ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2178/00

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

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Fisheries

On 16 May 2000 the Commission sent France a second reasoned opinion. The first had been sent out in 1996 on account of France's failure to monitor the size of its fishing catches, particularly of hake.

This indicates an infringement of the Court of Justice judgment of 11 June 1991, in which it was stated that France had failed to meet its obligations in this area.

In view of the importance of fishing to the other EU Member States and, in particular, to Spain and the Basque Country, what action is the Commission going to take in order to ensure that France meets its obligations in this matter?

What compensation is to be made available to the fishermen of the other countries affected by these practices, and what form will it take?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Commission did send France a supplementary reasoned opinion under Article 228 of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 171) for the reasons stated in the Honourable Member's question.

The procedure forms part of the Commission's overall work to monitor Member States' fishery activities and to ensure compliance with Community fisheries legislation.

The Commission carries out this work continuously in respect of all the Member States, inter alia through visits undertaken by Community inspectors.

With regard to the last part of the question, no compensation is payable if the Community inspectors discover non-compliance with Community legislation. In response to systematic non-compliance with that legislation, the Commission may initiate the procedure which Article 226 of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 169) lays down for failure to fulfil an obligation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1278/00

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Agriculture flax and hemp

Is the Commission aware that, under its present proposals, between 60 and 80 % of the land on which flax is grown in the UK will not be eligible for aid? This would kill off the UK industry immediately.

And does the Commission accept that innovative markets have recently been developed for short-fibre crops, at a substantial investment cost to the industry, in several Member States, including Wales? If farmers cannot expand their production to supply these new outlets, this investment in rural areas will have been for nothing.

And, lastly, does the Commission accept that there is a blurring of lines between the markets for short-fibre and long-fibre crops, since long-fibre products also compete in the new products market, which means that a differentiated aid rate offers a competitive advantage to long-fibre producers in the same market?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2000)

The question of eligible land is a general requirement of the arable crops regime that was introduced for environmental reasons as well as to keep production and budgetary expenses under control. As the flax and hemp reform proposal(1) is now being discussed in the Council, as well as in the Parliament and Economic and social committee, the final rules applicable for flax and hemp will depend on the outcome of those discussions.

As far as short fibres are concerned, the proposal does indeed support the development of new markets during a 5 year period through the straw processing aid. In fact, the Community finances do not allow for high subsidies to new products that would only find their market at a very low price. Thus, the right sign is given now to the sector: at the end of the transitional period, these productions will need to be economically viable with the common level of support for arable crops.

Concerning the differentiated aid rate between long and short flax fibres, the proposal takes account of the wide differences in product value and production costs between both products. Considering that long flax fibres used in the textile industry can easily reach prices several times higher than those for short fibres used for other outlets, it seems inappropriate to claim that both products compete in the same market.

(1) OJ C 56 E, 29.2.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2036/00

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

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Unemployment in Galicia

The latest statistics indicate that 15,80 % of the working population in Galicia is unemployed, double that of the Navarrese Autonomous Community, which is the lowest in Spain, and of the majority of European countries. Does the Community support framework for Spain make provision for effective specific action to solve this major problem facing Galicia, taking account of its Objective No 1 status?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

Having presented the regional development plan for Objective 1 regions in Spain, and with a view to establishing the Community Support Framework (CSF) for the period 2000-2006, the Commission is currently negotiating the strategic guidelines and objectives of this CSF with the Spanish authorities.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it is taking account in these negotiations of the labour market situation in Spain's Objective 1 regions, particularly the lack of qualifications among human resources and rates of employment and unemployment.

The objectives of the Community Support Framework for Spain's Objective 1 regions in the period 2000-2006 will include growth in employment, provision of skills for the workforce and reduction of the unemployment rate.

These objectives will take account of the employment pillars and guidelines implemented by the national action plans and of the priority areas defined by Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council on the European Social Fund, the main financial support instrument for the European Employment Strategy(1).

The Commission will forward the Community Support Framework to Parliament as soon as it has been adopted.

(1) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2000/00

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: The Giardino zoologico di Napoli (Naples zoo) company

The Giardino zoologico di Napoli company has operated in Naples for the last 50 years, ever since the town first acquired a zoo. A zoo is undoubtedly a cultural asset for a city of this size and importance, especially as the nearest zoos are about 200 km away (Fasano zoo safari Rome). Its loss would be a serious blow to those in the city who wish to use the zoo for educational as well as recreational purposes, as has often been the case in recent times for schools and the university. The Giardino zoologico di Napoli is a limited-liability company. Fifty years ago, it concluded a lease with the company owning the vast site, the Mostra d'Oltremare S.p.A, the main shareholder in which was the commune of Naples. The latter company declined to renew the lease, which expired in 1998, and successfully applied to have the company evicted, although the execution of the order was deferred until this year. The various spurious reasons cited do not constitute objective grounds for the lessor's failure to renew the lease. The Commune of Naples, which is involved in this matter both as the major shareholder in Mostra d'Oltremare S.p.A and as the city's administrative authority, in which capacity it should be concerned with protecting Naples' cultural facilities, has not intervened even to propose an alternative site to which the zoo could be moved. The zoo employs 18 people and accounts indirectly for the employment of various others; the future prospects of the 50 or so people whose jobs depend on the zoo are bleak, given the level of unemployment in Naples. The outlook for the zoo's animals is not promising either.

