ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2791/99

by Luís Queiró (UEN) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: German contravention of competition rules

In the last few weeks we have witnessed two instances of government intervention in the economic activity of an EU Member State, namely Germany.

The first intervention was to prevent the imminent bankruptcy of the Philip Holzmann company, and saw public funding to the value of DEM 257 million (EUR 127,8 million) being granted.

The second intervention came when the German government opposed the hostile take-over bid for the Mannesmann company by the British Vodafone Air Touch company, and called for the establishment of rules to impeded such operations, on the grounds that there is a need to prevent culture clashes between differently-conceived models of capitalism.

1. Do the German government's interventions constitute market operations?

2. Were the interventions made without prior authorisation from the Commission?

3. Are Community competition rules, which the Commission is responsible for promoting and defending, being flaunted or not?

4. Is firm and punctilious Commission intervention called for here, as it was when the Portuguese government opposed the Champalimaud/Santander Central Hispano agreement?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

Vodafone Airtouch's hostile take-over bid for the German company Mannesmann will be assessed in accordance with Community competition rules and specifically under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings(1) as amended, the merger regulation. This is the rule for all merger cases dealt with by the Commission.

The merger regulation would allow the German government to block the merger between Vodafone Airtouch and Mannesmann if there were reasons of public security, plurality of the media and prudential rules. However, if the German government were to find any other public interest being infringed by the operation, this would have to be communicated to the Commission.

After a preliminary examination of the notified aid to Holzmann on the basis of the Guidelines on State Aid for Rescuing and Restructuring Firms in Difficulty the Commission found that the aid raised doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. Therefore, on 18 January 2000 the Commission initiated proceedings in order to launch an in-depth investigation of the aid measures. The Honourable Member can be assured that the case is being carefully scrutinised.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, as amended OJ L 40, 13.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1563/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Parliamentary assistants employed by DG XII

1. How many MEPs' assistants were employed by DG XII and the JRC during the last parliamentary term, what type of contract did they have and what were their duties?

2. Have any administrative or legal proceedings been initiated, or concluded, by the relevant Commission departments, by OLAF or by other competent bodies, against individuals employed by DG XII with the above professional background?

3. If so, and without prejudice, of course, to the rights of those in question and to any other relevant provision, what type of charges were brought and what is the current status of the proceedings?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 1999)

1. A certain number of the persons recruited by the former Directorate General for Science, Research and Development (DG XII) and the Joint research Centre (JRC) during the most recent legislative period had already been employed in the service of other institutions under different sets of staff rules, including those for MEPs assistants.

The Commission is able to state, more particularly, that it is aware that former MEP's assistants (seven in the case of DG XII and one in that of the JRC) were recruited during the most recent legislative period as officials, contract staff members or auxiliary staff members by means of the administrative procedures providing for this (competitions, selections, tests), and in line with the rules in force mldr

2. and 3. No administrative or legal proceedings are in progress or have been brought against former MEP's asistants recruited by DG XII or by the JRC over the last five years.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2690/99

by Thierry La Perriere (UEN) to the Council

(3 January 2000)

Subject: EU-Turkish relations, human rights, and Christian minorities

In the negotiations on implementation of the Customs Union and Turkey's application to join the European Union, the Council is focusing especially on the situation of the Kurds.

There are other minorities in Turkey. Christians make up quite a substantial portion of its population. In the past, Christian Turks have suffered human rights violations on a massive scale, and their situation is still extremely precarious.

Can the Council say whether, when conducting the ongoing negotiations with Turkey, it is likewise focusing on the situation of the Christian minorities?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

The Helsinki European Council decided that Turkey is a candidate State destined to join the Union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to the other candidate States. Compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria is a prerequisite for the opening of any accession negotiations. The Council underlines that stability of institutions guaranteeing human rights and respect for and protection of minorities is one of the Copenhagen political criteria. This naturally includes the Christian minorities.

According to the Helsinki European Council conclusions, building on the existing European strategy, Turkey, like other candidate States, will benefit from a pre-accession strategy to stimulate and support its reforms. This will include enhanced political dialogue, with emphasis on progressing towards fulfilling the political criteria for accession with particular reference inter alia to the issue of human rights. This too naturally includes the Christian minorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1800/99

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Council

(13 October 1999)

Subject: Proposals for directives awaiting a Council decision

At the 23 September 1999 meeting of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the President-in-Office of the Transport Ministers' Council confirmed that the Council holds a large number of proposals for directives on which it has yet to take a decision, despite the fact that some of those proposals have been awaiting such action for a number of years.

Could the Council say which proposals are affected by this state of affairs?

