ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2217/99

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) and Paolo Costa (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Measures to assist Venice

On 16 April 1999 the European Parliament adopted the joint motion for a resolution (B4-0358, 0359, 0361, 0362 and 0363) on the crisis in Venice, which advocated the inclusion by the Commission, the Italian Government and the Veneto region, of the historic centre of Venice and its lagoon in the new Structural Fund Objective 2 in order to enable state aid to be granted by way of derogation from the rules on competition pursuant to Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. The Commission was also asked not to consider as state aid the tax concessions already granted by the Italian Government to businesses operating in Venice and the lagoon area, since these businesses could not compete on an equal footing with those on the mainland and in other European cities.

To what extent have the Commission and the Italian authorities followed up Parliament's requests in this regard within their respective areas of responsibility?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), the Commission and the Member State are jointly responsible for defining which areas are eligible under Objective 2 for 2000-2006. The list of eligible areas will depend on the priorities determined by the national authorities on the basis of the criteria in that Regulation. It will be adopted by the Commission, in agreement with the Member State, at the earliest by the end of 1999 or the beginning of 2000. The Commission will ensure that the areas selected are in fact those which are most affected by structural conversion problems.

In the specific case of Italy, the zoning proposal forwarded by the Italian authorities on 1 October 1999 was considered by the Commission to be inadmissible. It does not comply with the requirement that at least 50 % of the eligible population must be represented according to the criteria in Article 4(5) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. The Commission therefore asked the Italian authorities to draw up a new proposal in line with the general Structural Funds regulation as soon as possible.

The Commission is consequently unable to comment on Venice's particular situation as regards its eligibility under Objective 2.

Regarding the exemption from social security contributions granted to undertakings in Venice and Chioggia in 1995-97, at its meeting on 24 November 1999 the Commission, as part of a review procedure under Article 88(2) (former Article 93(2)) of the EC Treaty, found that the aid granted in the form of relief from social security contributions is compatible with the common market, with the exception of the aid for job creation granted to big firms outside an area eligible for regional aid or aid for safeguarding employment.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2514/99

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Siting, in a rural tourism area (Abarán, in the Murcia area of Spain), of a waste water purification plant financed by means of the EU's Leader II programme and the Spanish Government's Future programme

On 18 June 1999 the Commission approved, in Abarán (Murcia), a project for country holiday accommodation in the Cañada Hidalgo district, to be financed by means of the Leader II programme (file No B.B3.080, name of Trinidad González Maquilón, 1 370 096 pesetas' worth of funding to be provided).

There are also plans for a waste water purification plant (likewise to be financed by the EU) to be sited in the same area, less than 100 yards away from the abovementioned project. This is discouraging local residents from undertaking subsidised conversions of their homes to make them suitable for rural tourism.

In the same location, approval has been granted for short hiking trails funded by the Spanish Government's Future programme through the regional tourist board. They too are beneficiaries of EU funding.

1. Is the Commission aware of this contradictory situation?

2. What action is the Commission intending to take in order to sort out this matter?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2000)

The Commission was not aware of these projects funded under the Community Initiative Leader II in 1999 in the region of Murcia.

However, the facts related by the Honourable Member do merit the attention of the Commission.

The Commission is making enquiries of the Member State and will keep the Honourable Member informed about the result of this investigation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2631/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Granting of protected designation of origin to the cake known as Spongata tipica emiliana, produced in the provinces of Reggio Emilia and Parma

A traditional cake known as Spongata, made of honey, walnuts, flour and raisins, has been produced in the provinces of Reggio Emilia and Parma since Roman times. In the Middle Ages spices were added to the recipe. Proof of the cake's popularity can be found in a letter dating back to 1557 which said that, owing to a serious famine, production of the cake had been prohibited in Reggio Emilia that year.

This century, several producers of traditional Spongata cakes from Emilia-Romagna have won prizes in national and international competitions for the distinctive features and quality of their product.

