ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2422/00

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

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Obstacles to the movement of goods between Spain and Portugal

The recent incidents involving Portuguese fishermen and traders in Matosinhos aimed at preventing the sale of Spanish sardines constitute a serious attack on fundamental Community freedoms, in particular the free movement of goods between two Member States.

It appears urgently necessary for the Commission to intervene with the Portuguese authorities in order to guarantee that those targeted by this campaign can carry on working normally.

Can the Commission say whether it has yet taken any action on this matter? If so, what type of action did it take and with what result? If it has not yet acted, what steps will it take? Will it keep the questioner informed of its actions and their outcome?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

In view of the fact that the Spanish authorities, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States(1), informed the Commission of the incidents referred to by the honourable Member, the Commission initiated the alert procedure laid down in Article 3 of the Regulation. In this regard, it asked the Portuguese authorities to confirm the facts and to take the necessary and proportionate measures to assure the free movement of goods. The Portuguese authorities replied within the required time limit, providing all the necessary information about the incidents and mentioning the adoption and introduction of measures such as increasing the number of police on the spot and holding special meetings with those involved in order to prevent further incidents. This exchange of information has been transmitted to the other Member States.

In the light of the positive outcome i.e. a rapid return to normality as a result of the alert procedure, the Commission has decided that it is not necessary at this stage to go ahead with the notification procedure referred to in Article 5 of Regulation No 2679/98.

(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1543/00

by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Progress on the horizontal plan for the development of rural areas

Finland's horizontal plan for rural development was forwarded to the Commission at the end of October1999. The programme contains plans relating to environmental subsidies for agriculture and aid to less favoured areas (LFAs). The Finnish programme should have been the first to be considered. The problems which had arisen were resolved and all the necessary clarifications and additional information had been forwarded in time. The horizontal plan for rural development was to have been discussed at the meeting of the STAR committee on 29 March. However, this discussion was postponed to the meeting on 26/27 April. The Commission has now sent Finland a new notification stating that it will not be possible for STAR to consider the plan until May.

The Finnish Agriculture and Forestry Ministry has confirmed that the last date for applying for a subsidy in respect of Spring 2000 is 26 May. No later than that date farmers will have to commit themselves for five years to new environmental and LFA aid schemes. Specialised contracts for the commitment of environmental subsidies were due to have been finalised on 24 April.

The farmers have been put in an impossible position.

1. What does the Commission intend to do about this?

2. Can the farmers alter their commitment to aid schemes after the Commission and national decisions have been made and notified to the farmers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

The Finnish horizontal rural development plan was foreseen to be presented to the committee on agricultural structures and rural development (STAR-committee) on 29 March 2000. However, due to some pending problems of the Finnish action plan under the Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources(1), the point was withdrawn to ensure further clarification of the situation. The April 2000 meeting of the STAR-committee was partially cancelled as the committee on the development and conversion of regions acted as STAR-committee dealing only with objective 1 issues. Therefore, the Finnish plan was on the agenda of the STAR-committee on 24 May 2000 when a favourable opinion was given. The final step on the approval procedure will be the Commission decision.

Agri-environmental support can be granted to farmers who give commitments for at least five years. However, Member States may provide for adjustment of commitments during the period of operation, provided that: the approved programme includes the scope for such adjustment, and the adjustment is duly justified, having regard to the objectives of the undertaking.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1438/00

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Transposition of ICCAT recommendations

The meeting of ICCAT in Santiago de Compostela in 1998 adopted a recommendation limiting the maximum catch of albacore or long-finned tuna at current levels, since it is recognised as an almost fully exploited species. Fishing capacity would be maintained at the level of recent years, with the number of boats restricted to the average number operating in the period 1993-1995.

Although the Community promoted this proposal it has not transposed it into Community law and hence has failed to comply with the recommendation. For this reason, at the ICCAT meeting in Rio de Janeiro the Commission had to insist on the application of the recommendation although it had already been adopted.

