do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1706/99 by Raffaele COSTA Draft budget 2000 - Staff and administrative expenditure in European Community delegations and decentralised expenditure on support staff and administration
Date: 1999-09-29
Institutions: COSTA Raffaele, European Parliament
Subjects: Commission Delegation, EU expenditure, EU office or agency, European official, draft budget (EU)

29.1.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 27 E/165

to increase from EUR 246 million to over
Can the Commission say why this expenditure is set
EUR 277 million (i.e. from ITL 477 billion to over 530 billion) in 2000 (cid:129) a rise of EUR 31 400 000
(approximately ITL 60 billion)?

(2000/C 27 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1706/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Draft budget 2000 (cid:129) Staff and administrative expenditure in European Community delegations

and decentralised expenditure on support staff and administration

In 1998, total expenditure on staff and administration in EC delegations and decentralised expenditure on
support staff and administration was ECU 394 million (equivalent to ITL 763 billion).

Can the Commission explain why expenditure of EUR 433 million is envisaged for 2000, representing an
increase of some EUR 40 million (ITL 77 billion)?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1702/99, E-1703/99 and E-1706/99
given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1999)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member
and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.

(2000/C 27 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1704/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: LIFE programme

The LIFE programme, established by the European Union as an environmental protection measure, has
been divided into two stages: 1991-1995 and 1996-1999.

Can the Commission state:

1. how many and what specific LIFE (environment and nature) projects have been submitted for Italy;

2. how many and which of these projects have been promised funding and for how much;

3. how many and which of the latter have actually been funded as at 10 September 1999.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 1999)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat a table
containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1711/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Finnish border control of egg trade.
Date: 1999-09-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, Sweden, egg, import restriction, trade agreement (EU)

C 203 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

(2000/C 203 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1711/99

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Finnish border control of egg trade

Is it true that, under an agreement with the EU, the Finnish Government may introduce a border control
to prevent imports of eggs from Sweden, whereas the same possibility is not open to the Swedish
authorities?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1999)

The Commission is not aware of provisions in an agreement between the Community and Finland
authorising Finnish border controls to prevent deliveries of eggs from Sweden.

(2000/C 203 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1718/99

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) and Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(30 September 1999)

Subject: Widespread death of Iraqi children caused by the embargo

The awful figures relating to the death of Iraqi children caused by the embargo imposed on Iraq have been
confirmed by the WHO, UN observers and the International Red Cross.

1. Why does the Council continue to support the policy of maintaining an embargo on Iraq since it has
become clear that in no way does it undermine the power of the Iraqi dictator and that it only affects the
civilian population, as has been pointed out by the French government?

2. What steps does the Council intend to take, as a matter of urgency, in order to bring an end to a
situation which has become intolerable from the point of view of human rights and international law?

Answer

(24 January 2000)

The European Union will continue to implement the embargo imposed by the UN Security Council in
Resolution No 687. It has also implemented the (cid:145)oil for food(cid:146) programmes decided by the UN Security
Council, and notes that they have improved, albeit to a limited extent, the living conditions of the civilian
population of Iraq.

The EU also provides aid to the Iraqi people, within the limits set by UN Security Council resolutions,
through international aid organisations. The Council calls on the Iraqi government
to increase its
cooperation with these organisations to facilitate their work.

In the meantime, the EU continues to provide aid to the Iraqi people. The Council calls on the Iraqi
Government to cooperate with international aid organisations.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1704/99 by Raffaele COSTA LIFE programme
Date: 1999-09-29
Institutions: COSTA Raffaele, European Parliament
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU programme, Italy

29.1.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 27 E/165

to increase from EUR 246 million to over
Can the Commission say why this expenditure is set
EUR 277 million (i.e. from ITL 477 billion to over 530 billion) in 2000 (cid:129) a rise of EUR 31 400 000
(approximately ITL 60 billion)?

(2000/C 27 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1706/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Draft budget 2000 (cid:129) Staff and administrative expenditure in European Community delegations

and decentralised expenditure on support staff and administration

In 1998, total expenditure on staff and administration in EC delegations and decentralised expenditure on
support staff and administration was ECU 394 million (equivalent to ITL 763 billion).

