do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2662/99 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. Impact of procurement liberalisation on developing countries.
Date: 2000-01-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common commercial policy, developing countries, impact study, liberalisation of the market, public contract

C 374 E/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2661/99

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Developing countries and world trade

Given that most developing countries do not have the human resources and technical capacity to manage
is the
the existing WTO agenda and are not participating in the voluntary GPA Working Group,
Commission providing any kind of support that would enable developing countries to participate in this
debate?

(2000/C 374 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2662/99

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Impact of procurement liberalisation on developing countries

Has the Commission produced any studies that illustrate the impact of procurement liberalisation on
developing countries? If not, does it intend to do so?

(2000/C 374 E/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2663/99

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Public procurement liberalisation

Is it a correct understanding of the EU negotiating mandate that the EU intends to introduce public
procurement liberalisation into the next WTO round?

If so, how does the Commission intend to square this objective with its commitment to developing
countries, particularly in Article 178 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which states that its external policies
should be coherent and should not undermine efforts to assist developing countries. Given this legal
obligation, how does the Commission believe that procurement liberalisation will benefit poor countries?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2661/99, E-2662/99 and E-2663/99
given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Money spent on government procurement (not including defence purchasing) accounts for at least 10-15 %
of gross domestic product (GDP) in most countries. The fact that there are no multilateral rules governing
how this money is spent means that governments are able to maintain procurement policies and practices
which are discriminatory and trade distortive.

Opaque and/or discriminatory procurement procedures adversely affect the longer term development
objectives of countries because they are subsidising uncompetitive industries and creating an environment
conducive to corruption and bribery. This is backed up by empirical research which has been carried out
by other countries and organisations. In addition, the trade liberalising effect achieved by the World trade
Commission Regulation (EC) No 61/2000 of 12 January 2000 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2000-01-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit

13. 1. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 9/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 61/2000

of 12 January 2000

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

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(2)

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Whereas:

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the
outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade nego-
tiations, 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;

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.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 January 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 12 January 2000.

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.

L 9/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13. 1. 2000

to the Commission Regulation of 12 January 2000 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 10 10, 0805 10 30, 0805 10 50

0805 20 10

0805 20 30, 0805 20 50,
0805 20 70, 0805 20 90

0805 30 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(EUR/100 kg)

204
624
999
052
999
052
204
999
052
204
212
220
624
999
052
204
999

052
204
464
624
999
052
600
624
999
400
404
720
728
999
052
064
400
720
999

58,2
99,6
78,9
116,8
116,8
125,3
99,0
112,2
56,6
40,9
44,5
24,3
38,0
40,9
74,1
47,4
60,8

72,6
71,4
100,4
61,4
76,5
64,7
76,5
91,6
77,6
87,5
91,8
96,3
66,1
85,4
142,9
64,6
102,1
111,3
105,2

(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 63/2000 of 12 January 2000 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 22nd partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1489/1999
Date: 2000-01-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, white sugar

13. 1. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 9/5

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 63/2000

of 12 January 2000

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 22nd 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 22nd 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 22nd 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 52,940/100 kg.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 January 2000.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 12 January 2000.

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-2701/99 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Legal action on British beef in the French market.
Date: 2000-01-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, United Kingdom, beef, market approval, preliminary ruling procedure

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/109

The Commission is closely following this exercise in particular, since it will have to evaluate whether
Regulation (EC) no 1475/95 functions in a satisfactory manner in the Member States. It will, to that effect,
issue a report by 31 December 2000. The impact of this Regulation on consumers will be one of the key
elements of the evaluation. This report will serve as a basis for determining the future legal framework for
the car industry and for a possible revision of Regulation (EC) no 1475/95.
the
Commission firmly intends to take all the necessary measures to arrive at the most satisfactory distribution
system for cars in the interest of the European consumers.

In this respect,

See for example Press Release IP/99/554 of 22 July 1999.

(1)
(2) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.
(3) OJ L 124, 25.4.1998.

(2000/C 280 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2698/99

by Ole Krarup (EDD) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Control over currency reserves

The national central banks of countries taking part in the Euro (third stage) are to transfer control over a
specified proportion of their currency reserves to the ECB.

If a Member State is obliged to leave the Euro, will control of its currency reserves automatically return to
its central bank free of any charges, financial penalties or the like?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2000)

The EC Treaty makes no provision for a State in the euro area to leave that area. Consequently, it contains
no provisions covering the possible repayment of reserves to the national Central Bank.

