the Verona newspaper L'Arena appeared on some items imported from the United Kingdom and it was an isolated and accidental occurrence. The items were immediately withdrawn from the market once the Irish authorities became aware of the incident.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3453/00

by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Planned closure of the shop at the European Commission

According to Staff Committee notices, the Commission intends to close the shop reserved for officials (the Economat). The Economat is not a duty-free shop as the press has alleged but a genuine commercial undertaking where officials can purchase food and regional specialities in the area where the European institutions are located.

The Economat is not therefore a shop for the privileged, as shown by the fact that all ministries and public and private organisations have one. In addition, the European Parliament, during a recent meeting of the College of Quaestors, also discussed the possibility of opening a shop.

How can the Commission justify any decision to close the Economat?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

One of the main reasons for starting up the Economats in the 1960s was to enable officials and other agents of the Commission to buy food specialities and other products from their Member State of origin, which, at that time, were generally were not available locally in Brussels and Luxembourg. As the Honourable Member points out, the shops have never been privileged sales outlets.

The situation has obviously changed in the years since and the products available at the Economats can now easily be found in many supermarkets as well as specialist shops. The original justification for the creation of the Economats is consequently no longer valid.

For some years past, the Commission has pursued the option of inter-institutional co-operation in the hope that economies of scale would have resulted and permitted more effective use of resources.

Unfortunately, these negotiations have not had a productive outcome. Parliament has decided to use its infrastructure in Brussels originally planned to house the Centre inter-institutionnelle d'achats for other purposes and to examine other options, including the opening of a night shop and a virtual shop, to meet potential consumer needs.

In July of this year the Commission made decisions on the basis of its Peer Group Review (undertaken to match resources to priority activities) to abandon or reduce certain activities that were judged not to be among the core tasks of the Institution. Those decisions included the proposed withdrawal from engagement in the operation of the Economats and, consequently, the closure of those shops.

Naturally, the Commission understands the desirability of accessible shopping facilities for personnel. In the period before the proposed closure of the Economats, therefore, the Commission is analysing the possibilities of launching a call for tender with a view to identifying private operators interested in delivering products ordered directly by Commission staff and other potential consumers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3527/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Access to basic knowledge

Universities and research institutions in Spain, Denmark, Sweden and France have submitted a project entitled Children and adolescents with social difficulties in gaining access to basic knowledge: the new technologies as tools for improving their educational and cultural resources (SERD-2000-00234).

Given this project's enormous importance to the whole issue of preventing social exclusion in years to come, can the Commission tell me what stage it has got to in evaluating it?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

The Commission with the help of independent experts evaluated in October 2000 the proposals sub-mitted in the context of the second call key action Improving the socio-economic knowledge base (IHP-KA1-001) including the proposal mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The coordinator of the proposal has been informed of the outcome of the evaluation results, which was that the proposal received a final mark beneath the evaluation threshold and will not be retained for possible selection.

A copy of the evaluation summary report of the proposal is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3724/00

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(23 November 2000)

Subject: Single Programming Document for the Italian Region of Abruzzo

Given that:

- The Region of Abruzzo drew up a Single Programming Document which it submitted to the European Commission a few days ago.

- That document is the result of the work of the previous Regional Council which drafted and examined it together with all the economic and social interest groups of the region.

- The Regional Council's approach was to promote the democratic involvement of local communities. By Decision No 617 of 6 April 2000, it established guidelines for the drawing-up of integrated regional programmes.

- The decision to concentrate on integrated regional programmes is in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and consultation on which the European Union's programme for the period 2000 to 2006 is based.

- For some unknown reason the new Regional Council revoked the above-mentioned decision by a measure of 21 June 2000.

- That measure does not accord in terms of policy with the decisions taken by the other regions or with the objective of decentralised development with full utilisation of local resources and makes far-reaching changes to the very principles of the SPD, in view of the fact that integrated regional programmes are an essential instrument of the SPD itself.

What action does the Commission intend to take in order to reinstate the original decisions?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2000)

The proposal for a Single Programming Document (SPD) for areas of the Italian Abruzzi region eligible under Objective 2 for the period 2000-2006 was officially forwarded to the Commission on 3 November 2000 and declared admissible on 17 November 2000.

