ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0826/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Greyhound racing

Around the middle of January, Commissioner Fischler said that he was aware of press reports alleging ill-treatment of racing greyhounds(1). Greyhounds are subjected to appalling cruelty once they are no longer capable of running races. According to Mr Fischler, no Community support is provided to enterprises rearing greyhounds in the Community.

1. Can the Commission confirm that no Community support is provided in any way to businesses, people and/or organisations breeding greyhounds in the Community? If not, will the Commission review its financial support programmes in order to establish beyond all doubt whether or not Community support is provided to businesses, people and/or organisations that breed greyhounds in the Community?

2. Does the Commission provide Community support to businesses, people and/or organisations that organise greyhound races in the Community? If so, how much is made available for this purpose per annum, and to whom are subsidies granted?

3. On the basis of existing European legislation, can the Commission do anything about the ill-treatment of greyhounds in the fifteen EU Member States? If so, will the Commission order an inquiry into the ill-treatment of greyhounds which has been complained of in the media?

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 90.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0826/00 and E-0919/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

The Commission is very concerned about the welfare of animals and gives it a high priority. Community rules exist in respect of animals, including dogs, for their protection during transport and in relation to their use for research purposes.

Under the protocol on the protection and welfare of animals annexed to the EC Treaty, the Community and Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in formulating and implementing the Community's agriculture, transport, internal market and research policies, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.

On the other hand, the conditions under which dogs like greyhounds are kept and raced within Member States are not regulated by Community law and in consequence this aspect is a matter within the sole jurisdiction of the Member States concerned. As it is the duty of the individual Member States to find a solution to this problem, the Commission can only call upon responsible authorities to eliminate the ill-treatment to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission can confirm that no Community aid is now available for investment in greyhound rearing or racing. It is possible that Community aid is awarded for other purposes to companies, people or organisations, who rear greyhounds or are involved in greyhound racing in the Community. In such cases it is not a condition of Community funding that beneficiaries are not involved in greyhound rearing or racing and the Commission has no information on such beneficiaries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1177/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 April 2000)

Subject: EU enlargement and regions

We have reached an historic and crucial moment in the history not only of the Union but of the continent of Europe as a whole. Leaving aside Turkey, the other twelve applicant countries have a population of more than 100 thousand, which would mean a 27 % increase in the population of the EU, whilst the European Parliament would probably have little more than 700 seats, i.e. only 11 % more than the current number.

Since it is not proposed to change the role and powers of the European institutions, does the Council not consider that the representation of the regions will be seriously undermined? Does the Council not envisage any other way of ensuring that regions such as the Basque Country (3 million inhabitants) or the Catalan-speaking regions (12 million inhabitants) can be given proportional representation equivalent to that of future Member States such as Malta or Cyprus? Does the Council not envisage a thorough reform of the Committee of the Regions in order to ensure that it actually represents the regions?

Reply

(10 July 2000)

The issues raised by the Honourable parliamentarian relating to the composition of the Committee of the regions and the allocation of seats within that Committee are currently being considered by the Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reform. The Council is of course aware of the suggestions which have been put forward on these matters by both the European Parliament and the Commission as contributions to the Conference's work, neither of which addresses the issue of the breakdown of seats for the Committee of the Regions within each Member State. The Council would recall that the present Treaty fixes the number of members from each Member State; it is up to each Member State to determine the basis on which these seats are allocated internally.

Given that the Council has no formal role in the Conference itself, which brings together the governments of the 15 Member States, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Council to speculate on the possible outcome of the Conference's work. The European Parliament, on the other hand, is closely associated and involved in the work of the Conference. Meetings of the IGC preparatory group are attended by two observers from the European Parliament, and each session of the Conference at ministerial level is preceded by an exchange of views with the President of the European Parliament, assisted by two EP representatives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0716/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: The compliance of the payment of tuition fees in the UK with EU competition law

Following devolution in the UK, Scottish Universities now reduce and defer the payment of tuition fees for European students (with the exception of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish), whereas all other UK universities are obliged to demand the payment of fees on enrolment.

The dissimilar conditions applied to the financing of students in the UK offers Scottish Universities an unfair competitive edge over their counterparts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, most particularly in attracting international students. Could the Commission therefore confirm whether this situation fully complies with the principles of the Community's competition law as laid down in the European Treaties?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0374/00(1).

(1) See page 143.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2009/00

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Siphoning off of European social fund resources in Catalonia

In recent months there has been a resurgence of reports concerning the siphoning off of a significant proportion of the funding allocated to employment programmes in Catalonia which are co-financed by the European social fund.

What action has the Commission taken in response to these reports, of which it must surely be aware?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-1071/00(1).

