do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2106/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Council. 1995 Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests.
Date: 2000-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: fraud against the EU

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/63

The Commission does not compile any record of directors of companies that receive financial support
from the Community budget as a result of the work that they do, or the functions that they fulfil, and is
therefore not in a position to say whether any such persons are MPs or Peers.

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001.

(2001/C 103 E/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2106/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 June 2000)

Subject: 1995 Convention on the Protection of the European Communities(cid:146) Financial Interests

What action does the Council intend to take in order to ensure the ratification of the 1995 Convention on
the Protection of the European Communities(cid:146) Financial Interests, given that it should have been completed
by 1998 and that ratification will become pointless once the Commission has submitted a proposal for a
Community act?

Reply

(7 November 2000)

The Council is continuing to call on those Member States which have not yet done so to proceed rapidly
with ratification of the Convention signed in 1995 and of the Protocols thereto. The Council sees no need
to consider the possible consequences of a Commission initiative for a Community act in this field as long
as no such initiative has been taken or formally announced.

(2001/C 103 E/066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2107/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Reforming the Commission

Can the Commission give its opinion on Paragraph 41 of the Van Hulten report which calls for
(cid:145)the individual political responsibility of Commissioners to be enshrined in the Treaties(cid:146)?

What progress, if any, has been made to date, and what future action would the Commission envisage to
attain this objective?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

In its opinion of 26 January 2000 on the Intergovernmental Conference (1), the Commission proposed that
the political undertaking given by the Members of the present Commission to resign if asked to do so by
the President be written into the Treaty. To that end, it proposed an amendment to Article 215 of the
In its Resolution of 13 April 2000 on the Intergovernmental Conference (2), Parliament
EC Treaty.
proposed that (cid:145)any Member of the Commission guilty of serious misconduct in the performance of his
duties should be required to tender his resignation when asked to do so by the President of the
Commission(cid:146) (point 12.6).
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the implementation of measures to promote economic and social development in Turkey
Date: 2000-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, Türkiye, economic development, social development













EUR-Lex - 52000SC1138 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



52000SC1138

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the implementation of measures to promote economic and social development in Turkey  /* SEC/2000/1138 final - COD 98/0300 */  









COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty  concerning the  common position of the Council on the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the implementation of measures to promote economic and social development in Turkey1- FILE HISTORYDate of transmission of the proposal to the EP and the Council (doc. COM(1998)0600-2 final - 1998/0300 (COD)): 22.10.1998Date of Economic and Social Committee opinion: --Date of opinion of the European Parliament at first reading: 2.12.1999Date of transmission of the amended proposal COM(2000)169: 5.4.2000Date of adoption of the common position: 14.6.20002- SUBJECT OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSALFinancial support for the implementation of the European Union strategy for Turkey, i.e. increased financing for the pre-accession strategy for Turkey.3- COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITIONThe Council adopted its common position unanimously, endorsing the amended proposal for a Regulation adopted by the Commission following the first Parliament reading of the proposal. The Council accepted the Commission text in its entirety, apart from a few minor changes in wording (made by the lawyer linguists).Reminder: at first reading the EP proposed 40 amendments. In its amended proposal the Commission incorporated 21 of them in their entirety, 10 in part, and rejected 9.To enable the Council to adopt its common position unanimously the Commission added the following statement: "The Commission wishes to confirm - as already indicated in the Explanatory Memorandum to its amended proposal for a Regulation - that it has no intention of setting up a nuclear power project in Turkey". None of the delegates made any objection to this statement.4- CONCLUSIONSThe Commission supports the Council's common position.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2146/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Milk for confectionery.
Date: 2000-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: confectionery product, legal basis, milk product

C 72 E/182

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

application of this directive to Siepsa on the grounds that it is a public commercial company governed by
private law. The fact remains that Siepsa is a contracting authority within the meaning of the Directive,
in particular the condition that it has been
inasmuch as it fulfils the conditions of Article 1 thereof,
established for the purpose of meeting needs in the general
interest, not having an industrial or
commercial character.