(2000/C 280 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2701/99

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Legal action on British beef in the French market

the Commission expedite an action in the European Court of

Will
Justice in order to obtain an
interlocutory ruling which will enable British beef to re-enter the French market from which it has been
unlawfully excluded?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2000)

The Commission has already opened the infringement procedure under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the
EC Treaty against France and on 4 January 2000 brought the case before the Court of justice (case
reference No C-1/00).

The Commission decided not to lodge an application for interim measures with the Court. A number of
very stringent conditions have to be fulfilled for the successful pursuit of such an application. Taking
account,
in particular, of the caselaw of Court of justice in past cases involving the issue of interim
measures, especially in relation to public health, the Commission reached the conclusion that there was
little likelihood of the Court ordering such measures in the present case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2635/99 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Support for nuclear energy and renewable energies.
Date: 2000-01-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: budgetary control, economic support, energy policy, nuclear energy, renewable energy

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/187

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has examined this case following a
complaint which called into question the legality of the award procedure for this contract. On the basis of
the information contained in the complaint, the Commission expressed reservations about the legality of
certain parts of the procedure in a letter sent to the Greek authorities, and has requested further
information and comments from these authorities. Certain details which cast doubt on the legality of this
contract have also appeared in the Greek press. Before concluding its examination, the Commission has,
therefore, also attempted to determine the truth of these allegations. The examination of this dossier will
be completed shortly.

The fact that there have been delays in the construction of the building is certainly regrettable, but it is not
up to the Commission to apportion responsibility.

The Commission would also like to assure the Honourable Member that Community co-financing for
carrying out this project will be re-examined once the Commission has concluded its final assessment of
the aforementioned complaint.

(2000/C 225 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2635/99

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Support for nuclear energy and renewable energies

1.
Can the Commission provide details of all financial support received, firstly, by nuclear energy
(including fusion) and, secondly, by renewable energies (solar and wind power) from the relevant budget
titles of the general budget of the European Communities since the Communities were established?

2.

If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2000)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct
Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

to the Honourable Member and to

(2000/C 225 E/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2645/99

by Concepci(cid:243) Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Indian leather industry subsidies

Last year I tabled a question (E-3882/99) (1) to the Commission which elicited a response referring me to
the Commission(cid:146)s reply to another question of mine (P-3790/98) (2), which had nothing to do with the
new question at all.

I would therefore repeat my request: will the Commission send me the list of projects funded by the EU in
India helping the Indian leather industry (leather, footwear and fine leather goods), stating the date of
approval and the objectives?

(1) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999, p. 155.
(2) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999, p. 150.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2616/99 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Agri-environment expenditure.
Date: 2000-01-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, agricultural expenditure

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/83

(2000/C 280 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2616/99

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Agri-environment expenditure

What percentage of common agricultural policy expenditure is devoted to agri-environment schemes
(intended to ensure that agricultural activities are compatible with the maintenance of landscapes, species
and habitats) in each of the 15 Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

One of the key objectives of the common agricultural policy (CAP) lies in safeguarding and improving the
environment. While this role had already been created prior to the 1999 reform, it has become even more
crucial under Agenda 2000. By way of example, the measures aimed at supporting farmers in less-favoured
areas, and the provisions allowing direct aid to be granted to farmers subject to certain environmental
constraints, play an important role where the environment is concerned. However, the budgetary cost of
such measures is not entered as environmental expenditure since the environment is but one of the targets
of measures of this type. As regards exclusively environmental measures provided for by specific legislation
and financed solely by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF), expenditure for the 1999 financial year totalled € 1 951 million. This represents 4,93 % of the
total expenditure of € 39 524 million for the financial year, i.e. an increase of more than one quarter on
the average for 1996-1999. In view of the foregoing, however, it would be wrong to conclude that this
percentage of CAP expenditure alone contributes towards safeguarding and improving the environment.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that EAGGF funding for agri-environment
measures is matched by Member State co-funding on a one-for-one basis in non-Objective 1 areas and at
a rate of 75 % Community funding and 25 % Member State funding in Objective 1 areas. Total expenditure
on agri-environment schemes is, therefore, higher than the EAGGF expenditure indicated below.

