ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0753/01

by Giovanni Procacci (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Subject: Management of public procurement in Italy in the area of road crash barriers

The regulations in force in Italy governing the official approval of crash barriers, in particular the decree of 18 February 1992 No 223 issued by the Minister for Public Works, as amended by the decrees of 15 October 1996, 3 June 1998 and 11 June 1999, do not yet incorporate the European standards approved by the CEN in April 1998, which should have been implemented by Italy before October 1998.

Article 4 of the ministerial decree was preceded (about six months earlier) by a circular issued by ANAS (State Autonomous Road Company) allowing the issuers of calls for tenders to request data relating to crash tests carried out by one of the only two institutes authorised to perform such tests. Tenders which fail to supply such data are disqualified. As a result, qualified small- and medium-sized businesses with a proven record are not free to take part in the tendering process since they must first provide crash test results which they are sometimes obliged to purchase at considerable expense from the few companies that hold crash test results. Furthermore, these companies decide, at their discretion and on the basis of the value of the contract, whether or not to provide crash test data, thereby selecting who may or may not take part in the tendering process.

Can the Commission:

1. say whether the ministerial decree in question complies with European regulations;

2. investigate whether the conditions exist for free and fair competition in the management of public contracts in the road crash barrier sector in Italy, in order to avoid monopoly situations which lead to the bankruptcy and disappearance of many small- and medium-sized companies in the sector?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2001)

The Commission is aware of the matter raised by the honourable Member. On 6 December 2000 it sent the Italian authorities a letter asking for information, so that it would have the facts that would allow it to assess the compliance of the Italian regulations on crash barrier approval with requirements under Community law.

The matter was also discussed at a meeting with the Italian authorities in Rome on 19 December 2000. The authorities assured the Commission at that time that they would collaborate fully in providing the information that was sought in connection with this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0022/01

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

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Fishery markets

There has been little in the way of intellectual debate at the Commission on the question of market reform, with no attempt to examine in depth issues which are currently of crucial importance to consumers,

such as:

- standardisation and classification of all raw materials and by-products,

- introduction of a uniform Community-wide labelling system,

- lack of uniform quality and health controls.

Bearing in mind the need to address the above questions, when does the Commission plan to finalise the common organisation of the market?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

A major innovation of the reformed common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products(1) is the new labelling requirement at the point of retail sale, which will improve product traceability and thereby reduce fraud concerning the origin and nature of the product sold. The Commission attaches a great deal of importance to this provision and to its proper implementation.

The relevant article of the common market organisation (Article 4) enters into force on 1 January 2002 and therefore, the Commission will be discussing the implementing regulation with the Member States in the Management Committee for fisheries products during the course of 2001. It will also be consulting the industry via the Advisory Committee for fisheries products. The majority of the other Commission Regulations implementing the common organisation of the market have now been adopted.

In reply to the Honourable Member's specific comments on health controls for fishery products, these are already organised through Council Directive 91/493/EEC laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products(2). This Directive is based on the former Article 43 (present Article 37) of the EC Treaty and aims to create a common regime with regard to sanitary questions in fishery products, whilst ensuring a high level of consumer protection. The Directive lays down the obligations of the fisheries sector to ensure that fishery products meet specific health requirements and the obligations of the Member States to ensure that producers and manufacturers comply with these requirements. The Member States' implementation of these requirements are audited by the Commission.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 (OJ L 17, 21.1.2000).

(2) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0550/01

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 February 2001)

Subject: Impounding of Belgian ham in Portugal in the wake of the dioxin crisis

In 1999, the Portuguese authorities impounded a number of deliveries of ham from a Flemish company which bore a date which gave grounds for suspecting that they might be contaminated with dioxin. Similar products held in stock from the same period were tested and analysed for dioxin contamination. Unlike the authorities in other countries, the Portuguese authorities have never adopted the method of testing samples. In the interim, the goods have been declared unfit for human consumption and actually had to be destroyed. The company involved is not eligible for the aid made available in Belgium for the destruction of products from the suspect period because the final date for applications for such aid has passed.

