do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0965/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Community aid to scrapyards.
Date: 2000-03-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, competence of the Member States, metal waste

C 46 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

(2001/C 46 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0965/00

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Community aid to scrapyards

Automobile scrapyard owners are asking for information on the real scope of the new Community
legislation concerning their sector. While they welcome the idea of legislation for the sector, they feel they
are insufficiently informed as to how they will be affected, how much time they will have to adapt their
facilities to the new directive, and whether or not public funding will be available for adaptation.

Can the Commission explain in what fashion it intends to inform undertakings in the sector of the new EU
legislation concerning automobile scrapyards?

How much time will undertakings have to adapt?

Will aid be made available to undertakings for this purpose?

Does the Commission intend to establish any kind of criteria relating to excellence, exchange of
experiences or best practice, or systems of approval at EU level?

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

(17 May 2000)

The proposal for a Council directive on end of life vehicles (1) (cid:129) like all Community directives (cid:129) is
addressed to the Member States. The Member States are obliged to comply with the objectives established
in directives, while they remain free to choose the appropriate instruments to reach such objectives. It is
primarily a task of the Member States to make sure that the concerned economic operators are sufficiently
informed and assisted where necessary in order to comply with the requirements of directives.

As regards the time available for complying with the directive, this will only be known once it is finally
adopted. At present, the legislative procedure has not yet finished. The Commission reasonably expects
that the directive will be adopted before mid-2000. At the moment, the common position (2) foresees that
the directive will enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official journal, and that Member
States will have an extra transitional period of 18 months for transposing the Directive into national law.

According to the EC Treaty, the financing of Community environmental measures is the prerogative of the
Member States. No specific Community financial aid is foreseen in the common position.

Finally, concerning excellency parameters and good practices, the common position, besides setting out
minimum treatment requirements in Article 6 and Annex I, in its Article 5(5) refers to the introduction of
certified environmental management systems in relation to establishments which carry out vehicle
treatment operations.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997 as amended, OJ C 156, 3.6.1999.
(2) Common Position 39/1999, OJ C 317, 4.11.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0972/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Aid from Community funds.
Date: 2000-03-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Lisbon and the Tagus Valley, collective dismissal, shipbuilding

C 374 E/194

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0972/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Aid from Community funds

Over 150 workers at (cid:145)Lisnave (cid:129) Lisbon Naval Shipyards Ltd(cid:146) have been waiting for 15 years to be taken
on again by this undertaking, having been forcibly dismissed a move which they have never accepted.

It is now reported that (cid:145)Lisnave(cid:146) or (cid:145)Gestnave (cid:129) Industrial Services Ltd(cid:146), the successor company, received
aid from Community funds.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. What Community funds were allocated to these undertakings?

2.

In allocating Community funds, was due attention paid to the need to maintain jobs?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2000)

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

(2000/C 374 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0976/00

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Continuation of the building projects in the Sintra-Cascais natural park in Portugal

In the answer to my Written Question E-1977/99 (1) Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m stated that she had registered the cases
notified by me and sought clarification from the Porguese authorities.

Is the Commission aware that the above building projects in particular in the Cabo Raso and Abano areas
(cid:129) notwithstanding statements by the competent national authorities to the contrary (cid:129) are being continued
and have already resulted in considerable damage to the natural park which is visible to all and to which
the Portuguese media have repeatedly drawn attention?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 57.

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

(19 April 2000)

The two building projects in the Cabo Raso and Abano areas of the Sintra-Cascais park, which has been
proposed as a site of Community importance by the Portuguese authorities, were registered as case
No 1999/2275.

Having examined the case, the Commission wrote to the Portuguese authorities on 4 January 2000 to
draw their attention to the obligations laid down in Directives 92/43/EEC (Habitats) (1) and 85/337/EEC
(Impact Assessment) (2). At the same time, it asked them for their assessment of the situation. No reply has
been forthcoming.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0970/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Construction of an incinerator at Meia Serra.
Date: 2000-03-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, Madeira, Portugal, application of EU law, domestic waste, environmental protection, health policy, waste incineration

C 46 E/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

proper evaluation of the impact as well as a study of alternatives if the area concerned is indeed part of a
site of Community importance proposed by Portugal
in 1997 as a contribution to the Natura 2000
network in accordance with Article 4 of the Directive.

A letter reminding the Portuguese authorities of these provisions has been sent.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 46 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0970/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Construction of an incinerator at Meia Serra

(31 March 2000)

Plans are afoot to construct an incinerator at Meia Serra in the parish of Camacha in the municipality of
Santa Cruz, in the Autonomous Region of Madeira, as part of a project to develop and restructure the
Meia Serra solid urban waste treatment centre.

