ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0570/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Extension of qualified majority voting

Will the Council please indicate which Member States proposed an extension of qualified majority voting and in which areas during the last two Intergovernmental Conferences, which were agreed and which Member States were opposed to such extension?

Reply

(10 July 2000)

The Council would like to remind the Honourable Member that the Intergovernmental Conference is a temporary forum, composed of representatives of the Governments of the Member States and separate from the Council.

The Council is not, therefore, entitled to answer questions relating to the proceedings of the IGC or positions adopted by the Member States in the IGC.

As the Honourable Member will be aware, extension of qualified majority voting is a recurrent topic of discussion at Intergovernmental Conferences and is making headway as the Treaties evolve. With regard to the progress made in Maastricht, the Council would refer to a study carried out by the European Parliament Secretariat (Directorate-General for Research, Political and Institutional Affairs Division) in January 1996. As regards the progress made in Amsterdam, the Council would point out that it was agreed that meetings of the Preparatory Group of representatives of the Governments of the Member States should be attended by two Members of the European Parliament, as observers, who could voice the European Parliament's views on all issues under discussion and who would receive the relevant documentation. This was also intended to keep Members of the European Parliament better informed about the course of proceedings and the actual results achieved.

For the current IGC, the same arrangements apply. The Honourable Member is therefore sure to be informed of progress at the Conference, and particularly of positions stated on extension of qualified majority voting, by the European Parliament observers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1226/00

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Environment

The Commission recently proposed a system of emissions trading amongst the different Member States to facilitate, and reduce the cost of, compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, under which current emission levels are to be brought down by 8 % over the period 2008-2012. The proposal refers to net emissions of the gases in question throughout.

Does the Commission not believe that it would be more appropriate to adjust these values to emissions per unit produced, thereby making our undertakings more competitive in environmental terms and directly encouraging research into, and the development of, more environmentally friendly production techniques?

What measures does it intend to take to dissuade our industry from relocating to countries with more flexible legislation in this area?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2000)

The Commission does not believe that it would be more appropriate to use emissions per unit produced as a basis for meeting its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Most basically, this is because the Kyoto Protocol's targets are absolute targets, and the Community's emissions of greenhouse gases must therefore be reduced in absolute terms if its international commitments are to be honoured.

With regard to the possible relocation of industry outside the Community, it is to be noted that all the Community's major industrialised competitors undertook emission reduction targets, the achievement of which will also require policies to be put in place. It is likely, therefore, that companies located in other industrialised countries will have to make efforts comparable with the efforts required of Community companies.

With regard to the possible relocation of industry to developing countries that do not have targets to meet under the Kyoto Protocol, it is the Commission's opinion that decisions on relocation depend upon a multitude of factors, of which environmental criteria is only one. However, in the longer term, it is to be expected that efforts to contain emissions will also have to be taken by developing countries if the objectives of the Climate Change Framework Convention are to be met.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1154/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

The existing procedures for adapting legislation to technical and scientific progress are not always satisfactory (sections 82 and 83). The procedures are often cumbersome, different committees are involved, different modalities apply and official support is limited and fragmented.

Better coordination is needed to ensure that food safety issues are adequately tackled. This could be done by having a single regulatory procedure for delegated legislation, a single management procedure for adopting individual decisions and a single emergency procedure for all urgent matters of food safety.

With a view to improving coordination of food safety, will the Commission concentrate responsibilities for delegated legislation, the management procedure and the emergency procedure in the Health and Consumer Protection DG? If not, why not? If so, (a) in what way and by what date will the Commission achieve this concentration and (b) in what respect will the recent decision on commitology change the division of powers between the Commission and the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

In October 1999 and March 2000 the Commission undertook a two-stage restructuring of its departments in order to concentrate all responsibilities relating to food safety into a single Directorate-General. As a result, the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection is now responsible for all aspects of safety in food production, covering all sectors from the farm to the dinner table.

Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(1), also referred to as commitology, modified certain aspects of the procedure for adopting decisions under the delegation of powers. However it did not alter the division of powers between the Commission and the Member States.

(1) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1476/00

by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Euro-Mediterranean Partnership revival: Euro-Med Humanities Programme

On the occasion of the debate and adoption of a resolution (Doc B5-0297/2000) on the Barcelona Process in March 2000, the European Parliament forcefully confirmed its commitment to establishing a genuine partnership between the two shores of the Mediterranean.

The emergence of such a partnership has depended crucially on efforts to strengthen understanding and exchanges between the peoples of the Mediterranean basin. That was the purpose underlying the Euro-Med Humanities Programme launched in May 1998 under the third stage of the Barcelona Process. The Euro-Med Committee, meeting on 8 May 1998, had recognised at the time that Perugia University's Hist-Med and the Mediterranean Humanities Institute's Cultural interaction in the Mediterranean projects could be included in the first regional operations to be launched in that connection.

But that same programme has since run into a dead end, as indeed has the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership as a whole.

What are the European Commission's proposals for reviving the Barcelona Process, in particular its third stage, to which the European Parliament remains strongly committed?

What arrangements does the European Commission expect to implement to enable the Euro-Med Humanities Programme finally to become operational? In particular:

1. Will recourse be had to Article 2.5 of the vademecum on the allocation of subsidies, which stipulates that a limited share of the budget may be used for spontaneous proposals?

2. Will the Commission apply the pilot stage included in the new MEDA II financial regulation to this programme?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2000)

The social, cultural and human component of the Barcelona process has substantially taken shape since the Euro-Mediterranean partnership was launched in late 1995. For example, three regional programmes worth a considerable amount have been set up and are now operational: Euromed Heritage (a programme to enhance Euro-Mediterranean cultural heritage, at a cost of 17,1 million for the first phase); Euromed Audio-visual (a programme to promote Euro-Mediterranean audio-visual cooperation, costing 20 million in its first phase), and Euromed Youth (to enhance youth associations and exchanges at Euro-Mediterranean level, costing 6 million in its first phase). The Commission is also set to launch the second phase of the Euromed Heritage programme (Euromed Heritage II) in mid-2000, in the form of a call for proposals to be published in the Official Journal and on the Europa server.

As to the future Euromed Humanities programme, it has not yet been possible to launch it for internal procedural reasons, mainly regarding the need to uphold transparency and open competition. The Commission is currently examining the dossier closely in order to find a solution, if possible, at the earliest opportunity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0971/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Extraction and marketing of sand from the Aveiro estuary

The Aveiro estuary has recently been designated a special protection zone to be included in the NATURA 2000 Network by Legal Decree 384-B/99 of 23 September. However the extraction and marketing of huge quantities of sand from the estuary are continuing.

Under the pretext of ensuring navigability and preventing the silting-up of some areas, dredging is taking place in an uncontrolled fashion; given that the sand is not simply being moved but marketed, there is a risk of very serious consequences for the environmental equilibrium of the lagoon and the coastal strip.

A project is also under way for the construction of a marina for more than 800 in the estuary in Barra in the parish of Ìlhavo.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Has any Community funding been made available for dredging work in the Aveiro estuary?

2. Has any request for funding been made for the construction of the marina referred to above?

3. In either case, has any provision been made to protect the environmental equilibrium of the lagoon and the coastal strip?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

The Community has indeed part-financed a dredging project in the Ria de Aveiro from the Cohesion Fund(1).

The Ria de Aveiro comprises a lagoon separated from the sea by a barrier of dunes. If it is not dredged, there is a danger that the lagoon will disappear as it silts up rapidly. The solution requires dredging to be carried out to open up and deepen the channels in the Ria.

This assistance forms part of a series of measures to preserve and protect the Ria de Aveiro. The Cohesion Fund is contributing 59,2 million towards the total cost of 69,71 million for a project to collect and treat waste water (Simria).

