ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1877/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Ireland)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Ireland have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Ireland have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01,E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01,E-1882/01, E-1883/01 annd E-1884/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) was used as a source to determine the number of holdings with an area of less than 50 hectares and of 50 hectares or more under cereals, oilseeds and protein plants (COP). Though that database is weighted by the results of the Farm Structure Survey (Eurostat), it is generally acknowledged that large holdings are over-represented. The figures given below should accordingly be regarded as upper limits. The year used is 1997, the last year for which data for all Member States are available in the FADN database.

Columns A and C of the table below give the percentages per Member State of holdings with an area under COP of, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more.

Columns B and D of the table below give the percentages per Member State of the area under COP of holdings with, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more under COP.

Column F gives the percentages per Member State of the area under COP that would be excluded if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied.

Lastly, Column I gives the savings in millions of euro per Member State if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied. The yields used are the reference yields supplied by the Member States. The total reduction in cost to the Community would amount to EUR 4 billion.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3009/01

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Farmyard pollution control grants

Has the Commission made any decision regarding the request form the Irish Government for permission to raise the ceiling for the national scheme for the control of farmyard pollution? (ref. N113-99)

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

The scheme the Honourable Member refers to, concerns an extension of the budget, the number of beneficiaries and the duration of an aid scheme approved by the Commission on 14 July 1999 through Decision SG (99) D/5100 (State aid No N 113/99). The amendments to the scheme is registered as State aid No N 443/01 and was approved by the Commission on 30 October 2001 through Decision SG(01) D/291979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2374/01

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(8 August 2001)

Subject: China

Mr Huang Qi, a Chinese citizen and creator of the website www.6-4tianwang.com' has been held in detention without trial since 3 June 2000 for disseminating subversive information on the Internet. Mr Huang Qi has been accused of publishing information on the Tiananmen massacre in June 1989 on his website, as well as articles by Chinese dissidents.

Mr Huang Qi's trial, which began in February 2001 and had already been postponed indefinitely on one occasion owing to his precarious state of health (his wife and his lawyer have claimed that he has been beaten during his detention), was to have taken place on 27 June 2001. However, the official in charge of the Chengdu court (Sichuan province) announced that the trial had again been postponed indefinitely owing to celebrations to mark the 80th anniversary of the creation of the Chinese Communist Party.

Does the Commission have any information on Mr Huang Qi's state of health? Does it know what new date has been set for the trial? Will it send a member of the Beijing delegation to the trial? Does the Commission have any information on other Chinese citizens imprisoned for similar reasons? More generally, will the Commission point out to the Beijing authorities that the proceedings against Mr Huang Qi violate the spirit and the letter of international conventions signed by the People's Republic of China?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2001)

The Commission is committed to strengthening respect for human rights everywhere in the world. They represent a central issue in the Union's relations with third countries. The Commission is following the human rights situation in China very closely.

A bilateral dialogue on human rights was established between the Union and China in 1996 and in this framework, freedom of expression and detention conditions are important issues which are raised firmly and regularly.

The case of Mr Huang Qi has been the subject of considerable international concern. His trial appears to have been held mid-August 2001 in secret. No verdict has been announced. The Union has raised the case with Chinese authorities in the last Union/China Human Rights dialogue on 22-23 February 2001. The Commission does not have information about his current state of health or confirmation of dates for his trial. The Commission has so far not been in a position to send representatives from the Commission Delegation in Beijing to attend trials of individuals.

The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission will follow developments concerning the situation of Mr Huang Qi and that it will continue to raise the issue of freedom of expression in its dealings with China.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2791/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: EuroNews agreement with the Commission

In his reply of 19 July 2001 to my question No E-1700/01(1), Commissioner Prodi stated that the Commission had concluded an agreement with EuroNews in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding for the production and broadcasting of audiovisual modules. Could the Commission provide me with a copy of that memorandum?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 212.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2001)

Following close collaboration with the Parliament, a new Convention has recently been signed with EuroNews. The association of the Parliament is clearly stated in the text of the Convention.

In view of this association, a copy of the Convention is lodged in the Parliament. The Honourable Member is, therefore, advised to seek a copy of the Convention from the services of the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2129/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 July 2001)

Subject: Legislation against domestic and sexual violence for the protection of women and minors in the candidate countries

It is an undeniable fact that violence against women and minors in the family is on the increase.

In many EU countries domestic violence, including sexual violence against wives or female partners, is punished, with sanctions including banning a husband or partner guilty of such an offence from the family home. Despite this legislation in the present Member States the scale of violence against women continues to be alarming and substantial.

Can the Commission say:

1. how cases of violence against women and minors in the family are regulated and sanctioned in the candidate countries;

2. whether, in these pre-accession years, checks are being carried out on the laws protecting women and combating the violence to which they are subjected in all sectors of social life, including the world of work;

3. whether it intends to ask the governments of the candidate countries to bring their legislation on the subject into line with standards in the existing Member States;

4. whether it does not consider it appropriate to ascertain, as a prerequisite for accession, the existence of such laws to protect women and combat domestic violence?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2001)

The Commission would point out that the matters raised by the Honourable Member are dealt with by the Commission in the regular reports which it presents every year to Parliament and the Council on the progress made towards accession by the candidate countries. The next regular reports will be presented in November.

