do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0953/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Supply of tuna loins to the European fish-canning industry.
Date: 2000-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common fisheries policy, fish product, tariff quota

C 26 E/134

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.1.2001

(2001/C 26 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0953/00

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

Subject: Supply of tuna loins to the European fish-canning industry

(22 March 2000)

At the Fisheries Council meeting of 30 March 1999 the Commission undertook to initiate a study
reviewing the supply of tuna loins to the Community market, which was published at the beginning of this
year under the title (cid:145)Tuna Loins Supply and Demand Study (cid:129) Evaluation of the Supply of Tuna Loins to
the Community Market in the Short and Medium Term(cid:146). The study concluded that in order to help the
Italian industry carry out its restructuring without prejudicing the other European Union countries, a quota
of between 1 000 and 2 000 tonnes could be opened for third countries.

How could the Commission therefore propose, on 21 February 4000 tonnes at a customs duty of 6 % for
the year 2000, if, as stated in the study, this will jeopardise the vast majority of fish-canning industries in
the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the study carried out by the Commission on supply of tuna loins to the
Community market.

As mentioned in the reply to his Written Questions E-0756/00 to E-0761/00 (1),
considers this study to show a limited deficit of a seasonal nature for this product.

the Commission

Its proposal for the year 2000 was certainly for a higher quantity than advocated by the study, but at 6 %
duty whereas the study advocated nil.

That quantity and duty level are moreover in line with the political agreement signed by the Council and
the Commission on 17 December 1999.

The Council confirmed this line of action by unanimously adopting the Commission(cid:146)s proposal.

(1) See page 104.

(2001/C 26 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0959/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Municipal hotel tax

The practice is on the increase of levying a tax on hotel guests, on the grounds that such guests use
municipally-owned (cid:145)facilities of general interest(cid:146), for whose upkeep all the inhabitants of a given urban
community have to pay.

Visitors to a city which operates such a tax are thus asked to pay a surcharge on their hotel bill
corresponding to their use of the municipally-owned facilities of which they have availed themselves while
staying in a hotel in that city.

In view of the significant consequences which will arise if this tax comes to be levied customarily by local
authorities throughout the Union, can the Commission state its position concerning this practice and
whether it believes this tourist tax could become an indirect source of resources through VAT?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0882/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Fraud investigation at the Stockholm office.
Date: 2000-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Sweden, fraud against the EU, information centre

C 46 E/70

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

(2001/C 46 E/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0882/00

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

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Fraud investigation at the Stockholm office

is happening in the investigation into the allegations of

What
the European Parliament
information office in Stockholm? How is the investigation progressing? Will the case or the evidence be
handed over to the Swedish police and the Public Prosecutor(cid:146)s Office for further proceedings within the
Swedish judicial system?

fraud at

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the answer which the Commission gave to Oral Question
H-712/99 by Mr Schori during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s part session in December 1999 (1).

With regard to the Commission Office in Stockholm (Sweden), the Commission does not yet have a report,
drawn up in accordance with Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud
Office (OLAF) (2), on the action to be taken within the meaning of Article 9(4) of the Regulation.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999).
(2) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2001/C 46 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0887/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium

The dioxin crisis in Belgium once again demonstrated how vulnerable the food chain, and checks on it,
are. An assessment such as that made by the Dioxin Committee of the Chamber of Representatives can
help to eliminate problems. Both the European Union and the fifteen Member States have an important
role to play in this.

The 14-page final conclusion of the Dioxin Committee contains a number of references to the conduct of
the European Union during the dioxin crisis in the Belgian Federation:
(cid:145)As regards the composition of
feedingstuffs and of contaminants, the European Union does not have a sufficiently effective regulatory
framework. The rules on compulsory notification of the EU authorities are inadequate. The EU added to
the chaos which marked the development of the crisis.(cid:146)

Does the Commission accept that (cid:145)as regards the composition of feedingstuffs and of contaminants, the
European Union does not have a sufficiently effective regulatory framework(cid:146), as claimed in the report of
the Dioxin Committee?

(a)

(b)

If not, what arguments are there to show that, contrary to the statement by the Dioxin Committee, the
EU(cid:146)s regulatory framework for the composition of feedingstuffs and contaminants is effective?

