do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1844/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council. EU sanctions and Austria (IV).
Date: 2000-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, European Union membership, extreme right, international sanctions

C 89 E/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

That being so, does the Council intend (cid:129) given the helpful attitude of the Austrian government and the
doubts expressed by some Member States (cid:129) to abandon this senseless and uncivilised sanctions strategy?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council has not given its views on this subject and is therefore not in a position to reply to the
Honourable Member(cid:146)s question.

(2001/C 89 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1844/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: EU sanctions and Austria (IV)

In the opinion of many legal experts this statement lacks any legal basis. Furthermore these sanctions do
not merely cover (cid:145)bilateral affairs(cid:146), as is often speciously argued. They have an effect on the relations
between Member States and on their joint work, and thus on the Community as a whole.

The high-level representatives of the 14 Member States and the leaders of Austria clearly thought then that
if they acted quickly they could prevent the FP(cid:214) from joining the government. However, the statement
failed in its original purpose and has also significantly harmed the reputation of the European Union.

When will the Council finally come round to abandoning this counter-productive strategy which goes
against the ideals of the Community, repeal the statement and begin a productive dialogue with the
Republic of Austria (cid:129) which remains a reliable and trustworthy partner (cid:129) so that relations can be
normalised again?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council has not stated its position on this subject and is therefore unable to reply to the Honourable
Member(cid:146)s question.

(2001/C 89 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1850/00

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Foie gras in ducks and geese

I understand that the report on Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese,
prepared for the European Commission by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal
Welfare in 1998, concluded that the practice of force-feeding was detrimental to the welfare of birds. It
is also noted that alternative products made from the livers of non-force-fed animals are available on the
market. Under the Community(cid:146)s poultry-meat marketing rules, can these alternative products be sold as
foie gras? Are any measures to be taken to phase out the force-feeding of birds throughout the EU?
2000/421/EC: Council Decision of 13 June 2000 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Food Aid Convention 1999
Date: 2000-06-13
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European convention, food aid, interim agreement (EU), signature of an agreement

4.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 163/37

II

(Acts whose publication is not obligatory)

COUNCIL

COUNCIL DECISION

of 13 June 2000

on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Food Aid Convention 1999

(2000/421/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

(5)

The Food Aid Convention 1999 should be approved,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and in particular Article 181, in conjunction with
the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

The Community is a member of the International Grains
Agreement 1995 comprising two distinct legal instru-
ment, i.e. the Grains Trade Convention and the Food Aid
Convention. These Agreements were extended until 30
June 1999.

The Grains Trade Convention 1995 will be extended
until 30 June 2001.

A new Food Aid Convention 1999 has been negotiated.

That Convention was
the
Community and its provisional application was provided
for by Council Decision 1999/576/EC of 29 June
1999 (2).

signed on behalf of

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Food Aid Convention 1999 is hereby approved on

1.
behalf of the European Community.

The text of the Convention is annexed to Decision 1999/
576/EC.

2.
The President of the Council shall deposit the instrument
of approval provided for in Article XXII(b) of the Food Aid
Convention 1999 with the Secretary-General of the United
Nations on behalf of the European Community.

Done at Luxembourg, 13 June 2000.

For the Council

The President

J. GAMA

(1) Opinion delivered on 4 May 2000 (not yet published in the Official

Journal).

(2) OJ L 222, 24.8.1999, p. 38.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1842/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council. EU sanctions and Austria (I).
Date: 2000-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, European Union membership, extreme right, international sanctions

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/97

(2001/C 89 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1842/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: EU sanctions and Austria (I)

This specious argument is clearly not in accordance with the facts, as Dr G(cid:252)nther Winkler, a respected
legal academic, has recently shown in his opinion (cid:145)Anatomy of an arbitrary European act(cid:146). The reasons for
his opinion are as follows:

The Presidency statement, sent as a diplomatic note to the highest bodies of state of Austria and to the
Portuguese foreign minister, bears the hallmarks (cid:129) both under national and European law (cid:129) of an official
act of the EU. Although it is written on the headed paper of the President of Portugal, the issuing body is
stated to be the Presidency of the European Union. In other words, it is issued not by a national but by a
European Community body.

In addition, Dr Winkler points in his opinion to a whole series of shortcomings in the Council(cid:146)s sanctions
policy.

Will the Council continue to seek for arguments to pursue its policy, which is devoid of any legal basis, or
will it not rather consider it helpful to work towards the normalisation of relations with Austria?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council has not adopted a position on this matter and consequently is unable to reply to the
Honourable Member(cid:146)s question.