(1) See page 151.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0631/00

by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Consequences of abolishing export refunds for certain sectors of agriculture

Does the Commission consider that abolishing export refunds (originally introduced to provide an outlet for excess production by farmers and stockbreeders) will directly

affect producers (farmers and stockbreeders)? What will be the implications for some sectors of agriculture whose principal customers are in the export and processing sector, in view of the problem of continuity which may arise, particularly in undertakings which depend on certain products? Are there any studies or reports on this subject?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0631/00 and E-0633/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The negotiation approach for agriculture outlined in the communication from the Commission to the Council and to the Parliament on the EU approach to the Millennium Round(1) is still relevant. In this communication it was stated that the decisions adopted regarding the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) within the framework of Agenda 2000 would constitute essential elements in defining the Commission's negotiating mandate for the future multilateral negotiations at the World Trade Organisation.

This communication does not refer to elimination of export subsidies. It should, however, be recalled that the decisions taken regarding reform of the CAP would diminish the need for export subsidies, since market price support is reduced and support to the farmers is granted to a larger degree as direct payments. As a consequence of such reform measures, agricultural basic products will remain available for the processing industry at lower prices than at present, and the need for export subsidies for processed product will also be reduced. In addition, the Commission is considering modernisation of the inward processing regime with a view to improving transparency and predictability in the administration of the regime. The Commission is not aware of studies or reports as mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(1) COM(1999) 331 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0085/00

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

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Ivory trade

Could the Commission confirm that there are far-reaching proposals by southern African countries to argue during the forthcoming CITES negotiations in favour of allowing trade in ivory?

Is the Commission aware that allowing such trade would give a huge boost to the (illegal) hunting of elephants?

What position does the EU intend to adopt in the forthcoming CITES negotiations in Nairobi, and where do the individual Member States stand on the possibility of allowing trade in ivory?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

A number of proposals concerning trade in African elephant ivory have been tabled for discussion at the forthcoming 11th conference of the parties to Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES). Some are in favour of allowing trade in ivory, others against.

The Commission is aware that unless properly regulated, international trade in ivory can encourage the illegal hunting of elephants.

Member States will vote at the conference on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. The determination of the common position will be made in the Council. The Commission is still considering the proposal it will make to the Council to prepare the Community for the conference of the parties.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0594/00

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Communications directives

The USA's intelligence service NSA carries out widespread eavesdropping on telecommunications through the Echelon system. According to reports in the press, the French government also has a similar espionage system. Can the Commission confirm the existence of these systems, and if so, in what way will these matters be taken into account in the drafting of the new telecommunications directive?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its statement on Echelon at Parliament's March III part session(1).

The Commission is currently preparing the revision of Directive 97/66/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1998 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector(2). The provisions concerning privacy will attempt to take into account the current and future technological developments.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (March 2000).

(2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0898/00

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Suppliers of services to Community institutions

In the context of the new commitments concerning transparency in the work of the Community institutions (also sanctioned by the recent publication of the Commission's White Paper on reform) the European Parliament's Internet website provides information on public contracts for services awarded by Parliament and other Community bodies.

Those interested can also use this website to subscribe to an update notification system. This service is managed by the American private company Netmind, whose site is automatically accessed during the subscription process.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. Whether the American company was chosen by the Community institutions and, if not, what selection procedures were used?

2. Whether the Community institutions have access to the personal data recorded when a user registers, whether it is the property of the American company or of the institutions and what use is made of the data?

3. Why one of the institutions opted for a service offered by an American private company, in view of the fact that other information servers in the European Union offer exactly the same service, but using Community IT structures?

4. In view of the fact that the American company's service which Parliament is using is still in a beta version, whether it considers that this offers sufficient guarantees as regards efficiency, accessibility, performance and, above all, confidentiality?

5. Whether this choice should not be considered questionable, not least in view of the recent hearing on the Echelon network?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2000)

The content of the website to which the Honourable Member refers is managed directly and exclusively by the Parliament. It is thus to the Parliament that the Honourable Member should address his request for information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0874/00

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(23 March 2000)

Subject: Embargo against Iraq and the price of oil

In the last 12 months the price of refined petroleum products in Europe has risen sharply (by 21 % in Italy) and in the last few days the price of crude oil on the New York stock exchange rose to more than 32 dollars a barrel. This worrying rise in the price of fuel and petroleum by-products is solely due to reductions in the amount put onto the market by the OPEC countries.

At the same time we are witnessing the suffering caused in Iraq by an embargo which continues to penalise the weakest sections of the population (the World Health Organisation announced back in 1996 that the sanctions had directly caused the deaths of more than one million people, including half a million children).

Does the Council not consider that an embargo which penalises only the weakest sections of the population is a violation of the most basic human rights?

Does the Council not consider that it must take steps to persuade the United Nations to review the embargo against Iraq as a matter of urgency?

Does it not consider that if Iraq resumes marketing crude oil the OPEC countries may revise their intransigent position?

