do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2047/99 by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission. Number of stars on the European Union flag.
Date: 1999-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of Europe, European symbol, resolution of parliament

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/43

Supplementary joint answer
to Written Questions E-2029/99 and E-2054/99
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Based on the theory that the Community aid scheme would be discontinued from 2000 as recommended
in an evaluation report, the Commission(cid:146)s budget proposals for 2000 included a reduction in appropria-
tions for Community expenditure on subsidising school milk.

In the light of the arguments put forward during the resultant detailed discussion of the scheme(cid:146)s future at
the Council meeting of Agriculture Ministers on 14 and 15 June 1999 (to which the Honourable Member
refers), the Commission has re-examined the issue and now proposes that aid for school milk should
continue but that Member States should part-finance the expenditure entailed.

This new approach is justified firstly by the need to observe the budgetary constraints governing
agricultural expenditure, under which priority must be given to less expensive market support measures
than the school milk scheme. Secondly, the Commission wishes to emphasise that national part-financing
could improve the scheme(cid:146)s combined effectiveness. The Commission regards the Honourable Member(cid:146)s
suggestion of alternative funding under health policy as an interesting idea which merits further
examination, and sees national part-financing as the only viable way of taking non-agricultural objectives
into account.

(2000/C 225 E/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2047/99

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Number of stars on the European Union flag

Can the Commission explain why, when the European Union was expanded from 12 to 15 nation states,
the number of 5-pointed golden stars on the EU flag did not increase to 15?

Can it explain the procedure (if any) by which Members of Parliament may propose and decide on changes
to the European Union flag?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1999)

The stars of the European flag do not represent the Member States.

According to the decision of the Council of Europe which adopted the European flag in 1955 the number
of stars is invariably twelve.

In a resolution adopted in April 1983 (1) the Parliament recommended that the Community(cid:146)s flag should
be that adopted by the Council of Europe in 1955. It was introduced by the institutions of the Community
in early 1986.

(1) OJ C 128, 16.5.1983.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2036/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Knorr Bremse and European funding.
Date: 1999-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, State aid, United Kingdom, industrial enterprise, job creation, job cuts, transfer of businesses, vehicle parts

C 46 E/2

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

All payments by the Commission are based on the specific items listed in the decision, which means that
assistance cannot be provided twice for the same expenditure. The first phase of the project was finished
according to the timetable drawn up when the part-financing decision was adopted.

Car parks were provided for in the initial decision to prevent vehicles parking in the protected areas. The
rebuilding of the boundary wall of the park is included in the second phase of the project and is largely
complete. The two phases of the project made no provision for a ban on traffic on the road system in the
(cid:145)Casa de Campo(cid:146) park.

(2001/C 46 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2036/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Knorr Bremse and European funding

Knorr Bremse has announced several hundred redundancies in Kingswood, Bristol (UK), in order to transfer
work to its factories in France, Italy or Germany and Hungary.

Can the Commission say whether any financial assistance of any kind has been asked for by this company
or given to this company for job creation in France, Italy or Germany or through TACIS and PHARE
programmes in Hungary?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

According to information from the European Social Fund Mission in France, in 1997 and 1998 the Knorr
Dahl Freinage branch in Lisieux (Lower Normandy) received financial assistance under Objective 4 for
training (improving skills in various fields) amounting to FRF 909 000. This assistance was not aimed at
job creation, to which the Honourable Member refers in his question.

In Berlin, Germany, Hasse & Wrede GmbH, a subsidiary company of Knorr Bremse AG, received
DEM 533 000 for investments in machinery and equipment, mainly in order to retain existing jobs.

In Italy this company received no Community part-financing.

As far as the Commission is aware, Knorr Bremse has never asked for or benefited from Community
assistance through the P programme in Hungary, and this country is not eligible for the T programme.

Finally, Knorr Bremse received no funding under the Community initiatives A or E.

(2001/C 46 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2629/99

by Francesco Speroni (TDI), Umberto Bossi (TDI)
and Gian Gobbo (TDI) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Participation of the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, in the international summit of

the left

On Saturday 20 and Sunday 21 November 1999, Romano Prodi,
in the capacity of President of the
Commission, participated in the international summit of left-wing leaders, together with Jospin, D(cid:146)Alema,
Clinton, Blair et al.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2036/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Knorr Bremse and European funding.
Date: 1999-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, employment aid, employment policy, multinational enterprise, transfer of businesses

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/141

According to child nutrition specialists milk is an essential food for child development. The distribution of
milk in schools is, moreover, still useful today in reaching certain sectors of the population who do not
enjoy a balanced diet.

