ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3583/00

by Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Storm in Liguria

A run of exceptionally bad weather in north-western Italy has brought Liguria catastrophic floods, high tides and landslides for the second time in less than a month. So far there have been many casualties, including three dead, in addition to the immense material damage that has been caused. (The cost of damage to public property alone has been put at ITL 400 billion.) Some fruit, flower and vegetable producers' whole plantations of specialised crops have been destroyed, and there has also been immense damage to beaches and seaside amenities on the Ligurian coast.

In view of Parliament's resolution of 20 January 2000 on storms in Europe, the statement by Commissioner Barnier in connection with the plenary debate on the subject and Parliament's resolution of 26 October 2000 on the floods in northern Italy and in Spain, would the Commission consider the possibility of making available to the Liguria region, in agreement with Italian national and local authorities, financial resources from the Structural Funds and the EAGGF Guarantee Section to facilitate the rebuilding of infrastructures in the areas affected and speed up the process of restoring to normality the communities that have suffered these catastrophes?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3431/00, E-3464/00, E-3475/00 and P-3583/00 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2000)

The Honourable Member should refer to the answer that the Commission gave to Oral Question H-0857/00 from Mr Ebner at question time during the November I 2000 part-session of Parliament(1).

The Honourable Member should also refer to the comments made by the Commission during the debate on climate change at the October II part-session on 25 October 2000(2) and the debate on floods in Europe at the November part-session on 16 November 2000(3).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 2000).

(2) Debates of the European Parliament (October II 2000).

(3) Debates of the European Parliament (November 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2719/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: State aid in agriculture

What is the Commission's estimate of the amount of state aid paid per person engaged in agriculture in each of the Member States each year for the last five years for which figures are available?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 2000)

The State aid dossiers notified to the Commission include both individual draft aid programmes and schemes which can cover several years, with a rather vague estimated number of beneficiaries and for which the financial allocation is adopted each year by regional authorities and can stray from the initial estimate (depending on budgetary resources available at the time).

In these circumstances, the Commission is not in a position to compile all the data needed to provide accurate figures in reply to the Honourable Member's question. Nor do the Community-wide figures published by the Commission in its Eighth Survey on State Aid, based on data provided by the countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), answer the Honourable Member's question, because the expenditure included covers more than just State aid as such.

However, statistical data providing a partial answer to the question can be found in the Commission's Eighth Survey on State Aid in the European Union(1), in its report on Agriculture in the European Union statistical and economic data in 1999(2), and in the OECD's publication on agricultural policies in OECD countries: monitoring and evaluation 1999(3).

(1) COM(2000) 205 final.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg06/index.htm Agricultural statistics.

(3) OECD. Paris: OECD, 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3371/00

by Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Floods in north-west Italy

Tragic floods have been affecting parts of north-west Italy for the last few days, causing a state of emergency and killing an unspecified number of people. Dozens of villages and hamlets have been cut off, not least because telephone and electricity lines have been hit. Dams and rivers are out of control, including the Po and the Tanaro, which have risen far above safety levels and are threatening inhabited areas.

In view of the fact that Italy has been the victim of various environmental disasters, does the Commission intend:

- to set up a fund for emergencies caused by natural disasters;

- to send immediate aid to the communities affected;

- to ascertain compliance with environmental legislation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

The Commission deeply regrets the serious damage and tragic loss of human life which affected the north-western territories of Italy.

The major floods which hit the region were the subject of a debate on 25 October 2000 at the October II plenary session in Strasbourg. The Commission set out its position by recalling Community efforts as regards improving and coordinating civil protection, efforts in research and the conditions determining the intervention of the Structural Funds for rebuilding projects in regions affected by natural disasters.

With regard to financial assistance for affected areas and reinstating the budget line for emergency aid in the event of natural disasters, as the Commission explained to the Parliament(1) on 25 October 2000, it considers that since other possibilities for Community support exist and in view of the financial and human resources available, other actions take higher priority at this stage.

