ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2010/00

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Changing old coins into euros

No later than 1 January 2002, the old currencies in the euro zone will be changed directly into euros. According to information from Regional Central Banks in Germany, no scheme has yet been devised for changing foreign coins i.e. coins from other Member States in the euro zone into euros. It is quite probable that European citizens are holding in their pockets and purses foreign coins worth billions.

The Commission:

1. What does it think should happen with such coins?

2. Should not the various Central Banks be required by law to change into euros (banknotes and coins) not only banknotes from other countries in the euro zone but also coins from other countries in the euro zone?

3. What specific measures is the European Commission intending to take on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

It is worth recalling that it has so far generally not been possible in any Member State of the euro zone to exchange coins of another Member State. The questions therefore are whether such a new service should be established on the occasion of the introduction of euro coins, what its price and its modalities should be and who should bear the costs. In view of the logistical problems of handling various coin denominations, the conversion of the stocks which exist in the Community would probably require substantial resources, regardless of whether the service would be provided by the private or the public sector, including central banks. However, the Commission is aware of the problem and is examining how to find a solution which is both economically sensible and satisfactory for the citizens.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1852/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Health Action Plan

Can the Commission state whether it believes that the prioritisation of resources from health treatment should remain the prerogative of individual Member States, as laid down in the Consolidated Treaty, and, if so, whether it believes that there is a danger that the proposed new Health Action Plan, by highlighting the different priorities accorded to the treatment of certain conditions in the various Member States, could provoke a rash of both domestic litigation and appeals to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

The Commission is duty bound to ensure that Community action in the field of public health fully respects the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.

The proposal for a decision of the Parliament and of the Council adopting a programme of action in the field of public health aims to improve health information and knowledge, build up capacity in the Community to respond rapidly to health threats, and tackle the roots of ill-health through the development of health promotion and disease prevention measures. The proposed decision respects the aforementioned responsibilities of the Member States and contains appropriate provisions to ensure that implementation of the programme will be carried out in full compliance with the requirements of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1553/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Market prices and values

In its reply to Written Question E-0273/00(1) the Commission appears to be confusing two different phenomena: the existence of price differences resulting from administrative and/or macroeconomic policy measures, generally considered on the basis of the classic text The Purchasing Power of Money by Irving Fisher, and differences in market value for equal or similar goods and services arising from differences in supply and/or demand best summed up by John Maynard Keynes.

Keynes quotes Dr Watson on a visit to the Isle of Skye, when he says (and I quote from memory) that, if the eggs on your miserable island are cheap, it is not because there is an abundance of eggs but because money is scarce.

The problem posed here is impossible to resolve in the context of statistical method, because it belongs to the field of economic theory.

As conceived by Fisher, PPPs represent the appropriate method for looking beyond price differences which do not stem from market mechanisms, which is not the case when the market itself attaches different values to goods.

As Dr Watson realised using his own common sense, the value of goods and services varies not only according to conditions of supply but also according to conditions of demand, especially where their mobility is low.

That being so, does the Commission not consider it absurd to correct the overall income of a particular geographical area using the assumed market value of goods and services in that area, to the extent that possible differences in prices do not reflect administrative measures?

Does the Commission not believe that it would be appropriate to use an in-depth knowledge of economic theory as a basis before proposing measures to correct income in real terms, such as PPPs?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 114.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2000)

The Honourable Member seems to allude to the distinction between changes in price level (i.e. inflation), on the one hand, and changes in relative prices, on the other hand. The first is mainly a consequence of macroeconomic policies, in particular monetary policy, and the latter is an outcome of demand and supply conditions of markets. Within a monetary union, differences in inflation rates are usually low because of a single monetary policy and a co-ordinated economic policy, but differences in relative prices can still be considerable due to transaction costs which prevent arbitrage, in particular for non-traded goods. Therefore, in a monetary union, the main differences in purchasing power of money (PPPs) between countries arise from different relative prices.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1362/00

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: WTO and animal welfare

In 1999 the Community recognised the importance of trying to achieve reforms at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to reduce the detrimental impact of the WTO rules on attempts to secure improved standards of animal welfare.