If so, will the Commission amend the regulatory framework for the composition of feedingstuffs and
contaminants in order to make it more effective?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0895/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium.
Date: 2000-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, agricultural waste, waste recycling

C 374 E/180

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

In order to ensure a high level of public health and consumer protection, point 5 of the Annex to
Commission Decision 91/516/EEC of 9 September 1991, establishing a list of ingredients the use of which
is prohibited in compound feedingstuffs (1), specifically prohibits the use of sludge from sewage plants
treating waste waters.

This rule does not differ in substance between language versions. However, in order to leave no doubt as
to the scope of
the prohibition, a draft Commission decision amending Decision 91/516/EEC was
submitted to the opinion of the standing committee for feedingstuffs on 29th February 2000. This draft
decision, which secured a favourable opinion of this committee, states that all wastes obtained from the
various phases of the urban, domestic and industrial waste water treatment process, irrespective of any
further processing of these wastes and irrespective also of the origin of the waste waters, shall be
prohibited in compound feedingstuffs.

(1) OJ L 281, 9.10.1991.

(2000/C 374 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0895/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium

The dioxin crisis in Belgium once again demonstrated how vulnerable the food chain, and checks on it,
are. An assessment such as that made by the Dioxin Committee of the Chamber of Representatives can
help to eliminate problems. Both the European Union and the fifteen Member States have an important
role to play in this.

The Members of Parliament repeatedly call for (cid:145)clear, complete guidelines on the responsible use of animal
waste(cid:146).

Are the existing guidelines clear and complete enough to ensure that animal waste is used responsibly?

(a)

(b)

If so, on what grounds does the Commission (cid:129) unlike the Dioxin Committee (cid:129) consider that the
guidelines on the responsible use of animal waste are clear and complete?

If not, will the Commission draft proposals for establishing a clear and complete system for the
responsible use of animal waste?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

The Commission shares the view of the dioxin committee of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives on
the issue of animal waste.

The possible exclusion of certain animal waste from the feed chain has been discussed for some time at
political, technical and scientific level. In the light of these discussions, it is considered appropriate to
prohibit the recycling of high-risk animal waste into the feed chain.

To this end, a proposal for a Council and Parliament regulation establishing new rules for the disposal and
the processing of animal waste is in preparation. Its submission to the Council and to the Parliament is
scheduled for June 2000.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 611/2000 of 22 March 2000 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2000-03-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 74/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 611/2000

of 22 March 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,

the standard
In compliance with the above criteria,
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
in
standard values for imports from third countries,
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 23 March 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 22 March 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 74/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

to the Commission Regulation of 22 March 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 10 00

0709 90 70

0805 10 10, 0805 10 30, 0805 10 50

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)

052
204
999
052
068
628
999
220
999
052
204
628
999
052
204
212
220
600
624
999
052
220
600
999
039
388
400
404
508
512
528
720
999
052
388
400
512
528
720
999

154,0
109,3
131,7
109,0
130,6
146,6
128,7
309,8
309,8
109,0
48,8
116,0
91,3
48,3
35,7
38,1
31,0
41,1
52,1
41,0
33,7
71,3
66,1
57,0
90,1
95,2
93,8
88,2
83,1
95,2
99,7
56,6
87,7
77,4
72,3
106,6
69,8
71,6
71,3
78,2

(1) Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2543/1999 (OJ L 307, 2.12.1999, p. 46). Code ‘999’ stands for ‘of

other origin’.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0929/00 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Set aside premiums for the German firms RWE and Rheinbraun.
Date: 2000-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Germany, lignite, set-aside

C 280 E/220

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.10.2000

hedges. This will damage wildlife and remove land vital for preventing soil erosion on steep fields. It will
run counter to the environmental goals adopted by the EU.

The UK has asked the Commission to increase the (cid:145)set-aside(cid:146) margin to three metres for the UK. In the
interests of promoting environmental conservation, will the Commission agree to rethink its approach, at
least in the case of farmers who have traditionally maintained wide field margins?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

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

(2000/C 280 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0929/00

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Set aside premiums for the German firms RWE and Rheinbraun

Is it the case that the German firms RWE and Rheinbraun have received EU set aside premiums for

1.
brown coal mining?