Moreover, the Honourable Member is kindly requested to refer to the proposal for a Council Decision of 27 September 2000 instituting a Community mechanism for coordinating the intervention of civil protection in an emergency(2).

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(3) amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(4), the environmental impact assessment (EIA) Directive, does not cover cases of natural disasters.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (October II 2000).

(2) COM(2000) 593 final.

(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3192/00

by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Council

(16 October 2000)

Subject: Religious minorities in India and Pakistan

Would the Council indicate the nature of the continuing representations being made to the governments of India and Pakistan regarding the protection of religious minorities, and is it satisfied that the Government of Pakistan has honoured earlier undertakings and that the Indian Government has paid due attention to the European Parliament's resolution of 11 February 2000?

Reply

(12 February 2001)

At their political dialogue meetings with the Indian authorities, including recent meetings at senior official and Ministerial level (in December 1999 in Helsinki, in May 2000 in New Delhi and in June 2000 in Lisbon), the Troikas have raised the Union's concerns about respect for human rights and particularly about repeated attacks on religious minorities in India. The Troika of senior officials also raised this question at its recent meeting with the Indian side in Paris on 6 November 2000. The Union's diplomatic representatives in Delhi have previously raised this subject with their Indian interlocutors on several occasions, and will continue their efforts as long as the situation in India is not considered to be satisfactory.

As regards Pakistan, regular political dialogue meetings between the Union and Pakistan were suspended following the military coup last year. However, the subject of the protection of religious minorities was raised with senior interlocutors in the administration and the Pakistani Government during the Troika's ad hoc visit in November 1999. The next ad hoc Troika, due to take place at the end of November 2000, will resume this discussion. Heads of Mission in Islamabad will also continue to raise these issues with the appropriate interlocutors.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2531/00

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Projects cofinanced by the Community in Condado (Ponteveda, Spain)

On 4 August 1997 an agreement was signed between the district of Condado, comprising the municipalities of Ponteareas, Salvaterra, Salceda and Mondariz, the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture and the Galician Regional Government, under which Condado would receive ESP 500 million from the Proder programme (a programme for the development and economic diversification of rural areas), cofunded by the Community, for a series of projects to be carried out between 1997 and 1999. The agreement provided for a number of projects connected with the development of the rural heritage, agri-tourism, rural tourism and small businesses, and included the renovation of the Pazo de Picoña in Salceda and the Casa del Conde in Salvaterra, the redevelopment of the area around Vilasobroso castle, the construction of a castro to provide accommodation for rural tourism, the establishment of a Wine Museum in the Doña Urraca cellars in Salvaterra castle, the creation of an archaeological information centre at the Castro de Troña in Ponteareas and the construction of a golf course at Pías.

Democracy demands transparency, and information for citizens, and sometimes the European Community must compensate for the lack of information from some local administrations, which conceal facts from inhabitants of the area. Withholding information in this way runs counter to the public information requirement laid down by the regulations on the Structural Funds.

Will the Commission give details of projects cofinanced by the European Community during the period 1994-1999 in Condado, in the province of Pontevedra?

What amount of joint funding did the Community provide for these projects? What was the total cost of the projects?

Have all the projects for which Community cofinancing was requested been completed? If not, is there any provision for an extension to enable the projects to be completed? Until what date would an extension be possible?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4000/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Clothes labelling

Could the Commission provide details of the labelling requirements which apply to clothes imported into Japan and the USA?

Could the Commission explain why similar provisions do not exist in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2001)

When clothes are exported to Japan or the United States, the following information has to be provided on a permanently attached label: the percentage of the fibres used in the product; care instructions; the country of origin; information on the manufacturer and/or importer.

At European level, the only legal instrument relating to textile labelling is Directive 96/74/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 on textile names(1), as amended by Commission Directive 97/37/EC of 19 June 1997(2). Textile products may be marketed within the Community only if their fibre composition is indicated in accordance with that Directive.

Apart from labelling on fibre composition, Member States are free to apply national provisions on the protection of industrial and commercial property, indications of provenance, marks of origin and the prevention of unfair competition.