The Commission is currently considering this proposal for purposes of preparing the negotiating mandate. This is sent to the Member State to begin negotiations in order to gain Commission approval of the SPD as soon as possible. In this connection, the Commission will also examine the implementation conditions of the SPD, including the possible use of integrated regional projects.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2954/00

by Emmanouil Mastorakis (PSE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Presentation of report on economic and social cohesion

Under the terms of Article 159 of the Treaty, the Commission is at least a year late in submitting its second report on the progress made in achieving economic and social cohesion in the regions of the European Union.

In view of the fact that the data and proposals in the report will obviously form the basis for setting a new strategy for economic and social cohesion, when will the Commission be ready to present the report?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 2000)

The EC Treaty, as the Honourable Member points out, requires the Commission to report on economic and social cohesion every three years. The first report was adopted in November 1996(1), so the second one was due at the end of 1999. However, it was decided to postpone the preparation and publication of the second report until the beginning of 2001, for the following reasons.

The Sixth Periodic Report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the European Union(2) was published early in 1999. Since no more recent figures were available by the end of 1999 as a basis for drawing up the cohesion report, this would have meant that the Commission would have adopted two reports containing largely the same statistical data.

The first phase of implementation of the new rules for the 2000-2006 programming period, i.e. determining the areas eligible under Objectives 1 and 2, adoption of the Community support frameworks and single programming documents for Objective 1, and ex ante evaluations, will provide the Commission with more relevant information than was available a year earlier.

The publication of the report at the beginning of 2001 will also launch a wide-ranging debate at Community level on the future guidelines for cohesion policy in an enlarged European Union and on the relationship between cohesion and the other two components of Community integration, i.e. the internal market and economic and monetary union.

A forum on cohesion is to be held for that purpose in May 2001, with the participation of Parliament.

(1) ISBN 92-827-8881-4.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/document/doc1_en.htm http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/document/radi/radi_en.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4014/00

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Export of remoulded and re-manufactured tyres to Brazil

Will the Commission make representations to the Brazilian Government regarding its decision to extend an existing ban on the import of second-hand tyres for the Brazilian market to include remoulded and re-manufactured tyres, insofar as they are duly approved and certified EU products?

If not, why?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3925/00, E-4014/00 and E-4026/00 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2001)

According to Brazilian national trade regulations, notified to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), imports of used equipment, machinery and consumer goods are expressly prohibited, with the sole possible exception of donations.

The Brazilian customs authorities referred the import of retreaded tyres to their judicial authorities which concluded that licensing such imports was inconsistent with local trade regulations. They therefore immediately suspended the granting of import licences for these products. In this context, the trade regulation Portaria MDIC/SECEX No 08, of 25 September 2000, has sought to implement the judicial ruling.

The Commission is aware of this issue and of the concern it has caused some European companies that produce and export retreaded and remoulded tyres. According to initial contacts with the Brazilian authorities, the Commission understands that the Brazilian government may have health or consumer protection concerns about the import of used goods and, because the aforementioned judicial decision stretched the scope of used goods to include retreaded tyres, the Brazilian authorities have enacted Portaria No 8, which blocks the import of such tyres. After further clarifying this issue with the industry, the Commission will approach the Brazilian government to set out the case for distinguishing these products from the general category of used goods and to explain the European system of type approval. In the absence of a positive solution, the Commission will consider what further action to take in the light of the Brazilian government's response.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3837/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Concerted practices with regard to the value date for bank transfers

In its reply to question E-2963/00, the Commission states that it has no information about interest gains or losses due to the practice with regard to value dates for bank transfers.

As transfers are not made in real time, either nationally or within the EU as a whole:

1. When a transfer is made, what date does the transferring bank take as the value date for the transfer from the payer's account?

2. What is the value date for entering the amount transferred in the recipient's account?

3. Who receives the interest during the transfer period?

4. If interest accrues to the banks involved during this period, in what proportions is it divided?

5. Can the Commission say whether there are agreements between the banks concerning the apportionment of interest during the transfer period?

6. Might a uniform practice contravene European competition rules as constituting a concerted practice?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2001)

Both cross-border and national transfers are based on legal transactions between customers and their credit institutions. For this reason, the value date applied to the transferor's account is essentially subject to freedom of contract, or possibly to specific national rules.