In the last reports, presented in November last year:

1. and 4. the Commission pointed out the problems encountered and the measures taken (including those concerning the ratification of certain agreements) and shortcomings in the legislation, particularly as regards Cyprus, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Turkey;

2. for all the candidate countries the Commission analysed the existing situation regarding equal opportunities for men and women. The analysis covered the chapter on observance of the Copenhagen political criteria, and in particular respect for human rights, of a social, economic and cultural nature, and also the application of the social chapter of the Community acquis.

3. The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that application of the Community acquis formed part of the conditions laid down for accession by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 (21 and 22 June 1993). In the Commission's regular reports, under the association agreements concluded between the Community and its Member States on the one hand and each of the candidate countries on the other, and also as part of the accession negotiations, it therefore reminds the candidate countries of this obligation, stressing that the social acquis is essential in this area and that they must comply with it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1883/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Spain)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Spain have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Spain have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01,E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01,E-1882/01, E-1883/01 annd E-1884/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) was used as a source to determine the number of holdings with an area of less than 50 hectares and of 50 hectares or more under cereals, oilseeds and protein plants (COP). Though that database is weighted by the results of the Farm Structure Survey (Eurostat), it is generally acknowledged that large holdings are over-represented. The figures given below should accordingly be regarded as upper limits. The year used is 1997, the last year for which data for all Member States are available in the FADN database.

Columns A and C of the table below give the percentages per Member State of holdings with an area under COP of, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more.

Columns B and D of the table below give the percentages per Member State of the area under COP of holdings with, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more under COP.

Column F gives the percentages per Member State of the area under COP that would be excluded if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied.

Lastly, Column I gives the savings in millions of euro per Member State if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied. The yields used are the reference yields supplied by the Member States. The total reduction in cost to the Community would amount to EUR 4 billion.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2782/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Harmful effects of mixed strain wines

Community legislation bans the sale, though not the consumption, of wine produced from the hybrid Clinton, Jacquez, Noah, Isabelle and Herbemont strains.

An article by Jean-Claude Bouvier in Ardèche Parisienne No 1016 claims that there is no truth in the accusations levelled against wines made from grapes of these strains which have even, apparently, been being developed by the Montpellier INRA (National Agricultural Research Institute) for nearly six years.

Does the Commission believe that there is conclusive evidence that wine made from these strains is harmful to public health? If so, would it please provide exact references for the relevant scientific sources?

If it has been conclusively shown that drinking such wines is harmful to the public, is it not simply incomprehensible that what is banned is merely the sale and not the consumption thereof which is banned?

Is it not essential that the public be fully and unambiguously informed as to the possible harmful effects (or lack of them) of drinking this kind of wine?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2001)

The Commission has no knowledge of the article cited by the Honourable Member.

Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on common organisation of the market in wine(1) provides that only vine varieties appearing in the classifications established by Member States may be used for wine production, unless the wine is intended for consumption by the producer's family. This provision has been in the Community rules since 1987.

Since 1979 the rules have not allowed the six hybrid varieties mentioned to be included in the classifications of authorised and recommended varieties. Hence since that date it has been illegal to plant them in the Community.

In France it has been illegal since 1935 to plant them and since 1953 to offer their wine for sale for human consumption. All vines had to be grubbed up before 1957.

The prime reasons for exclusion are the health-related and gustatory defects of wine from these varieties: their foxy taste and high methanol content.

Improvement of wine quality, notably through varietal upgrading and strict wine marketing rules, is one of the principal reasons for common organisation of the Community wine market.

The Commission is not aware of any recent scientific study on the health effects of consumption of this type of wine. This is understandable when it has not been produced for more than 20 years.

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2363/01

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 August 2001)

Subject: Storage of nuclear waste from EU Member States in Russia

Can the Commission confirm that the Russian Federation has made it possible, through a special law adopted by the Duma on 6 June, to store nuclear waste from Member States of the European Union?

What is its position on this issue?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2001)

The changes to the Russian law adopted by the Duma on 6 June 2001 relax the law of 1991 on protection of the natural environment (Article 50.3) that states The importation of radioactive waste and materials for the purpose of storage or dumping from other States shall be prohibited to allow the importation of spent nuclear fuel for technical storage and reprocessing.

The precise modalities for such imports would be subject to specific agreements to be negotiated between the Russian Federation and interested countries. These agreements would as necessary cover the timing of reprocessing and the return of the products of reprocessing.

The changes to the law have been made with the objective of raising revenue for the Russian Federation. The stated intention is to use an important part of the revenue raised around 70 % to rehabilitate areas contaminated by previous poor practices in the management of radioactive material.