Is the Commission aware of the attitude of the Portuguese authorities to the Belgian method of testing and analysing samples? Is it acceptable that, because of the attitude of the Portuguese authorities, the products have now been declared unfit for human consumption and the company involved can no longer destroy them and claim the aid made available in Belgium for the destruction of products from the suspect period? How many complaints has the Commission received to date about measures taken by Member States against Belgian products in the wake of the dioxin crisis?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2001)

The Commission has been informed on a number of occasions about a persistent problem with batches of animal foodstuffs originating from Belgium which were delivered to Portugal during the dioxin crisis. The Member States concerned also drew attention to this problem at the meeting of the Standing Veterinary Committee on 4 April 2000. As can be seen from the report of this meeting published on the Internet(1), the Commission was unable to find a solution to this problem and has urged the two parties to reach a compromise. Even though this matter arose in connection with the implementation of Community measures taken during the dioxin crisis, it is in fact a trade dispute between two private companies. Both of the Member States involved have defended their national undertakings by attaching a different interpretation to the sampling required in order to settle the dispute.

To date, the Commission has received 166 complaints about measures taken by Member States against Belgian products in the wake of the dioxin crisis.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/rc/svc/index_en.html.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0234/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Illegal Belgian visas and passports

The racket involving Belgian visas and passports is something which needs to be looked into in the context of the third pillar of the European Union (justice and home affairs), in particular because a temporary or permanent right of residence in the Belgian Federation automatically grants access to all the Schengen countries. Such permits are worth their weight in gold to criminals and they make the migration sector highly susceptible to corruption.

In recent years there have been reports of a trade in diplomatic passes at the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and of a large-scale racket involving visas at the Belgian embassy in Sofia. In late 1997 an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs admitted having sold some 300 special passes to Russians. The same official was also responsible for issuing thousands of special permits to embassy domestic staff, mainly Filipino girls who were often exploited and ended up as prostitutes.

In 1996 the First Secretary of the Belgian embassy in Sofia brought a civil case in respect of illegal activities against the ambassador and his staff. She had found that visas and passports were being readily supplied in exchange for payment. The embassy itself had allegedly set up a system of forged invitations from Belgium companies. In April 2000 two magistrates went to Sofia where they found that illegal visas had in fact been issued at the Belgian embassy over a period of years.

Is the Council aware of the racket involving Belgian visas and passports?

If so, what action has it taken so that the Belgian Federation can find a solution to this problem?

If not, will the Council look into the racket involving Belgian visas and passports, given the importance of this issue for the third pillar of the European Union (justice and home affairs) and the policy of the Schengen countries?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0234/01 and E-0235/01

(14 May 2001)

The Council regards the fight against document fraud as an important matter. This is why, for a long time now, experts have met in Council working parties to exchange information and experience and to consider initiatives and proposals on the subject.

However, the problem raised by the Honourable Member concerns a matter that has to be settled by the relevant Belgian authorities.

The Council does not usually call on a Member State of the Union to give an explanation concerning a matter over which the Member State itself has jurisdiction.

If a Member State's acts or omissions were to affect the operation of Community visa regulations it would be for the Commission to give the Member State concerned the opportunity to submit its comments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0018/01

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

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Mussel farming in the EU

Mussel farming is of vital importance in the coastal region of Galicia, where there are some 11 500 jobs directly linked to the sector, of which 8 500 are permanent, as well as 7 000 jobs indirectly related to it. This is particularly important, bearing in mind that the resources generated by mussel production are spread across a broad social base and that decisions are taken locally, with the result that funds are reinvested in the region. This has a multiplier effect on the local economy, helping to produce socio-economic stability.

