ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2701/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Estonia

1. What is the Commission's estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support policies were extended to Estonia on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2690/00, E-2691/00, E-2695/00, E-2699/00, E-2700/00 and E-2701/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

To estimate the extra annual cost of agricultural support resulting from the accession to the Community of Poland, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia and Estonia it would be necessary to know with a reasonable degree of certainty the date, the terms and conditions of the accession of these countries to the Community. These aspects will have to be defined in the accession negotiations with these countries, the agricultural chapter of which was opened for negotiation in June 2000. Consequently, any cost estimate made on the basis of assumptions indicated by the Honourable Member would necessarily be of a hypothetical, speculative and uncertain nature. At the present state of the negotiating process the Commission is, therefore, not in a position to answer the questions asked by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3480/00

by Rosemarie Müller (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: European Year of Languages deadlines for applications for project subsidies

On 8 September 2000 the Official Journal published details of the programme for the European Year of Languages. Applications for subsidies for projects scheduled before 30 June 2001 had to be submitted by 2 October 2000. Fifteen working days remained therefore in which to request the application forms and necessary information from the national coordinators, complete those forms submit them on time. Such a short deadline is unacceptable in my view. Small organisations in particular operating with few and often voluntary staff are clearly at a disadvantage here. Was the purpose of this short deadline to keep the number of applications to a minimum? Does the Commission consider such a short deadline acceptable? How can such short deadlines be explained to members of the public?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the Decision of the Parliament and the Council on the European Year of Languages was adopted on 17 July 2000 and published in the Official Journal on 14 September 2000(1). The proposal for a Decision had been adopted by the Commission on 13 October 1999(2).

The call for proposals was therefore published as quickly as possible. The Commission plans to fund a total of 150 projects, and the deadlines set for submission of applications are 2 October 2000 and 15 February 2001.

Although the Commission was aware that the deadline of 2 October 2000 left relatively little time to prepare projects, it nevertheless had to set this date to allow funding for projects beginning during the first half of next year. Despite this tight time-frame, the Commission received 250 project proposals.

The Commission would also point out that a second deadline for submission of applications is planned for 15 February 2001 for projects beginning from 1 June 2001.

(1) Decision No 1934/2000/EC (OJ L 232, 14.9.2000).

(2) COM(1999) 485 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Reform of the support system in the rice sector

The Commission has submitted a reform proposal to amend the rules governing the system of support for growers of seeds, including rice.

Italy is Europe's leading rice producer and is therefore extremely interested in the changes involved in this reform.

The reform could create difficulties for Italy by cutting back production and thus creating unemployment in the sector, since there are plans to reduce the surface area cultivated by 10 %, to abolish withdrawal of unsold produce in favour of a premium per hectare cultivated and to replace intervention prices with the possible introduction of a new tariff for imports enjoying special terms.

Given that abandoning rice production would lead to unemployment, adverse effects on related industries and, in particular an environmental disaster (unless the waters are controlled, marshes and flooding will return) and bearing in mind that price intervention to introduce new tariffs has been rejected by the United States with a possible complaint to the WTO pending:

The Commission:

1. Will it say what progress has been made with the reform process?

2. What is the situation in the other Member States?

3. Will it explain what form a future complaint to the WTO by the United States might take?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

After closely examining all the possible options, the Commission has concluded that integrating the rice sector into the arable crop system and abolishing the intervention price will enable a balance to be achieved between supply and demand while still safeguarding rice growers' income.

The proposed changes are expected to make Community rice more competitive and the market more fluid.

As regards environmental impact, the proposed measures are intended to guarantee that rice cultivation continues in areas where it is important to manage water carefully in order to protect specific environmental features. The 10 % reduction in acreage will be of limited significance, since it does not apply to small producers.

The proposal on reforming the market organisation was sent to the Council on 7 June 2000. Meetings with the Council Working Party on arable crops and rice have since been held (during July and September) in order to examine the proposed measures.