Reply

(17 December 1999)

The proposals for directives to which the Honourable Member is referring concern, inter alia, those covered by the Resolution adopted by the European Parliament at its sitting on 16 September 1999

(see PE 279.943). In that Resolution the European Parliament confirmed, as first readings under the co-decision procedure following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, a whole series of texts voted under the previous Parliament.

Following that European Parliament Resolution, the Council will strive henceforth to make progress on the files concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1582/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Greening the processing of fish

Will the Commission consider providing financial incentives to fish processors in order to encourage them to install plant for the utilisation of fish waste rather than encouraging industrial fishing?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1999)

Contrary to what the Honourable Member's question appears to imply, the Commission does not encourage industrial fishing (meaning fishing intended for purposes other than human consumption).

The current legal basis for financial incentives to the processing industry is Council Regulation (EC) 2468/98 of 3 November 1998 laying down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing and marketing of its products(1). In Annex II.2.4 of that Regulation it is explicitly stipulated that investments shall not be eligible for assistance where they concern fishery and aquaculture products intended to be used and processed for purposes other than human consumption, with the exception of investments exclusively for the handling, processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture product wastes. The Commission has proposed that this clause be carried forward to the next legal basis (covering the 2000-2006 programming period of the Structural Funds).

(1) OJ L 312, 20.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1708/99

by Hervé Novelli (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 September 1999)

Subject: Inconsistency between European regional policy and the French authorities' decisions

The department of Indre-et-Loire is currently under consideration as regards the new zones for application of the reform of European regional policy. The commune of Nouâtre in the canton of Sainte-Maure, which used to be eligible under ERDF Objective 5(b), could now come under Objective 2.

However, at the same time, the French authorities have decided to close a large part of the Nouâtre military base, which employs about 400 people, including 250 civilians, which will be a severe blow to the local economy. For instance, the Nouâtre secondary school, which takes the children of employees at the base, may be threatened with closure in the fairly near future.

1. Does not the Council think that there is an unacceptable contradiction between its regional policy objectives in Indre-et-Loire and the French authorities' decision, taken without any consultation, concerning a commune in the same department?

2. Does not the Council think that it should intervene with the French Government to resolve this inconsistency?

3. More generally, does the Council know of other, similar cases and what measures will it take to prevent contradictions of this kind in the future?

Reply

(9 December 1999)

1. In June the Council adopted new rules on the Structural Funds, which set out the priority objectives, general principles and programming methodology for 2000-2006.

2. Under these rules, the Commission is responsible for ensuring the consistency of Objective 2 regional development strategies presented by the Member States with the objectives of Community regional policy.

It is not for the Council to intervene in this matter, nor to comment on the policies and internal decisions of Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1739/99

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(1 October 1999)

Subject: Directive 96/0009/EC

Can the Commission specify if and how Italy has transposed Directive 96/0009/EC(1) of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases?

Can it also say which countries have not yet adopted national implementing measures with regard to the above directive?

(1) OJ L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Italy has implemented Directive 96/0009/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases(1) by decreto legge No 169 of 6 May 1999(2). The Commission is currently examining this text.

The Commission has decided to bring before the Court of justice the failure of Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal, to implement the Directive within specified time limits.

(1) OJ L 77, 27.3.1996.

(2) Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 138 of 15.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1899/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Kaleidoscope Programme (1996-1998)

Will the Commission state what agencies (public or private), institutions, companies, cooperatives and individuals have been allocated funding (specifying whether payments have already been made) under the Kaleidoscope programme of Community support to artistic and cultural activities (1996-1998) (budget ECU 26,5 million, equal to approx. LIT 51 billion) 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 Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1999)

With regard to the first part of the question, due to the scale of the answer which includes many publications, the Commission will forward the answer in full directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat-General.

With regard to the second part, the progress of selected projects is monitored by means of interim and final reports and, consequently, financial contributions are allocated only when these reports have been checked and approved by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2015/99

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(9 November 1999)

Subject: Organigramme of the new Commission's services

I should like a copy of the organigramme of the new Commission's services, and specifically, details of the names, nationalities and gender of the heads of Directorates-General, Directorates, Services and autonomous Units.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 1999)

A list of officials in management posts on the Commission organisation chart, showing their grade, sex and nationality, will be sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of Parliament.

The electronic version of the organisation chart for the new Commission can be consulted on the Internet.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1892/99

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

(29 October 1999)

Subject: URBAN Community Initiative

In response to an initiative of the European Parliament, the URBAN Community Initiative will continue during the period from 2000 until 2006. The EP also asked for this Community Initiative to be directed towards small and medium-sized towns in the EU.

Can the Commission indicate how it intends to fulfil the EP's request? Could the previous minimum number of inhabitants, 100 000 being the general rule, be taken as a maximum in the future so as to meet the wishes of the EP?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 1999)

The draft guidelines for the Urban Community Initiative, adopted by the Commission on 13 October 1999(1), clearly indicate that there will no longer be a minimum population size for eligible urban areas. The Commission requires only that each urban area concerned have a population of at least 10 000.