As far as aquaculture in general is concerned it is mussel farming which is the backbone of the sector, since between 250 and 300 million kilos of mussels are cultivated annually in Galicia, making it the world's second largest producer after China and the leading European producer, accounting for 50 % of total EU production, with 35 % being sold fresh, 41 % earmarked for traditional processing and 24 % for new alternative processing methods, which are increasingly popular.

The mussel farming management board in Galicia has already applied for a protected designation of origin (PDO) for this product, which would serve as a world-wide standard since it would be the first ever awarded to a seafood product.

In order to provide better protection of EU consumers, does the Commission not think that this PDO would make a fundamental contribution to identifying the mussel as a high-quality final product or ingredient of other finished products?

What measures has the EU taken, or will it take, to boost demand for quality mussels in the European market and facilitate identification of this product, thereby preventing errors or confusion over identity that might benefit non-EU producers of inferior quality products or products which do not meet the minimum health and safety standards of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2001)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to his Written Questions E-0013/01(1) and E-0016/01(2).

(1) See p. 87.

(2) See p. 88.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0700/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: UK involvement in the bombing of Baghdad

Will the Commission be supporting UK involvement in the bombing of Baghdad?

Would the Commission not agree that the citizens of Iraq have already suffered enough following the economic embargo, and that further air attacks by the USA and Britain will only add to their suffering, and that in the name of democracy and human rights these attacks should be condemned?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

The recent joint American and British air raids against military installations in Iraq have been discussed both in the Parliament and the Council. Although opinions may vary on this allied military intervention, there is general consensus that the present situation in Iraq is due to the Iraqi Government's non-compliance with a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions. According to these, Iraq should dispose of all weapons of mass destruction and allow for United Nations verification, monitoring and inspection of this process. Through its refusal to cooperate with the United Nations inspectors, the Iraqi Government prolongs the economic embargo, and therefore bears the responsibility for the continuing suffering of the Iraqi people.

The Commission regrets the loss of human life in Iraq. However, it must be borne in mind that the regime of Saddam Hussein, through its policy of non-cooperation with the United Nations, bears the full responsibility for suffering and deaths which occur daily in Iraq. Under the oil-for-food programme, Iraq has more than enough funds for relieving the humanitarian situation, but has not done so.

Any solution to the present state of affairs must be found within the United Nations framework of negotiations. In this context, the Commission therefore welcomes the resumption of talks at the end of February 2001 between the United Nations and the Iraqi Government and hopes for a positive outcome that will eventually lead to the improvement of the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

Nonetheless, the Commission is concerned about the Iraqi people's suffering and is doing everything possible within its mandate and with the resources available to ease the situation. Since the Gulf War in 1991, the Community has been the major donor of humanitarian aid to Iraq, contribution over 250 million. For the last two years, the Commission has provided assistance amounting to 8 and 10 million respectively. For 2001 the amount will be similar.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0346/01

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: Distribution of euros before January 2002

The chart reproduced at the end of the Commission's monthly bulletin entitled Preparation for the changeover to the euro indicates that retailers are to be supplied in advance with euros in the period between 1 September and 17 December 2001.

Could the Commission confirm whether the above information is correct and say whether it believes that the public at large should be supplied in advance with 5 and 10 notes from 1 December 2001?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The table reproduced at the end of the Commission's monthly bulletin entitled Preparation for the changeover to the euro was compiled by the Commission on the basis of contributions provided by the participating Member States.

The Member States of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) have agreed to reduce the period of dual circulation of banknotes and coins in 2002 as much as possible. This is in order to reduce the possibility of confusion for the citizens and to alleviate the necessity for the retail sector to operate in two currencies.