2.

3.

If so, what sums have been paid, in accordance with what legal basis and for what period?

If so, were these one-off payments, or are they continuing?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member(cid:146)s
Written Question E-0667/00.

The Commission would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the answer it has already given to that
question (1).

(1)

See page 218.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 614/2000 of 22 March 2000 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 32nd partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1489/1999
Date: 2000-03-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, white sugar

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 74/7

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 614/2000

of 22 March 2000

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 32nd 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 32nd 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 32nd 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 52,193 kg.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 March 2000.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 22 March 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-0870/00 by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Austria's Stability Programme.
Date: 2000-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, stability pact

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/175

This attitude is contrary to every principle of tolerance and equality between all human beings irrespective
of their race, nationality, sex and religious principles. Clearly, Austria(cid:146)s rights are being infringed here
when citizens are denied access to goods and services.

In view of the urgency of the matter, will the Commission state what measures it intends to take to
counteract this anti-EU discrimination against Austrian nationals and hence citizens of the Union?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The freedom to provide services, a fundamental principle based on non-discrimination with regard to
nationality, is required of the national authorities of the Member States and of organisations responsible
for governing occupational sectors.

According to the information available to the Commission, the situation described by the honourable
Member stems from an initiative of an economic operator and not from an order issued in respect of taxi
drivers by the Belgian authorities.

In this context, the Commission has no legal means allowing it to take action to put an end to the
discriminatory measures referred to.

Private behaviour which discriminates against customers on the basis of nationality is, however, a matter
for national jurisdiction. Victims could respond to such behaviour either by initiating criminal proceedings
(with a claim for damages at the court in Brussels) or civil proceedings for exemplary damages.

(2000/C 374 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0870/00

by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Austria(cid:146)s Stability Programme

1 March was the deadline for submission of the Member States(cid:146) Stability Programmes. The Austrian
government had not yet submitted its programme by that date. Does the Commission know the reason for
the delay and when the Austrian Government intends to submit its programme?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The new federal government of the Austrian Republic was sworn in on 4 February 2000. Both the budget
for the year 2000 and the stability programme are treated as high priority issues.

The Minister of Finance presented the draft budget to the Austrian Parliament on 21 March 2000. The
Minister of finance, immediately after having taken office, informed the Commission by letter that the
federal government will update the stability programme, which already has been discussed with the
Laender and communities, by the end of March 2000, after the presentation of the budget.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 613/2000 of 22 March 2000 altering the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural state
Date: 2000-03-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export refund, raw sugar, white sugar

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 74/5

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 613/2000

of 22 March 2000

altering the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural state

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 third subparagraph
of Article 18(5) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

The refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in
the natural state were fixed by Commission Regulation
(EC) No 558/2000 (2),

It follows from applying the detailed rules contained in
Regulation (EC) No 558/2000 to the information known
to the Commission that the export refunds at present in

force should be altered to the amounts set out in the
Annex hereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(1)(a) of
Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999, undenatured and exported in
the natural state, as fixed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No
558/2000 are hereby altered to the amounts shown in the
Annex hereto.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 March 2000.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 22 March 2000.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 252, 25.9.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 68, 16.3.2000, p. 10.

L 74/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

to the Commission Regulation of 22 March 2000 altering the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar
exported in its unaltered state

ANNEX

Product code

1701 11 90 9100
1701 11 90 9910
1701 11 90 9950
1701 12 90 9100
1701 12 90 9910
1701 12 90 9950

Amount of refund

— EUR/100 kg —

43,23
42,81

43,23
42,81

(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(2)

1701 91 00 9000

0,4699

— EUR/1 % of sucrose × 100 kg —

1701 99 10 9100
1701 99 10 9910
1701 99 10 9950

— EUR/100 kg —

46,99
48,75
46,54

1701 99 90 9100

0,4699

— EUR/1 % of sucrose × 100 kg —

(1) Applicable to raw sugar with a yield of 92 %;

if the yield is other than 92 %,
the refund applicable is calculated in accordance with the provisions of Article 19
(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999.

(2) Fixing suspended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2689/85 (OJ L 255, 26. 9.
1985, p. 12), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3251/85 (OJ L 309, 21. 11. 1985,
p. 14).