What steps does the Commission plan to take during the negotiations to revise the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and during attempts to launch a new comprehensive WTO round to persuade the EU's WTO partners that the EU's concerns about animal welfare are genuine and not protectionist in their aim?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

Nothing in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) prevents its members from taking measures which they see as essential for animal welfare, i.e. adopting high standards, within its borders. Hence, the Community issued legislation which gradually improved the animal welfare standards in the Community over the last years. However, it is true that WTO rules do not permit its members to prohibit import of products on the sole ground that they were produced according to different animal welfare rules. Any such measure by the Community would certainly risk being seen by our trading partners as scarcely disguised protectionism.

For these reasons the objective of creating multilateral standards for animal welfare is one which the Commission has recognised as worthwhile. Those standards, based on scientific advice, would also be the best guarantee that animal welfare standards are not misused for protectionist purposes.

The Community sought to ensure that the issue of animal welfare was raised in the agriculture negotiations on the WTO Millennium Round. Now that Seattle has failed to deliver a mandate for a comprehensive round, the Commission will have to examine how to pursue its objectives regarding animal welfare in the post-Seattle context. One thing is clear: the Commission's efforts to promote these objectives in the WTO will continue.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1603/00

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 May 2000)

Subject: Local elections in Equatorial Guinea

In the light of the announcement that local elections are to take place in Equatorial Guinea on 28 May 2000, it is worth bearing in mind that the last round of elections in that country failed to provide a minimum level of transparency or the most basic democratic guarantees.

The declaration by the Presidency of the Council on the announcement of the said elections states that the European Union will be closely monitoring the course of the forthcoming elections and expresses the Union's concern for the neutrality and impartiality of the electoral process. Will the Council specify what action it intends to take to see to it that democratic transparency governs these elections?

Reply

(29 September 2000)

The Honourable Member refers in her question to the Presidency declaration of 4 May on the local elections which were held in Equatorial Guinea on 28 May 2000. These elections were closely monitored by the Heads of Mission of the European Union, allowing for the European Union to assess whether its concern for the organisation of a transparent, neutral and impartial vote has been met.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1516/00

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: The principle of transparency; distribution of EU Structural Fund appropriations

According to a Finnish doctoral thesis which was examined in January 2000 at the University of Jyväskylä, the way in which European Union Structural Fund appropriations are distributed at provincial level is undemocratic and contrary to the principle of transparency. The research findings indicate that the funding in question is distributed at provincial level by a small elite, which supervises itself. Moreover, the strict interpretation of the concept of business secrets by the Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry impedes the application of the principle of transparency.

How will the Commission promote the principle of transparency in the distribution of Structural Fund appropriations? In view of the currently inadequate supervision of the distribution of the funds, will the Commission take measures to render the system transparent and democratic?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2000)

Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) stipulates that, using transparent procedures, the Commission is to make indicative breakdowns by Member State of the commitment appropriations available for programming Objectives 1, 2 and 3 of the Structural Funds. That same Article states the criteria on the basis of which those breakdowns must be made for each Objective.

A Commission statement on Article 7 was annexed to the minutes of the Council meeting on general affairs at which the Regulation was adopted, following Parliament's assent. That statement contains a highly detailed description of the method used by the Commission to break down among the Member States the commitment appropriations allocated to each of the three Objectives.

The Regulation does not empower the Commission to break down the appropriations allocated among regions or areas covered by Objective 1 or 2 within a Member State.

Nevertheless, when single programming documents or operational programmes are negotiated, the Commission must ensure that appropriations are concentrated in the most severely affected areas.