The Commission took the decision to refer the matter to the Court of Justice after Spain had replied on
22 November 1999 to the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission on 25 August 1999, since the
arguments put forward in the reply did not justify a change of opinion on the part of the Commission.

The application was recently submitted to the Court of Justice.

(2001/C 72 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2146/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Milk for confectionery

Are there any restrictions in operation within the Community on the use of EU milk for confectionery?

What is the legal situation of any company attempting to specify to producers the country/countries
within the EU from which such milk must originate before they will purchase the confectionery?

Answer by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The use in confectionery of milk produced within the Community is not subject to any restrictions in the
Community.

In general, Community law does not prevent a company purchasing milk-based confectionery from
specifying to producers the Member State(s) from which the milk used must originate.

Furthermore, in case of a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, it may be
provided in the specifications of
the milk must originate from a given
geographical region.

the protected name that

(2001/C 72 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2153/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Ethics and European law

Is the Commission aware that the French Ethics Committee (ComitØ Consultatif National D(cid:146)Ethique) has
urged the French National Assembly not
to translate into French law the recent directive on the
patentability of the human genome?

Can a Member State suspend implementation of any European legislation on moral grounds? What steps
will the Commission take to ensure that European law is not compromised in this way? Will it consider
establishing its own Ethics Committee/Ethics Unit so that these important issues are not (cid:145)nationalised(cid:146) but
treated at Pan-European level?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2168/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission. Rowdy behaviour by KFOR troops in Skopje.
Date: 2000-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU competence, NATO, North Macedonia, armed forces, common foreign and security policy, public order

C 103 E/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

Reply

(7 November 2000)

The behaviour of KFOR troops is a matter for KFOR commanders, NATO and the national authorities of
the sending states. For its part, the EU is naturally concerned that the behaviour of all representatives of
the international community working together to restore stability, security and multiethnic democracy in
accordance with UNSCR 1244 should be exemplary whether in Kosovo or outside. It is confident that its
own representatives generally conform to this high standard and that this is well understood by the
population in Kosovo as in neighbouring countries they may visit on duty or leave.

(2001/C 103 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2168/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Rowdy behaviour by KFOR troops in Skopje

(30 June 2000)

According to FYROM press reports, KFOR troops on leave in Skopje have been causing trouble on the
streets and bars of the city and assaulting passers-by, particularly young women. Most of these incidents
are caused by the excessive consumption of alcohol by the troops on leave. The population of Skopje
almost always suffers as a result of this behaviour, but the KFOR military police takes a very relaxed
attitude. This conduct by KFOR troops is an insult to the hospitality shown by FYROM to the KFOR
troops, but above all damages the image of the peacekeeping effort undertaken at enormous cost by
NATO and the EU in particular, which is involved through broader agreements in FYROM and in the
normalisation of the situation in Kosovo.

How does the Commission intend to protect the reputation of the EU in FYROM in the face of the
unacceptable conduct of KFOR troops so as not to cast a shadow over the contribution it is making to
peace in the region?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2000)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission is both involved in and works closely with the
international civil administration (UNMiK) in Kosovo.

Furthermore, the Commission has no involvement whatever in the international military presence (KFOR)
and therefore has no comment to make on the issues raised in his question. These issues should more
appropriately be raised with the States (cid:129) European or other (cid:129) which have contributed contingents to this
military force.

(2001/C 103 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2169/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Stability of FYROM

According to press reports, there have recently been attempts to infiltrate groups of persons into FYROM
with the aim of destabilising the country. These groups, come from Kosovo, consist of UCK units, come
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2136/00 by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Ban on horse riding on designated roads.
Date: 2000-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: equidae, proposal (EU), road traffic

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/181

(2001/C 72 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2136/00

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Ban on horse riding on designated roads

Can the Commission confirm that it has no intention of introducing legislation leading to a ban on horse
riding on designated roads within the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission can confirm that it currently has no intention to introduce legislation that would seek to
ban horse riding on designated roads within the Union.

(2001/C 72 E/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2137/00

by Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Stage reached in the infringement proceedings opened against Spain for incorrect transposal of the

directive on public works contracts

In early March the Commission announced its intention to allow the Spanish authorities two months in
which to make good the irregularities that had led to the opening of infringement proceedings on the
grounds of incorrect transposal of Directive 93/37/EC (1) on public works contracts. The proceedings were
opened in connection with the procedure used to select the undertaking responsible for building a new
prison in Segovia.