As regards the breakdown of expenditure on exclusively environmental measures in each Member State,
the average for the financial years from 1996 to 1999 is as follows:

Member State

EAGGF
Guarantee expenditure

Environment

Environment/EAGGF
(%)

(million euro)

BE

DK

DE

GR

ES

FR

IRL

IT

LU

NL

AT

PT

FI

SE

UK

992,7

1 250

5 775

2 664

4 789

9 260

1 761,5

4 507,5

20,7

1 491,1

938

643,7

587,7

669,5

Total

4 002,7

39 450,8

2,07

7,67

275,3

6,17

50,2

114,7

99,25

275,65

3,27

11,2

336,6

57,2

166,6

86,02

41,9

1 534,2

0,21

0,61

4,76

0,23

1,05

1,24

5,63

6,11

15,78

0,75

35,89

8,89

28,34

12,84

1,04

3,88
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2649/99 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on the URBAN programme in Rome.
Date: 2000-01-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU initiative, Italy, eligibility criteria, town planning

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/177

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

The Honourable Members are requested to refer to the Commission(cid:146)s reply to Written Question P-2579/99
by Mr FernÆndez Mart(cid:237)n. (1)

(1)

See page 175.

(2000/C 203 E/229)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2649/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Update on the URBAN programme in Rome

With reference to my previous question E-0568/99 (1) and to the answer given by Commissioner Wulf-
Mathies on 3 May 1999:

1. Can the Commission say whether, as a result of the accumulated delays, there have been reductions in

allocations from the Commission?

2. Has the municipality of Rome made up ground since the end of April and reached the commitment

level of 70 % forecast by the Commission?

3. Can it provide a comparative table of the other Member States?

4. What is the final budget?

(1) OJ C 370, 21.12.1999, p. 63.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2000)

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

(2000/C 203 E/230)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2777/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Protection of archaeological treasures at Salamina in Turkish-occupied Cyprus

Archaeologists from Ankara University have been reported as carrying out illegal excavations in the
necropolis of ancient Salamina in the Turkish-occupied sector of Cyprus, an important archaeological site
on the island and one of the most significant in the Mediterranean. The excavations are being carried out
despite the fact that Turkey has been a signatory to the Hague Convention since 1965, Article 5 of which
expressly prohibits any archaeological work in areas occupied by foreign forces without the consent of the
legitimate government of the country.

Will the Commission intervene to bring a halt to any excavation of archaeological sites and, if so, in what
manner?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2671/99 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Cards for EU citizens entering Italy.
Date: 2000-01-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European citizenship, Italy, border control, customs formalities, free movement of persons

C 225 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2671/99

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Cards for EU citizens entering Italy

(12 January 2000)

On 15 November 1999 German tourists on a ferry from Tunis to Livorno (Italy) had to have orange cards
stamped. Otherwise, according to the Italian authorities, they would have been refused entry to Italy.
Customs officials said that without the stamp they would not have been allowed to leave the ship. Entry
into Italy was delayed as a result by several hours. The tourists regarded this as harassment pure and
simple.

Is there any reason why EU citizens have to present special entry permits for Italy?

If not, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The Commission will make the necessary contacts with the Italian authorities in order to obtain all the
details on the facts reported by the Honourable Member. It will not fail to take such action as may be
necessary under the procedure provided for by Article 226 (former Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(2000/C 225 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2675/99

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Commission policy on takeovers

Following the announcement of the Vodaphone bid for Mannesmann, Commissioner Monti was quoted in
a British newspaper suggesting that the controversy this bid had provoked highlighted the necessity of
finding agreement on the proposed takeovers directive (the 13th company law directive concerning
takeover bids).

The British business community has opposed this proposed directive on the basis that it would impose
costly legal burdens on them and override the UK(cid:146)s Takeover Panel, which has a proven track record of
successfully dealing with takeover questions on a non-statutory basis.

How will the Commission(cid:146)s proposals resolve these issues and ensure that takeovers are policed effectively
at national or European level?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The amended proposal for a thirteenth Directive of the Parliament and the Council on company law
concerning take over bids (1) aims at establishing equivalent minimum safeguards for the protection of
minority shareholders in the case of a transfer of corporate control.

The proposed directive requires Member States to designate one or more supervisory authorities which
must supervise the bid. Because of differences in legal tradition, the question to what extent recourse