The Commission has also sent as guidance to all Member States proposals for breaking down Objective 1 and 2 appropriations among the regions or areas concerned. Those proposals are based on the methods used by the Commission to break down, among Member States, the appropriations for each of those two Objectives.

The Commission will send a copy of the proposals for Finland to the Honourable Member direct and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1925/00

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Recommendation for a gas pipeline for the Balearic Islands

In her comments to the Ultima Hora daily newspaper on 24 May 2000, a minister in the Government of the Autonomous Community of the Balearic Islands stated that the European Union had recommended to the Government of the Balearic Islands that it opt for the gas pipeline as the most environmentally friendly means of supplying gas to the islands.

1. Has the European Union indeed recommended that the Government of the Balearic Islands use the gas pipeline to supply the islands with gas?

2. Which individuals or body have made the said recommendation?

3. Have any reports or studies led the European Union to take this view?

If so, will the Commission make the relevant reports or studies available?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Commission has made no recommendation to the Government of the Balearic Islands regarding the most appropriate technical solution for bringing natural gas to the islands. As a rule, it falls to the Member States and operators concerned to choose among the options for implementing energy projects.

The Commission does favour the introduction of natural gas in regions which do not have it, and therefore favours the project to introduce it in the Balearic Islands, in an economic and environment-friendly manner. Accordingly, and in line with a request from the Spanish Government, the Commission will, when the Community guidelines on trans-European energy networks are next reviewed, propose that the project to introduce natural gas to the Balearic Islands be included in one or other of the projects of common interest. This will be without prejudice to whatever technical solution is eventually chosen, i.e. connection by gas pipeline or the construction of a liquid natural gas terminal.

To date the Commission has received no details of the project.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1525/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Use of PESCA Community Initiative resources and Community funding of the fisheries sector in Portugal

The last Community Support Framework (1994-1999) saw the implementation of the PESCA Community Initiative on the restructuring of the fisheries sector. Moreover, during the same period the fisheries sector also received Community aid through the structural and political actions of the European Union.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. What level of resources was allocated to each Member State under the PESCA Initiative and how much money was in fact transferred during the 1994-1999 period?

2. Which projects were funded in Portugal during the same period under the PESCA Initiative? What was the duration and level of funding of those projects?

3. What was the overall amount allocated and in fact transferred to Portugal through the structural actions and the internal policies of the European Union in respect of the fisheries sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

1. Amounts allocated and actually transferred to each Member State under the PESCA initiative in the period 1994-1999

>TABLE>

2. 1 449 PESCA projects were approved in the period 1994-1999. 1 408 of these were charged to the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), 40 to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and 1 to the European Social Fund (ESF).

Total commitments in the same period were 29,87 million, and transfers amounted to 8,78 million at end 1999. The projects will continue to be implemented until end June 2001 and the final payment will be made by 31 December 2001.

3. The total amounts allocated to Portugal and actually transferred though the structural measures and the Community's internal policies in the period 1994-1999 are:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1451/00

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Checks on Austrian farms

In Austria, in connection with the monitoring of Agrarmarkt-Austria (AMA agricultural market Austria), in 1998 checks on compliance with the criteria governing the AMA quality label were carried out on 82 041 Austrian farms.

How many farms in the other Member States were checked in the same year?

How many checks were carried out in the EU as a whole?

Were more farms checked in Austria than in the other Member States? What explanation does the Commission have for this disparity?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2000)

There are no specific Community provisions governing the arrangements for checks on products bearing national quality labels such as the AMA-Gütesiegel. It is therefore up to the public authorities to use their substantial powers for that purpose.

It follows that the Commission does not have the precise and exhaustive statistical data requested by the Honourable Member relating to checks carried out in the other Member States. The Commission is therefore unable to reach a valid judgment on whether there are differences or disparities within the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2342/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Postal services and extremely remote regions

Is the Commission willing to take the extreme remoteness factor into consideration in its amendments to Directive 97/67/EC(1) (which seeks to open up the EU's postal services to competition) when establishing a pricing policy which will enable the same tariffs to be charged for postal services between the regions concerned, the other parts of the Member States to which they belong and the rest of the European Union?