Under Euratom legislation, exports would have to be authorised by the Commission. To that effect, the Commission has to ensure compliance with international agreements, verify supply requirements and satisfy itself that the general interests of the Community will be safeguarded. If the contract would only be for reprocessing, the Commission has to be informed in order to verify that all the obligations assumed with regard to the material concerned are complied with.

As regards radioactive waste, there is Community legislation that covers the shipment from the Community to a third country(1). This clearly states that a Member State shall not authorise shipments to a third country that does not have the technical, legal or administrative resources to manage the radioactive waste safely. This legislation does not cover spent fuel sent for reprocessing (unless that fuel is defined as waste by the Member State). However, the Joint Convention on the safety of spent fuel management and the safety of radioactive waste management contains similar conditions covering both spent fuel and waste. The Member States will have to comply with these above mentioned obligations. The Commission will closely monitor their application.

(1) Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community, OJ L 35, 12.2.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2147/01

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 2001)

Subject: Equality of treatment for pensioners in the EU

A visit from the London Irish Elders Forum lobby group has re-emphasised the need for a certain harmonisation of pensioners' travel concessions in the EU. A review by the Irish Department of Social Community and Family Affairs in April 2000 rejected the request of Irish emigrant pensioners living in the U.K. for entitlement to free travel. This case once again highlights the need for a senior citizens' Europass. As far back as May 1989 the Commission asked Member States to introduce such a Card by '1 January 1991 at the latest'. Further support has been given to this cause by studies carried out for the Commission by the Dane Age Association in 1993 and Age Concern England in 1997.

All EU Member States offer some form of concessionary scheme to older people, but the conditions entitling people to transport and cultural concessions vary greatly from one state to another.

Student concessions are guaranteed throughout the EU thanks to the student I.D. Card. Does the Commission continue to recognise that pensioners who like students form an economically disadvantaged part of our community have the right to a Europass which would guarantee concessionary travel throughout Europe?

What advances is the Commission making on harmonising the extremely diverse systems of concessions for pensioners in Member States?

One of the major difficulties identified by the Commission in 1998 was the problem of division of competences within Member States. In the German case, for example, these competences fall between Länder, municipalities and the federal government. What has the Commission done since 1998 to address this problem?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

As the Honourable Member states, arrangements for concessionary travel not only vary considerably between the Member States but also fall within their area of competence. The legal provisions in place must nevertheless observe the principle of non-discrimination as laid down in Article 12 (ex Article 6) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission has no plans for harmonisation measures in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2865/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Attack by a Member of the Commission on the UN Conference in Durban, Islam, the Third World poor and asylum-seekers

1. Is the Commission aware of the opinions expressed by Commissioner Bolkestein on 29 September 2001 in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant, arguing that the apologies made for slavery at the UN Conference against Racism in Durban will only lead to unproductive victimisation, that Muslims are intent on vanquishing their rich and powerful enemies, that the West must protect itself against an evil and jealous outside world, that privacy in Europe must make way for the fight against terrorism and that the Geneva Convention on refugees is no longer tenable, so that adjustments must be made to it?

2. Does the Commission agree that these private views of Mr Bolkestein are very much at variance with the views expressed elsewhere on its behalf and conflict with the widely supported objections to the comments about Islam recently made by Mr Berlusconi, Prime Minister of Italy, and the position adopted by the Commission on 2 October 2001 during the European Parliament debate on the common asylum procedure?

3. Does the Commission agree that the aforementioned comments by Commissioner Bolkestein jeopardise relations between the various population groups in the Member States of the European Union and international efforts to eliminate the basis for despair and to deprive terrorism of a breeding ground by promoting good relations between different cultures and religions worldwide?

4. Does the Commission consider Mr Bolkestein's actions to be compatible with maintaining its current responsibilities, which are not those of a political streetfighter who, if required, can arouse and play on primitive sentiments for expected political gain?

5. How does the Commission intend to publicly distance itself from Mr Bolkestein's views and make it clear which values it wishes to defend against primitive feelings of aversion for the outside world?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2001)

The Commission considers it important that its members express their point of view on issues of political relevance. As the Commission had the opportunity to recall in reply to oral and written questions by Members of Parliament, its members exercise a political function and, while honouring the obligations imposed by the function, remain free to express their political opinions quite independently and under their own responsibility.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3115/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Aid for the clam sector in Languedoc (France)

Representatives of the clam sector in the region of Languedoc-Roussillon (France) have told me of their concern that they are unable to benefit from aid under the FIFG owing to a strict interpretation of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999(1) laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector.

Can the Commission clarify whether this sector can benefit from FIFG aid for seeding clams?

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

The Honourable Member refers to Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999, laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1), but the question implies that this problem relates to clam breeding rather than to sea fishing. At all events the Commission can confirm that neither repopulating (fisheries) nor seeding (aquaculture) are regarded as structural measures; consequently, they are not eligible for Community structural aid.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.