As regards the specific case of origin marking, the Court of Justice has ruled that the labelling of national origins of products produced within the Community (such as made in [Member State]) must not be made mandatory within the Community, since this would have to be considered a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction prohibited by Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty(3).

However, Community operators are free to indicate, on a voluntary basis, the national origin of their product, or specify that their product has been made in EU. They may also use the made in EU marking if the product has been manufactured in more than one Member State.

The value of further mandatory labelling requirements at Community level has not yet been established and remains a controversial issue among the different actors concerned. In any event, any such labelling requirements would have to comply with World trade organisation (WTO) requirements and, in particular, not be contrary to the obligation of national treatment.

While endeavouring to keep mandatory administrative requirements to a minimum, the Commission is planning to examine, together with interested parties, ways of improving the existing labelling regime.

(1) OJ L 32, 3.2.1997.

(2) OJ L 169, 27.6.1997.

(3) Case 207/83.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3660/00

by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Enforcement of fishing rules

Recent reports have shown that European fishing vessels have been fishing off the west African coast inside national waters. This is bringing about a fall in fish stocks available for the local population and posing a danger to local fishermen, who have been hit by large fishing vessels.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? What action is the Commission taking with countries in the region to prevent illegal fishing inside national waters? What measures can be taken to bring legal action against illegal fishing by European vessels in third country waters?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his question and informs him that, although the surveillance of the territorial waters and of those of the exclusive economic zone is the responsibility of the national authorities of the control States concerned, the Commission does whatever it can to assist them in combating these illegal practices.

To this end, Fisheries Agreements concluded with African countries, which constitute the legal framework for Community fishermen operating in the area, clearly define conditions for licences, authorised fishing gear, catch reporting, closed areas, and so on.

Moreover, the financial compensation paid to third countries in exchange for fishing possibilities often includes an element which aims at developing the third country's own fisheries research and control capabilities.

The Commission is also doing its utmost to encourage the countries with which it has Fisheries Agreements to make State-to-State agreements and reduce the number of private licences given to single vessels/ship owners. In fact, private licences often adversely affect the utilisation of fishing possibilities allocated in the framework of the Fisheries Agreements and therefore their sound financial management. Furthermore, the absence of control of this type of fishery or its very limited scope is detrimental to fish stocks.

It should be noted that illegal fishing activities are mainly carried out by either pirate vessels or by vessels flying flags of convenience, not by Community vessels.

The Commission is committed to the development of the Food and Agriculture organisation (FAO) international plan of action to curb illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. In this plan, the main objectives of the Community are to implement the existing international legal instrument, such as the Compliance Agreement, and to fill the loopholes in international law, in particular concerning access to ports. This plan should be presented to the FAO committee of fisheries (COFI) in February 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4033/00

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Council

(3 January 2001)

Subject: Need to standardise emergency lights on vehicles in the EU

In Spain, the colour of emergency lights on vehicles is not currently in line with the rest of the Member States, where such lights are blue. This means that emergency lights displayed by priority and emergency services such as firemen and ambulances are of the same amber colour as other services such as refuse collection and slow-moving vehicles, with blue being reserved for police only. As well as being a source of confusion, this causes traffic problems for emergency vehicles and puts citizens at risk.

In October 1995 and May 1996, the European Federation of Fire Officers' Associations urged the Spanish Directorate-General for Traffic to revise their regulations on the lights carried by the emergency services. The Spanish Firemen's Association has also repeatedly requested the Directorate-General to bring Spain into line with the rest of Europe by replacing amber with blue for flashing lights carried by priority vehicles, and the Directorate-General for Civil Protection has also concurred with the need to bring the country into line with the rest of the EU.

Regulation No 65 of the UN Economic Commission for Europe rules that emergency lights be standardised, but it does not specify which colour is to be assigned to each type of vehicle. In any case, the Community has not ratified this regulation, because the Member States wish to retain the right to rule on the use and technical specifications of such equipment.

In reply to Written Question E-3022/00(1), the Commission said that if there were a change in the attitude of the Member States the Community should then make provision for harmonisation of the lights carried by priority vehicles, differentiating them from those carried by slow-moving vehicles.

