do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission. European sustainable transport policy.
Date: 2000-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competence of the Member States, relations between the State and the regions, trans-European network, transport network

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/111

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

As the Honourable Member states, the Community helps finance promotional programmes for certain
agricultural products originating in its territory. At present these include olive oil, milk and milk products,
quality beef and veal, apples and citrus fruits, nuts, table olives, raisins, grape juice, quality products from
the outermost regions, live flowers and plants and fibre flax. The legal basis for the Community part-
financing of these programmes is provided by the Council Regulation on each individual product.

In order to extend the possibility of supporting such promotional programmes for agricultural products,
the Commission intends soon to submit to the Council a draft regulation to harmonise and simplify the
system for promoting agricultural products in the Community. To that end, the list of products included in
this system will not be a closed one, and any product will then be able to seek to be the subject of a
promotional campaign part-financed by the Community.

(2000/C 374 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0580/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

Can traditional EU institutional allies, especially the Parliament and the Commission, themeselves maintain
a sense of unity in disseminating notions of a (cid:145)European Interest(cid:146) to a wider audience?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission regrets that it does not have sufficient information to be able to answer the question.

(2000/C 374 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

To what extent have traditional conflicting relations between national and local levels of governments, in
EU Member States, created difficulties for T-TEN project development?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, Member States are responsible for the implementation of
the network within their own territory. The respective roles of national, regional and local government in
infrastructure project development vary between Member States, but in each case negotiations between the
different national actors take place within the Member State concerned, without direct involvement from
the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0560/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. EU fraud.
Date: 2000-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU Member State, fraud, fraud against the EU, national budget

C 374 E/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0560/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: EU fraud

Will the Commission give an estimate of identifiable fraud against the EU budget in each year of the last
five available years and also express this as a proportion of the total budget? Would the Commission
please give the comparable figures for each of the Member States(cid:146) own budgets so as to enable a
comparison to be made and as an exercise in best practice and benchmarking?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its last two annual reports on the Protection of
the financial interests of the Communities (cid:129) Fight against fraud for 1997 and 1998 (1).

These reports analyse the cases notified by Member States involving irregularities and fraud against
traditional own resources and the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (cid:129)
Guarantee section and structural operations.

The 1998 report shows that on the basis of the cases of irregularities and fraud notified by the Member
States and the investigations carried out by the Commission with the help of the Member States, the
budgetary impact was 3,8 % for own resources, 1 % for the EAGGF (cid:129) Guarantee section and 0,18 % for
structural operations in 1998.

It was also found that one fifth of the cases notified by the Member States in 1998 could constitute
criminal offences (fraud).

On the basis of the data concerning investigations conducted by UCLAF (now OLAF, the European Anti-
fraud Office), the budgetary impact of cases relating to expenditure managed directly by the Commission
for which there is no system of notification by the Member States is put at 0,10 % for 1998.

The Commission feels that fraud against national budgets, for which it has no figures,
is something
essentially different, thus making any comparison very rash (in the main these are administrative budgets
whereas 95 % of the Community budget is (cid:145)grants(cid:146)).

(1) COM(98) 276 final and COM(1999) 590 final.

(2000/C 374 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0565/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Confidential documents

Will the Commission confirm that any of its employees found to have given early sight of a reasoned
opinion or other quasi-legal document to an interested party prior to publication would be instantly
dismissed? Has this happened in the past?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission. European sustainable transport policy.
Date: 2000-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: trans-European network, transport network

C 46 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

(2001/C 46 E/019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

In terms of identifying the major cities along the T-TEN priority project routes, can the Commission say
how such decisions were made and who was involved in this decision-making process? What criteria were
used and who were the winners and losers in such decisions?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The Trans-European Network-transport (TEN-T) guidelines identify the key routes of trans-European
importance, which include those routes covered by the TEN-T priority projects. The guidelines contain a
set of maps, outlining all these key routes. Where cities are named on these maps, they are included only
as reference points, and many cities have access to the TEN-T network, without appearing on the maps.

Over 1990-1992, the Commission set up a number of working parties, with representatives from each
Member State, which developed a set of outline plans. These plans identified the routes of trans-European
importance, taking account of traffic flows and the need to link peripheral regions with the centre of the
Community. The working parties did not specifically identify cities along the TEN-T routes. These outline
plans were then incorporated into the TEN-T guidelines, adopted by the Council and Parliament under the
co-decision procedure in 1996 (1).

The Commission is currently considering how best to take forward these issues in its report on the
revision of the TEN-T guidelines that will be submitted to the Council and Parliament this summer.

(1) OJ C 17, 22.1.1996.

