do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2363/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council. The Danish EMU exemption.
Date: 2000-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Denmark, European System of Central Banks, central bank, dependent territory, derogation from EU law, interinstitutional relations, powers of the institutions (EU), third stage of EMU

C 103 E/134

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

(2001/C 103 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2363/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: The Danish EMU exemption

Will the Council confirm that Danish agreement to participate in the third stage of EMU would mean that
the Protocol on certain provisions relating to Denmark in the Maastricht Treaty would lapse, and that
Denmark could no longer invoke that Protocol unless it were reintroduced at a new intergovernmental
conference and ratified by all Member States?

Reply

(9 November 2000)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that interpretation of the EC Treaty and of the
Protocols annexed thereto does not fall within its competence.

(2001/C 103 E/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2364/00

by Lissy Gr(cid:246)ner (PSE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Variations in EU postage rates

I was surprised to discover recently in a Paris post office that variable postage is charged on postcards to
different destinations within the EU.

The postage on a postcard to Finland is FF 3,80, and on one to Germany FF 3,00.

How is it possible for variable rates to be charged for different EU Member States by the postal authority
in (cid:129) of all places (cid:129) the country now embarking on the new EU Council Presidency?

Can the Council give an assurance that discrimination against particular Member States and unequal
treatment by public services when calculating charges will both be removed?

Annex: List of postage rates: Brochure from Paris post office, 30 May 2000

Reply

(7 November 2000)

Article 12 of
the European Parliament and Council Directive 97/67/EC on common rules for the
development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of
service sets out the principle that prices must be geared to costs. This explains why the tariffs applicable
may vary depending on the destination of an item of correspondence. Member States may nevertheless
adopt a uniform tariff for application on their national territory, if they so choose.

On 30 May 2000 the Commission adopted a proposal to revise Directive 97/67/EC (COM(2000) 319 final).
Discussions on the proposal are already underway in the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2502/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Classification of medical equipment.
Date: 2000-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community certification, Denmark, EU control, United Kingdom, market approval, medical device, restriction on competition

C 81 E/206

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

(2001/C 81 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2502/00

by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Classification of medical equipment

Further to my question No. P-1622/00 (1) and your answer of 16 June 2000, I would come back to the
matter of erroneously classified medical devices.

In brief, the product in question has been wrongly classified. The UK(cid:146)s Medical Device Agency (MDA) has
admitted that this is the case. The MDA, however, is not taking any action against the company concerned,
even though it continues to market and sell its product despite its erroneous classification.

The Danish health authorities have, in fact, also complained to the UK health authorities.

Obviously, this situation creates distortion of competition for a Danish manufacturer of a similar product
(cid:129) which is correctly classified.

Given that the MDA is now aware of the erroneous classification and has received a complaint from the
Danish manufacturer concerning the disparity in the terms of competition, how does the Commission
propose to proceed on the matter?

What action can a company take in regard to a national authority which does not intervene, for reasons
unknown, to prevent distortion of competition despite acknowledging that the product is erroneously
classified?

(1)

JO C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 207.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf on the Commission

(20 September 2000)

In view of the additional information provided by the Honourable Member on the classification of certain
medical devices,
if
appropriate, take the necessary action to ensure a coherent enforcement of Council Directive 93/42/EEC
of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (1) so as to eliminate any potential market distortion.

investigate the allegation with the British authorities and,

the Commission will

As to the action that may be taken by companies with regard to national authorities that do not fulfil their
obligations of market surveillance and enforcement, use should be made of the legal or other remedies
available at national level in the Member States concerned.

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993.

(2001/C 81 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2504/00

by Mar(cid:237)a Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Microcredit and women entrepreneurs

With reference to the Commission(cid:146)s reply to my Oral Question H-0546/00 for Question Time on 5 July
2000 (1) and given the situation in my country, where women wishing to start up a business of any kind
need sustainable capital of at least PTA 500 000, how many European women have actually received some
form of microcredit, and in which Member States?
Commission opinion of 24 July 2000 concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the decommissioning and dismantling of the Braunschweig Research and Measuring Reactor (FMRB) located in Lower-Saxony in the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty
Date: 2000-07-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Lower Saxony, decommissioning of power stations, health risk, nuclear reactor, radiation protection, radioactive effluent

C 223/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.8.2000

COMMISSION OPINION

of 24 July 2000

concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the decommissioning and
dismantling of the Braunschweig Research and Measuring Reactor (FMRB) located in Lower-
Saxony in the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(2000/C 223/02)

(Only the German text is authentic)

On 10 January 2000, the European Commission received from the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, general data relating to the plan for the
disposal of radioactive waste resulting from the decommissioning and dismantling of the Braunschweig
Research and Measuring Reactor (FMRB).

On the basis of these data and clarifications subsequently provided by the German Government, and
following consultation with the group of experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion.

(a) The distance between the plant and the nearest point of another Member State,

in this case the

Netherlands, is approximately 230 km.

(b) Under normal operating conditions, the discharges of liquid and gaseous effluents will not cause an
exposure of the population in other Member States significant from the point of view of health.

