ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0176/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Overcapacity

The Commission estimates that the EU fleet is at least 40 % too large for the available resources. What plans will the Commission propose to tackle this serious problem?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0176/01 and E-0209/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2001)

According to the reports of two groups of independent experts set up to advise the Commission during preparation of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleet (MAGP), fishing mortality rates on the fish stocks in European waters are excessive. The figure of 40 % is typical of the reduction in fishing mortality that would be required to manage the fish stocks on a sustainable basis.

In response to the conclusions of the expert groups, the Commission proposed substantial cuts in fishing effort for both the MAGP III (1992-1996) and the MAGP IV (1997-2001). However on both occasions the reductions originally proposed by the Commission were considered by the Council to be too severe.

The reductions in effort achieved during the MAGP III and the MAGP IV were not sufficient to counteract the effects of technological progress, which tends to make the fleet more efficient with time. In view of this, the Commission considers that the European fleet remains much too large for the available resources.

The Commission intends to tackle this problem by proposing further permanent reductions in fishing effort following the MAGP IV.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0269/01

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Kidnapping of Israeli citizen Elchanan Tenenboim

Four months after the kidnapping of Elchanan Tenenboim by the Lebanese Islamic movement, Hezbollah, there is still no news regarding the Israeli citizen. Despite countless humanitarian appeals

by major NGOs and members of the Jewish community in Rome, stressing Elchanan's fragile state of health (requiring daily medical treatment), the Hezbollah members holding him captive have still not allowed the Red Cross to visit him at the place where he is being held, which remains unknown.

What steps will the Commission take to enable members of his family to obtain information on Elchanan Tenenboim's state of health?

How will it bring pressure to bear on the Hezbollah organisation in order to obtain his swift release?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

The High Representative and the Union Special Representative have both made inquiries about the health of Mr Tenenboim and the three Israeli soldiers who were captured at about the same time. Several Member States have also made similar inquiries. While the Commission would welcome any humanitarian initiative that would lead to an improvement in Mr Tenenboim's situation, or lead to information on his health, the Commission currently does not see any grounds for involvement while international and Union initiatives are still taking place.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1128/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Lobbying for an EU superstate

It has been alleged that the American Committee for a United Europe made US Administration funds available to organisations campaigning for European integration.

In its answer to Written Question E-3127/00(1), the Council failed to reply to part of the question relating to its files. Will it now answer whether it is in possession of any documents relating to this issue?

Will it also now indicate whether ACUE or other intelligence-funded agencies or operations in pursuit of closer European integration have ever been discussed at Council meetings?

Similarly, does the Council have any records relating to funding by non-member states of organisations campaigning in the 1975 UK referendum on membership of the EEC? At what level of classification have they been set up?

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 39.

Reply

(16 July 2001)

Having nothing to add, the Council can only confirm the terms of its reply to the Honourable Member in response to his Question E-3127/00.

Since the Council has never been apprised of nor had to discuss the allegations to which the Honourable Member refers, it has no files on this subject of any type whatsoever.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0650/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Checks on the use of toxic products on Spanish oranges

In reply to Written Question P-1189/00(1) which I submitted to the European Commission, it was indicated to me that the Spanish authorities would withdraw authorisations for the use of colophony transformed using maleic anhydride and esterified with pentaerythritol in the treatment of Spanish oranges.

Can the Commission say whether and when the Spanish authorities have withdrawn the above authorisations?

If not, whether it considers it necessary to apply the provisions of Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty?

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 158.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2001)

Following preliminary action taken by the Commission, the Spanish authorities gave a formal undertaking to amend the authorisations for the use, in the treatment of citrus fruits, of substances containing resins transformed using maleic anhydride and esterified with pentaerythritol, in order to conform with current Community legislation, particularly European Parliament and Council Directive No 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners(1).

As a result, the Commission closed this infringement file on 21 March 2000.

If necessary, and in the case of any specific new information, the Commission will make the appropriate overtures to the Spanish authorities and, if the need arises, will initiate the procedure provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 16, 18.3.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0363/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2001)

Subject: Xerox restructuring - advance decision

Xerox is currently in the process of restructuring its European Manufacturing Operations at Venrey, in Holland, Mitcheldean in the UK and Dundalk in Ireland.

Can the Commission make it clear to Xerox that, should it emerge that the decisions on restructuring had actually been taken in advance of consultation starting, that would be a clear breach of Community law and that the Commission would take the appropriate legal steps?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0362/01, E-0363/01 and E-0366/01 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

With regard to employees' rights, decisions on corporate restructuring need to be taken in compliance with the national legislation implementing a number of directives in the field of labour law and industrial relations, in particular Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(1), Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses(2) and Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees(3).

All these Directives provide for adequate and effective information and consultation of workers' representatives before decisions are taken and implemented which can affect them. Xerox is of course bound by these obligations with regard to any decision falling within the scope of the above mentioned Directives in relation to its European operations.

