ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1851/99

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

(13 October 1999)

Subject: External relations

Last Thursday, 16 September 1999, the Commission admitted that only a small portion of the TACIS Programme appropriations reach Russia; to be precise, only 4 million of the 140 million granted in aid under this programme reached the country.

What mechanisms does the Commission intend to set up in order to prevent the recurrence of such situations? What is the timescale for implementing these mechanisms?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 1999)

The Commission's statement to the Parliament, on 16th September 1999 included the following:

Community assistance is, as this house will know, primarily delivered through the TACIS programme which is centrally managed from Brussels. The funds concerned are predominantly used to pay Community firms to provide technical expertise and advice for Russia. Only a very small proportion of the funds therefore goes to Russia. Indeed it is only 4 million of the total of 140 million. That 4 million is obviously directly managed by our representation in Moscow.

In other words, virtually all the TACIS funding to Russia (some 140 million per year) is not transferred to accounts in Russian banks, but rather, is used to pay Community firms to provide technical expertise and advice for Russia. These arrangements are usual for technical assistance programmes in transition countries. This does not mean that the benefits and results of the project do not reach Russia. It simply ensures some protection against funds going astray in Russia.

The remaining 4 million mentioned in the statement concerns the Bistro facility, a small-scale project facility designed to provide a quick response to specific Russian needs. As a rule, the contracts are also signed with Community firms for providing technical assistance and expertise to their Russian partners. The only difference is that in this case the funds are managed by the Commission delegation in Russia, under the supervision of headquarters.

It is hoped that this clarifies any misunderstanding about the Commission's statement on 16th September 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2436/99

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Data-Protection Directive

Is the Commission aware that, owing to disparities in implementation at national level of the 1995 EU Data-Protection Directive, national data-protection laws are prejudicing cross-border trade and that this will have a considerable impact on the development of e-commerce within the EU?

One example is the extension of the scope of data-protection laws to cover not only personal data, as envisaged by the Directive, but also the processing of corporate data.

Does the Commission plan any action to limit the damage to the principle of the internal market caused by excessive gold-plating of the Directive on its transposition by the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

The Commission takes the view that Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data(1), to which the Honourable Member refers, is of key importance to the development of electronic commerce.

The Directive is designed to enable personal data to move freely between Member States whilst ensuring throughout the Community a high level of protection for individuals' fundamental rights, including their right to privacy. Such protection is necessary if consumers are to have confidence in the use of on-line services and if electronic commerce is to expand accordingly.

The Commission is therefore keeping a close watch on the transposal of the Directive into national legislation. As transposal has not yet been completed in several Member States, the Commission has initiated proceedings against them for failure to meet their Community obligations.

As things stand, the Commission does not have any information on the disparities to which the Honourable Member refers. Such disparities may arise from the fact that the Directive has not been transposed.

If the margin for manoeuvre which the Directive leaves to Member States, particularly as regards the extension of protection to corporate data as referred to by the Honourable Member, were to present obstacles to the proper operation of the internal market, the Commission would not fail to draw the necessary consequences.

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2259/99

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Tax discussions

The European Commission's 1998 proposal to update EU provisions on mutual assistance among tax authorities in debt recovery (COM(98) 364) is making its way through the Council of Ministers.

Press reports have suggested that the Financial Questions Working Group in the Council is in broad agreement over the nature of the information that authorities should present when they seek assistance. Reports have also mentioned a proposal from the Spanish Government to create a working party to discuss these issues.

In the interests of transparency, will the Commission comment on these initiatives and provide Parliament with details of the work being undertaken by the Working Group and an indication of the Commission's own views on these issues?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

The Commission proposal(1) for a Parliament and Council directive amending Council Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of, inter alia, fiscal claims, has had its first reading in the Parliament under the co-decision procedure. Arising from the Parliament's suggestions, the Commission presented an amended proposal(2). This proposal is currently being discussed in the appropriate Council working group, and as soon as an agreement is reached, it will be sent back to the Parliament for its second reading. The ad hoc working party on tax fraud, which has been established on the basis of a proposal by the Spanish government, is not responsible for discussing this proposal.