(2001/C 89 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1843/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: EU sanctions and Austria (II)

Indeed there was no call to doubt Mr Sch(cid:252)ssel(cid:146)s European-mindedness. However, it is a grotesque situation
if a country like Austria is forced to testify several times to its pro-European stance. The continuing refusal
of the 14 other Member States to enter into a dialogue with Austria is poisoning the European ideal of
civilised cooperation.

In spite of Austria(cid:146)s very restrained and cooperative attitude so far, Portugal cannot see itself altering its
policy towards Austria. The Portuguese Presidency is not (cid:129) according to press reports (cid:129) reckoning on the
sanctions by 14 Member States against Austria being lifted at the EU summit in June. It said there was no
reason to alter its policy towards Austria.

In July France will take over the Council Presidency from Portugal. The French Minister for European
Affairs, Pierre Moscovici, has already said that his government will not move away from the sanctions
against Austria.

At the same time, however, at the Foreign Ministers(cid:146) meeting in the Azores, it became clear that the EU
Member States are no longer united behind the sanctions imposed at the end of January. Representatives of
Finland, Spain, Ireland and Italy among others called for the position towards the government in Vienna to
be reconsidered.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1882/00 by Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) to the Council. Conflicts in Africa.
Date: 2000-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: East Africa, international conflict

C 81 E/104

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

The Commission would, however, point out that, at its last meeting, the (cid:145)fresh fruit and vegetables(cid:146)
specialised section of the European Office of the United Nations (ECE/UN) adopted a recommendation to
reduce the minimum weight of avocados of the Hass variety to 100 grams.

The possibility of including provisions on their minimum dry matter content in the marketing standard for
avocados has also been raised during these technical discussions. For the moment, there is no consensus
on this point, which therefore requires further examination. However,
if the Community marketing
standard for avocados were amended in this way, the new provisions would apply equally to avocados
from outside the Community and those grown within the Community.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(2001/C 81 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1882/00

by Emilio MenØndez del Valle (PSE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: Conflicts in Africa

At its meeting in Brussels on 22 and 23 May 2000 the General Affairs Council rightly stressed the
complexity of the factors involved in the conflict in the Great Lakes region of Africa.

The provisional version of the Council press release mentions political, economic and social factors.

Does the Council not take the view that in considering the factors determining the conflicts which are
tearing Africa apart it should take cultural factors into account?

Reply

(10 October 2000)

The Council(cid:146)s conclusions would not claim to be comprehensive, listing all the factors which contribute to
the conflicts in question. Cultural factors of course also play a role.

(2001/C 81 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1886/00

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

Subject: Discontinuation of the ECIP programme

(9 June 2000)

The Commission submitted a proposal for a regulation to Parliament and the Council for the discontinua-
tion of the financial instrument ECIP as of 31 December 1999.

Can the Commission explain why applications submitted before that date have not been considered?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

While recognising the success of the European Community Investment Partners (ECIP) instrument in recent
its closure has been judged necessary in view of the need to rationalise the system of rules
years,
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1229/2000 of 13 June 2000 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2000-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit

L 140/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.6.2000

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1229/2000

of 13 June 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 14 June 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 13 June 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.

14.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 140/5

to the Commission Regulation of 13 June 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 30 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0809 10 00

0809 20 95

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
999
052
628
999
052
999
388
528
999
388
400
404
508
512
524
528
720
804
999
052
999
052
064
068
400
999

64,9
64,9
66,7
125,1
95,9
57,2
57,2
60,3
56,0
58,1
80,7
78,9
89,4
73,8
91,0
92,1
83,5
62,5
76,9
81,0
125,5
125,5
273,4
183,1
159,6
361,0
244,3

(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 E-1813/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council. Ecofin meeting of 28 February 2000.
Date: 2000-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European tax cooperation, budgetary discipline (EU), tax

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/91

needed to assure its economic viability on the market. In sum, the Commission does not discriminate
against hydropower in its energy policy, but tries to focus public support on the types of renewable energy
sources where it is most needed and justified in economic terms.

(1) COM(2000) 279 final.

(2001/C 89 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1813/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: Ecofin meeting of 28 February 2000

Did the Council discuss common rules governing national tax cuts at the Ecofin Council meeting of
28 February 2000 or at any other meeting?

If so:

1. Did the Council reach agreement on these common rules?

2. Could the Council explain the criteria adopted for the assessment of whether a Member State may cut

taxes without contravening commitments on budgetary discipline?