(c) Radioactive waste arising from the dismantling operations will be stored or disposed of in licensed sites
in Germany; non-radioactive solid waste or residual materials and materials which are released from
regulatory control will be released for disposal as conventional waste or for reuse or recycling, in all
cases complying with the clearance criteria laid down in the basic safety standards (Directive
96/29/Euratom).

(d) In the event of unplanned discharges of readioactive waste which may follow an accident of the type
and magnitude considered in the general data, the doses likely to be received by the population in
other Member States would not be significant from the point of view of health.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of
radioactive waste from the decommissioning and dismantling of the Braunschweig Research and Measuring
Reactor (FMRB) located in Lower-Saxony in the Federal Republic of Germany, both in normal operation
and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the general data, is not liable to
result in the radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or
airspace of another Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2503/00 by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Using vehicle design to protect pedestrians injured in car crashes.
Date: 2000-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, motor car, pedestrian, product design, proposal (EU), road safety, testing

C 81 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

gramme, it has recently received proposals from the European Car Industry Association for safer car fronts
for pedestrians and cyclists which, at technical level, severely weaken the levels of protection which would
be provided by the four EEVC tests and could lead to more hazardous car design, in the opinion of
independent experts?

(2001/C 81 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2503/00

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Using vehicle design to protect pedestrians injured in car crashes

Since 1996, results of the pedestrian tests in the European New Car Assessment Programme reveal that car
design has done little to protect pedestrians, although protection for car occupants in car crashes has
improved. A proposal was promised in the Commission(cid:146)s recent Road Safety Communication and was
supported by the Transport Council in their road safety resolution of 26 June 2000.

When will the Commission submit a proposal for the adoption of requisite tests which could prevent
2 000 deaths and 19 000 serious injuries every year?

(2001/C 81 E/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2579/00

by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (PSE) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Legislation on safer car fronts to protect pedestrians and cyclists

In its communication on road safety of March this year, the Commission announced its intention of
introducing legislation in the EU for safer car fronts to protect pedestrians and cyclists as one of six cost-
effective priority measures.

This measure was the first on Parliament(cid:146)s list of priorities in its latest pronouncement on road safety. On
26 June 2000, the Council of Transport Ministers backed this initiative and urged the Commission to draw
up a proposal for legislation as soon as possible.

Given that every month(cid:146)s delay represents a lost opportunity to save 175 lives across the EU, will the
Commission now, without further delay, draw up a proposal which includes the four tests required to
obtain a high level of protection for pedestrians involved in collisions with cars?

(2001/C 81 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2583/00

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Measures to introduce safer car bumpers

42 500 people die on the European Union(cid:146)s roads every year, including 9300 pedestrians and cyclists.
The vast majority of the pedestrians and cyclists who are killed are either young or elderly. Because of this
state of affairs, the Commission outlined a number of priorities in March 2000 with the aim of improving
the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council. Work in prisons.
Date: 2000-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, area of freedom, security and justice, competence of the Member States, prisoner work

C 103 E/166

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

(2001/C 103 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Work in prisons

There are approximately 54 000 inmates in Italian prisons, many of whom would like to work (even for
low wages) but cannot do so for bureaucratic reasons.

What is the Council(cid:146)s opinion on this matter?

(2001/C 103 E/189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2490/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Prison conditions in Italy

What is the Council(cid:146)s view of the human rights situation in Italian prisons?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2488/00 and E-2490/00

(7 November 2000)

Policy concerning employment in prisons is a matter for the Member States. In accordance with the
principle of subsidiarity, the Community(cid:146)s action in the field of employment is restricted to encouraging
cooperation between Member States and to supporting and,
if necessary, complementing their action
under the conditions specified in Articles 125 et seq. of the EC Treaty.

(2001/C 103 E/190)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2497/00

by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Impact of the Natura 2000 network on the environment in the Spanish province of Malaga

By means of the Natura 2000 network, the European Union is seeking to take action on protected areas of
high environmental value, so as to provide for the expansion of sites of Community interest (SCIs), with
protected species of flora and fauna.

In the Spanish province of Malaga, the impact of the Natura 2000 network has sparked off particular
interest amongst nature lovers, who hope to see a significant increase in the number of hectares subject to
the conservation measures that the network seeks to enforce.

Will the Commission specify what the precise impact of the Natura 2000 network on Malaga province will
be, and when an official statement from the European Union on the matter will be forthcoming?

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

(14 September 2000)

Malaga province is located in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, for which the Spanish authorities
have promised an additional list of sites by December 2000.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1606/2000 of 24 July 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 2629/97 with regard to the use of the animal identification code by the United Kingdom
Date: 2000-07-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, cattle, health control, labelling

L 185/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.7.2000

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1606/2000

of 24 July 2000

amending Regulation (EC) No 2629/97 with regard to the use of the animal identification code by
the United Kingdom

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 of 21
April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and
registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of
beef and beef products (1), and in particular Article 10(a)
thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2629/97 (2) as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1663/1999 (3)
lays
down detailed rules regarding eartags, holding registers
and passports as part of the system for the identification
and registration of bovine animals.

