WRITTEN QUESTION E-2480/00 by Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Delay in the approval of the Community support framework for Spain.
Date: 2000-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, Spain, Structural Funds, distribution of aid, exchange of information, operational programme

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/107

(2001/C 113 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2479/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Food labelling with regard to nut allergies

(24 July 2000)

At present, symbols are used in food labelling which enable the public to choose which foods they
purchase. This may assist personal choice (e.g. (cid:145)suitable for vegans(cid:146)) or for health reasons (e.g. (cid:145)gluten-free(cid:146)).
These symbols are clear enough for everyone to see and guarantee that the product contains only the
correct ingredients.

Will the Commission please indicate whether there are any proposals to extend these measures to include
a symbol which denotes (cid:145)100 % guaranteed nut free(cid:146) since, for EU citizens suffering from a nut allergy, any
error in reading the labels on food could be life-threatening?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

The Commission believes it is advisable to assist people who have allergies as much as possible by giving
them more comprehensive information about the composition of products. This will in fact ensure better
consumer information in general as to the composition of a food product, and at the same time it will
ensure the necessary information for those consumers who, for health or ethical reasons, have to, or want
to, avoid certain ingredients.

In the white paper on food safety (1), the Commission announced that it intends to propose a new
amendment to Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of
foodstuffs (2) (previous Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 (3)) which would change the
current possibility of not indicating the components of compound ingredients, where they form less than
25 % of the final product. Furthermore, the Commission intends to amend the Community legislation to
ensure that foodstuffs and ingredients, that are recognised scientifically as being a source of allergies, are
systematically listed on labels.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
(2) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.
(3) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.

(2001/C 113 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2480/00

by Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Delay in the approval of the Community support framework for Spain

Before 1 November 1999 the Spanish Government submitted the regional development programme for
2000 to 2006 for the Spanish regions covered by Objective 1 of the European Structural Funds. In
accordance with Article 15(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying
down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), the Commission should have adopted a decision on
the contribution from the Funds not later than five months after receiving the plan, in other words by
1 April 2000.

Why is the Commission being so slow to approve the Community support framework for Spain?

Is it the case that the RDP initially submitted by the Spanish Government was incomplete and wanting
because it did not contain all the features listed in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999?

C 113 E/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

What additional information has the Commission requested?

In particular, has it asked how the Fund contribution is to be shared out in detail among the different
Autonomous Communities?

When did the Spanish Government supply the additional information requested by the Commission?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

The Commission received the regional development plan for the Spanish regions eligible for objective 1 on
29 October 1999 and, following its initial examination, it informed the Spanish authorities on 22 Novem-
ber 1999 that the plan was admissible under the structural fund regulations (1).

However, in order to facilitate processing of the plan and the subsequent negotiations on the objective 1
Community support framework (CSF) for the 2000-2006 period, the Commission requested additional
material from the Spanish authorities on 14 December 1999, including the proposed allocations by region.
In reply, supplementary information was received by the Commission on 31 January 2000.

As for the CSFs concerning other objective 1 regions, and in view of the considerable level of budgetary
resources involved, the appraisal of the very extensive Spanish proposals, in the light of the provisions of
the new Structural funds regulation, required a certain amount of time. The Commission(cid:146)s negotiation
mandate was sent to the Spanish authorities on 18 April 2000. The ensuing negotiations concentrated on
a number of important issues such as coherence in the overall strategic approach for the 2000-2006
including a role for the information society, reduction and integration of pro-
programming period,
grammes at regional level and clear definition of financial management and partnership mechanisms for
the implementation phase.

These negotiations are now concluded and the decision in principle on the new CSF, which addresses these
issues and thus will contribute better to the cohesion process for the Spanish objective 1 regions, was
endorsed by the Commission on 26 July 2000 at the same time as those for Greece and Northern Ireland.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 113 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2508/00

by W. G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Effects of auctioning of UMTS frequencies for mobile phones

In reply to my written question P-1839/00 (1) to the European Commission, Commissioner Liikanen stated
that the Commission was examining the economic impact of auctions, which depended on a number of
variables.

1. What criteria are being employed by the Commission in checking that new entrants and incumbents
are treated equally, and does this mean in practice that in auctions of licences there must be separate
blocks for new entrants and incumbents?

2. What legal basis is being used by the Commission for such an ex post economic analysis?