Is this ICCAT provision being transposed into Community law? Can the Commission ensure compliance with it in the year 2000?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission is in the process of adoption of a proposal for a regulation on technical measures for highly migratory fish stocks, including provisions on the implementation of the International commission for the conservation of Atlantic tunas (ICCAT) recommendation on the limitation of fleet capacity in the albacore fishery.

In addition, and in order to implement the measure in question already in 2000, even before the formal adoption of the said regulation by the Council, the Commission has addressed a letter to the concerned Member States asking them to provide the necessary data to implement the measure. On the basis of the information submitted by Member States, the Commission is proceeding to implement the limitation of the number of vessels as established by ICCAT.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1956/00

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Professional affiliations and backgrounds of the members of the expert panel on Atomic Energy Questions

Will the Commission list the present members of the expert panel on Atomic Energy Questions along with their professional affiliations and backgrounds and state what consideration has been given to appointing qualified members of Non-Governmental Organisations to the AEQ panel and to encouraging Member States to make such recommendations?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The Atomic Questions group is a working party made up of representatives of the Member States, whose task is to prepare Council decisions in the nuclear field. The Council alone is responsible for appointing the members of the group. Therefore only the Council can answer the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1760/00

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Quality of water for human consumption on the Azores

It has been reported that the Commission has urged the Portuguese authorities to take steps to ensure compliance with Community legislation on the quality of water destined for human consumption on the Azores. It appears that the Commission acted in response to an investigation carried out on the islands which revealed that the standards laid down in Council Directive 80/778/EEC(1) were not being met.

Can the Commission:

1. Confirm these reports?

2. If so, can it:

- provide information on the terms and number of warnings already issued to the Portuguese authorities (national and regional) in this connection;

- outline the content of the opinion forwarded to the Portuguese authorities;

- say what further action it intends to take on the matter?

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980, p. 11.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has indeed asked the Portuguese Government on several occasions to take the action needed to implement Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 on the quality of water intended for human consumption(1) in the Azores Autonomous Region.

As made public in its press release of 12 May 2000, the Commission is able to inform the Honourable Member that the reasoned opinion of which it informed Portugal as part of infringement procedure No 98/5083 concerned the failure of the Azores regional authorities to adopt the provisions needed in order to implement Directive 80/778/EEC in the Autonomous Region and failure to keep to the limit values provided for in the above-mentioned Directive in respect of the water intended for human consumption used in the municipality of Ribeira Grande.

The Commission must point out to the Honourable Member that it attaches prime importance to the proper implementation of the Directives on the quality of water for human consumption and that, therefore, it will not cease to use all of the means available to it, and more particularly continuing with the infringement procedure referred to above, in order to require the Portuguese authorities to take the action needed in order correctly to implement Directive 80/778/EEC in the Azores Autonomous Region.

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980; as last amended by OJ L 224, 3.9.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1529/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Rat poison Ratin and salmonella

According to its manufacturers, Rentokil of London(1), salmonella cultures were used in the rat poison Ratin. The manufacturer has revealed to the newspaper Politiken that the poison was exported from England to the Spanish and Italian markets right up until 1992.

The product was removed from the Danish market as early as 1961 amid fears of the spread of salmonella.

In the light of this situation, will the Commission say:

- whether it was lawful to produce, export and use Ratin right up to 1992,

- whether it is certain that salmonella has not spread from Italy and Spain to other EU Member States as a result of the use of Ratin, and

- whether there is a link between the use of Ratin and the spread of salmonella infections in the EU?

(1) Politiken 10.4.2000: Salmonella poison sold in the 90s.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The possible approval or prohibition of the use of Ratin was based on national legislation until the adoption of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. Under the Directive, the Commission organises a review programme for all active substances of plant protection products that were on the market at that time. No Member State informed the Commission about Ratin being used as a plant protection product in the Community. Directive 1998/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market(1) currently forms the framework for the approval of biocidal products, including rodenticides, which are not covered by the above-mentioned Directive. Were a compound like Ratin to be placed on the market, it would require an authorisation either according to Directive 91/414/EEC or 1998/8/EC or both, depending on its intended use. At the moment the use of Ratin is not authorised.