The Commission has insisted that the project to dredge the Ria should be accompanied by a series of measures to minimise the impact of the works and to monitor them. The project approved by the Commission provides for the dredged sand to be used to regenerate the coastal area (combating coastal erosion), to restore the marsh areas, which are in a poor state of preservation, and to construct an artificial island for bird life.

A schedule restricting dredging to the period from October to March has also been drawn up to keep the impact on fauna and flora to a minimum.

The Portuguese authorities have submitted no application for finance to construct a marina.

(1) Decisions C(95) 3061 of 12 December 1995 and C(95) 3259 of 15 December 1995 amended by Decision C(96) 3876 of 5 December 1997 and merged in Decision C(98) 2902 of 2 October 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0003/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Excise duties on wine in Ireland

With reference to the answers given by Nino Gemelli, chairman of the Committee on Petitions, and by the Commission on the subject of Petition No 1229/97 submitted by Mr Paris Cugini, an Italian citizen, on excise duties on wine in Ireland, can the Commission say:

1. whether it has questioned the Irish authorities;

2. whether there have been any new developments?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

In response to Petition No 1229/97 submitted by Mr Paris Cugini, raising the possibility that Irish excise duties discriminate against wine and in favour of beer, the Commission contacted the Irish authorities to request clarification of this matter.

Subsequently, in the context of infringement proceedings as defined in article 226 (formerly article 169) of the EC Treaty, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Irish government on 25 August 1999.

In October 1999, the Irish government replied to the Commission's reasoned opinion. This reply is presently being studied by the Commission, and its contents are confidential, as infringement procedures against a Member State require.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0110/00

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

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Decentralisation of air communications

As part of the plans announced by the Member of the Commission responsible for transport in relation to the Europeanisation of European air space, and in the light of the chaotic experience of recent years, will the Commission encourage the decentralisation of air communications through the development of alternative international airports such as that at Santiago de Compostela in Galicia, Spain, thus avoiding the congestion caused by the irrational concentration of flights in Madrid, where the central government intends to focus yet more airport investment on the construction of new runways and even a new airport?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

Existing Community legislation on intra-Community air transport implies that air carriers take the decisions on their network structure including frequency of flights and localisation of connecting points on the basis of their own commercial considerations taking into account factors such as airport charges, availability of slots and size of the markets to be served. In relation to flights to and from third country destinations, however, most of the bilateral air services agreements concluded individually by Member States include rules which restrict the capacity of regional airports to attract additional traffic.

The Commission is of the opinion that direct public intervention in the commercial decisionmaking of air carriers on the location of operations should be limited to specific situations such as safeguarding public service operations or distribution of traffic within an airport system on the basis of specific rules established by Community legislation. More general interventions aimed at steering traffic from one airport to another are incompatible with the rules and the goals of air transport liberalisation.

Notwithstanding these general principles the Commission is currently examining whether increasing concentration of air transport operations towards few hub airports could be eased by appropriate support measures for enhancing the role of regional airports (secondary hubs) in the overall airport system. It intends to present the outcome of this examination in 2001. In addition, the Commission will continue and strengthen its efforts to conclude air transport agreements for the Community as a whole with third countries that would improve the possibility of regional airports to attract additional traffic.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1418/00 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission. Import penetration.



Official Journal 046 E , 13/02/2001 P. 0191 - 0191



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1418/00 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (5 May 2000) Subject: Import penetration Would the Commission list percentage import penetration within each Member State since 1988, in the following areas: - high research-intensity goods; - medium research-intensity goods; - low research-intensity goods? Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission (27 June 2000) The Commission collects and stores external trade data using the combined nomenclature, a classification of goods for tariff and statistical purposes. Using correspondence tables, the data can be analysed using several other nomenclatures, such as the standard international trade classification or the Community production statistics. It does not however have an analysis of products by research intensity, which would allow the data requested to be provided. The Commission is working on an analysis of trade in high technology products, using correspondence tables drawn up by the Organisation for economic cooperation and development.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0502/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Commission staff working hours

What are the expected working hours in total per week and in start and finish times each day of members of the Commission's staff? What arrangements are proposed to staff to cover flexitime?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

According to Article 55 of the Staff Regulations officials in active employment shall be at all times at the disposal of their institution. Under established agreements, however the normal working week shall not exceed 42 hours and no official may be asked to work overtime for more than 150 hours in any six months. For Commission staff the Appointing Authority has determined, in accordance with the Staff Regulations, that the weekly working time is 37 hours 30 minutes (valid since 1 October 1986).