The Commission:

- Would it, therefore, ascertain whether the facts set out above are accurate?

- Would it consider whether it would be appropriate to approach the Commune of Naples, as the competent body, to ensure the city's zoo is retained, if necessary on a different site, at no cost to the Commune?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The Commission notes the Honourable Member's concern about the problems that the Giardino zoologico de Napoli is facing concerning the end of its lease. Unfortunately the Commission has no competence to intervene in a matter concerning a commercial lease between a limited-liability company and another company and it would therefore not be appropriate for the Commission to approach the Commune of Naples regarding an alternative site for the Zoo.

In April of last year Council Directive 1999/22/EC relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos(1) was adopted. The objective of this Directive is to protect wild fauna and to conserve biodiversity and it is only in this context that the Commission can intervene. The Directive will be implemented by the Member States through the adoption of measures for the licensing and inspection of zoos in the Community, enabling the role of zoos in the conservation of biodiversity to be strengthened.

(1) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1306/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: The welfare of broiler chickens

The recent report by the Commission's Scientific Committee on Animal Health & Animal Welfare on The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers) concludes that the broiler industry's determination to achieve fast growth rates leads to many broiler chickens suffering from painful leg disorders and ascites. The Scientific Committee also indicated that the highest acceptable stocking density

is around 30 kg/m2 and that welfare would be improved if stocking densities were below that figure. The committee also concluded that the severe feed restrictions to which broiler breeders are subjected result in unacceptable welfare problems and that the welfare of breeding birds must be improved.

What steps does the Commission plan to take to address the broiler health and welfare problems highlighted by the Scientific Committee's report?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

The Commission's responsibilities towards animal protection have increased under the recent amendment of the EC Treaty which requires the European institutions and Member States to consider animal welfare a priority when drawing up agriculture, transport, single market and research policies.

Article 5 of Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes(1) provides for the Commission to submit to the Council any proposals which may be necessary for the uniform application of the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes and, on the basis of a scientific evaluation, any recommendations made under this Convention and any other appropriate specific rules.

Since the report of the scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare on the welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers) was adopted on 21 March 2000, the Commission now possesses scientific elements on which to prepare specific provisions based on Article 5 of the above mentioned directive. It is the intention of the Commission to consider the problem of the welfare of broilers in the light of the committee's opinion.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1814/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: Coordination of forest protection classifications

In Europe, an area of some 3 million hectares of forest has been strictly protected. This equals 1,6 % of forests in Europe. The Nordic countries are top of the list and in a league of their own as regards the area of protected forests in the EU.

As a Finnish MEP, I am somewhat concerned about the classification of forest protection, which is still carried out on a purely national basis. The lack of conformity in protection classification and statistical data is a problem which should be tackled as a matter of urgency.

What is the Council's view of the importance of coordinating forest protection classifications, and will the issue be raised when the 6th Environmental Programme is being drawn up?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The question whether to include the classification of forest protection in the Commission's proposals for the 6th Environmental Programme falls within the competence of the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2096/00

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

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Representation of sub-state political entities in the European Council

With a view to the reform of the Treaties, which is due to take place at the Intergovernmental Conference, does the Council intend to take a legislative initiative to ensure the presence of ministers of sub-state entities with political and legislative powers within the delegations of Member States, given that certain Member States, such as Spain (unlike Germany, Belgium, Austria and the United Kingdom), still refuse to apply the provisions of Article 203 of the consolidated version of the Treaty establishing the European Community?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Honourable Member should be aware that the Council has no role whatsoever in the work of the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, and is therefore unable to comment on work being undertaken by the Conference. The European Parliament, on the other hand, has two observers who are closely involved in the work of the Conference at the preparatory level. For a more comprehensive overview of the state of play in the work of the IGC, the honourable member should refer to the report produced under the Presidency's responsibility for the Feira European Council.

The Treaty establishes in its Article 203 that the Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that Member State. Determining the appropriate representation at the various Council formations is a matter for the government of the Member State concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1237/00

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Subject: Sweden's position in relation to EMU under the Treaties

At a press conference in Stockholm on 3 April, Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou said that a no vote in a referendum on EMU in Sweden would not in any way affect Sweden's obligations under the Treaties. The Commissioner's statement may be seen as representing a change of position in comparison with previous statements by the Commission, which indicated that, under the Treaties, Sweden did not have the right to remain outside monetary union.