The evaluation of the actual risk of environmental contamination due to the use of Ratin is highly problematic. It has been assessed in the scientific literature that the product consisted of bacterium salmonella enteritidis phagetype 6a. Salmonella enteritidis is mainly linked to poultry products, in particular to table eggs. The increase of the number of enteritidis contaminated eggs and human salmonellosis cases due to the bacterium, including other serotypes than 6a, started in the late 1980s, thus about 30 years after the use of Ratin ceased in most of the Member States. It should also be noted that the increasing prevalence of salmonella enteritidis has been recorded world-wide, in particular, in the United States. To conclude, it may be stated that a number of factors contribute to the spread of salmonella enteritidis.

The Commission would stress that pathogenic bacteria should not be deliberately released into the environment. During the last decade a coherent set of Community legislation, as referred to above, has been created on the subject.

(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1796/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Swedish ceiling on carbon dioxide tax

The only carbide factory in Sweden, Akzo Nobel, which employs 50 people at Stockvik close to Sundsvall, is threatened with closure if EU legislation prohibits Sweden from capping its carbon dioxide tax. Raising the level of carbon dioxide tax would result in the carbide factory no longer being profitable. Sweden has the highest level of carbon dioxide tax in the EU but a ceiling was introduced in 1997 so that energy-intensive industries would not be excessively affected.

According to media reports, however, the Commission regards the Swedish ceiling on the tax as government aid in breach of EU competition rules. Are these reports correct and, if so, can the Commission justify its position?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

In 1997 the Commission approved a Swedish proposal for a lower carbon dioxide (CO2) tax rate on fuel for energy-intensive industrial activity and greenhouse heating in connection with commercial greenhouse cultivation. The approval was based on the Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection(1). It is therefore correct that the Commission considers the ceiling on the CO2 tax to constitute state aid.

A relief from a general tax falls under the scope of Article 87(1) (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty when the relief is targeted at certain undertakings and this in turn has an effect on trade between Member States. The Swedish relief was estimated to benefit about 60 companies, and as appears from the question it does affect trade within the Community.

Point 1.5.3 of the environmental guidelines stipulates that the introduction of environmental taxes and charges can involve state aid because some firms may not be able to stand the extra financial burden immediately, and require temporary relief. Such relief is operating aid. It may take the form of relief from environmental taxes introduced in some Member States, where it is necessary to prevent their firms being placed at a disadvantage compared with their competitors in countries that do not have such measures.

As to the compatibility of the aid with the common market, point 3.4 of the guidelines states that the Commission does not normally approve operating aid, which relieves firms of costs resulting from the pollution they cause. However, the Commission may authorise a temporary relief from new environmental taxes where it is necessary to offset losses in competitiveness, particularly at international level. In principle, the aid should be degressive. A further factor to be taken into account is what the firms concerned have to do in return, to reduce their pollution. The reduced CO2 tax rate on coal and natural gas used in industrial manufacturing was approved until the end of 1999. The Commission has just received further information from the Swedish authorities on the planned prolongation of the scheme, and will proceed to assess it(2).

(1) OJ C 72, 10.3.1994.

(2) State aid case N 2/2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1443/00

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Council

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Article 13 and the intergovernmental conference

The new Article 13 introduced during the revision of the Treaty of Amsterdam clearly marks a step forward, in that it commits the European Union to action to combat discrimination based on sex, ethnic or racial origin, age, disability, religion or belief, or sexual orientation.

That said, it does not enable individuals who suffer discrimination on any of the aforementioned grounds to initiate legal proceedings in national courts.