To the Commission's knowledge, the United States has not taken a stance in respect of the Commission proposal on reforming the market organisation for rice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2341/00

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Eligibility criteria for the PHARE Business Support Programme

Could the Commission provide information regarding the criteria which have been used as a basis for assessing the projects submitted under the PHARE Business Support Programme? Which projects have been selected and what sectors do they represent?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2340/00 and E-2341/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The PHARE business support programme (BSP) was designed to strengthen the capacity of sectoral and horizontal business representative organisations in the ten Central and Eastern European Candidate countries to assist enterprises in these countries to prepare for accession, not least regarding their compliance with the internal market acquis.

Two calls for proposals were thus published under the BSP in June 1999 with the aim of co-financing two-year projects, carried out in partnership and twinning between Community and Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) organisations. The first call Strengthening of business support organisations in the CEEC has a total amount of 14 million for projects between 0,5 million and 2 million. The second call Strengthening the activities of business support organisations in helping the CEEC companies adjust to the Community acquis has a total amount of 8 million for projects between 0,5 million and 1 million. By the deadline for both calls on 15 October 1999 the Commission had received 98 proposals of which 55 were for call No 1 and 43 for call No 2.

The evaluation of eligible projects was carried out against scores for a set of detailed criteria established on the basis of the selection criteria published in the call for proposals. The project in question obtained 802 points out of a maximum of 1 500 and projects scoring less than 965 points could not be considered for financing. The Commission will forward these criteria direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The result of the evaluation was that 17 projects could be selected for financing (nine projects under call No 1 and eight projects under call No 2) of which seven organisations succeeded in obtaining support for projects in the areas of both calls for proposals. The activities or sectors covered by the projects are: chamber of commerce; small and medium sized craft enterprises; the furniture and wood industry; producers co-operatives, social enterprises and participative enterprises; the chemical industry; the food and drink industry; the steel industry; the textile and clothing industry; the business machine and information technology industry and animal production.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3125/00

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Regulatory directive to combat the availability of pornography on subscription channels

Can the Commission state which Member States allow hard core pornography on domestic and satellite subscription channels and what proposals there are for a regulatory directive in this area?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

The television without frontiers Directive (Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities(1) as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997(2)) provides the legal framework for television broadcasting within the Community.

The Commission is aware of the possible effects that pornographic material may have on minors. As regards the distribution by television of audio-visual material, the Directive establishes a common minimum standard for the protection of minors (Article 22) and requires Member States to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular those that involve pornography or gratuitous violence.

In respect of the specific issue of the protection of minors and human dignity, the Commission is preparing a report for the Parliament and the Council on measures taken by the Member States in applying the Council Recommendation 98/560/EC of 24 September 1998 on the development of the competitiveness of the European audio-visual and information services industry by promoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection of minors and human dignity(3). A detailed questionnaire was recently transmitted to the Member States with a view to the preparation of the report.

The implementation and application of Community law is of great importance to the Commission. Measures have been taken on a number of occasions, in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 22 of the Directive, and the Commission has, as provided by the Directive, fulfilled its obligations as regards the assessment of those measures.

A directive in this area at Community level could only be considered if the establishment and functioning of the internal market called for the approximation of the provisions currently applied by the Member States in this field. The Commission is not aware of any circumstances calling for such action, but would be interested in any further information that could be supplied.

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.

(2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.

(3) OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3375/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Anti-Semite violence in Europe; fire in the Trappes synagogue in France

The wave of anti-Semitism sweeping through France, where the synagogue in Trappes, near Paris, was set on fire, is extremely worrying. This attack, and the aggression displayed towards a group of children, are the most alarming in a series of acts of violence perpetrated on European citizens of the Jewish faith.

In other European Union countries too, Jewish communities continue to be the target of attacks endangering the safety of their members. To make the atmosphere even more tense, there are statements such as those by former Italian Council premier, Massimo D'Alema, who in speaking of the ferocity of Israeli citizens helps to stoke anti-Semite feeling within the EU.