Can the Commission explain why expenditure of EUR 433 million is envisaged for 2000, representing an
increase of some EUR 40 million (ITL 77 billion)?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1702/99, E-1703/99 and E-1706/99
given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1999)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member
and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.

(2000/C 27 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1704/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: LIFE programme

The LIFE programme, established by the European Union as an environmental protection measure, has
been divided into two stages: 1991-1995 and 1996-1999.

Can the Commission state:

1. how many and what specific LIFE (environment and nature) projects have been submitted for Italy;

2. how many and which of these projects have been promised funding and for how much;

3. how many and which of the latter have actually been funded as at 10 September 1999.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 1999)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat a table
containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1710/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Finnish egg production subsidy.
Date: 1999-09-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Finland, State aid, Sweden, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, egg

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/29

The Commission informed Italy about
government should submit its observations by the end of October 1999.

this procedure at

the end of September 1999. The Italian

As to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s second question, the Commission is not competent to evaluate the quality
or the content of the television programmes broadcast by RAI. The Commission has the duty to assess
whether the funds granted by the state to RAI, both as licence fee and as other support measures, are
proportionate to the net costs incurred by the undertaking to fulfil the public service obligations imposed
by the state.

(2000/C 203 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1710/99

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Finnish egg production subsidy

The Finnish Government currently provides an EU-approved subsidy (cid:129) reportedly FIM 2,35 per kilo (cid:129) 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:

(cid:129) Areas A and B excluding archipelago: 1,58 FIM/kg (0,27 €/kg)

(cid:129) Archipelago in areas A and B: 1,95 FIM/kg (0,33 €/kg)

(cid:129) Other areas excluding archipelago: 0,52 FIM/kg (0,09 €/kg)

(cid:129) 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.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2051/1999 of 29 September 1999 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 1999-09-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, grape, import price, pip fruit, stone fruit

L 255/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 9. 1999

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2051/1999

of 29 September 1999

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and
vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

(2) Whereas,

in compliance with the above criteria,

the
standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out
in the Annex to this Regulation,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of
21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the
last
import arrangements
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1498/98 (2), and in particular
Article 4 (1) thereof,

fruit and vegetables (1), as

for

(1) Whereas Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down,
pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multi-
lateral
the criteria whereby the
Commission fixes the standard values for imports from
third countries, in respect of the products and periods
stipulated in the Annex thereto;

trade negotiations,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regula-
tion (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex
hereto.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 September 1999.

Article 2

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 September 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.
(2) OJ L 198, 15.7.1998, p. 4.

30. 9. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 255/15

to the Commission Regulation of 29 September 1999 establishing the standard import values for determining
the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

ANNEX

CN code

0702 00 00

0707 00 05

0709 90 70

0805 30 10

0806 10 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

0809 30 10, 0809 30 90

0809 40 05

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
999
628
999
052
999
052
388
512
524
528
999
052
064
400
999
064
388
400
800
804
999
052
064
388
999
052
999
060
064
066
400
624
999

52,5
52,5
125,1
125,1
62,9
62,9
75,8
69,9
61,0
56,2
71,9
67,0
106,5
75,2
234,6
138,8
37,9
57,2
44,5
185,5
41,8
73,4
84,5
60,8
181,1
108,8
113,7
113,7
60,3
62,8
68,0
119,0
192,4
100,5

(1) Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2645/98 (OJ L 335, 10.12.1998, p. 22). Code ‘999’ stands for ‘of

other origin’.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2052/1999 of 29 September 1999 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 9th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1489/1999
Date: 1999-09-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, white sugar

L 255/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 9. 1999

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2052/1999

of 29 September 1999

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 9th partial invitation to tender issued
within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No
1489/1999

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13
September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets
in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subpara-
graph of Article 18(5) thereof,

(1) Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1489/1999 of
7 July 1999 on a standing invitation to tender to deter-
mine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2),
requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the
export of this sugar;

(2) Whereas, pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No
1489/1999 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as
the case may be, account being taken in particular of the
state and foreseeable development of the Community
and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to
tender in question;

(3) Whereas,

following an examination of
the tenders
invitation to
submitted in response to the 9th partial
tender, the provisions set out in Article 1 should be
adopted;

(4) Whereas the Management Committee for Sugar has not
delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its
chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 9th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued
pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1489/1999 the maximum
amount of the export refund is fixed at 52,052 EUR/100 kg.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 September 1999.