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 14.

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

With regard to tariffs for each of the services forming part of the provision of the universal service and in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service(1), Parliament and the Council adopted two general principles, while granting the Member States freedom to decide on their pricing policy on the basis of the specific national context. Firstly, prices must be affordable; and secondly, they must be geared to costs. In this regard, Member States may decide that a uniform tariff should be applied throughout their territory.

In its proposed amendment to Directive 97/67/EC, the Commission has not planned any changes to this approach, which is based on subsidiarity.

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2141/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: IDEA and JHA

Has the Commission considered the application of IDEA technologies to Justice and Home Affairs?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Electronic identification of animals (IDEA) technologies are used as an electronic tagging system for the registration and tracing of Community livestock. A feasibility assessment is currently being conducted on IDEA by Isis in Joint Research Centre in Ispra and will end in 2002. If these trials are successful, the Commission may consider the possibility of using IDEA technologies in the fight against fraud.

The Commission has not considered applying IDEA technologies to the field of Justice and Home Affairs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2318/00

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: European travel ban on football hooligans travelling abroad

Despite strict precautions, the European football championship has been marked by serious disruptions as a result of persistent riots by football hooligans. To prevent these riots the Dutch, British and Belgian Ministers of Home Affairs believe that football hooligans should be banned from stadiums and banned from travelling to matches abroad. The forthcoming French Presidency should place this item on its agenda so that the rules can take effect before the European championship in Portugal in 2004.

1. Is the Commission aware of the plan of the Dutch, British and Belgian Ministers of Home Affairs for a ban on football hooligans travelling to matches abroad, which the French Presidency should put on its agenda?

2. Is the Commission prepared to encourage and help shape such an initiative?

3. If so, what role does the Commission envisage for itself, and can it indicate what form this initiative might take?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

1. The Commission is aware that Belgian, Dutch and British authorities intend to improve their cooperation to fight soccer hooliganism and also to introduce a ban on football hooligans travelling to matches abroad.

2. The Commission is prepared to encourage and help shape such initiatives. Developments during Euro 2000 show that it would be advisable to agree at Community level on a travel ban for convicted hooligans to high-risk football matches and to find ways to deal effectively with troublemakers at sports events. The Commission will ensure that any initiative which is adopted in order to prevent violence and would imply restrictions to the free movement of Community citizens, respects the guarantees provided by Community legislation, notably Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health(1).

3. Before it decides on concrete proposals to improve existing policies, however, the Commission prefers to await the conclusions of the Dutch-Belgian evaluation project Euro 2000, which is financially supported by the Union's common programme for the exchange and training of, and cooperation between, law enforcement authorities (OISIN). The project will evaluate the organization of Euro 2000 and draw conclusions on how to improve measures and cooperation for future similar events.

(1) OJ 56, 4.4.1964.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1440/00

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: The euro and people with impaired vision

As of 1 January 2002, all European citizens will have to be fully conversant with the use of euro coins and banknotes.

The Commission has taken the initiative in providing financial subsidies to organisations involved in teaching people with impaired vision to handle euro banknotes and coins.

Whilst some aspects of this issue are governed by the subsidiarity principle, the Commission has encountered obstacles in some Member States.

In view of the aforementioned facts, does the Commission intend to take action of any kind to oblige Member States to devote more budgetary resources to this area?

Answer to written question by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Ever since the Treaty on European Union was ratified, representatives of people with impaired vision have been closely associated with work to determine the technical specifications for euro coins and bank notes. The Commission and the Central European Bank have been in regular contact with the European Blind Union in order to assess training needs and, working with the Member States, to prepare or coordinate action to meet these needs (training for instructors, preparation of training kits, etc.).