As far as the code for the identification of bovine
animals is concerned, it seems appropriate to take into
account practical difficulties pointed out by the United
Kingdom authorities and to permit those authorities to
use eartags containing the alpha-numeric code until 30
June 2000.

(3)

(4)

Regulation (EC) No 2629/97 should therefore be
amended accordingly.

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in
accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In paragraph 2, (b), of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2629/97
the following sentence is added:

‘The United Kingdom may postpone this date until 30 June
2000;’.

Article 2

into force on the third day
This Regulation shall enter
following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 24 July 2000.

For the Commission

David BYRNE

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 354, 30.12.1997, p. 19.
(3) OJ L 197, 29.7.1999, p. 27.
2000/499/EC: Commission Decision of 24 July 2000 amending Decision 2000/227/EC on the granting of aid for the production of table olives in Italy (notified under document number C(2000) 2200) (Only the Italian text is authentic)
Date: 2000-07-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, olive, production aid

L 200/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.8.2000

amending Decision 2000/227/EC on the granting of aid for the production of table olives in Italy

COMMISSION DECISION

of 24 July 2000

(notified under document number C(2000) 2200)

(Only the Italian text is authentic)

(2000/499/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(3)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in
accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Oils and Fats,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the first indent of Article 4(1), Decision 2000/227/EC is
hereby amended as follows: the date ‘30 June 2000’ is replaced
by ‘31 July 2000’.

This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.

Article 2

Done at Brussels, 24 July 2000.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22
September 1966 on the establishment of a common organ-
isation of the market in oils and fats (1), as last amended by
Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999 (2), and in particular Article
5(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

The first indent of Article 4(1) of Commission Decision
2000/227/EC of 7 March 2000 on the granting of aid
for the production of table olives in Italy (3) states that
undertakings which submit an application for approval
by 30 June 2000 are to be approved under the condi-
tions laid down in that Decision.

In Italy it proved impossible to finalise the national
administrative provisions before 30 June 2000. As a
result it is essential that that time limit be extended.

(1) OJ 172, 30.9.1966, p. 3025/66.
(2) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 71, 18.3.2000, p. 28.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2489/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Work in prisons.
Date: 2000-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU competence, European Commissioner, Italy, prisoner work

C 72 E/196

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/252)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2434/00

by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: VAT and dress making

If a company established in Member State A sends goods to Member State B so that they can be made up
by an independent dressmaker, and the goods are then, after being made up, sent directly from Member
State B, on behalf of the company established in Member State A to the purchaser who is established in
Member State C:

(cid:129) on the basis of the wording of the sixth VAT directive, is the company established in Member State A

liable for VAT in Member State B?

(cid:129) if so, are there ways of simplifying this so as to prevent the identification of the company established
in Member State A with the company in Member State B? Should a distinction be made in terms of
whether the dressmaking was billed by the dressmaker to the company established in Member State A,
or to that company(cid:146)s final client established in Member State C?

(cid:129) if measures to achieve such simplification exist, where were they published, and have they been

adopted by all the Member States?

(cid:129) if such measures as may exist have not been published by the Commission, why not?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member(cid:146)s
Written Question E-1680/00

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

(1) See p. 99.

(2001/C 72 E/253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2489/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Work in prisons

There are approximately 54 000 inmates in Italian prisons, many of whom would like to work (even for
low wages) but cannot do so for bureaucratic reasons.

What is the Commission(cid:146)s opinion on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction in this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2364/00 by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Council. Variations in EU postage rates.
Date: 2000-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, France, Germany, discriminatory price, intra-EU trade, postal charges

C 103 E/134

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

(2001/C 103 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2363/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: The Danish EMU exemption

Will the Council confirm that Danish agreement to participate in the third stage of EMU would mean that
the Protocol on certain provisions relating to Denmark in the Maastricht Treaty would lapse, and that
Denmark could no longer invoke that Protocol unless it were reintroduced at a new intergovernmental
conference and ratified by all Member States?

Reply

(9 November 2000)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that interpretation of the EC Treaty and of the
Protocols annexed thereto does not fall within its competence.

(2001/C 103 E/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2364/00

by Lissy Gr(cid:246)ner (PSE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Variations in EU postage rates

I was surprised to discover recently in a Paris post office that variable postage is charged on postcards to
different destinations within the EU.

The postage on a postcard to Finland is FF 3,80, and on one to Germany FF 3,00.

How is it possible for variable rates to be charged for different EU Member States by the postal authority
in (cid:129) of all places (cid:129) the country now embarking on the new EU Council Presidency?

Can the Council give an assurance that discrimination against particular Member States and unequal
treatment by public services when calculating charges will both be removed?

Annex: List of postage rates: Brochure from Paris post office, 30 May 2000

Reply

(7 November 2000)

Article 12 of
the European Parliament and Council Directive 97/67/EC on common rules for the
development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of
service sets out the principle that prices must be geared to costs. This explains why the tariffs applicable
may vary depending on the destination of an item of correspondence. Member States may nevertheless
adopt a uniform tariff for application on their national territory, if they so choose.

On 30 May 2000 the Commission adopted a proposal to revise Directive 97/67/EC (COM(2000) 319 final).
Discussions on the proposal are already underway in the Council.