Reply

(10 July 2000)

The European Union will continue to implement the embargo imposed by UN Security Council resolutions. The prime considerations for the European Union are lasting security and stability in the region as well as the living conditions of the Iraqi people. The European Union is concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq and is trying to alleviate this situation within the framework of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Notwithstanding the positive effects on Iraq of the sharp rise in oil prices over the last twelve months, the European Union also notes the importance of full compliance and cooperation by the Iraqi government in order to improve the humanitarian situation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0059/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: The relationship between the Structural Funds and the non-implementation of EU environmental legislation by a Member State

Given that, on 23 June 1999, Mrs Wulf-Mathies and Mrs Bjerregaard, then Commissioners, wrote to Member State governments warning them of possible delays in approval of programmes and projects if, in particular, notifications of protected sites under the Habitats and Wild Bird Directives had not been received, that Court proceedings had been started against Ireland in February 1999 because of unsatisfactory notification and delays in Ireland's designation of protected sites under the Habitats Directive and that the Commission was also considering infringement proceedings against Ireland under the Wild Birds Directive, what is the likelihood that the Commission will not proceed with the approval of plans and operational programmes from Ireland, and/or what is the likelihood that EU funding will be suspended, in part or in whole, as a result of Ireland's perceived non-compliance on these issues?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2000)

The letter mentioned by the Honourable Member has been followed up or is currently being followed up in the assessment by the Commission of the admissibility of the plans submitted by the Member States for the programming period 2000-2006 and in the negotiations with the regions on the programmes.

The Commission assesses each plan or programme as to its individual content, including from the point of view of the requirements of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1), and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(2), the Habitats and Birds Directives. If certain elements of information are missing, the authority concerned (often through the Member State) must give a firm commitment that any possible negative impact on sites protected or to be protected under Natura 2000 will be properly assessed and appropriate measures will be taken. If needed, a time path for this commitment has to be established in the programme. Subsequently, the progress of the programme becomes conditional on the time path being followed.

The Commission regrets the lack of compliance of some Member States, including Ireland, with the Habitats and Birds Directives. Appropriate action is being taken as is evidenced by the Court proceedings that have already been initiated.

The negotiations with the Irish authorities on the plan for structural funding 2000-2006 are progressing according to the time schedule laid out in the general structural funds Regulation and the Commission is confident that the issues concerning the Habitats and the Birds Directives will find a satisfactory solution.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0265/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Observatory for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation

In the Commission's Communication to the European Parliament on guidelines for a Community Initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg), mention is made of an Observatory for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation.

On the basis of their socio-economic characteristics and their geo-strategic situation as a remote region in the Atlantic, what chances to the Canary Islands have of being selected as the site for the Observatory?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The Commission has not yet taken a decision regarding the location of the future Observatory for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation. However, it ought to be pointed out that this will not be a body of any significant size whose headquarters site would require discussion at all.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1095/00

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Aboño thermal power station (Asturias)

The residents of Pervera (Carreño, Asturias) are inconvenienced on a daily basis by local industry. Several days ago the Aboño thermal power station emitted a large cloud of ash, but incredibly, the firm's management refused to provide information concerning the cause and nature of the cloud to those affected by the incident.

Can the Commission check whether this power station complies with Community environmental legislation, particularly Directive 88/609, which sets limits for emissions into the air by large combustion plants?

What action can the Commission take vis-à-vis the competent authorities to ensure that this firm adopts the measures necessary to guarantee a decent quality of life for the residents and protection of the environment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

The Commission has no knowledge of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. It has asked the Member State concerned for information and will inform the Honourable Member of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0613/00

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Vaccination against IBR in the European Union

Thousands of Dutch farmers are suffering losses on account of an unknown cattle disease (slijters). It is suspected that this disease may be caused by a defective vaccine against IBR (Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis).

1. Does the Commission have any view about the causes of these phenomena?

2. Are similar losses occurring elsewhere in the Union and if so, what precautions has the Commission taken on this account?

3. Has the Commission instituted a special inquiry or taken any measures with regard to IBR vaccines in order to prevent a recurrence of the problem?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission has been informed by the Dutch authorities about the disease occurring in dairy cattle farms in the Netherlands.

These authorities state that in a number of dairy cattle farms emaciation of milking cows has been reported. Investigations have been carried out to identify the precise causes of this disease. The results of these investigations suggest that in some farms the symptoms appeared after the use of a vaccine against infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), which was contaminated with bovine viral diarrhea virus. This is a well-known virus of ruminants widespread in most countries in the world, for which there is no evidence

or suspicion that it can affect humans. In these farms all animals have been slaughtered and destroyed. However, in other farms the presence of infectious agents has not been confirmed and other causes (deficiency in cobalt and vitamin B12) are probably involved.

Except for a single reported field case in Italy that was suspected to relate to an IBR vaccine, the Commission is not aware of other possibly similar situations having occurred in the Community.

With regard to the recent Community action related to IBR vaccines, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to the written question E-0634/00 by Mrs Muscardini(1).

(1) See page 194.