A banknote frontloading to the public could in effect lengthen the dual circulation period and could run counter to the reasons that led to its shortening. Moreover, banknote frontloading to the public could entail the risk of early circulation of the notes before 1 January 2002. This is why the Ministers of Finance and the Commission have concurred with the European Central Bank's position not to frontload banknotes to the public.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0025/01

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

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Regional fisheries organisations

The Commission is displaying an alarming lack of both human and financial resources, casting doubt on its ability to act as a negotiator in these international bodies. This has been demonstrated by two recent episodes, the first of which was the United States embargo on the Community's Pacific fishing fleet, introduced because the Community had not transposed the ICCAT recommendations on the protection of dolphins in tuna-fishing. The reason for this failure was the delay by the Commission in submitting the measures concerned to the Council.

Will the Commission explain how this critical situation arose?

In addition, at the recent ICCAT international meeting in Marrakech, the Commission's lack of negotiating resources in the various fora accompanying this meeting was plain to see. Parliament has repeatedly condemned this situation and called for measures to be taken by the European Union to remedy it.

What will the Commission do to resolve this situation, which is calling into question the Community's ability to provide leadership in the regional fisheries organisations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2001)

It is true that the multilateral management of fisheries in the high seas implies that the Community must face a series of challenges that are ever-increasing in number and complexity. But this case is not an isolated one, and other areas of activity of the Commission also require increased attention. In this context, the Commission must face up to all these challenges with a limited number of human resources for the period 2000-2002. The Commission, within the constraints of the staff available, tries its utmost to ensure that Community representation at international meetings is adequate both in terms of the number of officials and in terms of their qualifications.

At the recent International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) meeting, the Commission deployed a relatively large team (six officials) which was sufficient to cover the different negotiating fronts, albeit with a considerable personal effort. In other international meetings, the Commission also deploys as many officials as necessary to ensure adequate coverage, within of course the general limitations on staff applicable to the whole of the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0336/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Legislation to curb acid rain

1. Will the Commission state which pieces of EU legislation aim to curb the incidence of acid rain?

2. Would, in the Commission's view, national legislation be able to have equivalent effect?

3. Can the Commission estimate the trans-boundary impact of acid rain? For example, where would the pollution affecting acid rain the United Kingdom be generated?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2001)

1. The proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants(1) currently before Parliament (second reading) is designed in part to reduce by half the area within Community with exceedance of critical loads for acidity by 2010 compared with the 1990 situation. Sectoral measures controlling emissions, for example from transport, and Large Combustion Plants(2) will help to achieve this objective, as will Directive 96/61/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control(3).

2. Acid rain is a large scale transboundary problem. It cannot be effectively controlled by national action alone.

3. The following tables being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament Secretariat show the extent to which Member States, the candidate countries and emissions in the North Sea and the Baltic contributed to the deposition of pollutants responsible for acidification (oxidised sulphur and oxidised nitrogen) in each Member State in 1997(4).

(1) OJ C 56 E, 29.2.2000, Common Position (OJ C 375, 28.12.2000).

(2) Directive 88/609/EEC (OJ L 336, 7.12.1988), Common Position OJ C 375, 28.12.2000, on proposal for revision.

(3) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(4) Estimation by the Meterological Synthesizing Centre West (MSC-West) of the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0338/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Commodity prices

Further to Mr Fischler's answer to Written Question E-2730/00(1) on 11 October, will the Commission explain why there are not more up-to-date figures for what should be market information available to the regulators of these markets?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 159.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

In his Written Question E-2730/00, the Honourable Member asked for the Commission's estimate of the percentage difference between the prices of the five most significant farm products within the Community at the end of each year for the last five years and the prices for the same commodities quoted on the world markets. In the answer provided to this question, reference was given to price information extracted from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Producer Support Estimate data base (a data base established by the OECD Secretariat on the basis of a commonly agreed methodology within the OECD countries) for the 1995-1998 period.

For the management of the common market organisations, the Commission relies on specific and updated information on prices both on internal markets and on world markets. This information may vary every day or every week depending on, among other factors, the specific market, the product specification, its final use and country of origin. It is available to market regulators, including officials in Member States, through the regular management committees.