This plan is disturbing in terms of both agriculture and public health.

As the Agriculture Council on 14 and 15 June 1999 took the view that milk consumption should be
encouraged because of its nutritional value,
in particular for children and young people, why is the
Commission taking a decision that runs counter to the Council(cid:146)s opinion?

At a time when public health has just been given the status of a horizontal Community policy under the
Treaty of Amsterdam, how can the Commission risk endangering the health of European children who
benefit from this nutritional supplement in schools?

Can the Commission therefore deny the information that has been published and reassure the citizens of
Europe?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2029/99 and E-2054/99
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2000/C 170 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2036/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Knorr Bremse and European funding

Knorr Bremse has announced several hundred redundancies in Kingswood, Bristol (UK), in order to transfer
work to its factories in France, Italy or Germany and Hungary.

Can the Commission say whether any financial assistance of any kind has been asked for by this company
or given to this company for job creation in France, Italy or Germany or through TACIS and PHARE
programmes in Hungary?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2000/C 170 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2051/99

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Activities of the Astano shipyards, in Galicia

(3 November 1999)

the Spanish
In its reply to a question which I
Government(cid:146)s privatisation plans on the prohibition on shipbuilding activities applying to the Astano
shipyards, the Commission stated that (cid:145)any change of ownership of Astano would have no effect on the
limitations placed on its activities(cid:146).

tabled (E-1432/99 (1)) about

the repercussions of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2340/1999 of 3 November 1999 prohibiting fishing for cod and haddock by vessels flying the flag of a Member State
Date: 1999-11-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, Faroes, authorised catch, catch quota, sea fish, ship's flag

L 281/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4. 11. 1999

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2340/1999

of 3 November 1999

prohibiting fishing for cod and haddock by vessels flying the flag of a Member State

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(3)

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12
October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the
common fisheries policy (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 2846/98 (2), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

Council Regulation (EC) No 53/1999 of 18 December
1998 allocating, for 1999, certain catch quotas between
Member States for vessels fishing in Faeroese waters (3),
as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1619/
1999 (4),
lays down quotas for cod and haddock for
1999;

in order to ensure compliance with the provisions
relating to the quantity limits on catches of stocks
subject to quotas, the Commission must fix the date by
which catches made by vessels flying the flag of a
Member State are deemed to have exhausted the quota
allocated;

according to the information received by the Commis-
sion, catches of cod and haddock in Faeroese waters by
vessels flying the flag of a Member State or registered in
a Member State have exhausted the quota for 1999,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Catches of cod and haddock in Faeroese waters by vessels
flying of a Member State or registered in a Member State are
hereby deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated to the
Community for 1999.

Fishing for cod and haddock in Faeroese waters by vessels
flying the flag of a Member State or registered in a Member
State is hereby prohibited, as are the retention on board, tran-
shipment and landing of this stock caught by the above vessels
after the date of application of this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 3 November 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 358, 31.12.1998, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 13, 18.1.1999, p. 79.
(4) OJ L 192, 24.7.1999, p. 14.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2332/1999 of 3 November 1999 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 14th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1489/1999
Date: 1999-11-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, white sugar

L 281/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4. 11. 1999

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2332/1999

of 3 November 1999

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 14th 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,

and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to
tender in question;

(3)

(4)

following an examination of the tenders submitted in
response to the 14th partial
invitation to tender, the
provisions set out in Article 1 should be adopted;

the measures provided for in this Regulation are in
accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Sugar,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

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

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 14th 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 EUR 51,910/100 kg.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 November 1999.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 3 November 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.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2347/1999 of 3 November 1999 on the issuing of A1 export licences for fruit and vegetables
Date: 1999-11-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export licence, nut

4. 11. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 281/65

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2347/1999

of 3 November 1999

on the issuing of A1 export licences for fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2190/96 of
14 November 1996 on detailed rules for implementing Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on
fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
1303/1999 (2), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,

(1) Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1926/1999 (3)
sets the quantities for which A1 export licences, other
than those requested in the context of food aid, may be
issued;

(2) Whereas Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2190/96 sets
the conditions under which special measures may be
taken by the Commission with a view to avoiding an
overrun of the quantities for which A1 licences may be
issued;

(3) Whereas

the Commission has
that

received information
which indicates
reduced or
increased by the quantities referred to in Article 2(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 2190/96, would be exceeded if A1

those quantities,

restriction for

licences were issued without
shelled
almonds in response to applications submitted since 29
October 1999; whereas,
therefore, one percentage
should be fixed for the issuing of licences for quantities
applied for on 29 October 1999 and applications for A1
licences submitted later in that application period should
be rejected,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

A1 export licences for shelled almonds for which applications
were submitted on 29 October 1999 pursuant to Article 1 of
Regulation (EC) No 1926/1999 shall be issued for 34,4 % for
shelled almonds of the quantities applied for.