Article 2

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 September 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 252, 25.9.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 172, 8.7.1999, p. 27.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1730/99 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission. Export of cattle to third countries.
Date: 1999-09-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: cattle, export (EU), export refund, live animal

C 203 E/34

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

However, the Court of justice has held that Member States must nevertheless comply with Community law
when exercising that power (3).

As the German provision seems to constitute an obstacle to the freedom of movement of people,
specifically of students, the Commission will therefore examine the question in more detail.

The Commission is also aware of the situation of students who have taken out private insurance to fulfil
the conditions regarding sickness insurance so as to obtain a residence permit and who are hence not
covered by the above Regulation. A draft recommendation requesting Member States to make efforts to
eliminate obstacles in this particular area is under preparation.

(1) OJ L 38, 12.2.1999.
(2) OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.
(3)

See case C-18/95 Terhoeve v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen Buitenland [1999]
ECR I-345, paragraph 34.

(2000/C 203 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1730/99

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Export of cattle to third countries

How many live cattle were exported from the EU to third countries in 1998, and how much was paid out
in export refunds for live cattle exports to third countries in the period 16 October 1997 to 15 October
1998?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 1999)

In 1998 the Community exported 266 256 live cattle to third countries. For the budget year 1998,
16 October 1997 to 15 October 1998, € 93,5 million was granted in export subsidies for live cattle.

(2000/C 203 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1733/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Cost of missions to Strasbourg

About once a month, the institutional and administrative entity known as the European Parliament, plus
significant contingents from the Council, the Commission and the other bodies comprising the European
Union, transfers en masse for four to five days from Brussels to Strasbourg or, to put it another way,
transfers for around 15 days from Strasbourg to Brussels.

What are the figures and costs involved in this operation?

How many people, apart from the 626 MEPs and their 1 000 or so assistants, commute between the two
cities?

Exactly how many people are on mission?

What is the cost of the missions by employees of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission
and other internal and related bodies?

What is the overall expenditure on missions and the transfer operation as a whole (including means of
transport, external firms etc.)?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1700/99 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Transposition of Directive 93/0104/EC on working time.
Date: 1999-09-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, Luxembourg, arrangement of working time, catering industry, hotel industry, national implementing measure, working time

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/79

Is the Commission aware of
authorities to be contrary to the principle of equal treatment? What will it do to resolve the problem?

this situation? Does it not believe the behaviour of

the Luxembourg

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1999)

The Commission presumes that the Honourable Member is referring to Luxembourg legislation concerning
the right to a guaranteed minimum income in the context of the fight against social exclusion in
Luxembourg.

The regulations applying in Luxembourg make the granting of this benefit dependent on a person(cid:146)s
financial resources, which includes the value of any property irrespective of whether this is situated in
Luxembourg or abroad.

The Commission considers that, in view of the judgment of the Court of Justice (1), no discrimination on
the basis of nationality is taking place. This judgment states that (cid:145)Articles 7 and 48 of the Treaty (2) (cid:133) do
not prohibit (cid:129) though they do not require (cid:129) the treatment by the institutions of Member States of
corresponding facts occurring in another Member State as equivalent to facts which, if they occur on the
national territory, constitute a ground for the loss or suspension of the right to cash benefits(cid:146).

(1)

In connection with a similar case, see the Court of Justice judgment of 28 June 1978 in Case 1/78 Kenny [1978]
ECR 1489.

(2) Now Articles 12 and 39 respectively as a result of amendments to the EC Treaty.

(2000/C 170 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1700/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Transposition of Directive 93/0104/EC on working time

Because Directive 93/0104/EC (1) on working time has not been transposed into Luxembourg law,
employees in certain economic sectors, for example the hotel and catering trade, are obliged to work
very long hours far in excess of the norm laid down at European level.

What is the current position, and what steps are being taken to make the Luxembourg authorities
transpose the above Directive and comply with Community law?

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 1999)

The Luxembourg authorities have communicated to the Commission their national measures implementing
Directive 93/0104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working
time. The Commission is currently undertaking a thorough analysis of this legislation. A report on the
implementation of Directive 93/0104/EC in the Member States is due to be presented early in 2000.