With the next intergovernmental conference in mind, does the Council intend to give Article 13 direct effect, so that European citizens can invoke it in their national courts?

Reply

(18/19 September 2000)

As the Honourable Member is probably aware, the Council has no role in 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.

The Presidency would recall that the IGC is currently considering possible Treaty revisions to ensure that the Union's institutions can continue to work efficiently after enlargement. To date no proposal has been tabled relating to the specific issue raised by the honourable member.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2337/00

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 July 2000)

Subject: Transport of live animals

Recent reports indicate that the directive on the transport of live animals is still being infringed in the European Union. The rules on rest periods are not being adhered to, vehicles are not equipped as specified in the directive and monitoring of compliance with the directive. is inadequate or non-existent.

Is the Commission considering instituting infringement proceedings against countries which, according to official monitoring reports (Mission report on a veterinary mission to France, 26.4-1.5.1998, Mission report on a veterinary mission to Belgium, 13.9-18.9.1998, Mission report on a veterinary mission to Greece, 12.10-16.10.1998), are failing to comply with the requirements of Directive 91/628/EEC(1), as amended by Directive 95/29/EC(2)? Will it conduct a study of the animal welfare aspects of agricultural subsidies?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

All Member States have transposed Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directive 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995(1), into their national law.

The Commission is, however, aware that journeys which are in breach of the provisions of the Directive are still taking place.

Member States are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement of Community legislation. Commission experts, however, carry out periodic on-the-spot checks to ensure uniform application of the Directive and that the Member States operate adequate controls to ensure compliance with its requirements.

These checks, together with evidence supplied by animal welfare organisations have revealed certain shortcomings in the compliance by some Member States with the requirements of Community legislation. As a result infringement proceedings based on Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty have been opened against several Member States.

The Protocol on protection and welfare of animals annexed to the EC Treaty(2) requires the Community and Member States to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in the formulation and implementation of the Community's agricultural, transport, internal market and research policies. Indeed, even before the protocol came into force Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport(3) linked the payment of export refunds on live cattle to the observance of Council Directive 91/628/EEC during the journey up to the first place of unloading in the country of destination.

A detailed report on the application of Community rules on animal transport will be made by the Commission before the end of the year.

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(2) OJ C 340, 10.11.1997.

(3) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1503/00

by Ilka Schröder (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: New round of World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations

The Commission is urging the rapid initiation of a new round of World Trade Organisation negotiations. At the same time, trade agreements are being concluded with particular states and associations of states that involve more trade-related aspects than have already been settled under WTO auspices (in particular public-sector procurement or investment).

By concluding trade agreements with states and associations of states, is the Commission deliberately anticipating future WTO agreements?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The launch of a comprehensive new round of multilateral negotiations is a major current objective of Community trade policy and the Commission is working hard to build a consensus for this in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Among the Community objectives for a new round are the establishment of multilateral rules on investment and competition and clarification of existing multilateral rules that deal with the relationship between trade and other important public policy objectives (relating, for example, to environmental protection, consumer protection or development). These are essential if the WTO is to respond adequately to the challenge of harnessing globalisation. As the WTO takes all decisions by consensus, the launch of a round, its agenda and the eventual results must be negotiated to the satisfaction of all 136 members of the Organization.

As well as participating in the WTO, the Community is a party to regional trade agreements with many other countries or groups of countries. Negotiations continue with a number of other partners. The fact that provisions of regional agreements may be more ambitious than anything that has yet been agreed at the multilateral level is simply a reflection of the different (bilateral) context in which negotiations for regional agreements take place. For example, a number of the Community's regional agreements include provisions on competition policy, something that has yet to be brought within the overall WTO framework.

The WTO rules explicitly provide for the existence of regional agreements among members (Article XXIV General agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) and Article V General agreement on trade in services (GATS)) and set out a number of requirements that such agreements should meet. In the view of the Commission, provided these requirements are met, regional trade agreements should be considered to be supportive of the multilateral trading system.