ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0525/99

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(8 March 1999)

Subject: Fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union

At its June 1998 part-session the European Parliament debated and adopted the own-initiative report on the fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union (A4-0137/98)(1), in the conclusions to which, inter alia, it called on the Commission "to put forward proposals to the Council and Parliament to include a special plan of action and an overall support framework for the fish product canning industry, taking account of the present structural policy and the new regional policy guidelines for the period 2000-2006, the principles of which are being debated at the moment, and that will aim to provide the necessary financial support to secure a Community canning sector that is competitive in a global economy".

Can the Commission say what measures it has taken with a view to putting forward the proposals requested by Parliament?

(1) OJ C 210, 6.7.1998, p. 295.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0369/99

by Reinhard Rack (PPE) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Progress of candidates for EU accession: Slovenia

In the assessment, carried out before the Vienna summit, of the progress achieved by the candidate countries, criticism was levelled against Slovenia in particular for a lack of willingness to adapt to the acquis communautaire on decisive points such as the acquisition of property by EU citizens. Has any further progress been made on these points, and have all objections to the entry into force of the EU-Slovenia association agreement thus been eliminated?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 1999)

The Slovene government adopted in January 1999 a decision for accelerating the legislative alignment with the Community acquis, including a timetable of priority measures requiring fast-track adoption. The situation of Slovenia's preparations for membership will continue to be reviewed at the end of each year in the Commission's regular report.

As regards the right of Community citizens to purchase property in Slovenia, the Member States asked to add a special annex at the time of the signature of the Europe Agreement with Slovenia (10 June 1996).

In this Annex XIII, the government of Slovenia commits itself to:

- take the measures necessary to allow the citizens of the Member States of the European Union, on a reciprocal basis, the right to purchase property in Slovenia on a non-discriminatory basis by the end of the fourth year from the entry into force of the Association Agreement;

- grant the citizens of the EU Member States, having permanently resided on the present territory of the Republic of Slovenia for a period of three years, on a reciprocal basis, the right to purchase property from the entry into force of the Association Agreement.

A law defining the concept of reciprocity for Union citizens wishing to purchase property was adopted on 4 February 1999, four days after the entry into force of the Europe Agreement. Administrative guidelines have also been issued by the Slovene government to provide instructions to the local administration.

Some applications from Union citizens to purchase property in Slovenia were submitted to the local authorities immediately after the entry into force of the Europe Agreement. The government confirmed that all legislative and administrative requirements were in place. The Commission is now monitoring the effective implementation of Annex XIII.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0845/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Subject: Substandard work in performance of Greek public contracts

Two quarterly reports were recently published for the first half of 1998 by the Special Council for Quality Control (ESPEL) of public works concerning substandard work in the performance of public contracts for construction projects being carried out under the CSF for Greece. The percentage of substandard work (i.e. not meeting specifications) fluctuated between 25 % and 95 %; the resulting uproar then prompted the Greek authorities into promising measures to bring the quality up to standard.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Have there been any further reports by ESPEL since then and, if so, does the work still fall short of specifications and by what percentage?

2. Have the Greek authorities in fact taken the measures promised to remedy the substandard work and, if so, does the Commission consider those measures to be sufficient and satisfactory or not?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1999)

On the basis of the information communicated by the Greek authorities, the Commission can provide the following information.

1. Between July 1998 and January 1999, ESPEL continued to submit monthly activity reports. Of 210 projects checked systematically and in depth during this period:

- 94 are in order or present minor deficiencies which will be corrected by the contractors (1st category);

- 110 suffer from major deficiencies which do not have any effect on safety but will involve higher maintenance costs; these will be deducted from the payments to the contractors concerned (2nd category);

- 6 suffer from serious deficiencies which cannot be corrected and will have to be rebuilt by the contractors at their own expense (3rd category).

2. As it had promised, the Ministry for Economic Affairs (MEN) forwards all the individual ESPEL reports which reveal defective quality to the public departments responsible for administering the projects concerned, asking them to take the action provided for by law.

Moreover, for projects in the 2nd and 3rd categories mentioned above, MEN also transmits the file to the public works inspectorate so that it can monitor the follow-up by the administrative departments. Lastly, for projects in the 3rd category, MEN automatically transmits the file to the public prosecutor.