However, given that all Member States involved in the envisaged restructuring operation have properly incorporated into their national law the provisions of the Directives mentioned above, the Commission wants to underline that any issues arising in this area are a matter for the national industrial relations' procedures and/or the national courts in the first instance.

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that concerning employment aspects no meetings or contacts with representatives of Xerox or companies representing Xerox or workers' representatives took place with Commission officials and that no such meetings or contacts are planned for the future.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(2) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998.

(3) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1020/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Exports of goods and services

1. Will the Commission state which EU Member States currently provide a geographical analysis of their exports of goods and services?

2. For those Member States which do so, will the Commission provide the figures for the exports of goods and services in total and to the euro area and to the rest of the world respectively for the last ten years or, should that not be possible, for the longest period for which figures are available?

3. Will it further express such figures as a percentage of each country's GDP for the period in question?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Nowadays in the framework of the Balance of Payments statistics, all Member States provide Eurostat balance of payments data with a Geographical breakdown of at least level-1 (World, 15 Member States (EU15), Extra-EU15, Canada, United States, Japan, World non allocated, Euro zone, Extra-euro zone). This data is necessary for the compilation of the European (EU15 and euro zone) balance of payments aggregates. Time series with geographical breakdown vis-à-vis intra-euro zone and extra-euro zone start from 1995 with reporters only the Member States of the euro zone (Ireland's contribution starts from 1999). This implies that for Denmark, Greece, Sweden and the United Kingdom data with this geographical split (intra and extra euro zone) is not available. Time series with geographical breakdown vis-à-vis World, Intra-EU 15 and Extra-EU 15 start from 1992 with reporters all the Member States.

Eurostat is responsible for the compilation of the Balance of Payments (BoP) of the Community while the European Central Bank (ECB) is responsible for the compilation of the euro zone Balance of Payments aggregates. It has been decided by the ECB and the Member States that the contribution of Member States for the compilation of the euro zone BoP aggregates (intra-euro zone and extra-euro zone) should not be published. As ECB is solely responsible for these figures, they can only be directly requested from the ECB. The contribution of Member States for the compilation of EU 15 aggregates (world, intra-EU15 and Extra EU-15) is available at Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) upon request.

An Excel file with the available information is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1514/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Eurovision song contest

The Eurovision song contest was started some decades ago with the aim of bringing songs from the various countries in Europe to a wider audience. Over the years it has brought the musical work of numerous European composers, songwriters and performers to public attention and provided an opportunity to hear songs sung in the languages of all European countries with their own individual musical characteristics.

In recent years, the contest has changed. There is now a widespread view that the lyrics of the songs may be sung in a language other than that of the country being represented, increasingly the language being English since it is considered to be more commercial and international. The outcome of this situation is an extrinsic approach to song-writing inconsistent with the European tradition and beyond anything recognisably European. All the songs in the contest are practically identical and do not have any of the particular musical features of the country concerned, let alone the language.

Will the Commission say:

- whether the Eurovision song contest is financially supported (directly or indirectly) by the EU;

- what its view is of the dominance of English lyrics at the expense, for example, of Danish, Swedish, Greek, Portuguese or Dutch; and

- whether it can effectively intercede with the organising committee of the contest to ensure respect for the language and cultural diversity of the countries in the Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

The Eurovision Song Contest is organised by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and has not received financial support from the Community.

The EBU is a professional association of national broadcasters throughout the world; it is based in Geneva and acts on behalf of its members in Europe.

With regard to Community competence, particularly in the area of culture, Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty grants the Community competence solely in encouraging by financial means co-operation between Member States.

Consequently, any change to the rules for participation in the Eurovision Song Contest does not fall within Community competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1275/01

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

(2 May 2001)

Subject: Community aid for the Euro-Arab Foundation in Granada

The Euro-Arab Foundation established in Granada (Spain) in 1995 as an alternative to the failed Euro-Arab University has also been a fiasco.

Both projects, which were promoted by the European Union and the Spanish Goverrment as a means of cementing cooperation between Europe and Arab countries, failed for lack of funding. The plan is now to relaunch the Foundation, providing it with the substance it never had.

Can the Commission say why it failed to provide the Euro-Arab Foundation in Granada with adequate financial support and to what extent it would now be prepared to provide financial and logistical assistance in order to ensure that the programme drawn up by those responsible for the relaunched Foundation is implemented and thus achieve the medium and long-term objective of cementing cooperation between the European Union and Arab countries?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The Commission has been the biggest financial backer of the Euro-Arab Management School (EAMS) in Granada since its establishment in 1995, contributing 6 million to the School's capital and 2,5 million to its running costs.

Despite these investments, supplemented by Spanish national and regional contributions, the EAMS has never managed to attain the requisite level of effectiveness to achieve its aims or an acceptable degree of financial self-sufficiency. An overall assessment of the School requested by the Commission and carried out by an international group of consultants in 2000 supported this conclusion.

Contrary to initial expectations, the favourable welcome for the new institution in the Arab world has not been translated into active financial and operational support. The Arab League has actually paid out only USD 1,7 million of the sum of USD 3 million pledged in 1998. Since the School was originally conceived as a Euro-Arab project, active Arab institutional and financial participation must be considered a prerequisite for its future success.

