ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1635/99

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 September 1999)

Subject: Calf export ban

Is the Commission aware that since the end of July the UK Government has stopped funding the calf processing scheme?

The scheme enabled calves which had been exported before the introduction of the EU calf export ban to be paid for and disposed of at a fixed price. Now that this funding has been stopped, calves have been making just £1.00 each at market less than it costs to take them there. Dead calves have been dumped in public, and farmers are being forced into the indignity of shooting their own animals.

Is the Commission considering lifting the calf export ban? If not, what is the likelihood of there being a resumption of funding for the calf processing scheme?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 1999)

Indeed, the United Kingdom authorities have notified the Commission that the United Kingdom stopped applying the optional calf processing aid scheme (CPAS) beyond the end of July 1999. This aid, created under the 1992 beef reform and financed by Community funds, is no longer foreseen once the new beef reform comes into application (as from January 2000).

So far, the Commission has not proposed to lift the ban on the export of live bovine animals from the United Kingdom. Live animals would pose a greater risk to public and animal health than meat, since not all Member States have a similar level of protection in place at slaughter to that operating in the United Kingdom i.e. removal of specified risk materials and rules for the treatment of animal waste.

Until the end of December 1999, the British government is at liberty to reactivate this premium of its own accord, at the level provided for by the relevant Commission Regulation (EC) No 2604/98 of 3 December 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89(1), or at another rate to be decided by the Commission. It is also worth noting that, as from the year 2000, UK has received a supplementary special beef premium ceiling of 100 000 premium rights until such time as exportation reopens for live animals under six months of age.

(1) OJ L 328, 4.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1710/99

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Finnish egg production subsidy

The Finnish Government currently provides an EU-approved subsidy reportedly FIM 2,35 per kilo for egg production in Finland. There is no such subsidy in Sweden, which results in distortion of competition. What plans does the Commission have for phasing out this subsidy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 1999)

Article 138(1) of the Act of Accession(1) permits Austria and Finland to grant during the transitional period, subject to authorization by the Commission, transitional and degressive national aids to producers of basic agricultural products subject to the common agricultural policy. Provided the conditions set out in paragraph 2 are met, the Commission is obliged to authorize these aids.

Article 138 was originally implemented as regards Finland by Commission Decision 95/33/EC of 13 February 1995 approving parts of the Finnish programme for the implementation of Articles 138 to 140 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden(2). This decision has been amended a number of times. The current limits for production-related aids in Finland for egg production are laid down in Commission Decision 97/499/EC of 30 July 1996 amending for the fourth time Decision no 95/33/EC(3).

For 1999 the maximum aid rates for eggs are as follows:

- Areas A and B excluding archipelago: 1,58 FIM/kg (0,27/kg)

- Archipelago in areas A and B: 1,95 FIM/kg (0,33/kg)

- Other areas excluding archipelago: 0,52 FIM/kg (0,09/kg)

- Archipelago in other areas: 0,52 FIM/kg (0,09/kg)

Article 138 is only applicable during the transitional period, until the end of 1999, so these aids will cease at that time.

(1) OJ C 241, 29.8.1994.

(2) OJ L 43, 25.2.1995.

(3) OJ L 194, 23.7.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2006/99

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) and Rosa Díez González (PSE) to the Council

(9 November 1999)

Subject: Replacement of drift nets

Council Regulation 1239/98(1) prohibiting the use of drift nets from 2002 states that there must be a gradual reduction in the use of these nets by fleets currently using them. No more than 60 % of fishing boats which used one or more drift nets during the period 1995 to 1997 would be allowed to use them in 1998. The regulation also obliged Member States to provide the Commission with a list of those boats authorised to fish with drift nets by 31 July 1998.

Given the tensions that the use of these nets tends to generate in the fleets fishing in the Bay of Biscay and reports from various fishermen's organisations in the area indicating that nothing like the planned gradual reduction has occurred, would the Council answer the following question:

What are the figures on boats operating in the area which have used drift nets from 1995 to the present given to the Council by Member States?

