ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0410/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Cambodia

Is the Commission aware that there are still allegations of a whole range of problems in Cambodia from desperate poverty, famine in some areas, high levels of corruption and abuses of human rights? Does the Commission consider it necessary to implement any conditionalities at this time?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

The Commission is well aware that Cambodia is among the least developed countries in the world and that it is still marred by poverty and other related problems. The country is facing major challenges in the forthcoming years and needs to implement wide-ranging reforms swiftly. Since the formation of the new Cambodian government, the Commission has had regular consultations with it to discuss these reforms.

At this time the Commission is not considering imposing any conditions on its development programmes, but it will continue to monitor the situation in Cambodia carefully.

Concerning the questions of human rights democratisation and corruption, the Commission intends to have thorough discussions with Cambodian authorities on these issues on the occasion of the first Community Cambodia joint committee, scheduled for the first half of year 2000.

Regarding the food situation for year 2000, international organisations are of the opinion that the overall food situation in Cambodia remains satisfactory. Nevertheless, a sizeable section of the population remains vulnerable to food shortages and the Commission continues to follow the situation in order to be prepared should an emergency occur.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0616/00

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Suspension of investment incentives in the Lisbon and Tagus valley region

According to information which I have received, the Commission has decided to suspend investment incentives to businesses in the Lisbon and Tagus valley region until a final decision is taken on the matter, which might be as late as June 2001.

This will mean that such businesses will no longer have access to the PEDIP (specific programme for development of Portuguese industry), Procom (trade) or SIFIT (tourism) programmes.

In view of the economic difficulties which this suspension will cause to the region and neighbouring areas, will the Commission explain why it has taken such a decision and how and when it intends to unblock the situation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

After the guidelines on national regional aid were adopted(1), the Commission asked the Portuguese authorities to send it a notification under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 93(3)) supplying a draft map showing, first, the Portuguese regions which it was proposed should qualify for national regional aid under the exemptions in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty (formerly Article 92), and, second, the intensity ceilings for aid for initial investment and aid for job creation linked to investment envisaged in each of the regions shown, and the ceilings applicable where aid under different schemes is combined.

The Portuguese authorities supplied a draft regional aid map for the period 2000-06, and on 8 December 1999 the Commission approved the sections of the map defining the regions in Portugal qualifying for the exemption provided for in Article 87(3)(a), namely North, Centre, Alentejo, Algarve, Azores and Madeira.

But in respect of the only Portuguese region which was to qualify under the exemption in Article 87(3)(c), namely Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, the Commission initiated the procedure of Article 88(2): it took the view that on the basis of the information available the proposal made by the Portuguese authorities could not be considered compatible with the guidelines. According to the Portuguese notification the whole of this region, which accounts for 33,4 % of the population of the country, was to be covered by the transitional period referred to in point 5.7 of the guidelines, during which the aid intensities which had applied there until the end of 1999 under Article 87(3)(a) would be adapted. But, given the limitations on the geographical scope of point 5.7 of the guidelines, which are imposed by footnote 43, only a section of the region (10,2 % of the population of the country) would qualify for such a transitional period.

As the Honourable Member observes, Article 88(3) has the effect of suspending assistance until the above procedure has resulted in a final decision. The Commission will make known its position as soon as possible in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0913/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Potentially dangerous developments on French farms

Since 1994 the French agriculture ministry has been making considerable efforts to harmonise agricultural installations (livestock housing, slurry pits etc.). These installations are built to low-level specifications and are of inadequate quality, and have the potential to cause considerable environmental damage. In the foreseeable future these structures, which can no

longer be restored, are in danger of collapsing. They are consequently both an environmental and a financial liability. To date 50 % of French agricultural holdings have already applied the standards laid down by the government, even though these seem to be contrary to EU law.

Is the Commission aware of this problem, and does it plan to take measures to clarify the situation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Since introduction of the rural development strand of Agenda 2000 (July 1999) support for investment on agricultural holdings in the Community, and therefore in France, is restricted to those complying with minimum standards regarding the environment, hygiene and animal welfare (Article 5 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) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(1)).

The standards embrace the Community rules and any complementary national provisions. Compliance with them is checked and non-compliance debars from Community aid.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0132/00

by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Road signs in Italy

Italian motorways are full of fifty kph speed-limit signs underneath which is attached another sign indicating that this limit applies only in case of fog. Since this stipulation appears in Italian only, drivers unfamiliar with that language are likely to be confused by the signs.

Would the Commission not agree that, in the interests of road safety, action should be taken t make those signs readily understandable to all?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

Road safety is a key issue within the European transport policy and the Commission fully understands the Honourable Member's concerns about road signs.

Their characteristics, for example their size, shape and colour, are governed by an international agreement administered by the United Nations economic commission for Europe and these signs usually take the form of a pictogram to avoid difficulties of understanding as mentioned by the Honourable Member.

However, where it is not the case, it is up to the individual Member State which is a signatory to the Convention to propose a modification to replace text messages with pictograms.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0815/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Recite II administration

Can the Commission explain the reasons behind the current unacceptable delays in the processing of applications and in the payment of grants to beneficiaries under its Recite II programme? Does it consider it acceptable that requests for payments submitted by projects in mid-November 1999 have still not been processed?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

The Commission received four applications in November l999 for payments in respect of projects under the programme of interregional cooperation (Recite II).

