ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2676/99

by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: State aid to the car industry

The Commission has indicated that state aid to the car industry will be the subject of a special investigation.

When will this study be completed and how will the Commission ensure that car companies wishing to establish new plants in the European Union are not placed at a competitive disadvantage against aid offers from non-EU countries, inducing them to resite their operations outside the Union?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2000)

The Commission introduced a Community framework for state aid to the motor vehicle industry in 1989 (the car framework) with the twofold aim of increasing the transparency of aid flows and imposing strict discipline in the granting of such aid in order to reduce distortion of competition to a minimum.

The current framework entered into force on 1 January 1998 for a three year period. The framework stipulates that at the end of that period, the Commission will decide whether to extend it, in particular in the light of the status of the proposed multisectoral framework.

The Commission has recently started work on the future of the car framework. An independent consultant has been appointed to assist the Commission. Extensive discussions will be held with the Member States and the automotive industry. The Commission should be able to adopt a final decision on the future of the car framework in July 2000.

Regarding unfair competition from third countries offering aid packages with the view to obtaining relocation of activities, recent experience shows that often when a car manufacturer is considering the location of an investment project (for which the targeted markets are in Western Europe) the alternative is either to invest in the Community or to develop new operations in the applicant countries.

Europe agreements provide for the application by these countries of the acquis communautaire in the field of state aid. This means that under these agreements the applicant countries cannot grant unfair aid packages to a company investing in their country. The Commission is currently investigating public aid cases concerning car manufacturers in Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia. An exemplary co-operation took place this year between the Czech Republic and the Commission in the assessment by the Czech authorities of an aid offer to Skoda (a subsidiary of the Volkswagen group). The Community rules were applied and the final aid amount was reduced from from 130 million to 22 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2509/99

by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Actual number of fishing vessels using driftnets in 1997

In its combined reply of 8 October 1999 to questions P-1537/99 and E-1561/99(1) concerning compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1239/98, the Commission gives the following figures for fishing vessels using driftnets in the North East Atlantic in 1997 (the most recent reference year for the gradual phasing-out of such nets):

- France: 43 vessels

- Ireland: 30 vessels

- United Kingdom: 5 vessels.

Leaving aside the case of Ireland, where the vagueness of the figure quoted makes it difficult to believe any statement to the effect that the country is complying with the phasing-out plan, the Commission itself, in its Report on enforcement of Community legislation concerning the use of driftnets in 1997 in the North East Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea (SEC(98) 477), provides other figures:

- France: 68 authorised and 35 in actual operation

- Ireland: 11

- United Kingdom: 5.

Can the Commission account for this discrepancy in the figures for the countries other than the United Kingdom? When are the Commission's files to be updated? What is to be the final figure selected, and why?

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 34.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission relied on the data supplied and verified by the Member States in question regarding the number of vessels using drift nets in 1995, 1996 and 1997, but became aware that these did not tally with the number of vessels observed by inspectors during the inspection and monitoring campaigns carried out since 1995.

Prior to 1998 Community legislation did not require lists of vessels using drift nets to be reported as access to this method of fishing was unrestricted, nor did vessels need permits to use such nets. It transpires that some vessels did start casual fishing for tuna only to abandon it again, sometimes after only a few trips, whereas the figures in the annual reports on implementing Community legislation concerning use of drift nets in the north-east Atlantic and the Mediterranean relate to known vessels.

As stated in its reply to the Honourable Member's questions P-1537/99 and E-1561/99(1), the Commission wishes to emphasise that its inspectors will verify Member States' data for 1995-97 when carrying out checks in accordance with Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy(2).

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 34.

(2) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2129/99

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Fisheries policy of the European Commission in the next Millennium Round

What is the policy of the European Commission in the next Millennium Round regarding the Common Fisheries Policy?

Having in mind that some of the contracting parties of the WTO and some NGOs criticise the Common Fisheries Policy, has the Commission planned a negotiating strategy to counterbalance this criticism?