This typical cake from Emilia-Romagna is appreciated, sold and eaten not only in Emilia-Romagna itself but also in other Italian regions and, recently, even abroad.

Even now the cake is produced in the provinces of Reggio Emilia and Parma by small, sometimes family-run firms, where it is made according to the ancient recipes and age-old tradition.

In the light of the above, does the Commission not believe that the traditional Spongata cake from Reggio and Parma should be protected in that it is a typical regional cake which has been made for centuries using traditional recipes and that it consequently meets all the requirements for being granted a protected designation of origin?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2000)

The Commission is not in a position to express a detailed opinion on the product mentioned by the Honourable Member without more precise information, in particular that provided for in the specification within the meaning of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1).

Those concerned need to apply to the Italian Ministry for Agricultural Policy for registration of a designation of origin or geographical indication within the meaning of the above-mentioned Regulation. The procedure is that if the Ministry considers that the application is justified and contains the necessary information, it forwards the complete file to the Commission for registration at Community level.

The Commission would point out that for the evaluation of certain products which are clearly distinguishable from other similar products, the regulation applicable is Regulation (EC) No 2082/92 on certificates of specific character, which refers to a specific and traditional method of production. The Commission will give due consideration to any application from a national authority for the registration of a designation of origin or certificate of specific character for the product in question

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2632/99

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Millennium-compliance of the Albanian aviation sector

Considerable thought has been given to the question of the millennium, which is a cause of concern to many. Now that there are fewer than thirty days to go, it appears that not all of Europe can make a safe transition to the new century.

Albania has still not submitted a report to the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) on the millennium compliance of airports in Albania. Clearly, not only the ICAO but the EU, too, has an interest in clear information on whether its neighbour is millennium-compliant.

On 24 November 1999 the Commission referred to negotiations with Albania and the political, institutional and economic problems involved.

1. Is the Commission aware of the possible risks to the Union from this situation in Albania with regard to the millennium question and aviation? Which of these risks does the Commission regard as most important?

2. How does the Commission envisage being able to limit the risks to EU citizens of an aviation system in the immediate vicinity of the European Union which is not millennium-compliant?

3. What role did the millennium question play in the Commission's conclusion (24 November 1999) that at present it is not possible to formulate an official proposal for negotiating guidelines on an agreement with Albania on stability and accession?

4. What action will the Commission take to obtain clarity on whether the Albanian aviation sector is millennium-compliant?

5. In the absence of any clarity on this from the Albanian side, is the Commission prepared to issue a warning not to fly to Albania or use Albanian airlines at the end of the year?

6. Given the special nature of these questions, can the Commission reply before 31 December 1999?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2000)

The purpose of the recent Commission report(1) mentioned by the Honourable Member was to assess the feasibility of negotiating a stablisation and association agreement with Albania. It identified important political, institutional and economic requirements for a successful participation of Albania in such perspective. It did not address the specific issue of the millenium bug in relation to Albania.

The Commission did not receive detailed information from the Albanian authorities on their preparedness for the millennium bug. However, landing and take-off at Tirana (Rinas) airport takes place visually and the lighting system at night does not operate by computer. At the current stage, there are only very few flights from Community airports to Tirana and during night hours the airport is normally closed. Check-in systems are compliant given that they are extensions of systems in Western Europe, Swissair being its main user. The air space is controlled by a system of SITA (Société international de télécommunications aérienne) and according to Eurocontrol and other relevant sources it is considered that there is no major risk.

(1) COM(99) 651 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2173/99

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Olive oil stocks

Following the review of olive oil stocks, stock levels in Italy are 50 % lower than initially forecast, and in Greece approximately 30 % lower.

What does the Commission consider to be the cause of this enormous shortfall? Does it intend to revise downwards the production levels forecast for both countries in the light of this development?