Questions concerning the work undertaken by this working party should be addressed to the Council.

(1) OJ C 269, 28.8.1998.

(2) OJ C 179, 24.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2196/99

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Combating world hunger

The first report recently published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) paints a bleak picture of the world situation since the target set in 1996 to halve the numbers suffering from hunger by the year 2015 does not seem to be materialising. 204 million people in India, 164 million in China, half the population of North Korea and Mongolia, one third of the peoples of Cambodia, Laos and sub-Saharan Africa are suffering from hunger, while two in every five children are undernourished. Bearing in mind that the UN had decided that the developed countries should spend 0,7 % of their GDP on humanitarian aid to the developing countries, will the Commission say whether that decision is being implemented and by which Member States of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

The Commission is convinced of the need to increase international official development aid, which has fallen to its lowest level for decades. In the United Nations' work on development finance, the Community has reaffirmed its commitment to cooperation and its readiness to work towards the objective of devoting 0,7 % of Gross National Product (GNP) to development aid. Several Member States Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden have achieved or exceeded the target. The Community average is 0,34 % of GNP.

Support for food security policies is an integral part of Community development policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2265/99

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Article 141 of Finland's accession treaty

In Article 141 of Finland's accession treaty it is stated that, where serious difficulties remain resulting from Finland's accession, the Commission may authorise Finland to grant direct national aid.

During the five-year transition period, Finland has been able to pay transitional aid. At the end of 1999 the transitional period will come to an end and the payment of this aid will cease. It has been calculated that if compensatory aid is not paid, the incomes of farmers raising livestock and growing greenhouse produce and open-air vegetables in southern Finland will fall immediately by between 30 % and 90 %.

In the conclusions of the Luxembourg summit in 1997 it was stated that agricultural production should be possible throughout the territory of the EU, even in unfavourable conditions. If the payment of the aid under Article 141 is discontinued, the aid gap between southern Finland and the rest of the country will grow to intolerable levels. This would also undermine the credibility of the EU, particularly in the eyes of farmers.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to ensure that this aid pursuant to Finland's accession treaty can continue to be paid?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

The Commission is examining a report which has been presented by Finland on the difficulties facing agriculture in Southern Finland, together with a notification in accordance with Article 143 of the Act of Accession and Article 88 (ex-Article 93) of the EC Treaty of a national aid programme under Article 141 of the Act of Accession.

Once this examination is complete, the Commission will take the appropriate measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1678/99

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Antibiotics in feedingstuffs

For decades antibiotics have been used as growth promoters for fattening purposes. However,the use of such feed additives poses the risk that bacteria may become resistant to the antibiotics and it may no longer be possible to treat diseases occurring with them. Furthermore, residues of the antibiotics may find their way into the human body through the consumption of eggs, milk, meat, etc., thereby posing a significant health risk.

Sweden imposed a ban on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in fattening on 1 January 1986, prior to the country's accession to the European Union. During the Austrian Presidency, the use of four antibiotic feed additives was banned throughout the EU.

Will the Council support a ban on the use of all antibiotics as growth promoters in feedingstuffs?

If so, what measures does the Council intend to take to enforce such a ban in all the Member States?

Answer

(24 January 2000)

At its meeting on 17 December 1998, the Council adopted a Regulation(1) amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs. as regards withdrawal of authorisation of certain antibiotics. The antibiotics involved are virginiamycin, spiramycin, tylosin phosphate and zinc bacitracin.

When the above Regulation was adopted, the Council and the Commission confirmed that any decision in this area must continue to be taken on the basis of Community scientific evidence and in the light of the precautionary principle.

At its meeting on 14 and 15 June 1999, the Council took note of the publication of the opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee on antimicrobial resistance. In this respect, and with regard to the other categories of antibiotic products mentioned in this opinion, the Commission representative indicated that the Commission departments were preparing appropriate proposals.

The Council will examine any measure that the Commission might judge it necessary to propose on the subject with very great interest.