Is the Commission ready to stand and follow a strategy that points out the positive effects that the Common Fisheries Policy has in the management of the fisheries stocks and in the contribution of the economic development of some developing countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Notwithstanding the unsuccessful outcome of the Third WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle as regards timing and subjects for negotiation, the Commission has performed preparatory work on a possible Community negotiating strategy for further trade liberalisation.

In its communication on The EU approach to the WTO Millennium Round(1) the Commission set out a possible Community agenda for the round, which should among other things include further liberalisation or rule-making in the fields of agriculture and services, non-agricultural tariffs, investment, competition, trade facilitation, and trade and environment. Results in all areas should support and contribute to sustainable development. This comprehensive programme was endorsed by the Council in its conclusions of 25 October 1999.

In spite of the current uncertainty about the adjourned round, the Commission believes that the negotiations should cover several subjects that relate to fisheries, including tariffs, subsidies, services, investment and trade and environment. Rather than isolate discussions on fisheries, however, it is in the Community interest to deal with fisheries in the context of the negotiations of all non-agricultural products, regarding market access and other negotiating areas as appropriate.

The Community believes that the Millennium Round should provide the opportunity to integrate considerations of environmental protection and sustainable utilisation of resources into all aspects of World trade organisation (WTO) negotiations, including fisheries.

To ensure that the WTO contributes positively to the pursuit of sustainable development world-wide, the Community is proposing that WTO members should take the decision to enter into a commitment to ensure duty-free market access no later than the end of the new round for essentially all products exported by the least-developed countries(2). This will also apply to fishery products.

(1) COM(99) 331 final.

(2) Paragraph 10 of the Council conclusions of 25 October 1999 on the Preparation of the Third WTO Ministerial Conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2786/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Collapse of the Attiki road bridge in Markopoulon (Attiki)

Following the recent collapse of the Attiki road bridge which was under construction, as a result of which two workers were killed and ten injured, serious concerns have been expressed concerning the viability and public safety of such projects. In view of the fact that such projects or at least those funded by the European Union should be carried out with the greatest possible care, under strict supervision and transparency, it is imperative that the Commission launch an investigation into the accident and should not allow matters to remain unresolved. A number of serious questions have already been raised by the numerous experts seeking to elucidate the reasons for the accident and preventing future accidents on a similar or larger scale.

1. Did the surveys take account of the nature of the terrain where the construction work was being carried out?

2. Was a survey of the timber shuttering carried out as required and, if so, were its findings acted on?

3. Following the earthquake of 7 September 1999, were the timber shuttering and construction procedures in general reassessed?

4. Independently of the survey, were the scaffolding and attachments shown to be sufficiently strong?

5. Was the work properly supervised by the firm responsible?

6. What reasons for the accident were given by the firm responsible for supervising the project?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Commission does not have the information requested under points 1 to 6 of the Honourable Member's question. These are matters covered by the contractual relationship between the Greek state authorities, in particular the Ministry of Public Works, and the firms building the StavrosElefsina road under the current contract.

The Commission has requested the Greek authorities to send it a copy of the final report by the commission of inquiry they set up to examine the causes of the accident. If that commission's conclusions

show that responsibility relates to improper use of Community funds, the Commission will not fail to claim them back. The Commission considers that any measures to prevent such accidents in future should be identified and taken on the basis of the commission of inquiry's report and conclusions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2584/99

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: BSE pathogens in meat-and-bone meal

According to a report on 26 August 1999 on Swiss German language television, there is evidence that EU provisions on the destruction of any BSE pathogens during the production of meat-and-bone meal were disregarded in Switzerland up to the end of 1997.

The report indicates that the Swiss producers at that time were unable in purely technical terms to heat the meat-and-bone meal as prescribed at pressure of 3 bar for 20 minutes at 133o C. Nonetheless, official export papers were issued, on the basis of which thousands of tonnes of meat-and-bone meal were exported from Switzerland into the EU area.