Have the Member States complied with the planned reduction in the use of drift nets for the transitional period in preparation for a total ban from 2002?

What figures does the Council have on developments in coastal fishing for albacore tuna in 1998 and 1999 as regards catch, nets used and the level of stocks in ICES areas 5b, 6a, 7a, 8a, 9a and 10a? What boats from which countries have fished in these zones during the two years in question?

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998, p. 1.

Answer

(24 January 2000)

The Council would draw attention to the fact that control and enforcement of Community legislation on the conservation of fishery resources is primarily the responsibility of Member States. The Commission ensures the coordination and supervision of Member States' compliance with this obligation.

The Council therefore suggests that the Honourable Members address their questions on the implementation of the phasing out of drift nets in accordance with Council Regulation No 1239/98 to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2396/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Unbearable working hours at Catis di Latina

The recent restructuring of Catis in Latina has also introduced new working hours, on the basis of a study commissioned by the firm itself. However, the work is by nature extremely repetitive and alienating, particularly in one of the divisions (manual assembly line for siphons) and therefore very exhausting for the company's workers, particularly in that division. The working hours laid down by the above-mentioned study seem utterly unsuitable and unreasonable, particularly in view of the large reduction in staff, which has forced the workers still employed at the company to cope with unbearable workloads.

In the light of the above:

1. Are there any studies or documents on working hours or on the observance of reasonable working hours in assembly lines as a safeguard for workers' health?

2. Are there any directives on the subject, have any such directives been completely transposed by Italy, and if so, what is the corresponding Italian legislation?

3. Does the Commission not consider it advisable to ask the Italian authorities and the company management for information on the facts described, and possibly to intervene to ensure the observance of the regulations in force?

4. Can the Commission give its general views on this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

1. The Commission is sending a copy of the final report on the Transformation of Labour and Future of Labour Law in Europe directly to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat general of the Parliament. Together with a detailed list of references to relevant studies and literature.

2. Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time(1) lays down minimum safety and health requirements for the organisation of working time in the Member States. The Italian authorities have yet to notify the relevant implementation measures to the Commission and the Commission has consequently brought the matter to the Court of justice on the basis of Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty (pending case C-386/98).

3. Without prejudice to point 2 and according to the information available, the resolution of the matter would seem to fall, in the first place, within the competence of the national authorities.

4. The information available to the Commission does not permit a detailed evaluation of the situation. However, from a general point of view the Commission would like to emphasise that in the context of the adaptability pillar of the employment guidelines, social partners are invited to negotiate at all appropriate levels agreements to modernise the organisation of work. Such agreements may, for example, deal with issues of working time.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2044/99

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Number of staff employed by Commission

Can the Commission indicate how many full-time and part-time staff are employed by it:

- in Brussels?

- in or near Strasbourg?

- elsewhere?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1999)

On 1 November 1999, the Commission employed in Brussels 12 055 full time officials and 687 part time officials, 1 490 temporary agents and 33 part time temporary agents (totalling 13 545 full time and 720 part time).

In Strasbourg the Commission employed 1 full time official, responsible for the logistics of meetings of the Commission at Strasbourg during the Parliament sessions. The Commission does not employ anybody near Strasbourg.

In Luxembourg the Commission employed 2 477 full time officials and 235 part time officials, 105 temporary agents and 4 part time temporary agents (totalling 2 582 full time and 239 part time).

Elsewhere the Commission employed 1 799 full time officials and 23 part time officials, 1 100 full time temporary agents and 14 part time temporary agents (totalling 2 899 full time and 39 part time).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1943/99

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: The information society and the ultraperipheral regions

The development of the European information society is of the greatest importance for the ultraperipheral regions, since it constitutes a means of overcoming some of the particular difficulties they face.

Their small size means that market forces do not operate there in the way they do in mainland regions; this gives rise to de facto monopolies which slow down or even block access to specific infrastructures and advanced services which are more and more widespread on the mainland.