Two of these applications were complete and the payments were made within 45 days.

In the case of the other two, the beneficiaries sent in incomplete applications which were not in line with their contractual obligations. The Commission contacted both beneficiaries within five days to apprise them of the fact. After sending several reminders, the Commission finally received the extra information it needed in February 2000 and the payment procedure was launched at that time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0932/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 March 2000)

Subject: Violations of the Treaty by the French and Belgian governments

The French and Belgian governments have recently drawn attention to themselves by making an increasing number of calls for compliance with the Treaties. This is in itself a praiseworthy initiative. However, these calls are not of a general nature but are at present directed exclusively against Austria. The basic values underlying European union though, should apply to all.

According to the official data currently available(1), during the period 1995-1998 a total of 724 sets of proceedings for violation of the Treaty were brought against France, resulting in 463 letters of formal notice, 206 reasoned opinions and 55 complaints to the Court of Justice. During the same period 589 sets of proceedings were brought against Belgium, resulting in 333 letters of formal notice, 192 reasoned opinions and 64 complaints to the Court of Justice. The Belgian and French governments thus not only lead the field as self-appointed champions of the Treaties, but are also champions at violating those Treaties. These two countries occupy an unchallenged position at the top of statistics.

By contrast, during the same period only 5 complaints were brought against Austria, compared with 64 against Belgium and 55 against France. Only 78 reasoned opinions were issued against Austria, compared with 206 against France and 192 against Belgium. And on only 321 occasions was the behaviour of Austria criticised in a letter of formal notice, as against 463 occasions for France and 333 for Belgium. France and Belgium thus clearly have much ground to make up in the European integration process compared to Austria, which has only been a Member State of the EU since 1995 and has a very good record of compliance with the Treaty.

Can the Council Presidency say what measures it intends to take to point out to France and Belgium that they should acknowledge their own deficiencies in the European integration process instead of criticising these deficiencies in others?

What does the Presidency intend to do to give publicly and praise to those countries which have a good record of implementing Community law?

(1) OJ C 354, 7.12.1999, p. 75.

Reply

(8 June 2000)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that it is not the task of the Council Presidency but of the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty are applied and that Member States honour their obligations under the Treaty (Articles 211 and 226 of the EC Treaty).

The Council would also point out that the Commission publishes a single market scoreboard twice a year, giving details of the progress made by Member States in transposing Directives relating to the single market and the infringement proceedings brought by the Commission against Member States. Each scoreboard is discussed in the Internal Market Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0863/00

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (TDI) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Compliance of the bylaws of Monte dei Paschi di Siena with the 1998 Law No 461 and with European legislation on the internal market and competition

On Saturday, 5 February 2000, the Monte dei Paschi di Siena Foundation approved its new bylaws, as provided by Law No 461 of 23 December 1998. The bylaws stipulated that five individuals nominated by the municipal authorities, four by the provincial authorities and one by the regional authorities should be appointed members of the Board of Directors, to the exclusion, therefore, of members nominated by other bodies or individuals.

Law No 461, however, with the attendant delegated decree and official guidelines, stipulates that the boards of directors of such banking foundations must include both adequate local representation and individuals working in other fields.

No other banking foundation bylaws contain the proviso that their board of directors should consist only of members nominated by the above-mentioned authorities.

Moreover, the bylaws do not contain any rules on incompatibility; hence individuals who were involved in the actual establishment of the Board of Directors, such as the mayor of Siena himself, may also sit on the Board.

This runs counter to the aforementioned Law No 461 and the related delegated decree, which call for independence and absence of conflict of interest i.e. administrators or employees of the local/regional/provincial authorities may not join any banking foundation bodies.

The Commission is currently checking the compliance of Law No 461 on bank restructuring with European legislation.

In the light of this, does the Commission deem the bylaws of the Monte di Paschi Foundation, specifically with regard to the two above matters, to comply with the relevant provisions of the Treaty and with Community laws on competition and the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2000)

The Commission is examining the compatibility of Italian Law No 461/98 with the rules on competition, particularly those concerning state aid.

On 23 March, after examining the documents provided by the Italian authorities, the Commission requested further information on the tax advantages provided for in that Law in favour of banking foundations and banks undergoing mergers.

The problem raised by the Honourable Member relates to the compatibility of the statute of a banking foundation (Monte dei Paschi di Siena) with Law No 461/98 regarding the appointment of representatives of the local authorities to the board of directors of the foundation in question.