Since the reliability of statistics will be of prime importance in the forthcoming common organisation of the market, what are the measures the Commission has taken and intends to take in order to avoid recurrence of similar situations in the future and to ensure that the new rules are fair and do not discriminate against other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

In connection with the activities of the economic committee of the International Olive Oil Council (IOOC) the Council's member states notify a certain amount of statistical data, including data on carryover stocks.

The Community is a member of the IOOC and submits data relating to the Community.

The Honourable Member will be aware that from 1993/94 the Community had reservations regarding the IOOC's statistics. These reservations were motivated in part by the lack of reliability of the data on the Community's supply balance

At the 81st meeting of the IOOC the Community, after much work on the feasibility of the data, presented statistics which in its view most closely reflected the actual situation. This made it possible for it to lift its reservations regarding the IOOC data.

The review covered several marketing years and the supply balance statistics for the various producer Member States were adjusted where appropriate. Adjustments were also made to the Member States' data on consumption, stocks and production, which must be taken to mean marketed production. The quantity aided can be different because it also includes a quantity calculated for payment to small producers.

After carrying out this necessary exercise in the case of data relating to the past the Commission took steps to make all the data more reliable in future. The most important of these measures are: the design of an objective method for calculating the olive yields of trees, which will help to improve knowledge of production upstream; stepping up checks at mills, particularly by introducing automatic olive weighing; and checking the destination of the olive oil produced.

Lastly, working together with the producer Member States, the Commission is stepping up checks at all stages of the production chain and is making sure that the rules, concerning both the quantity of olive oil produced and its quality, are complied with.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2257/99

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Transport of donkeys

Would the Commission indicate the steps that they are taking to guarantee the humane transport of donkeys and other equine creatures both within the EU and between the Member Sates and third countries?

Evidence passed on to me by my constituents suggests that the conditions of transport continue to be unacceptable, with animals dying and suffering in cramped and inappropriate transport vehicles.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2000)

The Commission shares the view that unnecessary suffering of animals should be avoided. For this reason European legislation is under continuous revision taking into account the latest available scientific evidence on animal welfare.

Council Directive 91/628/EEC, amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 on the protection of animals during transport(1), laid down the requirements concerning transport duration, resting periods and feeding and watering of animals during transport.

The Member States are responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the rules on the protection of animal welfare in accordance with their national legislation implementing the directives. Appropriate controls and inspections to ensure correct respect of the rules should also be carried out by the authorities of the Member States.

The Commission's food and veterinary office (FVO) undertakes specific control and inspection missions to check that the Member States apply the Community legislation in an effective and uniform manner.

As for the future activities of the Commission in this field, a working group of the standing veterinary committee has recently been established to consider particular problems of the enforcement of the Directive in respect of long-distance transport operations. The Commission may consider amending current Community legislation on the basis of the conclusions of this working group.

The Commission is aware, following reports of the veterinary inspectorate of the food and veterinary office and from the complaints of various organisations, that enforcement of the Directive is inadequate in several Member States. Infringement proceedings are in the course of preparation.

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2734/99

by Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Italian law which discriminates against disabled persons over the age of 65

Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam states that the Union is to combat all discrimination based on age.

Is the Commission aware of the fact that Italian law (Article 19 of Law No 118 of 30 March 1971 and subsequent amendments) provides for the granting of a life-long financial benefit for citizens who are completely disabled and who apply for the benefit before the age of 65 but that the benefit is not payable to those who, despite meeting all the other conditions for eligibility, apply for the benefit after the age of 65? Is it aware of the fact that Italian old people, despite meeting all the disability conditions required by law, are discriminated against on the basis of their age when they apply for the benefit, a fact which has a life-long impact on whether or not they receive the benefit?

Does the Commission intend to ask Italy to repeal this law, as a matter of urgency?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2000)

The Commission has no legal basis to request a Member State to repeal such a measure. The organisation of social protection systems within the Member States is a national competence, provided that certain fundamental principles of Community law are respected. Community law does not, however, confer any right to equal treatment between different age groups.