1. Is the Commission aware of this case?

2. Did the Commission check bone meal imported from Switzerland? If so, what was the result of the checks?

3. Into which EU Member States was Swiss meat-and-bone meal imported up to 1997?

4. Is there information on how this meat-and-bone meal entered the food chain?

5. Did the Commission take steps to prevent further imports of meat-and-bone meal from Switzerland?

6. Is the Commission aware of any further such cases?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

The Commission is not familiar with the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member and intends to request the Swiss authorities for more detailed information. The Commission will notify the Honourable Member once it has received these particulars.

Generally speaking the Swiss health authorities keep a very close eye on trends in Community regulatory activity and integrate into their national legal order certain decisions adopted by the Member States. Hence, in May 1996 they began introducing into their regulations prescriptions equivalent to those provided for in Council Decision 96/449/EC of 18 July 1996 on the approval of alternative heat treatment systems for processing animal waste with a view to the inactivation of spongiform encephalopathy agents(1) (since replaced by Council Decision 1999/534/EC of 19 July 1999 on measures applying to the treatment of certain animal waste to protect against transmissible spongiform encephalopathy and amending Commission Decision 97/735/EC(2)), which laid down minimum criteria for treatment systems to be used in animal waste processing establishments (133o C, 20 minutes, 3 Bar).

The Commission's Food and Veterinary Office has carried out inspection visits to evaluate the measures put in place by the Swiss authorities to control and eliminate bovine spongiform encephalopathy on their territory. These visits have not revealed any shortcomings by comparison with the European rules governing animal waste processing.

All the information contained in the inspection reports can be consulted on the Internet at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/vi/index_en.html.

(1) OJ L 184, 24.7.1996.

(2) OJ L 204, 4.8.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2466/99

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Council

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Travel to European Parliament part-sessions in Strasbourg

Parliament holds part-sessions in Strasbourg once a month. To that end, a huge number of officials and other staff are required to travel from Brussels or Luxembourg to Strasbourg. A large proportion of those travelling on mission in this way go by car.

- How many staff overall travel every month from Brussels or Luxembourg to Strasbourg?

- How many of the staff in question go by car?

- How high are the total costs (including the cost of overnight stays, meals, etc.) resulting from the removal to Strasbourg?

- Are there records concerning, or is it known, whether or how often Council staff are involved in road accidents during such journeys?

- Is it known whether there have already been cases of death or serious injury resulting from road accidents during such journeys?

- Are there records of costs arising from accidents?

- Do the accident statistics for the days of travel to and from Strasbourg deviate from those for other days?

Reply

(16 March 2000)

The replies to the Honourable Member's questions concerning the journeys made by Council officials to Strasbourg in connection with European Parliament part-sessions are set out below.

Each month when a part-session is held, an average of 21 officials travel to Strasbourg from Brussels. Of these, about 10 go by car. The average total amount incurred in mission expenses is EUR 13 285 per part-session month.

The Council has, to date, received no reports of any road accidents involving its staff during such journeys.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that members of the Council Working Party on General Affairs also travel regularly from Brussels to European Parliament part-sessions in Strasbourg.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1647/99

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Airport damage to special protection area

Is the Commission aware that the proposal to extend the runway area at the City of Derry airport into Lough Foyle, with the European Union providing 75 % of the funding, will damage

a special protection area; is it aware of the economic appraisal on which the scheme is based; and what steps will it take to ensure no scheme receives EU funds if it is shown to be a threat to the environment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 1999)

The Commission is not aware that the proposal to extend a runway area into Lough Foyle will damage a special protection area (SPA), classified by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1).

The Commission is aware that an economic appraisal has been carried out but, under the principle of subsidiarity, assessment of the various elements contained therein rests with the national authority which in this case is the Department of environment in Northern Ireland.

The protection regime applying to the Lough Foyle SPA is defined in Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2). Therefore, any plan or project not directly connected to the management of this site but likely to have a significant effect on it must be subject to an appropriate environmental assessment in view of the site's conservation objectives.