(2001/C 46 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0592/00

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: The Moluccas

The second emergency aid programme for the Moluccas (€ 900 000) will end in late February. The
Commission is now working on a third programme. Up to now this aid has been channelled through
French and Belgian NGOs. Is the Commission prepared to involve Dutch NGOs which consult with
Moluccan organisations in the Netherlands with diverse links with the Moluccas in order to achieve a
peaceful, stabilising effect?

Will the Commission also ensure that structural aid, which it has given to Novib and Oxfam UK, for
example, and which cannot be spent because of the conflicts, can be spent on reconciliation and
preventive action in the context of emergency aid and rehabilitation?

Can the Commission inform us of the additional support for developing Indonesia? From which category
will any appropriations be taken? Is it prepared to include in the aid package the possibility of contacts
and exchanges between the capital, Djakarta, and the conflict regions such as the Moluccas and Aceh?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0580/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission. European sustainable transport policy.
Date: 2000-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU institution, promotion of the European idea

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/111

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

As the Honourable Member states, the Community helps finance promotional programmes for certain
agricultural products originating in its territory. At present these include olive oil, milk and milk products,
quality beef and veal, apples and citrus fruits, nuts, table olives, raisins, grape juice, quality products from
the outermost regions, live flowers and plants and fibre flax. The legal basis for the Community part-
financing of these programmes is provided by the Council Regulation on each individual product.

In order to extend the possibility of supporting such promotional programmes for agricultural products,
the Commission intends soon to submit to the Council a draft regulation to harmonise and simplify the
system for promoting agricultural products in the Community. To that end, the list of products included in
this system will not be a closed one, and any product will then be able to seek to be the subject of a
promotional campaign part-financed by the Community.

(2000/C 374 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0580/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

Can traditional EU institutional allies, especially the Parliament and the Commission, themeselves maintain
a sense of unity in disseminating notions of a (cid:145)European Interest(cid:146) to a wider audience?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission regrets that it does not have sufficient information to be able to answer the question.

(2000/C 374 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

To what extent have traditional conflicting relations between national and local levels of governments, in
EU Member States, created difficulties for T-TEN project development?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, Member States are responsible for the implementation of
the network within their own territory. The respective roles of national, regional and local government in
infrastructure project development vary between Member States, but in each case negotiations between the
different national actors take place within the Member State concerned, without direct involvement from
the Commission.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at the 75th meeting on 28 and 29 February 2000 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.1636 — MMS/DASA/Astrium (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2000-02-29
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: advisory committee (EU), economic concentration, exchange of information, launch vehicle, merger control, opinion, satellite

28.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/13

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at the 75th meeting on 28 and 29
February 2000 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.1636 —
MMS/DASA/Astrium

(2003/C 285/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a
concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation and has a Community
Dimension as defined by Article 1(2) of that Regulation.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the sectors affected by the notified

2.
concentration comprise

(a) satellites;

(b) space infrastructure;

(c)

launchers and launch services;

(d) ground segment; and

(e) equipment for satellites.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that precise market definitions can be left

3.
open in the markets for

(a) civil satellites;

(b) space infrastructure;

(c)

launchers and launch services;

(d) ground segment; and

(e) equipment for satellites other than mechanical wheels,

as the concentration does not give rise to the creation or strengthening of a dominant position in these
areas.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant markets as detailed

4.
in the draft decision for

(a) mechanical wheels for satellites in Europe; and

(b) military communication satellites in France.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the operation as notified would raise

5.
competition concerns in the markets for

(a) mechanical wheels for satellites in Europe; and

(b) military communication satellites in France.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by the notifying

6.
parties will remove the competition concerns specified at 5 above.

7.
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's draft decision that, subject to full compliance
with these commitments, the concentration should be declared compatible with the common market.

The Advisory Committee invites the Commission to take into account all the other points raised by

8.
the Member States during the discussion.

The Advisory Committee recommends publication of this opinion in the Official

9.
European Union.

Journal of

the
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0668/00 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission. Legislation to implement Article 299(2) in the framework of the common agricultural policy.
Date: 2000-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, common agricultural policy, peripheral region

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/129

Does the Commission not consider that the United Kingdom has broken the solidarity pact which binds all
the EU Member States?

Does the Commission not think that, in such circumstances, it should suggest to the Council of Ministers
that the latter impose exemplary sanctions on the United Kingdom for infringement of the Amsterdam
Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its statement on Echelon at Parliament(cid:146)s March III
part session (1).

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

(2000/C 374 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0668/00

by Isidoro SÆnchez Garc(cid:237)a (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Legislation to implement Article 299(2) in the framework of the common agricultural policy

With reference to the undertaking given by the Commission to include in its work programme for 2000
measures to accord special status to the outermost regions, what measures will the Commission adopt in
the framework of the common agricultural policy to introduce legislation to implement Article 299(2) of
the Treaty on European Union?