Such a problem involving the compatibility of a bylaw of a banking foundation with Italian law is not caught by the rules on state aid or those governing the single market in banking services. It therefore falls outside the Commission's remit and is a matter for the Italian courts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0585/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

Will the Commission say how it can strengthen the environmental assessments of policy initiatives with particular reference to CO2 emissions and the climate change issue?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

As the question relates to transport policy, the response will focus on this area. The question could also be seen in a more general context, as policy initiatives with an impact on climate change emanate from other policy areas as well.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from transport have to be seen as part of the overall area of transport and environment. This overall approach is important in order to avoid sub-optimal solutions that could lead to losses in other environmental areas (for example, replacing petrol by diesel without flanking measures would reduce CO2 emissions but could increase particulate emissions). The Commission has been operating a joint transport and environment expert group involving experts from the Member States' transport and environment ministries in order to support its integration efforts towards an environmentally sustainable transport system. This group made recommendations that provided essential support to the Finnish presidency in drawing up the Transport Council's integration strategy of 6 October 1999. The group is now involved in the follow-up and the preparation for reviewing this strategy.

Apart from this integration activity which concerns all environmental aspects in transport, climate change included, the Commission has now adopted the communication on EU Policies and Measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Towards a European Climate Change Programme (ECCP)(1). The communication includes a list of potential Community policies and measures, as requested by the Environment Council in October 1999. These will be developed under the ECCP. Transport plays an important role in this framework. The details of how transport will contribute to the ECCP are currently being worked out.

The activities mentioned above will be significant in connection with the review of the common transport policy that is scheduled for the second half of this year, as well as for the planned green paper on urban transport.

(1) COM(2000) 88 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0908/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

(24 March 2000)

Subject: Referendum in Western Sahara

On 29 February 2000 the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on Western Sahara in connection with the Peace Plan drawn up for this territory, which had been accepted and signed by the parties concerned the Kingdom of Morocco and the Saharoui Democratic Republic with a view to holding a referendum to determine the future of the area.

Does the Council intend, via the High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, to include in its work programme participation in the control and monitoring of issues affecting the future of the Sahara, in particular as regards the referendum, since all this may directly affect certain areas of the European Union?

Reply

(10 July 2000)

The Council closely follows issues affecting the future of Western Sahara. It fully supports the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General, his Special Representative for Western Sahara and his Personal Envoy, James Baker, concerning the future of Western Sahara. The Council is willing to contribute to this process and help build a climate of confidence and trust among the interested parties in order to find a solution acceptable to all interested parties of the region and based on respect for human rights and democratic principles.

The Council takes note of the observation in the latest report of the United Nations Secretary-General that the timetable envisaged is no longer valid and that the date for the referendum can still not be set with certainty at this juncture. It welcomes the intention of the Secretary-General to ask his Personal Envoy to explore ways and means to achieve an early, durable and agreed solution of the dispute. The Council also supports Mr Baker's initiative with respect to direct talks and welcomes the holding of a first meeting on 14 May in London.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1244/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Ministerial concessions for radio-relay systems frequencies

Italian operators in the dedicated radio-relay systems sector, a telecommunications technique used by the police, Provinces, Forestry Service and emergency services among others, have been complaining for some time about the confusing and bureaucratic procedures used by the Italian Ministry of Communications for granting the necessary frequencies, which often takes two years or more.

Apart from this inefficiency, the fees charged for licences for the frequencies have apparently suddenly increased almost threefold, in a sector in which market forces and recent liberalisation have, on the contrary, pushed tariffs down.

Can the Commission say whether the relevant Italian legislation complies with Community competition rules and whether this increase, which, significantly, coincides with the advent of cellular mobile communications, is in any way attributable to more or less visible cartels operated by mobile phone companies?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

It is true that Italian operators have complained to the Commission about the time taken for this procedure and the fees charged by the Italian Communications Ministry for granting frequencies for mobile communications for closed user groups.

Italian law governs telecommunications services offered to the public differently from those offered to closed user groups, although Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services(1) makes no such distinction. This Directive requires the Member States to take the necessary measures to guarantee the right of any economic operator to provide these telecommunications services. It also provides that as long as frequencies are available a Member State may not refuse to allocate them. The requirement is all the simpler to implement for mobile communications for private use as these services do not, in general, require exclusive frequencies to be allocated.

The Italian authorities have announced that a regulation intended to solve the curent difficulties is to be adopted, though this has not yet been done. The Commission has contacted the Italian authorities on this subject several times, most recently by letter dated March 2000. If no progress is made, the Commission will be obliged to send a formal letter of complaint to the Italian Government.

The Commission has no information suggesting that the increase in frequency fees may be intended to favour mobile network operators.

(1) OJ L 192, 24.7.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1444/00

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Specific directive to combat discrimination against disabled people

The Commission has recently submitted a package of measures, including three directives, pursuant to the anti-discrimination provisions of Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. However, despite the fact that Article 13 cites disability as one of the areas in which discrimination is not to be tolerated, the said package of measures does not contain a specific directive against discrimination based on disability.

How does the Commission view the possibility of introducing a specific directive to combat discrimination on grounds of disability?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

In implementing Article 13 of the EC Treaty the Commission has opted for a gradualist approach, based mainly on the convincing precedent of Community legislation on equal treatment for men and women. Employment and occupation are also the key to social integration and full participation in economic, cultural and social life. This is why protection against discrimination in the field of employment and occupation has been given priority and deemed sufficient, notably in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. However, the Commission will examine the advisability of widening the scope of protection against discrimination linked to disability to other areas.