Given that the Honourable Member has alleged that the proposal to develop the runway will damage a special protection area he is invited to submit further details on the nature and extent of the threat to the birds and their habitats so that the Commission will be able to fully investigate the matter with the United Kingdom authorities.

In relation to whether the scheme would receive Community funds, it is a requirement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 on the tasks of the structural funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European investment bank and the other existing financial instruments(3) that measures to be co-financed by the structural funds should be in conformity with Community environment policy.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(3) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2699/99

by Ole Krarup (EDD) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Purposes of the ECB's currency reserves

The Euro is a floating currency for which in relation to fixed currencies there is no need for intervention via buying or selling. The currency reserve the ECB is establishing on a decentralised basis via the national central banks therefore does not have the purpose of fixing the price of the Euro in relation to the US dollar for example.

The ECB annual report for 1998 advances a number of other functions for the currency reserve (page 74).

May it be assumed from this that, in addition to these functions, the only purpose of the currency reserve is to guarantee the financial standing of the ECB, or is there any reason to expect that parts of the currency reserve may also be used for non-conventional purposes, e.g. for financial equalisation between regions to offset an inadequate EU fiscal policy?

If the latter is not the case, can the Commission then confirm that the currency reserve will be used only for purposes which have already been announced in the Treaties or by the ECB?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The main objective of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) is to maintain stable prices. Whether the euro has fixed or floating exchange rates, variation in its external value could have an impact on inflation. The European Central Bank must be able to intervene on the exchange market, which means that it must hold exchange reserves.

Article 3(1) of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank specifies that, among others, the task of the European System of Central Banks is to conduct foreign exchange operations consistent with the provisions of Article 109 of the Treaty.

The Treaty does not make provision for the use of the reserve for non-conventional purposes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2811/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Legislation and regulation

The Union's legislative activity should not be confused with the measures it takes to regulate the implementation of legislation. The former should involve the adoption of framework laws under the procedures laid down in the Treaty. The latter should entail measures to amend the procedures and involve the national administrations as directly as possible, so as to spare Parliament excessive or undue effort and allow it instead to devote more time to the discussion and solution of problems more important than the length of asparagus, the flavour of lupins, the size of condoms or the workings of a stud gun.

Bearing in mind that Parliament is a political rather than a technical body:

1. Is the Commission aware of the bad name given to the institutions in the eyes of the public when the press carry stories about rules imposed by Brussels on matters of the kind described above involving three or four institutions?

2. Does it agree that attempts to regulate every last detail often have the effect of crippling business activity to the benefit of large companies, which are the only ones able to invest in meeting the new rules, while doing nothing to protect the public by ensuring product quality?

3. Does it not agree that such cases are increasingly alienating sections of the population from Europe, as they become less and less convinced of its purported desire to create unity and increasingly critical of its bureaucratic and centralising approach?

4. Will it put forward proposals to rectify this trend towards excessive legislation as part of the planned institutional reform?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the problems raised by the Honourable Member. They will be addressed in the White Paper on better governance to be presented by the Commission in 2001.

The Honourable Member is referred to the statements on this topic by the President of the Commission when he presented the Commission's five-year strategic objectives to Parliament on 15 February 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2717/99

by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Human rights violations in Iran

What is the Commission's general view on the latest human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2000)

The Commission follows with concern the human rights situation in Iran. It has taken an active part in Union action in this area, through demarches and in the Union-Iran comprehensive dialogue.

Although widespread human rights violations continue in Iran, there has been progress made in the last few years. One of the latest examples is the recent release of the German businessman, Mr Hofer, which the Commission warmly welcomes.

The Commission will continue to follow developments in Iran closely in areas of concern, in particular regarding human rights, issues of non-proliferation and Iran's attitude to the Middle East Peace Process.

In the light of these developments, and in the hope that they will be continued, the Commission would wish to see a gradually improving relationship with Iran. It will watch with particular attention the coming Majlis elections and any further policy development thereafter.