ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2935/00

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Cyprus

Can the Commission indicate what action it has taken with regard to Turkey with a view to persuading that country to lift its embargo on merchant ships that have visited Cyprus? Would the Commission agree that this action is illegal, would contravene all European Union regulations and does no credit to Turkey's aspirations to become a Member State?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

The restrictions still applied by Turkey on vessels trading with Cyprus and on those on the Cyprus register remain a concern for the Commission.

This issue has been raised on various occasions with the Turkish authorities, most recently at the meeting of the Community-Turkey sub-committee No 6 on transport, environment and energy, including transeuropean networks, which took place on 30 June 2000 in Brussels. The Commission made it very clear to Turkey that it expects these restrictions to be lifted as soon as possible in the pre-accession process.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely and will take the issue up in the regular report for 2000, which is to be adopted by the Commission on 8 November 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2865/00

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

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Distribution of the Structural Funds within the RDP for 2000-2006 submitted by the Spanish state

A Galician media organ has claimed that the Commission has urged the authorities of the Spanish state to reform the RDP (Regional Development Plan) with a view to preventing an excessive dispersal of priorities and resources over the investments planned. Can the Commission state whether this decision has any connection with the incorrect distribution of the Structural Funds for the Objective 1 areas, which have up till now, in many cases, been utilised in the Spanish state in forms contrary to the criteria and objectives of the Union's regulations?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

The amounts allocated to the Spanish regions eligible under Objective 1 of the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006, whether from the territorial or the sectoral point of view, were adopted following close consultation between the Member State and the Commission, as provided for by Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1).

On 26 July 2000, the Commission gave its agreement in principle to the Community support framework (CSF) for these regions. This draft was submitted to the various committees provided for by the above Regulation and was finally approved by the Commission on 18 October 2000 after these consultations.

The CSF took over nine of the ten priorities set out in the regional development plan. Two priorities identified in the plan (tourism and cultural heritage, collective facilities and social welfare) were merged and one new priority (technical assistance) was added. Within each priority, the draft CSF contains further information clarifying the nature of the assistance to be part-financed.

This partnership procedure is common to all the Member States receiving Community structural assistance.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2386/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) and Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Extension of Community aid for nut producers

The flat-rate aid granted for hazelnuts under Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96(1) will expire next year for Italian producers and the provisions in the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables are insufficient and inappropriate to enable producers to compete with non-Member States that are highly competitive, particularly Turkey.

With regard to hazelnut production, the province of Viterbo, in particular, could suffer very serious consequences if support measures for hazelnut producers are not adopted.

As part of the reform of the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables, planned for September 2000, will the Commission intervene to protect European hazelnut producers and, in particular, Italian producers given that 90 % of hazelnuts produced in Europe are harvested in Italy by extending direct aid pending the establishment of a new support system which would include both measures aimed at improving quality and marketing and direct flat-rate aid for hazelnuts?

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2277/00 and E-2386/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

Financial support for Community nut production under Title IIa of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(1) was discussed at the Council meeting (agriculture) of 17 July 2000. In their conclusions, the Ministers stated the following:

The Council invites the Commission to propose that the payments to nut growers be continued within the budget for 2001 for those programmes which would otherwise expire in 2000.

Moreover, in the context of the report which it will submit on the fruit and vegetables regime before the end of 2000, the Commission will study the situation of the nut sector.

As regards declarations of origin of raw materials used by the processing industry, there are no specific rules for nuts and there are no plans to introduce any such rules.

(1) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3391/00

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Current and forecast ECSC reserves

In view of the fact that the ECSC Treaty is soon to expire, would the Commission say what quantity of reserves the ECSC currently holds and what the forecasts are for the date on which the Treaty actually runs out?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2000)

The Commission is actively preparing for the expiry of the ECSC Treaty in line with resolutions which have been adopted by the Council and Parliament.

On 6 September 2000 it approved a communication entitled Expiry of the ECSC Treaty: financial activities after 2002(1).

The statistical tables attached to the communication provide all the information requested by the Honourable Member on the current level and trends in ECSC reserves up to and after 23 July 2002.

At 31 December 1999, reserves and provisions totalled 1 943 million (see tables 1 and 2) of the communication. At 31 July 2002, they should be 1 601 million, taking into account the working hypotheses adopted by the Commission.

(1) COM(2000) 518 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3005/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: EU human rights aid

There are many organisations which receive EU human rights financial aid.

Could the Commission:

1. List all those organisations in receipt of such funding and indicate which are government organisations and which are NGOs?

2. Detail the level of funding allocated to each listed organisation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

Concerning actions financed from Chapter B7-7 of the external relations sector of the budget, the information requested by the Honourable Member has just been published by the European Human Rights Foundation, financed by the Commission, in its Compendium 2000. A copy is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Support for human rights may also be considered for funding from the internal policy section of the Community budget in accordance with the commentaries for the budget lines covering refugees, asylum seekers and migrants.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2816/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(5 September 2000)

Subject: Local taxation

Can a Member State or a region of a Member State which levies local taxation apply two different methods of local taxation?