The Commission applies the following rules in respect of the hours of the working day: the official hours are from 8.30 (8.45 on Monday) to 13.00 and from 14.15 to 17.30 (16.30 on Friday). During these hours there has to be a permanent presence in each service.

The following facilities have been agreed for flexible working hours: all staff must be present from 9.30 to 12.00 and from 14.45 to 17.00 except on Fridays when this obligatory presence ends at 16.00. The remaining flexible hours must be worked between 8.00 and 20.00 with an obligatory 30 minutes break for lunch and with the daily working hours being limited to 10 hours per day.

Management of the flexible working time is the responsibility of each head of unit who determines the appropriate control in agreement with his or her personnel.

These rules apply in principle to all staff covered by the Staff Regulations working in Brussels. For other working places the details related to flexible working time are determined in accordance with the needs and specificity of the location.

It should be noted that many officials often work more hours than the normal weekly working hours because of the requirements of their tasks and the relevant staff available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1117/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Competition in the Spanish electricity sector

In view of the announcement that the Hidrocantábrico shares are to be offered for sale on the open market and given that approval for such an operation is likely to be forthcoming, competition in the Spanish electricity sector is set to decrease, as it has been doing repeatedly on account of operations such as the merger of the Endesa, Fecsa and Sevillana de Electricidad companies.

Does the Commission consider the costs of the changeover to a competitive market to be acceptable under such circumstances? Does the Commission believe there to be genuine competition in the Spanish electricity sector?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2000)

State aid in respect of stranded costs is designed to compensate for commitments or operating guarantees which were given before the entry into force of Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity(1) but which may not be honoured on account of that Directive. Compensation, therefore, is for historical costs which become non-competitive following the liberalisation of the electricity market. The costs are determined on a firm-by-firm basis. Consequently, the merger in question should not, in principle, have any impact on the analysis of the compatibility of stranded costs in the light of the EC Treaty rules on state aid.

At this point, the Commission cannot say how competitive the Spanish electrical market is following the operation referred to by the Honourable Member before it has been examined under the rules applicable. It will conduct such an examination only if the operation has a Community dimension within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings(2). Otherwise, it is for the national authorities to vet the operation.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.

(2) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 (OJ L 180, 9.7.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0675/00

by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: The length of time ECHO has had no Director

It has been obvious that a new Director of ECHO would need to be appointed ever since it was announced that Mr Alberto Navarro was to join Mr Javier Solana's private office. Why has the new Commissioner, Mr Nielson, taken so long to suggest an appointee, and why is it that the appointed candidate has not yet taken up his duties?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Mr Alberto Navarro, former Director of the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), was invited to take up his new duties as head of Mr Solana's private office on 1 October 1999.

In accordance with the relevant administrative procedures, Mr Sabato Della Monica was made acting director of ECHO with effect from 1 October 1999 until such time as a permanent appointment was made.

The vacant post of Director of ECHO was published on 10 November 1999 by agreement with the private office of the Member responsible for development and humanitarian aid; the final date for applications was 24 November 1999.

The Advisory Committee on Appointments (ACA) met on 16 December 1999 to draw up a shortlist of applicants. After in-depth talks, the ACA issued its opinion on 20 January 2000. The Commission decided to appoint Mrs Costanza Adinolfi to the post (PV(2000) 1466 of 15 February 2000). Mrs Adinolfi will take up her duties as Director of ECHO on 15 March 2000.