Is the Commission prepared to enact measures to ensure that telecommunication user services can be provided in the ultraperipheral regions on a competitive basis and under quality conditions identical to those in mainland regions, by establishing minimum ultraperipheral communications service parameters?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1999)

The Commission agrees that the development of the European information society is important for all regions and for both private citizens and commercial businesses.

The Honourable Member is right to point out that competitive market forces in the telecommunications sector may not work as well in ultra-peripheral regions as they do in mainland or more populated regions.

This possibility is recognised in Directive 98/10/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service in a competitive environment(1). Member States are obliged to ensure that at least one designated operator provides telephone service in the whole of the national territory and the Directive also specifies the nature and quality of services to be provided, and requires that the subscriber connection supports data and facsimile services.

In most Member States, the universal service operator is obliged to provide services on a common tariff and quality basis throughout the territory. Therefore, even if the designated operator only faces competition in part of the territory, the positive impact in terms of price and quality is transferred uniformly to other areas.

In addition, the Commission is currently surveying in detail the availability and use, quality and affordability of advanced telecommunications services by residential and business users in all the regions of the Community(2).

(1) The Survey study on the situation of telecommunications services in the regions of the Community is being undertaken by EOS Gallup. This study is currently in progress and results are expected by the end of 1999.

(2) The Survey study on the situation of telecommunications services in the regions of the Community is being undertaken by EOS Gallup. This study is currently in progress and results are expected by the end of 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2243/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Maintenance and publication of econometric models

Please state, for each finance ministry and central bank in the Member States and for the Commission, whether an econometric model of their own economy and of the eurozone economy is maintained and whether the model is made available to interested parties on a regular basis and, if so, how regularly.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2232/99 and E-2243/99 by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

Models in the public sector of Member States are not always developed by ministries of finance or central banks (e.g. in Belgium and the Netherlands, they are developed by their planning bureau). The existence of such models varies through time, is of course not under the control of the Commission and is not always publicised. Information about their availability should thus be requested from the Member States authorities.

As far as the Commission is concerned, it has been a constant policy to transfer its multinational macro model QUEST to all universities and public sector research units that request it. The transfer is made under the following conditions. The user cannot modify the structure and equations of the model in any way and simulations made with the model should always state that they only represent the views of the authors and in no way those of the Commission. The model has been developed in a specific software package that is not the property of the Commission. The user must thus provide the same software, acquired under his own responsibility. The Commission cannot provide any technical help to the user. It is the responsibility of the latter to entrust the model to a fully qualified econometric team having a proven experience of running macro-economic models.

The model covers all Member States and a description of it could be found on the Internet at the address; http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg02/document/ecopap/ecp/123en.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2080/99

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Availability of official documents

Is the Commission prepared, in the interests of transparency and to lower the costs of businesses operating in Europe, to make all Commission directives, European Union legislation and European Union treaties available on the internet either free or at minimal cost, and, if not, can it explain why these documents cannot be made available in this way?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 1999)

In answer to the Honourable Member's question, the Commission is indeed prepared to provide access to Community legislation on the Internet, free of charge and in a user-friendly format, and has already done a great deal of work in this connection.

The EUR-Lex site (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/) has been open to the public since April 1998. It gives access to the Official Journal (OJ) in the eleven Community languages on the day it is published. Initially the site was opened up for a 20-day period, subsequently extended to 45 days owing to popular demand. It also provides free access to Community legislation previously available only through the CELEX database, for which a fee is charged. EUR-Lex users can also access recent judgments of the Court of Justice free of charge.

The Commission plans to make further improvements in the near future: it aims to create better synergies between existing Community-law information systems (such as EUR-Lex, EUDOR and CELEX), to make them more user-friendly and to increase consistency. The first results, which will offer a single gateway for the various systems, are expected in the first quarter of 2000.