For example, in the implementation of local taxation on the commercial sector can one or two specific commercial activities be treated differently from all other commercial activities or do they all have to be treated equally?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2000)

Since there is no Community legislation on this matter, Member States have sole competence for the introduction of direct local taxes, including those levied on businesses.

However, such legislation must not contain discriminatory measures that infringe the fundamental freedoms provided for in the EC Treaty (freedom of establishment, freedom to supply services, free movement of persons, goods and capital).

Turning to the specific issue of differentiating between commercial activities in the implementation of local taxes, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that this falls within the scope of the provisions of the EC Treaty on State Aid, in so far as it would favour particular businesses or products and have an effect on trade between the Member States. However, as set out in the Commission notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation(1), the differential nature of some measures does not necessarily mean that they must be considered to be state aid. This is the case with measures whose economic rationale makes them necessary to the smooth functioning and effectiveness of the tax system. However, in such cases it is up to the Member State to provide such justification.

(1) OJ C 384, 10.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2675/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Protection of European firms in Kosovo

The answer given by Commissioner Patten to Written Question E-1032/2000, despite the rather embarassing nature of its content, shows that the role played by parliamentary control is a cornerstone of democracy, not only for the Member States but also for the European Union itself. With regard to the matter in hand, the Commission's undertaking contained in the abovementioned answer to bring the concerns raised to the attention of UNMIK opens up a clear channel of communication between myself as a Member of the European Parliament, the Commission in its capacity as the EU authority responsible, and UNMIK, which is overseeing the crisis situation in Kosovo.

When and by what means does the Commission plan to make the necessary representations to UNMIK, as promised in the abovementioned answer, and to what extent will it keep me informed of these measures?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

In line with its statement (Written Question E-1032/00(1)) that it would draw United Nations (UN) Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) attention to the issues raised by the Honourable Member, but it is for UNMIK to respond directly to the Honourable Member, the Commission has already sent the Honourable Member a copy of the letter which it has sent to UNMIK. The Commission has also provided the Honourable Member with the contact details of the relevant official in UNMIK.

The Commission has thus put a clear channel of communication in place between the Honourable Member and UNMIK, the competent authority for all questions relating to the international civil administration of Kosovo.

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 15.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Work in prisons

There are approximately 54 000 inmates in Italian prisons, many of whom would like to work (even for low wages) but cannot do so for bureaucratic reasons.

What is the Council's opinion on this matter?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2488/00 and E-2490/00

(7 November 2000)

Policy concerning employment in prisons is a matter for the Member States. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Community's action in the field of employment is restricted to encouraging cooperation between Member States and to supporting and, if necessary, complementing their action under the conditions specified in Articles 125 et seq. of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3320/00 by António Campos (PSE) to the Commission. Common agricultural policy.



Official Journal 113 E , 18/04/2001 P. 0252 - 0253



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3320/00 by António Campos (PSE) to the Commission (25 October 2000) Subject: Common agricultural policy Would the Commission please supply the following data: 1. Total area under cereals in the 15 Member States; 2. Total number of cereal producers in the Union; 3. Average labour-force density per hectare in cereal production; 4. Total EAGGF-Guarantee spending on cereals; 5. Average amount per producer received under the EAGGF-Guarantee; 6. Average amount received under the EAGGF-Guidance per worker per hectare in cereal production; 7. The percentage of Union agricultural production represented by cereals; 8. The export/import balance in the 15 Member States in the cereal sector; 9. Area occupied by the fruit and vegetable sector in the 15 Member States; 10. Total number of fruit and vegetable producers in the Union; 11. Average labour-force density per hectare in fruit and vegetable production; 12. Total EAGGF-Guarantee spending on the fruit and vegetable sector; 13. Average amount spent per fruit and vegetable producer, including the sector as a whole, under the EAGGF-Guarantee; 14. Average amount received under the EAGGF-Guarantee per worker per hectare in fruit and vegetable production throughout the Union; 15. The export/import balance for the Union's fruit and vegetable sector; 16. The percentage of the Union's agricultural production represented by fruit and vegetable production? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 November 2000) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2524/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Migration in the Salento region

Some time ago Lecce Apulia applied to host a peace conference and to be the headquarters of a monitoring centre for migration.

Furthermore, Salento has had to tackle the difficult problem of immigration for the last ten years and will continue to do so for who knows how many more years.

Can the Commission say whether, in order at least to counterbalance the choice of Salonica as the location for the agency for the reconstruction of Kosovo, it intends to comply with the requests of Lecce, a town synonymous with immigration from the countries of south eastern Europe?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

The Commission recognises that Puglia, due to the geographical situation, is particularly affected by some effects of movements of people in need of international protection and by irregular migratory movements, like other border regions of the Union.