Directive 97/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 on cross-border credit transfers(1) requires that, in the absence of any agreed time limit, the transfer be credited to the recipient's account at the latest at the end of the sixth banking business day following the date of acceptance of the cross-border credit transfer order(2).

Credit institutions are also required to provide customers with information on the value date applied(3).

It must be stressed that the question of whether credit institutions pay interest to their customers and how much they pay is a matter for the general terms of business or for contractual agreements between the institutions concerned and their customers. There are no general european legal obligations which apply in this context, nor is there any agreed practice within the Community. Rather, it is an area subject to free competition.

During the transfer period, interest does not normally accrue to the banks, but they benefit from the availability of the funds and from the fact that they may have no interest to pay during this period. Distribution during the transfer period depends on what practice is followed under the settlement system used.

The Commission has no information on this subject.

If a uniform practice corresponds to the criteria set by the European Court of Justice for concerted practices, it may constitute a breach of Article 81 (formerly Article 85) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2) Article 6 of Directive 97/5/EC.

(3) Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 97/5/EC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3481/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Substandard road construction funded by the second Community Support Framework

In reply to my question E-1912/99(1), the Commission acknowledged that there were widespread problems with substandard road-building in Greece funded by the second Community Support Framework.

Will the Commission say whether it has any further information concerning the extent of substandard workmanship in all the projects funded in Greece by the second CSF? Is the Commission satisfied with the measures taken by Greece to remedy this? If not, what steps will the Commission take to ensure that this tremendously important issue is dealt with?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 2.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the supplementary answer to Written Question 2783/99 of Mr Alavanos(1) regarding the substandard workmanship in work part-financed under the Community Support Framework for Greece during the 1994-1999 period.

Concerning specifically the Athens-Corinth and Athens-Yliki sections of the PATHE motorway, where construction defects prevented the Ministry of Works from proceeding to the final acceptance of the projects, the Greek authorities have just informed the Commission that the contractors are obliged to repair the structural defects discovered in the work at their own expense before the end of the year 2000. The Ministry of Works will then proceed to the final acceptance of the projects, and will impose fines for irregularities in the layer of asphalt in the sections concerned.

Following the recommendations of a committee of experts and scientists created on the initiative of the Ministry of Works to assess this problem, the final repairs to the layer of asphalt in these sections will be carried out under a new contract for which the call for tender will be published at the beginning of 2001.

(1) See page 2.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3421/00

by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Situation of deserters and conscientious objectors after the end of the war in Kosovo

On 6 May 1999 Parliament adopted a joint resolution on the situation in Kosovo(1) in which it called on the Member States to take in Yugoslav army deserters and conscientious objectors and grant them a temporary right of abode in the EU. Furthermore:

- thousands of deserters are still being denied the legal status that the European governments promised to accord to them,

- most of the deserters (especially those in Hungary) are living in refugee camps in conditions unfit for human beings,

- the vast majority of the deserters are being refused asylum in the Member States and many of them, indeed, are likely to be deported.

Can the Council therefore say:

- whether it is aware of this problem and what efforts have been undertaken to date?

- whether there was any point at all in appealing to Yugoslav servicemen to desert when the only action taken to follow up that appeal has been to close the borders to the deserters, deny them legal status, and in some cases even threaten them with deportation?

- whether the necessary financial assistance has been provided, in particular to Hungary, where most of the deserters have found temporary shelter?

- whether it intends to raise this matter in future talks with the new Yugoslav leadership and, if so, what attitude it will take?

(1) OJ C 279, 1.10.1999, p. 411.

Reply

(24 April 2001)

1. The Council is fully aware of the situation of deserters and conscientious objectors from the FRY army after the end of the war in Kosovo and has duly noted the European Parliament Resolution of 6 May 1999.

2. As the Honourable Member will recall, the Resolution was addressed to the Member States, which have certainly followed the European Parliament's recommendations on those matters which come within their sovereignty.

3. The Council has therefore not dealt specifically with the question, but considers that the new situation emerging in Belgrade might be conducive to a positive solution to the situation of Yugoslav deserters and conscientious objectors. The Council will actively work towards that end. In this context it has welcomed the Amnesty Bill which the Government of the FRY submitted recently to its Parliament and which could apply to deserters and conscientious objectors.