The chosen site is very close to a built-up area and is located in an area which contains agricultural land
and a number of springs; the project therefore poses an environmental and public health threat.

Will the Commission say:

1. Has any Community funding already been authorised for the construction of

the Meia Serra

incinerator on the island of Madeira?

2. Has it already taken steps to ensure that all the necessary measures will be taken to protect the

environment and the health of the local population?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

By its decision of 22 November 1999, the Commission granted aid from the Cohesion Fund for the first
phase of the project concerning the (cid:145)Unidade de Valorizacªo de Res(cid:237)duos S(cid:243)lidos da Ilha da Madeira(cid:146)
(Madeira solid waste treatment centre).

This project includes the construction of an incinerator to replace the obsolete plant currently operating at
Meia Serra, which does not comply with Community environmental legislation.

The decision to grant this aid includes specific clauses to ensure full compliance with the environmental
standards associated with this type of infrastructure. The project in question was also the subject of an
environmental impact assessment.

(2001/C 46 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0971/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Extraction and marketing of sand from the Aveiro estuary

The Aveiro estuary has recently been designated a special protection zone to be included in the NATURA
2000 Network by Legal Decree 384-B/99 of 23 September. However the extraction and marketing of huge
quantities of sand from the estuary are continuing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Discriminatory provisions in the law on property of a number of applicant countries.
Date: 2000-03-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU competence, accession negotiations, discrimination on the basis of nationality, indemnification, ownership, privatisation

C 72 E/12

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Discriminatory provisions in the law on property of a number of applicant countries

On their accession to the European Union the current applicant countries will have a law on property
which corresponds
to the acquis communautaire. Accordingly, any discriminatory provisions (cid:129)
in particular in respect of restitution and privatisation (cid:129) must be regarded as an infringement of
Community law.

Hitherto the Commission has not expressed an opinion on the question of the lawfulness of legislation on
privatisation, compensation and restitution in countries seeking membership of the European Union. Does
the Commission share the views that if it were to publish a white paper on these issues, which affect
almost all the candidate countries, this could make for greater legal certainty?

(2001/C 72 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0981/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Discriminatory provisions in the law of property of the Czech Republic

Is it true that, on a recent visit to the Czech Republic, Mr Verheugen, member of the Commission
responsible for enlargement, said that the Commission would ensure that the continued existence of
certain laws and decrees dating from 1945 and 1946 in the Czech Republic does not have a
discriminatory effect in any current or future cases, in particular in the area of restitution?

(2001/C 72 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0982/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Political developments in the law on property of individual applicant countries

Does the Commission believe that the law on the restitution of expropriated property currently valid in the
Czech Republic and the draft law on reprivatisation recently adopted by the Polish government are
compatible with Community legislation, in particular with regard to the exclusion clauses, notably the
provisions on citizenship?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0980/00, E-0981/00 and E-0982/00
given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The EC Treaty states that it shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system
of property ownership (Article 295 (cid:129) ex Article 222). The Commission thus has no competence for
intervening in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

For this reason, the Commission does not foresee publishing a white book on this matter.

For the reasons mentioned above, it is not for the Commission to take a position on the specific cases
raised by the Honourable Member.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 677/2000 of 31 March 2000 altering the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural state
Date: 2000-03-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export refund, raw sugar, white sugar

1.4.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 81/17

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 677/2000

of 31 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 651/2000 (2),

It follows from applying the detailed rules contained in
Regulation (EC) No 651/2000 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
651/2000 are hereby altered to the amounts shown in the
Annex hereto.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 April 2000.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 31 March 2000.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 252, 25.9.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 79, 30.3.2000, p. 15.

L 81/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.4.2000

to the Commission Regulation of 31 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 —

42,69
42,67

42,69
42,67

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

1701 91 00 9000

0,4641

— EUR/1 % of sucrose × 100 kg —

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

— EUR/100 kg —

46,41
48,60
46,41

1701 99 90 9100

0,4641

— 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).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1001/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Compensation for companies hit by the EU and US banana dispute.
Date: 2000-03-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, United States, customs duties, indemnification, toiletries, trade dispute, tropical fruit, type of business

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/51

As for all other products in the fruit and vegetable sector, aid is available for nuts through the operational
fund scheme of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of
the market in fruit and vegetables (2), which provides financial support for all fruit and vegetables marketed
through producer organisations.

Finally, taking into account environmental and social aspects of nut production, Member States can of
course include nuts in their rural development plans under conditions of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European agricultural
guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (3).