What initiatives does the Council intend to take to combat these crimes and to check this ominous phenomenon?

Does the Council not consider that it should condemn all anti-Jewish statements by politicians in the Member States?

Reply

(20/21 December 2000)

1. The Council condemns the acts of violence mentioned in the written question.

2. The Council draws the Honourable Member's attention to the reply given to Written Question E-3089/00 concerning an attack on a Jewish teacher by a group of neo-Nazi skinheads.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3467/00

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Subject: Legal levels of swine fever compensation

The Eastern Region of the United Kingdom is currently suffering a prolonged bout of Classical Swine Fever (CSF). Pig producers with unaffected holdings within a certain range of an affected holding are in what is known as an exclusion zone and are unable to market their pigs. When these stationary animals become too large, they must be slaughtered on animal welfare grounds, with compensation available for producers forced to take such action.

Can the Commission verify the statement made by a Commission official, Joachim Heine, to Robert Sturdy, MEP, that the Commission could approve any UK proposal to compensate producers for an amount up to the market value of each pig slaughtered on animal welfare grounds within the exclusion zone?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

For the kind of measure addressed by the Honourable Member, state aid has to be assessed under section 11.4 of the Community guidelines for state aid in the agriculture sector(1). This section lays down the conditions for an aid for combating animal and plant health diseases to be compatible with these guidelines and with Article 87(3)(c) (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty. According to these rules, and subject to all other requirements being fulfilled, compensation may be granted up to the normal value of animals slaughtered. Overcompensation of the losses should, however, be excluded.

On 18 October 2000, the Commission approved the United Kingdom Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme (state aid NN 95/2000). It appeared from the analysis of the notification submitted by the British authorities that the aid scheme fulfilled all the conditions described above and that it could benefit from the derogation provided in Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. As far as the compensation for the value of pigs slaughtered on animal welfare grounds within the exclusion zone is concerned, the Commission authorized flat rate compensations for pig producers of GBP 10 per pig for pigs in batches averaging 45 kilogram (kg) or less (liveweight), of GBP 30 per pig for pigs averaging between 46 kg and 100 kg per batch, and of GBP 50 per pig in batches averaging over 100 kg per batch. These are the rates for which the British authorities had sought approval.

(1) OJ C 28, 1.2.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2569/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Support for drug addicts living on the street to persuade them to seek treatment

In many European countries drug addicts can been seen living on the street in company with one or more dogs. The reason why these homeless drug addicts have dogs can apparently be traced back to the law on animal protection. I have heard that in some Member States that law stipulates that the authorities must look after and seek a home for ownerless dogs. This in turn reduces the likelihood of the authorities intervening in the lives of drug addicts living on the street, for example in order to persuade them to seek treatment, since the outcome would be that dozens of neglected, ownerless dogs would be left on the street and, pursuant to the law on animal protection, would have to be cared for by the authorities.

Is this correct? If so, what steps does the Commission plan to take in order to ensure that the law on animal protection does not preclude the provision of support for drug addicts to persuade them to seek treatment? If the law on animal protection does not in itself rule out the provision of such support, are there practical obstacles to efforts to resolve the problems of the homeless?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2000)

As the Honourable Member has noticed, some homeless drug addicts have dogs. Dogs may be kept for security reasons or for company.

The Commission is unaware of any cases where the law on animal protection has prevented drug addicts from seeking treatment or reduced the likelihood of the authorities to intervene in the lives of drug addicts living on the street. Even though caring for the addict's pets while in treatment may be problematic in some cases, this has not been reported as an obstacle for seeking or receiving treatment or other support in any Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3285/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Gianfranco Fini (UEN) to the Council

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Combating paedophilia

The increasingly serious and alarming problem of paedophilia is exacerbated by the Internet, which is not yet subject to any rules to ensure it is used properly.