Member States therefore have the option of proposing small and medium-size urban areas, and also larger-sized towns, as Parliament wished.

(1) COM(1999) 477 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2024/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Small farmers and preservation of the countryside

Does the Commission recognise the role of small farmers in helping to preserve the countryside as a resource both for the local community and for tourism?

Does the Commission not feel that the rural environment protection scheme and other rural development schemes should be widened and enlarged to ensure that adequate financial recognition is given to small farmers for this role?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 1999)

The Commission recognises the important role of small farmers in the management of the countryside, in the conservation of bio-diversity and the protection of the environment.

Council Regulation (EC) 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999, establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy(1), allows the Member States to modulate the direct payments granted to farmers according to certain objective criteria. The Member States can use money made available from reduced payments for certain additional measures in the framework of rural development support provided under Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/ of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(2). This Regulation presents an integrated approach to rural development, where the recognition of the multi-functional role of agriculture, and implicitly of small farmers, is a key element. It provides a series of measures which may be adopted by Member States according to their specific needs. Since Member States may lay down further or more restrictive conditions for granting Community support for rural development, some of these measures can be used specifically to support small farmers. Agri-tourism is one of the possible actions that can be adopted by Member States in their rural development programmes to promote rural restructuring and diversify the economy.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2155/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Savoia family exile

Since 1946 the Savoia family, who until then had reigned over Italy, have been living in exile. This exile seems absurd, unjustified and, furthermore, in breach of international human rights conventions.

In the context of a united Europe with a sound democracy based on solidarity and citizens' rights, would the Commission state:

1. whether there are any European directives stipulating that European citizens who have not committed any crimes are entitled to move freely within the EU;

2. whether it does not consider that the case might be referred to the European Court of Justice;

3. its general views on the matter.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question No P-2703/97 by Mr Florio(1).

(1) OJ C 60, 25.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1956/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Amendment of European competition law

The Commission plans to amend European competition law so that the current system of investigating prior to authorising mergers will be transformed into one where checks are carried out subsequently. Can the Commission answer the following questions:

At what stage of development are the Commission plans?

How would the above-mentioned reform affect the working methods of the Commission?

How long would the procedure take between the moment when suspicions of an illegal merger first arise and the adoption of a final decision?

Does the Commission proposal provide for claims for damages by persons affected adversely directly or indirectly by the activities of a trust which is subsequently deemed illegal?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1999)

On 28 April 1999 the Commission adopted a White Paper concerning changes to the procedural rules applicable to restrictive practices and the abuse of dominant positions(1). The White Paper does not cover mergers, which still have to be notified and given prior authorisation before being put into effect.

The Commission has received many comments from the Member States and other interested parties, Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee are also looking at its proposals. On the basis of the reactions it receives, the Commission will pursue its efforts with a view to drawing up a proposal for a Council Regulation to replace the existing one, i.e. Regulation No 17, the first Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty(2). The new proposal is expected to be adopted by the Commission and sent to the Council in the second half of 2000.

The Commission's work would be radically changed by this reform, in particular by the abolition of the system of notifying restrictive practices. The bureaucracy involved in handling notifications would be eliminated, leaving the Commission free to concentrate on taking action against the most serious infringements of the competition rules.

As for the prohibition system, the length of the procedure varies considerably from one case to the next. The White Paper proposes the introduction of a four-month time-limit, at the end of which the Commission would inform complainants of the action it intended to take on their complaint. The only requirement that can be imposed on the rest of the procedure is that it be completed within a reasonable timeframe. The Community courts ensure that this requirement is met.

Under the system proposed in the White Paper, agreements that restrict competition and fail to meet the conditions laid down in Article 81(3) would be prohibited and rendered void ab initio without the need for a Commission decision. The victims of such restrictive practices would be able to claim damages in the national courts to compensate for the harm they had suffered. The Commission's proposed reform in no way affects the rights of victims to obtain damages.

(1) COM(1999) 101 final.

(2) OJ 13, 21.2.1962.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1818/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Action programme on public health

Can the Commission state to what extent funding or subsidies have been awarded (with payments already disbursed, or not), and to what bodies (public or private), institutions, undertakings, cooperatives or individuals, in connection with the programme of action on health promotion, information, education and training within the framework for action in the field of public health (1996-2000)?

Have the actual deployment of the funds and the successful outcome of the initiatives been verified?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1999)

The Commission will forward directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat-General the lists of projects funded under the Community action programme on health promotion, information, education and training (1996-1999).

The mid-term review of this action programme will be forwarded to Parliament and to the Council for their information following approval by the Commission.