However, this move in fact calls into question the system used in Spain for the award of contracts to
businesses which receive public funding (cid:129) a system which is used by many of the governments of the
autonomous communities.

Given that the deadline set for the Spanish authorities has now expired and that no trace of any
proceedings is to be found in the list of Spanish cases pending before the Court of Justice (as at 18 May
2000), can the Commission state whether it has actually referred the case to the Court and, if it has, what
stage has been reached in the proceedings?

Furthermore, have the Spanish authorities submitted any further arguments, and, if so, what are those
arguments?

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Commission decided on 22 December 1999 to refer the matter concerning Spain to the Court of
Justice, as part of infringement proceedings in connection with a call for tenders announced by the
Sociedad Estatal de Infraestructuras y Equipamientos Penitenciarios (Siepsa) to carry out works at the
experimental training prison in Segovia.

The call for tenders, which was published in the national press but not in the Official Journal, was
launched in violation of the provisions of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts. The Spanish authorities dispute the
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2319/00 by Véronique Mathieu (EDD) to the Commission. Civil protection and combatting fires caused by storms.
Date: 2000-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European forestry policy, bad weather, fire protection, forest conservation

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/219

obligations also apply to producers marketing named varieties of table grapes, such as Sugraone
grapes, which are included, and approved for cultivation, in the catalogue of national varieties in Italy
in accordance with Community rules?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

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

(2001/C 46 E/266)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2319/00

by VØronique Mathieu (EDD) to the Commission

Subject: Civil protection and combatting fires caused by storms

(30 June 2000)

The storms which occurred in December 1999 are continuing to have an impact, as European forests
affected by the storms are threatened with the risk of fire. Outbreaks of fires have already been recorded in
some forests.

Preventing disasters means improving fire safety.

1.
Does the Commission not consider that the prevention of fires resulting from the effects of the
storms comes within the scope of the Community programme in the field of civil protection established by
the Council decision of 9 December 1999?

How does the Commission apply the precautionary principle which is the subject of its communica-

2.
tion of 2 February 2000 to the prevention of fires resulting from the storms?

Could the Commission say whether an assessment of the risk of fires resulting from the storms has

3.
been carried out at Community level?

4. What measures have been co-financed under Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 (1) which provides for a
Community scheme for the protection of forests against fire aimed at:

(cid:129) identifying the causes of forest fires;

(cid:129) identifying the means of combatting them?

5. What steps does the Commission intend to take in order to improve the system for monitoring
forests following natural or technological disasters?

(1) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1419/2000 of 30 June 2000 fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain rice in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2180/1999
Date: 2000-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, rice, third country

L 161/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.7.2000

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1419/2000

of 30 June 2000

fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain rice in connection with the
invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2180/1999

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 organization of the market in
rice (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2072/98 (2), and
in particular Article 13 (3) thereof,

(3)

(4)

The application of the abovementioned criteria to the
current market situation for the rice in question results
the
in the maximum export refund being fixed at
amount specified in Article 1.

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

An invitation to tender for the export refund on rice was
to Commission Regulation (EC) No
issued pursuant
2180/1999 (3).

Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/
75 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 299/95 (5),
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 export refund. In fixing this maximum, the
criteria provided for in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No
3072/95 must be taken into account. A contract is
awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less
than the maximum export refund.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain rice
to be exported to certain third countries pursuant to the invita-
tion to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2180/1999 is
hereby fixed on the basis of the tenders submitted from 23 to
29 June 2000 at 150,00 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 June 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 267, 15.10.1999, p. 16.
(4) OJ L 61, 7.3.1975, p. 25.
(5) OJ L 35, 15.2.1995, p. 8.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1416/2000 of 30 June 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: 2000-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Réunion, award of contract, delivery, export subsidy, rice

1.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 161/31

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1416/2000

of 30 June 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 26 to 29 June 2000 at
290,00 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 July 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 June 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.