The Commission considers that the above measures are steps in the right direction and it will in any case continue to follow the progress of this matter closely.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(4 October 1999)
The Commission agrees that more sustainable forms of agriculture, such as organic farming, should be
promoted. In the Baden/Vienna organic conference of May 1999, the Commission made a commitment tocontinue and where necessary increase its efforts to stimulate the development of the organic sector.
The reform of the common agricultural policy in Agenda 2000 in many ways provides important building
blocks for further development of this sector. In particular, several measures of Council Regulation (EC)1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European agricultural guidanceand guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (
1), (e.g. investment, agri-
environment and processing and marketing) can be targeted to promote organic farming. Already in thepast, all Member States have used the possibility to promote organic farming through payments forenvironmental services within their agri-environment programmes. The new requirement for the Member
States to produce integrated rural development programmes, will further facilitate the introduction of
marketing measures and other measures which will contribute to a balanced and sustainable organicsector.
The Commission has introduced a legal framework for organic production by which definition of the
production method and inspection are harmonised for the Member States. Recently this legal frameworkwas expanded to include animal production and soon a Community logo for organic products will beintroduced.
A tiered approach to environmental programmes, as suggested by the Honourable Member, is already
pursued in the United Kingdom under the current programme period and may continue in the future.
(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(2000/C 27 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1552/99
by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: European Commission Task Force on Vitamins and Minerals
The European Commission has asked its Scientific Committee for Foods to set up a new Task Force to
look at the safety of vitamins and minerals. Will the Commission publish the membership list of the Task
Force and its detailed terms of reference?
(2000/C 27 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1593/99
by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Task force on vitamins and minerals
Can the Commission indicate whether it has asked the Scientific Committee for Foods to set up a task
force to look into the safety of vitamins and minerals and with what remit?
If such a task force has already been established, who are its members? If no members have yet been
named, on what basis is recruitment planned?C 27 E/128 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0155/99

by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Red squirrels and Warfarin

Can the Commission indicate whether it has any intention of banning the use of the substance marketed as "Warfarin"? This has proved to be one of the most effective instruments in reducing the number of grey squirrels within the United Kingdom and may therefore prove to be a useful means of conserving the dwindling red squirrel population. As there may well be no satisfactory poison of a similar potency available, a ban would have serious consequences.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 1999)

As pesticide used to protect plants and plant products, the active substance warfarin is currently under evaluation as an active substance used in rodenticides in the framework of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing on the market of plant protection products(1).

One of the uses for which warfarin is authorised is to control the grey squirrel population in order to protect trees. This use aspect has been taken into account during the evaluation and decision making on warfarin. A final decision is expected before summer 1999.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0815/99

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: VAT

What is the Commission's view of the anti-avoidance legislation being implemented in the UK? Does it run counter to the philosophy and basis of VAT?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 1999)

The anti-avoidance measures recently announced in the British budget statement relate to specific problems of avoidance and abuse in the British value added tax system. On the basis of the information so far provided to the Commission, the measures do not appear to affect the basis of the tax or its underlying philosophies of equity and neutrality. This initial position is of course subject to review once the legislative process in the United Kingdom has been finalised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0495/99

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Welfare of animals at slaughter

In reply to my Written Question of 10 July 1998 on this matter (E-2088/98)(1) the Commission stated that it was the intention of the Commission "in the near future" to submit two reports, one to the Council and one to the Standing Veterinary Committee, on a variety of matters which could improve the welfare of animals at slaughter.

In particular the Commission stated that it is "the intention of the Commission to include in the proposal a requirement that animals which have been stunned must be bled by incising both carotid arteries or the vessels from which they arise in order to produce a rapid bleed-out and death, and in addition provisions laying down minimum stunning currents for the various species concerned."

When does the Commission intend to submit the reports and proposals referred to in their earlier answer?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 1999)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that since its answer to his written question E-2088/98 the scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare has given an opinion(2) on the use of gases (carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen) to stun or kill poultry. This opinion will be taken into account in the proposal, which the Commission intends to present shortly.

(1) OJ C 13, 13.1.1999, p. 146.

(2) XXIV/B3/AHAW/RO4/1998 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0500/99

by Niels Sindal (PSE) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Housing fair

Sweden, Denmark and their two governments are planning to hold a housing fair in Malmö, Sweden, in 2001. The project has the backing of Europe's housing ministers, who have called on the Commission to support the fair so as to help create a European construction market and boost employment in Europe. The fair also has a cultural dimension, as one of its centrepieces is the "European City" stand, where every country in Europe is to erect a house reflecting its own ideal. Many people throughout the EU have put a great deal of effort into ensuring that the project goes ahead. However, despite repeated inquiries, the Commission has still not stated clearly whether it will support the project.

Will the Commission therefore say whether it is prepared to support the European housing fair which is to be held in Malmö in 2001?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-0372/99 and E-0500/99 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 1999)

The Commission shares the view that the European housing exhibition could be useful in the process of establishing a common market for the construction sector that will also contribute to employment in Europe. The holding of the exhibition is therefore welcomed and could be regarded as an important project with a European dimension. The Commission supports the exhibition, as already stated in a letter to the Swedish minister of the Interior in September 1997 and in several meetings with the organisers, and has offered its patronage. The use of the European emblem in association with the project has previously been clarified with the Commission.

The preparations for the exhibition, and especially the European village, are well under way and the Commission is working in close collaboration with the organisers, particularly in relation to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products(1).

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0921/99

by Roberto Mezzaroma (PPE) to the Commission

(8 April 1999)

Subject: Plans for the development of Anzio and Nettuno

Will the Commission please say whether there are plans for revitalising the areas around Anzio and Nettuno (Lazio Region, Italy) via objectives or programmes to restore development opportunities to areas that are perfectly suited to the growth of SMEs and tourism?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 1999)

The Commission has proposed reducing the number of priority Objectives for structural funding to three for the period 2000-2006.