The Commission is currently examining the technical requirements to set up an information network on migratory flows and all aspects of immigration and asylum, based on internet technology. There is no intention to create an observatory in a particular location.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3256/00

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Revision of the postal directive special services

The Commission's new proposals make a distinction between standard or basic services, which would be part of the universal service, and special services, a new category defined as services with an added value that are not universal and hence cannot be reserved.

1. Does the Commission not consider that these measures call into question the principle that the universal service must be adaptable to technological change and clients' needs, a principle that was recognised by Article 5 of the 1997 Directive?

2. Is there not a danger that these new regulations will create greater legal uncertainty given that the definition of special services is unclear, and might allow any services included in the universal service to be excluded from the universal service whenever it has additional service features.

3. In its judgment in the Corbeau case, the Court of Justice of the European Communities held that if competition in the provision of added value would compromise the financial equilibrium of the universal service providers, the national authorities could legally include such services within the reserved area of services. Can the Commission explain why the proposal for a directive disregards this point, which is crucial to ensuring the viability of universal service providers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

1. No. The adaptability of the universal service would not be affected by this measure. The proposal for a Directive involves the reserved sector and does not change any part of the universal service.

The distinction between standard and special services has already been made (recital 21, read in conjunction with Article 7 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)).

2. No. For a service to be considered a special service, it must fulfil the following three criteria: it must fall outside the scope of the universal service (as defined by each Member State); it must meet the specific needs of economic operators; and it must have at least two additional services not offered by the traditional postal service. The compulsory services which form part of the universal service are defined in detail by each Member State.

3. The Corbeau judgment applies in the absence of harmonised rules: Directive 97/67/EC lays down a maximum area for the reserved sector and other measures which the Member States can use to ensure the provision of the universal service.

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2931/00

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2000)

Subject: Observance of Directive 98/44/EEC as regards human cloning

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to make representations to the British authorities to ensure observance of Directive 98/44/EC(1) which specifically prohibits the issue of patents on inventions involving the use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes?

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 13.

Joint answer to Written Questions P-2852/00 and P-2931/00 given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2000)

The member responsible for research stated a position on behalf of the Commission during Parliament's plenary session on 6 September 2000 with regard to the report by the UK group of experts concerning the authorisation of research into human embryonic stem cells and their therapeutic uses.

On this occasion he pointed out that Parliament and Council Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions regulated the conditions under which an invention based on biological matter may receive patent protection. However, the aim of the directive is not to lay down conditions under which the research itself may be carried out.

Respect for the national identity of the Member States and for subsidiarity has caused the Treaty on European Union to leave the prerogatives to legislate on matters of ethics to the Member States themselves.

The Commission cannot impose any constraints on the freedom of states to lay down the conditions under which they wish to regulate research. Its role consists of promoting a debate on ethics while maintaining the diversity of our cultures and our sensitivities in Europe. It is thus one of the aims of the European research area.

The Commission has in its possession no information on any pressure on the UK authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2435/00

by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 July 2000)

Subject: Death of dolphins at Gardaland

There have been reports of a number of deaths among the bottle-nosed dolphins (Tursiops truncata) kept at the dolphinarium at the Gardaland amusement park (Verona, Italy).

These dolphins apparently take part in a show designed for public entertainment that is repeated five times each day, which may have put their lives at risk.

It should be remembered that these animals are protected under the Convention of Washington of 3 March 1973 (CITES), which has been incorporated into its law by the European Union (Council Regulation EC/3626/82(1) and Commission Regulation EC/3418/83(2). The EU has also adopted Council Regulation EC/338/97(3) of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein. Subsequently, on 26 May 1997, the EU adopted Commission Regulation (EC) 939/97(4) laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) 338/97.

Is the Commission aware of these incidents?

Will it check that all safety standards have been met?

(1) OJ L 384, 31.12.1982, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 344, 7.12.1983, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 140, 30.5.1997, p. 9.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the incidents mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 939/97 of 26 May 1997, laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of the above Council Regulation, have replaced respectively Council Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 of 3 December 1982 on the implementation in the Community of the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3418/83 of 28 November 1983 laying down provisions for the uniform issue and use of the documents required for the implementation in the Community of the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora.

The dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) is a species included in Annex A of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 which means that it may not be imported for commercial purposes, but in the case of dolphinaria, or zoos, a derogation under Article 8(3)(g) may be invoked, i.e. that import may take place if intended for research or education aimed at the preservation or conservation of the species. Moreover, the Regulation stipulates that import can only take place if the scientific authority of the Member State concerned is satisfied that the intended accommodation for a live specimen at the place of destination is adequately equipped to conserve and care for it properly.

However, the keeping and treatment of live animals, dolphins in dolphinaria in this case, falls within the competence of the individual Member States. Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to control any safety standards.