Does the Council think that, in view of the safety considerations involved, the use of emergency lights should be standardised, as called for by Spanish and European firemen?

If not, would the Council state its specific reasons for rejecting such harmonisation?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 230.

Reply

(7 May 2001)

As the Honourable Member rightly points out, Regulation No 65 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe stipulates that emergency lights be standardised, but does not specify the colour that different emergency services should use.

It is for the Commission, which alone possesses the right of initiative in this matter, to take whatever steps are deemed necessary to advance further the harmonisation of technical specifications for motor vehicles, including requirements for emergency lights, with a view to maximising road safety in the Community.

Should the Commission submit a proposal on this subject in the future, the Council would undertake to closely examine the suggested provisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4140/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Sheepmeat regime

Bearing in mind the publication of the Evaluation on the common organisation of the markets in the sheep and goatmeat sector in November 2000 and the subsequent European Conference in Brussels on 20 November on the Track record and prospects for European ovine product organisation at which Commissioner Fischler and Ms Mary Minch spoke and given that the present regime does not reflect adequately the market situation, particularly for northern European countries (the UK and Ireland especially), could the Commission outline what proposals it has to review the sheepmeat regime with a view to attaining a just and equitable price/market support system?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The evaluation of the common organization of the markets in the sheep and goat meat sector raised many important and interesting points. In general terms it concluded that the premium regime has allowed sheep and goat producers to maintain their relative position but that the method of calculation of the premium is flawed. In particular, the quality of the data available leaves much to be desired. This concerns price collection as well as the calculation of the technical coefficient.

The report identifies certain options, which it suggests should be considered. Essentially there is a choice between improving the present system in order to obtain more accurate data necessary to calculate the premium and the simplification of the system. The first solution would make an already complicated system even more complicated. In the light of this the Commission is examining the possibility of simplifying the system by replacing the deficiency payment with a fixed premium. The overall objective of the reform would be to provide a sound basis upon which producers could develop their enterprises with the minimum of administrative interference. Furthermore, such an approach would be more adapted to the aims of the World trade organisation (WTO) than the present price related system.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3471/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Internal market for professional services

What steps is the European Commission taking to identify and eliminate barriers erected by certain liberal professions to distort competition for the provision of professional services within the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2000)

In order to better identify the restrictions placed on competition by national legislation and by the liberal professions and in order to better direct its competition policy in this area, the Commission has decided to launch a study, the results of which will be known next year. This study will thrown light on the rules governing certain liberal professions in the Member States and on the impact of such rules on competition.

At the same time it is abolishing restrictive practices, in particular, in the area of price-fixing and restrictions on advertising, on the basis of complaints it receives from users of the services of the liberal professions.

By using its decision-making and administrative procedures to apply the EC Treaty's competition rules, the Commission aims to draw a clear-cut line, in the case of each liberal profession, between the professional ethics which are outside its scope and the restrictive rules which fall within its scope.

The Commission also ensures that Member States repeal legislation which authorises or strengthens the impact of restrictive practices followed by the liberal professions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3864/00

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Inforegio Panorama glossy magazine

Inforegio Panorama is a glossy monthly published by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy. Although it is printed on recycled paper, it is a very expensive production.

What are the production costs per issue?

Are these production costs justified?

How much would a less elaborate format cost?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

The quarterly publication Inforegio Panorama aims to give a voice to those involved in regional development who receive part-financing from the European Regional Development Fund and thereby enables experiences to be exchanged. The format of the magazine aims to build on these experiences and its costs are in line the with average expenditure on booklets on regional policy. Total production costs amount to 55 810. Changes to current page-setting would involve an increase in these costs.

Inforegio Panorama is sent to national, regional and local authorities, the Commission's institutional partners and anyone interested in regional policy. The first edition had a print-run of 50 790.

The paper used for the cover of the first edition did not correspond to the purchase order due to an error at the printing stage which was not invoiced to the Commission. The next covers of Inforegio Panorama will be printed on unlaminated paper.