In the case of Objective 1, which promotes the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind, eligible NUTS II regions will be those whose gross domestic product (GDP) per person, measured in purchasing power parities and calculated on the basis of the three most recent years available, is less than 75 % of the Community average. Using the data for 1994, 1995 and 1996, the Latium region's GDP per person amounts to 113,3 % of the Community average. No area in Latium is thus eligible under Objective 1.

The Commission has also proposed a new Objective 2, to support economic and social conversion in areas facing structural difficulties. This Objective will cover areas undergoing socio-economic change in industry and services, rural areas in decline, urban areas in difficulty and depressed areas dependent on fisheries. The Commission will draw up a list of areas eligible for this Objective in the second half of 1999, in close collaboration with the Member State concerned. It is not yet possible to predict whether Anzio or Nettuno will be eligible for Objective 2.

Latium will qualify for Objective 3 of the Structural Funds, which supports the adjustment and modernisation of training and unemployment policies and systems in all regions not covered by Objective 1, through assistance targeted in particular towards small and medium-sized enterprises and tourism.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0656/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(26 March 1999)

Subject: Closure of Parliament on account of a European farmers' demonstration

Prompted by the demonstration due to be staged in Brussels on Monday, 22 February 1999, in which farmers from all over Europe were intent on taking to the streets to protest against milk quotas, the Secretary-General of Parliament, Julian Priestley, issued a notice in which he informed staff that Parliament's offices would be closed, institutional business would cease, and the entire city of Brussels would be without public transport services and in effect under siege.

Given that, by staging demonstrations, farmers are exercising their democratic rights, as they are entitled to do as citizens of the Union and, moreover, representatives of a major occupational group, and that a similar demonstration in Strasbourg on 10 February 1999 passed off without incident, can the Commission say:

1. whether it considers that the above measures were an exaggerated response and infringed the right of EU citizens to speak out and protest;

2. whether it considers that the measures were intended to thwart debate and joint discussion of farmers' problems;

3. whether it considers that the decision in question warrants a reprimand?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-605/99(1).

(1) OJ C 325, 12.11.1999, p. 124.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0312/99

by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: European Training Foundation and missing EU funds - continued

Reply E-3560/98(1) by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission left several questions unanswered. The member undersigned therefore wishes to put the following questions to the Commission:

How much of the ECU 471 000 mentioned in the above reply has the Commission now recovered?

How much money did the Commission transfer to this Franco-Polish project between September 1996 and January 1997?

How much money has the Commission managed to recover by selling materials supplied to the project?

How much money does the Commission yet hope to receive, and when?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 1999)

The Franco-Polish School has reimbursed the sum of [fmxeuro]264 538 to the Commission.

Between September 1996 and January 1997, two payments were made to the Franco-Polish School for an amount of [fmxeuro]143 125 ([fmxeuro]69 450 on 17 September 1996 and [fmxeuro]73 675 on 13 December 1996).

In a letter dated 11 February 1999, the liquidator made an initial proposal to the Commission - via the Turin Foundation - that the equipment relating to project JEP 09742-97 should be put on sale. He proposes accepting the amount of PLN 5 000 (approximately [fmxeuro]1 208), which is the price in the highest bid received following the invitation to tender. The Commission is currently examining the liquidator's proposal.

The Commission is unfortunately unable to inform the Honourable Member of an amount, even an approximate one, because the liquidation procedure is still in progress. It will ensure that the Community's interests are upheld as well as possible in order to recover the maximum amount.

(1) OJ C 289, 11.10.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0627/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Community funds and "Sviluppo Italia"

As is widely known, Legislative Decree 1/99 provides for the setting up of a holding company, Sviluppo Italia, and the transfer thereto of Government shares in companies that are already operational in order to create a single group with the aims laid down in Article 1 of that decree. The legislative decree also provides for the subdivision of activities into "development services" and "financial services", for which two companies controlled by Sviluppo Italia will be responsible.

Public funds of Community origin, intended specifically for the "financing" of business promotion programmes and for depressed areas, are being used as start-up (risk) capital and operational funding by a single entity which, though formally private (incorporated as a public limited company - S.p.A), is actually under Government control, and there is a possibility of the funds being used for purposes other than those laid down for them.

Given that no distinction is drawn in accounting terms between activities conducted to satisfy public interest requirements and business activities, Sviluppo Italia's operating companies will be in a dominant position on the development services and financial services market.

The Sviluppo Italia group is incorporated under private law and therefore does not offer the safeguards and guarantees of a body established under public law.

Could the Commission state whether the above arrangements conflict with Community rules on Structural Funds, State aids and competition?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 1999)

The technical means chosen by a Member State to manage the structural funds are under the competence of the Member State itself. Therefore, the choice to merge all the Member State's holdings in a single company, constituted as a joint stock company, is not relevant under Community state aid rules.

The EC Treaty does not prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership (see Article 222). In this sense, the creation, by a Member State, of a holding in the form of joint stock company operating on the market does not, per se, infringe Community competition rules.

In any case, the competitive activities possibly performed by Sviluppo Italia will be subject to the Community competition rules, and in particular to those regarding state aid.