Applications for A1 export licences submitted after 29 October
1999 and before 9 November 1999 for this product shall be
rejected.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 November 1999.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 3 November 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 155, 22.6.1999, p. 29.
(3) OJ L 238, 9.9.1999, p. 20.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2049/99 by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission. Current position of Mr van Buitenen.
Date: 1999-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European official, abuse of power, administrative sanction, corruption, fraud against the EU

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/123

(2000/C 203 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2049/99

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Current position of Mr van Buitenen

Can the Commission state when Mr van Buitenen, who correctly reported on huge levels of corruption,
fraud and nepotism within the European Union, will be fully reinstated in his post?

If he has not yet been fully reinstated, can the Commission explain why?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1999)

Mr Paul van Buitenen was fully reinstated at his continued grade and salary, on 16 April 1999, in a post
corresponding to his qualifications and training. Since then, he has worked in the Personnel and
Administration Directorate General. He was also subsequently informed, in keeping with the Regulation,
that he would be entitled to apply for any post for which he is qualified in the Commission or any of the
other European Institutions if he wished to at any time in the future.

(2000/C 203 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2052/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Fraud by undertakings in Greece

Auditing and judicial authorities in Greece have found that limited companies which received substantial
aid under Greek development law 1892/90 have committed a series of offences (document forgeries,
invoicing of reduced amounts for material and equipment, etc.) and illegally received subsidies worth many
billions of drachmas. These companies are as follows: Sofem Ltd., Farmer Ltd., Endysi Ltd., Biotep Ltd.,
Plexi Ltd., Astria Ltd., AthlitikÆ Organa Thrakis Ltd., DiavitikÆ Edesmata Ltd., IatrikÆ Eidi Boriou Elladas
Ltd., Klimatistik(cid:224) Boriou Elladas Ltd., and probably others.

Will the Commission say:

1. Have these undertakings received EU aid through the development law or other programmes?

2.

If so, can it give a detailed breakdown of the type and amount of the illegal subsidies received per
undertaking and say what measures it intends to take to clear the matter up completely?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

According to information provided by the Greek authorities, none of the companies mentioned by the
Honourable Member or any other companies that have allegedly received unlawful public funding have
been co-funded by the Community structural funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2052/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Fraud by undertakings in Greece.
Date: 1999-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, Structural Funds, fraud against the EU, type of business

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/123

(2000/C 203 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2049/99

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Current position of Mr van Buitenen

Can the Commission state when Mr van Buitenen, who correctly reported on huge levels of corruption,
fraud and nepotism within the European Union, will be fully reinstated in his post?

If he has not yet been fully reinstated, can the Commission explain why?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1999)

Mr Paul van Buitenen was fully reinstated at his continued grade and salary, on 16 April 1999, in a post
corresponding to his qualifications and training. Since then, he has worked in the Personnel and
Administration Directorate General. He was also subsequently informed, in keeping with the Regulation,
that he would be entitled to apply for any post for which he is qualified in the Commission or any of the
other European Institutions if he wished to at any time in the future.

(2000/C 203 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2052/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Fraud by undertakings in Greece

Auditing and judicial authorities in Greece have found that limited companies which received substantial
aid under Greek development law 1892/90 have committed a series of offences (document forgeries,
invoicing of reduced amounts for material and equipment, etc.) and illegally received subsidies worth many
billions of drachmas. These companies are as follows: Sofem Ltd., Farmer Ltd., Endysi Ltd., Biotep Ltd.,
Plexi Ltd., Astria Ltd., AthlitikÆ Organa Thrakis Ltd., DiavitikÆ Edesmata Ltd., IatrikÆ Eidi Boriou Elladas
Ltd., Klimatistik(cid:224) Boriou Elladas Ltd., and probably others.

Will the Commission say:

1. Have these undertakings received EU aid through the development law or other programmes?

2.

If so, can it give a detailed breakdown of the type and amount of the illegal subsidies received per
undertaking and say what measures it intends to take to clear the matter up completely?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

According to information provided by the Greek authorities, none of the companies mentioned by the
Honourable Member or any other companies that have allegedly received unlawful public funding have
been co-funded by the Community structural funds.