On 25 November 1999, the Commission adopted a package of two legislative proposals and a programme to combat discrimination in the Community based on Article 13 (ex Article 6a) of the EC Treaty(1). These proposals must be accepted by the Council before they can take effect.

One of these initiatives is a horizontal directive to combat discrimination on grounds of disability or age. However, the scope of the proposal is limited to the field of employment and occupation. Therefore, social protection benefits are not covered by this proposal.

(1) COM(99) 564 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2857/99

by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Council

(19 January 2000)

Subject: World Conference on Education for All 1990

At the World Conference on Education for All in 1990, European Union governments committed themselves to universal primary education by 2000. It has been estimated that around 130 million children in the developing world still receive no primary education.

Is the Council still committed to universal primary education? If so, what is being done to fulfil the commitment?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

The commitment to which the Honourable Member refers was made at an intergovernmental world conference.

The Community institutions, and the Council in particular, therefore do not fall within that framework.

The question raised by the Honourable Member consequently lies outwith the Council's sphere of competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2845/99

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Restructuring of the European Community Humanitarian Office

The European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has seen various changes in its operational, political and administrative structure within the European Commission in recent years. Most recently, during the Commission's last term of office, it was under the responsibility of the Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Fisheries. Now it has been added to the responsibilities of the Commissioner for Development and Cooperation. In any case, both spheres (development and cooperation and humanitarian aid), as far as Parliament is concerned, have always been the competence of the Committee on Development and Cooperation.

According to some sources it has been mooted that competence for the humanitarian aid provided by ECHO may be assigned to the EU's High Representative for the common foreign and security policy (Mr CFSP).

The current operational structuring, which adds ECHO to the responsibilities of the Commissioner for Cooperation and Development, Mr Nielsen, was the result of a considered decision designed to give both departments greater coherence and unity of action. Hence, it is worrying that after such a short time another change is already on the cards, although there is no justification for it as regards either political responsibilities or improved coordination and greater efficiency in the management of the budget.

Does the Commissioner for Development and Cooperation have any information on the subject?

What does he think about the possibility of further restructuring and what would be the justification for it?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The Commission has no knowledge of the sources referred to by the Honourable Member according to which there are plans for assigning responsibility for the humanitarian aid granted by the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) to the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy.

There has never been any question of handing over the management of humanitarian aid to the Council. As it indicated in its recent communication to the Council and Parliament(1), the Commission wishes to maintain and further improve the quality of the humanitarian aid which it provides through ECHO and has no plans for restructuring of the sort referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is very conscious of the advantage of having brought the two portfolios Development cooperation and Humanitarian aid together under one Member of the Commission. It is envisaged that the communication on linking relief, rehabilitation and development planned for presentation in July 2000 will underline the advantage of a closer relationship between the two portfolios.

(1) COM(99) 468 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2597/99

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: EU Youth Programme

The Commission has submitted a proposal for a new EU Youth Programme, to be launched at the beginning of 2000. The proposed programme relates mainly to young people in the 15-25 age bracket, and combines the activities of the youth programmes which finish at the end of 1999, Youth for Europe and European Voluntary Service for Young People. Parliament proposed a budget of EUR 980 million for the 7-year programme at second reading. The Council has not approved Parliament's opinion and does not intend to begin the conciliation procedure this year. That being so, the decision on the programme will not be taken in time before the end of the year.

How does the Commission propose to ensure the continuation of the EU's youth programmes after the current programmes finish at the end of 1999 and when the new programme has not yet been launched?

How does the Commission propose to prevent the proposed programme being dropped and to encourage the rapid taking of a decision on the programme?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

At this stage, the Council and Parliament have not yet reached a final compromise concerning the Youth programme. The first meeting of the Conciliation Committee was held on 27 January 2000, under the Portuguese Presidency. The Commission is confident that the new programme will be adopted. In so far as the conciliation procedure is to be concluded during the first quarter of the year 2000, all possible steps have been taken to ensure that the programme continues.