(1) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972.
(2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.
(3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 53 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1001/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Compensation for companies hit by the EU and US banana dispute

Will the Commission be paying compensation to those companies within the EU who have been affected
by the US tariffs imposed as a direct consequence of the EU and US banana dispute, and if so at what
level?

(2001/C 53 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1002/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Implications of the EU and US banana dispute

Is the Commission aware of the damaging effects on a number of companies within the EU resulting from
the EU and US banana dispute? Will the Commission be acting speedily to bring to an end the dispute to
ensure that jobs throughout the EU are safeguarded?

(2001/C 53 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1003/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Ramifications for companies of the EU and US banana dispute

When will the Commission be meeting US counterparts to finally solve the ongoing and harmful banana
dispute between the EU and US, and when does it expect that this will be concluded to the satisfaction of
all parties?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2000 of 31 March 2000 fixing the maximum subsidy on exports of husked long grain rice to Réunion pursuant to the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2177/1999
Date: 2000-03-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Réunion, award of contract, delivery, export subsidy, rice

1.4.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 81/43

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 692/2000

of 31 March 2000

fixing the maximum subsidy on exports of husked long grain rice to Réunion pursuant to the
invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2177/1999

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22
December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in
rice (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2072/98 (2), and
in particular Article 10(1) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89 of
6 September 1989 laying down detailed rules for exports of
rice to Réunion (3) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1453/
1999 (4), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2177/1999 (5) opens
an invitation to tender for the subsidy on rice exported
to Réunion.

Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89 allows the
Commission to fix,
in accordance with the procedure
laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95
and on the basis of the tenders submitted, a maximum
subsidy.

(3)

(4)

The criteria laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation
(EEC) No 2692/89 should be taken into account when
fixing this maximum subsidy. Successful tenderers shall
be those whose bids are at or below the level of the
maximum subsidy.

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

A maximum subsidy on exports to Réunion of husked long
grain rice falling within CN code 1006 20 98 is hereby set on
the basis of the tenders lodged from 27 to 30 March 2000 at
281,00 EUR/t pursuant to the invitation to tender referred to
in Regulation (EC) No 2177/1999.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 April 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 31 March 2000.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18.
(2) OJ L 265, 30.9.1998, p. 4.
(3) OJ L 261, 7.9.1989, p. 8.
(4) OJ L 167, 2.7.1999, p. 19.
(5) OJ L 267, 15.10.1999, p. 7.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 688/2000 of 31 March 2000 providing for a further allocation of import rights under Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 for bulls, cows and heifers other than for slaughter of certain Alpine and mountain breeds
Date: 2000-03-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bull, cow, heifer, import licence, tariff quota

1.4.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 81/37

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 688/2000

of 31 March 2000

providing for a further allocation of import rights under Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 for bulls,
cows and heifers other than for slaughter of certain Alpine and mountain breeds

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999
of 26 May 1999 opening and providing for the administration
of tariff quotas for imports of bulls, cows and heifers other
than for slaughter of certain Alpine and mountain breeds,
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1012/98 and amending Regula-
tion (EC) No 1143/98 (1), and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,
Whereas:
Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 provides for the
opening, for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, of two
tariff quotas each of 5 000 head or bulls, cows and heifers
other than for slaughter of certain Alpine and mountain breeds.
Article 9 of that Regulation provides for a further allocation,

for both quotas, of quantities not covered by import licence
applications at 15 March 2000,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No
1081/1999 shall be:

— 66 head for serial number 09.0001,
— 80 head for serial number 09.0003.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 April 2000.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 31 March 2000.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 131, 27.5.1999, p. 15.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 38/2000 of 31 March 2000 amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms
Date: 2000-03-31
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, association agreement, cooperation agreement, education, international cooperation

L 141/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2000

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 38/2000

of 31 March 2000

amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four
freedoms

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol adjusting the
Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular
Articles 86 and 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Protocol 31 to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 172/1999
of 26 November 1999 (1).

It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the Agreement to include the
second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education ‘Socrates’ (Decision No
253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2)).

Protocol 31 to the Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended
cooperation to take place from 1 January 2000,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in Article 4(2c) of Protocol 31 to the Agreement:

‘— 32000 D 0253: Decision No 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24
January 2000 establishing the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of
education “Socrates” (OJ L 28, 3.2.2000, p. 1).’

This Decision shall enter into force on the first day following the last notification to the EEA Joint
Committee under Article 103(1) of the Agreement.

It shall apply from 1 January 2000.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of
the European Communities.

Article 3

Done at Brussels, 31 March 2000.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

F. BARBASO

(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
(2) OJ L 28, 3.2.2000, p. 1.