Given answer by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2000)

On 23 November 1999, on the initiative of the President of the Commission, a partnership meeting was
held bringing together Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the seven regions and
three Member States concerned to discuss implementation of the new Article 299(2) (formerly Article 227)
of the EC Treaty. In the light of this meeting and the memoranda presented by the regions and Member
States, the Commission is now preparing the report called for by the European Council of Cologne.

In the spirit of Article 299(2), the Commission intends to continue its policy of taking account of the
specific characteristics and constraints of the outermost regions, particularly as regards farming. Thus, as
indicated in its work programme for 2000, once it has adopted its report the Commission will submit a
draft to Parliament and the Council of any amendments of the Council Regulations on the agricultural
sections of the POSEI programmes which might prove necessary.

(2000/C 374 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0671/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappal(cid:224) (PPE-DE),
Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Raffaele Fitto (PPE-DE),
Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE)
and Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Violation of EU legislation on the cloning of human beings

What action does the Commission intend to take following the decision made by the European Patent
Office in Munich to approve the grant of a patent for embryo duplication.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0559/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Direct foreign investment.
Date: 2000-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Japan, United States, direct investment, foreign investment, third country

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/107

The Commission is fully aware of the sustained increase in the number of cases to be dealt with in the
field of competition policy, in particular in the area of mergers. In order to face the growing workload, the
Commission has reinforced the Competition Directorate general with around 50 staff units since 1998.
However,
this reinforcement only partially meets the actual needs of DG Competition, despite the
motivation and commitment of its staff.

As done thus far, the Commission will continue to review critically its activities in order to shift resources
towards core activities and new political priorities. Once all the possibilities for reallocation of existing
human resources to priority areas are exhausted, the Commission will request additional human resources
from the budget authority.

(1) Total ECFIN staff (permanent officials and temporary agents) amounts to 316 in Brussels and 108 in Luxembourg

and represents about 2,1 % of total Commission staff.

(2000/C 374 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0559/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Direct foreign investment

What was the total of direct foreign investment in each of the Member States in each of the last five years?
What was the breakdown of direct foreign investment by other Member States of the European Union and
by third countries, and what was the amount in each case from Japan and the United States?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

The answers to the questions put by the Honourable Member are to be found in three statistical tables sent
direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

Table 1 gives the foreign direct investment (FDI) in all the Member States from 1994 to 1999 as well as
the FDI undertaken by the various Member States during the same period.

Table 2 gives the FDI for 1998 undertaken in each Member State by (a) the other Member States (overall
figures) and (b) all third countries (overall figures). The specific figures for the FDI in each Member State by
Japan and the United States are also given.

Table 3 sets out in detail the FDI in each Member State by each of the other Member States.

Given the interest shown by the Honourable Member in foreign direct investment in the Community, it
seems appropriate to bring to his attention the recent publication by Eurostat of a book containing the
investment yearbook 1999 (cid:129) Data
(European Union direct
most recent statistics on the matter
1988-1998. Theme 2: Economy and Finance) (1).

(1)

ISBN 92-828-8310-8.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at the 75th meeting on 29 February 2000 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.1672 — Volvo/Scania (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2000-02-29
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU Member State, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, dominant position, merger control, road transport

29.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 154/7

of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at the 75th meeting on 29 February 2000
concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.1672 (cid:151) Volvo/Scania

OPINION

(2001/C 154/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that
concentration

the
according to Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

constitutes

operation

notified

a

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that
the notified operation has a Community dimension as
defined in Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that
the relevant product market should be defined as the
markets for:

(a) Heavy trucks (more than 16 tonnes).

(b) Touring coaches.

(c)

Inter-city buses.

(d) City buses.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that
the relevant geographic markets for heavy trucks are
Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Ireland.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that
the relevant geographic markets for touring coaches are
Finland and United Kingdom.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that
the relevant geographic markets for inter-city buses are
Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland.

7. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that
the relevant geographic markets for city buses are Sweden,
Denmark, Norway, Finland and Ireland.

8. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that
the concentration would create a dominant position on the
markets for heavy trucks in Sweden, Denmark, Norway,
Finland and Ireland.

9. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that
the concentration would create a dominant position on the
markets for:

(cid:151) Touring coaches in Finland and United Kingdom.

(cid:151) Inter-city buses in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and

Finland.

(cid:151) City buses in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and

Ireland.

10. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that
the commitments submitted by the parties will not remove
all
the concentration as
identified above and in the draft decision.

the competitive concerns of

11. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that
the operation shall be declared incompatible with the
common market
the EEA
Agreement.

functioning of

and the

12. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take
account of all points
in
particular with regards to comments made in relation to
the assessment of the relevant geographic market.

raised during the meeting,

13. The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of
the European

Journal

of

its opinion in the Official
Communities.