The use of antibiotics is also dealt with in a Council Resolution on antibiotic resistance entitled A Strategy Against the Microbial Threat, adopted on 8 June 1999. This Resolution invites the Commission to include in particular, as a priority, the surveillance of antibiotic resistance in human medicine and in the field of zoonosis control.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17.12.1998 published in OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 4.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1711/99

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Finnish border control of egg trade

Is it true that, under an agreement with the EU, the Finnish Government may introduce a border control to prevent imports of eggs from Sweden, whereas the same possibility is not open to the Swedish authorities?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1999)

The Commission is not aware of provisions in an agreement between the Community and Finland authorising Finnish border controls to prevent deliveries of eggs from Sweden.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1905/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Interreg II and Interreg II C (1994-1999)

The total amount allocated to Italy from the Community's structural funds in respect of transfrontier cooperation and energy networks for the period 1994-1999 is ECU 270 million (equal to LIT 523 billion), and that in respect of the Community initiative for transnational cooperation in the field of regional planning for the period 1995-1999 is ECU 33 million (equal to LIT 64 billion).

Will the Commission state what agencies (public or private), institutions, companies, cooperatives and individuals have been allocated funding under Interreg II and Interreg II C (specifying whether payments have already been made) and how much each of them has been granted?

Has it checked how the amounts have actually been used and whether the proposed measures have been successfully implemented?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

The Commission's Decision of 16 December 1998 specifies the total Community contribution for the Interreg II Community Initiative in Italy as EUR 376 million.

In accordance with the Regulations in force, the Commission pays the assistance granted under Interreg direct to the national authorities responsible for the operational programmes and their implementation. A detailed information concerning the final beneficiaries must be obtained from the Italian Ministry of Public Works.

The monitoring committees, which are composed of representatives of the Commission and of the Ministries and regions concerned, ensure that the programmes are properly implemented.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2819/99

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: WTO dispute between France and Canada on the ban on asbestos

What is the latest news on the outcome of the WTO dispute between France and Canada on the French ban on asbestos, and what action has the Commision taken itself on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel set up on 25 November 1998 for the Community at Canada's request over the French ban on the import of asbestos and products containing asbestos has not yet finished its work. The complexity of the scientific data concerned has led to considerable delays. The panel's meeting with the experts and the second hearing only took place in January, so we cannot expect the panel's report before May.

However, this delay testifies to the quality of the scientific evidence presented by the Community in this dispute. The health risks involved would appear to justify the substantial effort put into this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/99

by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Environmental impact of enlargement

The enlargement of the European Union will become a reality in the next few years. Negotiations are currently being held with six countries, and after the Helsinki summit these negotiations will be expanded to include all 12 candidate countries.

During the negotiation process the future members will have to adapt their administration and legislation to comply with EU rules. One major and economically important challenge will be to make progress in improving the state of the environment and adopting an environmental policy in accordance with sustainable development.

What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that the environment is included as a priority in the negotiations, and what attitude does the Commission propose to take to the granting of transitional periods on environmental issues?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2000)

The Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member that improving the state of the environment in the applicant states and the alignment of the legislation of these states with the environmental acquis is a great challenge.

Environment is a priority in the accession process. The negotiation position of the Union at the opening of the negotiations with Hungary, Cyprus, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia and the Czech Republic explicitly refers to the objective of a high level of nuclear safety and environmental protection.

The manifold activities of the Commission ensure that environment is duly taken into account. They include financial assistance (in particular the Instrument for structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA)) and the definition of environmental approximation as a priority under the accession partnerships. More than that, the Commission publishes practical guides for approximation with and implementation of the environmental acquis.

As regards transitional periods, the Commission took the following position in its composite paper accompanying the reports of progress towards accession by each of the candidate countries, as adopted on 13 October 1999(1): For the areas linked to the extension of the single market regulatory measures should be implemented quickly. Any transition periods should therefore be few and short. For those areas of the acquis where considerable adaptations are necessary and which require substantial effort, including important financial outlays (in areas such as environment, energy, infrastructure), transition arrangements could be spread over a definite period of time, provided candidates can demonstrate that alignment is underway and that they are committed to detailed and realistic plans for alignment, including the necessary investments.