Can the Commission clarify its official position on Sweden's obligations under the Treaties in relation to monetary union?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

The Commission position on Sweden's statutory relationship to the EC Treaty remains unchanged. The status for Sweden in relation to economic and monetary union is at present a Member State with a derogation.

In the convergence report of 1998, Sweden and Greece were assessed as not fulfilling the necessary conditions for the adaptation of the single currency and are therefore referred to as Member States with a derogation. A new convergence report for Sweden and Greece will be published in May 2000. Article 122(2) (ex Article 109k) of the EC Treaty lays down provisions and procedures for re-examining the situation of Member States with a derogation. At least every two years, or at the request of a Member State with a derogation, the Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) are required to prepare new convergence reports on such Member States.

Two other Member States, Denmark and the United Kingdom, do not yet participate in the euro. They negotiated opt-out arrangements before the adoption of the Treaty on European Union (Protocols No 26(ex 12) and 25 (ex 11), respectively). Until these Member States indicate that they wish to participate in the third stage to join the single currency, they are not subject to an assessment by the Council as to whether they fulfil the necessary conditions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1334/00

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Sea bass fishing situation

The sea fishermen's associations have drawn my attention to the situation with regard to sea bass fishing in Community waters. I should like the Commission to supply some information on this subject, which is a cause for concern.

During the reproduction period some fisherman fish for sea bass in the spawning grounds on an intensive basis and are not subject to any kind of control. Such behaviour threatens the renewal of the species.

Have any scientific studies been carried out to ascertain the current levels of stocks in an effort to address the issue of preserving the species? If not, could such a study be launched in the very near future?

In addition, what action can the European Commission take in order to protect the species (overall quota for the entire European Union, minimum size of fish, etc.)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission is aware about the widespread concern about the possibly excessive rate of exploitation of bass.

The Commission is also aware that, in the light of this concern, the authorities of both France and United Kingdom have established legislation which limits the quantities of bass which may be landed each week by their commercial vessels.

For its part, the Commission has requested the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to report on the state of exploitation of bass stocks in the north-east Atlantic and to suggest technical means by which problems might be solved. ICES are still in the process of organising the appropriate working groups required to deal with this topic by mid 2001 at the earliest. The report of ICES will be the basis of further consideration of this topic by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2350/00

by Véronique Mathieu (EDD) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Community forestry strategy

The objectives defined by the Commission in 1988 in its communication COM(88) 255(1) entitled Community strategy and action programme for the forestry sector include the recreational dimension of forests.

1. Can the Commission explain the meaning of its reference to the recreational function of the woodland?

2. Can it state what type of initiatives to develop the recreational function of forests have already been implemented?

(1) OJ C 312, 7.12.1988, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The recreational function of woodlands covers the whole range of forest services including providing public and leisure facilities. These services are often based on the perception of the natural environment that an urban population has. The activities in question can undermine the other dimensions of woodlands, namely the environmental and economic ones. What is more, there are also incompatibilities between the various forms of leisure (walking, cycling, horse riding, hunting). It is up to the owners and managers of woodlands to ensure that they are managed and used in such a way as to fulfil all their functions in the best way possible.

Initiatives to develop the recreational dimension of forests vary according to local conditions. They are implemented by private and public woodland owners and can cover among other things access, facilities and the structure of forest stands.

Under Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)(1), the Community can take part in the funding of investments in forests that are intended to improve significantly their economic, environmental and social value.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2432/00

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: Return of driving licence to persons repeatedly convicted of extreme drunken driving

The European Union is currently seeking to harmonise the blood alcohol level leading to a conviction for drunken driving at 50 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. At the same time consideration ought also to be given to the conditions under which persons repeatedly convicted of extreme drunken driving (e.g. in Finland over 100 mg of alcohol) can have their driving licences returned. In addition to the simple driving ban, it might be advisable to insist that repeat offenders provide a doctor's opinion. It would be possible to make the return of the driving licence conditional on a medical certificate determining the seriousness of the drunken driver's alcohol dependence.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to harmonise practice in the EU states concerning the return of the licence to persons convicted of extreme drunken driving?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The Commission is seeking, by way of a new recommendation, to encourage a more harmonised regime of maximum legal blood alcohol levels, based around a general maximum level no higher than 50 milligram per milliliter (mg/ml) and with a lower maximum level of no higher than 20 mg/ml for special categories of driver. Drivers caught above these levels would be, as they are now, penalised subject to national legislation which may take the form of criminal conviction or administrative fine.

Furthermore the Commission does not propose any new measures concerning the return of a driving licence following conviction for extreme drunken driving. Penalties fall outside the competence of European legislation. In addition, the definition of extreme drunken driving is one that is set at national and not European level. At a more general level, in 1998 the Member States did agree on the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications within the framework of the Convention on driving disqualifications(1). However the Convention remains to be ratified by the Member States.

(1) OJ C 216, 10.7.1998.