In most cases, the information will be provided to the public at no charge, in so far as the resources needed to develop and maintain the IT systems are made available. Under current plans, charges for the above services and for access to old legislation no longer in force will be retained only for users making complex searches for professional purposes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2455/99

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Mismanagement at the Energy Charter Secretariat

The European Commission was present at the meeting of the Energy Charter Conference on 30 July 1999, when the Conference Chairman, Mr Christophersen, drew attention to the serious malfunctioning of the Secretariat, as outlined in the Arthur D. Little report commissioned by his predecessor, Ambassador Rutten. The European Commission is a signatory to the Energy Charter and, as such, should be concerned to ensure its effective implementation. It has assisted the Secretariat through contributions in kind (providing meeting and translation facilities).

1. What steps has the Commission undertaken since that meeting to ensure that the situation is resolved as a matter of urgency?

2. What will the Commission do to ensure that such a situation will not recur?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it is not a signatory to the Energy Charter Treaty. Signatories or contracting parties to the Energy Charter Treaty are the Communities and their fifteen Member States.

The Communities are represented in the Energy Charter by the Commission and the Presidency of the Union.

On a proposal from the Union, the Energy Charter Conference supported by its Chairman, Mr Christophersen, decided on 7 December 1999 by consensus to replace the Secretary General, Mr Schütterle (Germany) as of 1 January 2000 by Mrs Kemper (Germany) for four years with an option for an additional period of two years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2203/99

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Extreme poverty and social exclusion

Article 137 of the Treaty of Amsterdam establishes a new legal basis for the adoption of measures to combat social exclusion. Unfortunately, hard statistics on the scale of this social reality, which might make it possible to reach all those affected by social exclusion and/or extreme poverty more effectively, are not available.

How does the Commission intend to obtain more information on social exclusion and extreme poverty? What measures does the Commission intend to adopt to combat these problems in the light of Article 137 of the Treaty and the undertakings given at the 1995 Copenhagen summit on social development?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member about the importance of reliable indicators and statistics for strengthening policies and measures against social exclusion and poverty.

Social exclusion and poverty are multidimensional problems which change over time and therefore require comprehensive data and indicators which can be analysed over time (longitudinal analysis). Data and indicators must also be gender sensitive. In many Member States as well as at Community level efforts are being made to make better use of existing data as well as to improve the data. Following a meeting in Stockholm in January 1998 of the Community high level think tank on social exclusion and poverty statistics, a Community task force was established. Its work has resulted in a first set of guidelines, endorsed by a meeting of directors general of national statistical offices, for improving statistics and indicators on poverty and social exclusion in Member States as well as at Community level which are now being implemented(1). Community cooperation can make an important contribution and action has been increasing and will continue to intensify as a result of the new provisions in the EC Treaty (Article 137 ex-Article 118).

During 1999, the Commission has engaged in broad discussions with all concerned on a Community strategy against social exclusion and the priorities and scope of Community action to implement such a strategy. These discussions have confirmed full participation and social integration of all people in society as the fundamental principle of an inclusive and cohesive society, as also emerged from the world summit on social development in 1995 in Copenhagen.

Launching the strategy and action will be a priority of the Commission's work programme for 2000. It is envisaged that the strategy and programme will include the aim of strengthening cooperation on statistics and indicators.

An issue of Statistics in focus entitled Social exclusion in the Member States will be published shortly by the Commission.

(1) Statistical Programming Committee. Document No 98/31/2 - 11/98.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2061/99

by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Legal basis of EU subsidies for the rearing of bulls used in bullfighting

What is the Legal basis of EU subsidies for the rearing of bulls used in bullfighting

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 1999)

There is no specific Community aid for the rearing of fighting bulls. However, these bulls are not excluded from the system of premiums for male bovine animals set up in 1987, the legal basis of which is Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal(1) (Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1633/98(2)), repealed and replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999(3) with effect from 1 January 2000.

It should be pointed out that the breeders concerned earmark only a very small number of their male bovine animals for bullfights and that the use of the animals for this purpose is generally decided well after the age at which they benefited from the grant of the premium for male bovine animals.

(1) OJ L 148, 28.6.1968.

(2) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998.

(3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.