It has emerged that yet another pornographic website, namely www.unioneuropea.com, is using an official name.

What action does the Council intend to take to prevent the fraudulent use of official EU website names?

How can minors be protected if criminal organisations use official EU names to publish pornography, including child pornography?

Does the Council agree that it would be appropriate for the EU institutions' e-mail to incorporate a message stressing the EU's commitment to preventing the promotion of paedophilia via the Internet?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3285/00 and P-3312/00

(20/21 December 2000)

As already stated in replies to previous questions on the subject(1), combating the sexual exploitation of children, and in particular child pornography on the Internet, is a matter of great importance to the Council, as confirmed by its adoption of a Decision on 29 May 2000 to combat child pornography on the Internet(2).

That Decision is the result of an initiative by Austria, and aims to combat the production, processing, distribution and possession of child pornography material and promote the effective investigation and prosecution of offences in this area.

The Honourable Member will note that when adopting that Decision, the Council made the following statement:

The Council welcomes the opinion of the European Parliament, published as Legislative Resolution on the initiative of the Republic of Austria with a view to adopting a Council Decision to combat child pornography on the Internet. In addition to the amendments which have been incorporated by the Council in the Decision, the opinion raises a number of important issues relating to substantive criminal law and criminal procedure. The Council, mindful of the urgency to take immediate measures against child pornography on the Internet, declares its willingness to examine such questions in the light of the Joint Action 97/154/JHA of 24 February 1997 and on the basis of proposals which are expected in the future.

(1) See in particular the reply to Oral Question No H-0654/00 on illicit use of the internet, put to the Council by Brian Crowley.

(2) OJ L 138, 9.6.2000, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3462/00

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: High tension power line on Mount Riaño (Castille and Leon, Spain)

The high tension power line planned for Mount Riaño, in the Picos de Europa regional park, may clash with various nature protection provisions covering regional parks, special conservation areas (Natura 2000 Network), special bird protection zones (Directive 79/409/EEC) and the brown bear recovery plan area.

Is the Commission aware of the high tension line scheme?

What can it do to ensure that Directives 92/43/EEC(1), 79/409/EEC(2) and 85/337/EEC(3) are properly implemented in this connection?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2000)

The Commission is aware of the scheme the Honourable Member describes. A recent complaint on the matter has been registered and is being looked at.

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take the necessary measures to ensure that Directives 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC,(1) are complied with in this instance.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2973/00

by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 September 2000)

Subject: Use of European Social Fund monies for a German Federal Government youth work programme in East Germany

In connection with a German Federal Government decision to make available DM 75 million for youth work in East Germany (Work and Skills Initiative against Racism and Xenophobia), and in view of the fact that the lion's share of that amount is made up of European Social Fund monies,

does the Commission have knowledge of:

- the associated programme of measures,

- the initiatives to be assisted and what they involve,

- the criteria for allocating funding for individual measures and initiatives?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

Based on the Community support framework (CSF) for structural interventions in the German objective 1 regions and on the objective 3 single programming document, the Commission requested the German authorities to use European social fund (ESF) assistance to be provided for the 2000-2006 planning period for actions to combat racism and xenophobia in relation to the labour market.

Following this request the German authorities are at present preparing ESF assisted actions to be implemented under the above youth work programme in both the Eastern and Western parts of Germany in three areas: the ESF mainstream policy field Society without exclusion; the ESF mainstream policy field Local capital for social purposes; and the thematic field of action Combating racism and xenophobia in relation to the labour market under the Community initiative programme EQUAL.

The German authorities have let the Commission know that ESF assistance amounting to a maximum of DM 25 million per annum is likely to be earmarked for action in these fields under the objective 1 operational programme (ESF) which has still to be agreed, and under the objective 3 single programming document. Practical arrangements concerning action to be taken and criteria for allocating ESF-funding in the three above-mentioned areas are being prepared by the German authorities.