(1) COM(1999) 500 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2687/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Composition and funding of the Commission President's communications team

The Commission President has called in a communications team to put across his political message. This approach not unintentionally displays many similarities with the British prime minister's methods. One of Mr Prodi's advisers is apparently a former press secretary of Tony Blair.

Journalist Dorien Presser, writing in the Volkskrant, described this as propaganda. He [the British Prime Minister] shows little interest in Parliament or the critical press. For Blair democracy is essentially a propaganda technique. He has a command of this technique which would have made Goebbels jealous. Using slick communications strategies he appeals directly to the people.

1. Since when has the President of the Commission been assisted by a communications team?

2. Who are the members of, or advisers taking part in, this team?

3. Who is responsible for the operational management of the team?

4. What division of responsibilities and hierarchical structure has been established in the team?

5. What are the links between the members of the team and the European Commission?

6. Is the communications team dependent on the Press and Communication service?

7. What is the annual budget for funding the communications team?

8. What objectives are stressed by the communications team in its action plan?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2000)

Neither the Commission nor the President has a communication team outside the Press and Communication Service, the organisation chart of which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. No adviser or former adviser of the British Prime Minister is part of that Service.

The Press and Communication Service, which continues the functions of the former Spokesman's Service and some of the activities of the former Directorate-General for Information, Communication, Culture and the Audiovisual Media, is a Commission service just like all the other Directorates-General. It is run by a Head of Service who reports to the President, as does the Commission Spokesman, who also belongs to the Service.

The Press and Communication Service is financed from Part A of the Community budget. It is governed by the same budgetary rules as all the Commission's Directorates-General.

The objective of the Press and Communication Service is not to issue propaganda but to communicate comprehensive information on Commission activities in a transparent and open manner.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2310/99

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

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Exports of tuna fillets to the EU

The Thai authorities have recently asked the European Union to open a new quota to allow 8 000 tonnes of products to be imported under tariff heading 1604.14.00 (tinned tuna and tuna fillets). The Community tuna fillet market may, however, be considered to be adequately supplied from Community internal production and imports from the Andean Pact and ACP countries covered by the GSP. If necessary the quotas for those sources may be increased, for which reason there is no need to seek supplies from other countries. As has been demonstrated in recent months, both Community industries and, if necessary, the industries of GSP countries can supply tuna fillets to Community processors at international market prices, for which reason it is very difficult to understand why there should be any need to open a new quota for products from Thailand.

In the light of the above, would the Commission supply:

- a list of Thai companies which have exported tuna fillets to the EU under the last two quotas opened;

- the amounts exported by each of those companies to the European Union;

- a list of Community companies which buy tuna imported from Thailand, indicating the Member State in which they are based?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The Commission is not able to provide the information asked for by the Honourable Member, since it involves the commercial activities of private businesses. Such data are not forwarded to the Commission by the customs administrations in the Member States.

The Commission is sending a list of the establishments in Thailand authorised to export fishery products to the Community directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2855/99

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Provisions of new law on animal feed

Following a tightening-up of Swedish law to bring it into line with an EU directive, the country's zoos are now prohibited from using uninspected meat as animal feed. Mice and chickens cannot therefore be fed to animals in zoos. All carnivorous zoo animals are now to be fed butchered, veterinary inspected meat from approved animal-feed factories instead, though snakes have been granted an exemption from this provision. However, sick eagle owls and other owls cared for by zoos also need to eat animals whole, including the fur, for their digestion. This has, nevertheless, been deemed prohibited by the Swedish law and the EU directive on which it is based. Does the Commission take the same view?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2000)

Under Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos(1), Member States have an obligation to ensure that all zoos maintain a high standard of animal husbandry, with a developed programme of nutrition for the animals under their care.

The Directive in question does not however specify dietary measures in detail. These are matters for Member States to determine.

(1) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999.