3. Could the Council explain why details of the agreement did not appear in the Council conclusions

published following the meeting?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it has not discussed common rules governing
national tax cuts, or the other issues raised in his question at its meeting of 28 February 2000 or at any
other, and thus is not in position to give an answer.

(2001/C 89 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1814/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Council

Subject: Coordination of forest protection classifications

(13 June 2000)

In Europe, an area of some 3 million hectares of forest has been strictly protected. This equals 1,6 % of
forests in Europe. The Nordic countries are top of the list and in a league of their own as regards the area
of protected forests in the EU.

As a Finnish MEP, I am somewhat concerned about the classification of forest protection, which is still
carried out on a purely national basis. The lack of conformity in protection classification and statistical
data is a problem which should be tackled as a matter of urgency.

What is the Council(cid:146)s view of the importance of coordinating forest protection classifications, and will the
issue be raised when the 6th Environmental Programme is being drawn up?
European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the amendment to the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer (COM(1999) 392 — C5-0186/1999 — 1999/0157(CNS))
Date: 2000-06-13
Institutions: Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, European Parliament
Subjects: atmospheric pollutant, environmental protection, ozone, pollution control measures, protocol to an agreement

C 67/44

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.3.2001

Tuesday 13 June 2000

TEXTS ADOPTED

1. Protection of workers from exposure to biological agents ***I (procedure

without report)

C5-0144/1999

Proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the protection of workers from risks
related to exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within the meaning
of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (codified version) (COM(1999) 432 1 C5-0144/1999 1
1999/0188(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The proposal was approved.

2. Substances that deplete the ozone layer * (procedure without debate)

A5-0146/2000

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclu-
sion of the amendment to the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer
(COM(1999) 392 1 C5-0186/1999 1 1999/0157(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

(cid:26) having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(1999) 392) (1),

(cid:26) having regard to Articles 174(4) and 300(2), first subparagraph of the EC Treaty,

(cid:26) having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 300(3), first subparagraph of the EC Treaty

(C5-0186/1999),

(cid:26) having regard to Rules 67 and 97(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

(cid:26) having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy

(A5-0146/2000),

1.

Approves the conclusion of the amendment to the Montreal Protocol;

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, the governments and

2.
parliaments of the Member States and the parties of the Montreal Protocol.

(1) OJ C 21 E, 25.1.2000, p. 9.
European Parliament decision on the request for waiver of the immunity of Andreas Brie
Date: 2000-06-13
Institutions: Committee on Legal Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Germany, Member of the European Parliament, parliamentary immunity

1.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 67/45

Tuesday 13 June 2000

3. Request for waiver of immunity of Mr Andreas Brie

A5-0151/2000

European Parliament decision on the request for waiver of the immunity of Andreas Brie

The European Parliament,

(cid:1) having received a request for waiver of the immunity of Andreas Brie, forwarded by the Ministry of
Justice of the Federal Republic of Germany on 25 February 2000 and announced in plenary sitting on
16 March 2000,

(cid:1) having regard to Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Com-
munities of 8 April 1965, and to Article 4(2) of the Act concerning the Election of Representatives to
the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976,

(cid:1) having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 12 May 1964

and 10 July 1986 (1),

(cid:1) having regard to Article 46 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany,

(cid:1) having regard to Rule 6 of its Rules of Procedure,

(cid:1) having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (A5-0151/

2000),

1.

Decides not to waive the immunity of Andreas Brie;

Instructs its President immediately to forward this decision and the report of its committee to the

2.
appropriate authority of the Federal Republic of Germany.

(1) See Case 101/63: Wagner v. Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 399 and Case 149/85: Wybot v. Faure [1986]

ECR 2403.

4. Request for waiver of immunity of Mr Johann Kronberger

A5-0158/2000

European Parliament decision on the request for waiver of the immunity of Johann Kronberger

The European Parliament,

(cid:1) having received a request for waiver of the immunity of Johann Kronberger, forwarded by the relevant

Austrian authorities on 31 January 2000 and announced in plenary sitting on 2 March 2000,

(cid:1) having regard to Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Com-
munities of 8 April 1965, and to Article 4(2) of the Act concerning the Election of Representatives to
the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976,

(cid:1) having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 12 May 1964

and 10 July 1986 (1),

(cid:1) having regard to Article 57 of the Austrian Constitution (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz),

(cid:1) having regard to Rule 6 of its Rules of Procedure,

(cid:1) having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (A5-0158/

2000),

(1) See Case 101/63: Wagner v. Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 399 and Case 149/85: Wybot v. Faure [1986]

ECR 2403.