The reorganisation and relaunch of the School are two options currently being studied with a view to setting it on new and more solid organisational and financial foundations.

Such restructuring requires management of the School and of its finances to be based on a genuine Euro-Arab partnership. If these conditions are met, the Commission would be able to decide on a contribution to the School's operating expenditure in a true spirit of partnership.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0643/01

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

(6 March 2001)

Subject: CAP reform and the EU budget

A consequence of the BSE crisis (the culmination of a series of events which have challenged the EU agriculture policy's emphasis on production) is that the decisions taken by the Commission and the larger Member States regarding the need to reform the CAP make it necessary to consider in addition the need for a consistent and thorough-going reform of the structure of the CAP's budget, which currently absorbs 45 % of the Community budget. Such a reform cannot wait until the end of the 2000-2006 period corresponding to the Agenda 2000 forecasts. What are the Commission's plans for a CAP and Community budget reform programme?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

The Commission shares the view expressed by the Honourable Member concerning the serious nature of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)-crisis. The BSE-crisis calls for immediate measures on the beef and feedstuff markets.

These measures should be distinguished from the mid-term review foreseen in the Conclusions of the European Council of Berlin of 25 March 1999. The mid-term review in 2002 will include several sectors (arable crops; milk quota system; wine production potential) and the agricultural budget.

Some further sectors might be added in the light of the analysis of the current crisis and the post-crisis markets for beef and feedstuffs. The structure of postreview budget, however, can not be anticipated before the mid-term review itself.

The Agenda 2000 reform enfolding its economic effects fully not before 2003, the year 2001 will be the year of analysis.

Finally, as to the question to the overall agricultural budget and its share of the general budget, the figures until the year 2006 are laid down in the Conclusions of the European Council of Berlin of 25 March 1999. The overall budget for common agricultural policy (CAP) will progressively decrease from the year 2003 on.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0659/01

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Lisbon European Council and innovation

The 2000 Lisbon European Council called on the Council and the Commission, together with the Member States where appropriate to introduce by June 2001 a European innovation scoreboard. Does the Commission believe this target will be met, and what evidence can it provide to support its view?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

In March 2000, the Lisbon European Council asked to make available, by June 2001, a European Innovation Scoreboard.

An initial version of this scoreboard was published as an annex to the Communication Innovation in a knowledge driven economy adopted by the Commission on 20 September 2000(1). It includes 16 indicators in four broad areas (human resources; creation of new knowledge; transmission and application of knowledge; innovation finance, outputs and markets)(2).

The informal conference of Industry Ministers in Manchester in February 2001 accentuated the Lisbon request:

The European Commission should further develop and present by June 2001 the European Innovation Scoreboard, taking into account both quantitative and qualitative aspects, and ensuring that data collection is rapid and appropriate.

The further development of the European Innovation Scoreboard is well underway. The structure of the scoreboard will remain the same, but it is planned to make available more recent figures for 11 out of the 16 indicators. In the future, the availability of more up-to-date data is expected to be significantly enhanced by the agreement of the Member States to carry out the Community Innovation Survey more frequently.

The June 2001 scoreboard should furthermore also present Trend data for 11 indicators. It will therefore go beyond the snapshot character of the initial version. Qualitative aspects will be covered with reference to the work under the European Trend Chart on Innovation, a Commission project providing regular surveys of innovation policies in the Member States.

In the light of the above it is the view of the Commission that the European Innovation Scoreboard will be available in line with the Lisbon request and schedule.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat available documents referring to the information requested.

(1) COM(2000) 567 final.

(2) The draft version of the scoreboard is available from www.cordis.lu/trendchart.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1918/01

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

(28 June 2001)

Subject: Results of Community aid for establishment of joint fisheries undertakings

At the November 1999 meeeting of the EU fisheries ministers, a number of aids were agreed for the establishment of joint undertakings, to be equivalent to 80 % of the total granted in breaking-up aids. It was also agreed that joint undertakings would receive the same treatment both within and outside agreements with third countries.

This subject is of particular importance in view of the recent problems of the fisheries sector in the Community, given that the establishment of joint undertakings could represent a solution for the industry.

Can the Commission supply the relevant statistics for the Community fisheries industry for the period since the fisheries ministers' decision of November 1999 concerning joint undertakings? Can it also state what developments on this front are likely in the immediate future, with a view to a possible new approach for the EU's fisheries sector and given that sector's particular sensitivity?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

On 17 December 1999 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1), which amended the conditions for the setting up of joint enterprises as from 1 January 2000.

The reports presented to the Commission by the Member States concerned indicate that the number of joint enterprises established in 2000 with support from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) was very small. Only Spain provided financing for two such projects, for an investment totalling some 2,67 million. The contribution from the Community amounted to 1,33 million.

It should be noted that in the first year of implementation of FIFG structural programmes the number of projects selected for financing by the national authorities is smaller on account of the time required by the Member States to put in place national aid schemes.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.