WRITTEN QUESTION E-0975/00 by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Savings to be made in Subsection B1 ‐ Agriculture of the 2001 budget and modification of the financial planning for 2000-2006.
Date: 2000-03-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU aid, Kosovo, budgetary amendment, common agricultural policy, economic reconstruction, programme budgeting

C 26 E/136

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.1.2001

different types of mobile phone. The other projects are aiming to provide greater understanding of the
biological mechanisms by which electromagnetic radiation might affect human health. One of them will
also be examining the combined effect of electromagnetic radiation and chemical carcinogens.

(2001/C 26 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0973/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(30 March 2000)

Subject: Relations between the European Union and Iran

The election results in the recent parliamentary elections in Iran have demonstrated the strong desire of the
Iranian electorate that Iran should emerge from the international isolation in which it has been for years.
However, the European Union(cid:146)s response to the changes taking place in Iran has so far been limited.

Will the Council say whether it intends to take advantage of current favourable circumstances to improve
relations with Iran, thus supporting the opening which Iranian society is seeking with the West?

Reply

(26 June 2000)

The EU is encouraged by developments in Iran, including the results of the first round of the Parliamentary
elections in February.

Following these elections, the European Union has recalled its long-standing interest in consolidating and
expanding the Comprehensive Dialogue it leads with Iran and reiterated its willingness to promote the
establishment of closer ties with the Iranian Government.

(2001/C 26 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0975/00

by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Savings to be made in Subsection B1 (cid:129) Agriculture of the 2001 budget and modification of the

financial planning for 2000-2006

Numerous Commission proposals concerning savings in the 2001 budget for Subsection B1 (cid:129) Agriculture
have recently been made public. Are these savings intended primarily to help achieve the funding required
in the foreign policy area (reconstruction measures in Kosovo of the order of € 300 million a year)? Is the
Commission also planning changes in relation to the financial framework in Agenda 2000 adopted by the
European Council in Berlin?

What savings in financial resources would the Commission like to make,
following measures:

in particular through the

(cid:129) changes to the common organisations of the market (COM), inter alia for sugar, hops, rice, olives, flax

and hemp;

(cid:129) new legislation, e.g. creation of a regulatory fund applicable to the pig sector;

(cid:129) reform of the Financial Regulation, inter alia by changing the allocation of the negative expenditure of

Subsection B1-Agriculture;

26.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 26 E/137

(cid:129) decisions in the management committees, e.g. reduction of subsidies by modification of the quality

requirements for cereals;

(cid:129) fixing of prices for agricultural products?

Does the Commission intend not to adhere to the financial planning adopted by the Berlin European
Council
for the budget years 2000-2006 for Subsection B1-Agriculture and are the press reports,
indicating that the Directorate General for the Budget considers that these are (cid:145)in no way inviolable(cid:146),
correct?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The Commission is proposing a reduction in the ceiling for subheading 1.a. of € 300 million in each of
the years 2001 and 2002.

The latest estimates on expenditure under subheading 1.a. are for a non-utilised margin of € 400 million
for 2001. These are based on current legislation and the proposals already submitted by the Commission.
For 2002 the changes envisaged in the (cid:145)sugar(cid:146) market organisation should yield a saving of the same
amount.

(2001/C 26 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0987/00

by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: List of provisions for which unanimity is still required (reference: annex to the Commission(cid:146)s

opinion of 26 January 2000 concerning the Intergovernmental Conference)

The co-rapporteur on the Intergovernmental Conference for the European Parliament(cid:146)s Committee on
Constitutional Affairs asks the Commission

1.

2.

to justify its proposal for the long list of provisions on which unanimous votes would continue to be
taken, and especially Parts 2 (institutional decisions) and 4 (parallel internal and external decisions) and

to explain the arguments in relation to the fundamental question of how this proposal for the
perpetuation of unanimity in many areas is to be reconciled with the concept of the (cid:145)governance(cid:146) of a
European Union of 28 or more Member States if each Member State is to continue to have a right of
veto even where details are concerned.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

In its opinion of 26 January 2000 on the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) (1), the Commission
1.
proposes that qualified majority be the general rule for decision-making. It has identified five categories of
provisions for which serious and lasting reasons warrant making an exception to the rule and maintaining
institutional decisions and decisions affecting the
unanimity. The second category is that of essential
institutional balance, that is,
important decisions relating to the organisation and functioning of the
Institutions. The fourth category comprises provisions enabling the Community to take external action in
areas where unanimity is maintained for internal action: this is the logic underlying parallelism, on which
Article 300 of the EC Treaty is based. The Commission is prepared to examine in detail, together with the
Honourable Member, the precise reasons for which the provisions given in Annex 1 to the opinion have
been placed in these categories. However, it does not regard this as a long list.

2.
The Commission recalls that the provisions listed in Annex 1 of the opinion ((cid:145)List of provisions on
which unanimous votes would continue to be taken, by way of derogation from the principle of qualified-
majority voting(cid:146)) are essentially institutional provisions and that it has proposed that almost all the legal