do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2530/00 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Fires in southern Europe.
Date: 2000-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Greece, Southern Europe, aid to disaster victims, disaster area, fire

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/197

(2001/C 72 E/254)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2530/00

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Fires in southern Europe

Will the Commission release emergency appropriations to cover the damage caused by the widespread
fires which have raged across southern Europe and Greece, in particular, in recent days, in view of the
need for exceptional funding to compensate those affected by the disaster and to restore the natural
environment?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

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

(2001/C 72 E/255)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2545/00

by JosØ PomØs Ruiz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Decentralised cooperation with Latin America

(28 July 2000)

The Commission apparently intends to suspend or phase out the Community programmes for decentra-
lised cooperation with Latin America.

These programmes are currently cornerstones of EU cooperation with Latin America and their ability to
involve members of civil society and the results they have achieved have been recognised.

What are the Commission(cid:146)s real reasons for suspending these programmes?

Does it perhaps want to include measures of this kind among its negative priorities?

Could it be that Latin America will in future be one of the Commission(cid:146)s negative priorities?

What political effects does the Commission think that a decision of this kind will have, particularly as
regards the European Union(cid:146)s credibility in Latin America?

Does the Commission not consider that its position is inconsistent with the statements made by the Heads
of State and Government meeting in Rio de Janeiro in June 1999?

Lastly, is the Commission not breaking the commitment to openness it gave to Parliament and which
Mr Prodi endorsed on his appointment?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The Commission has not taken any decision aimed at suspending or terminating the Latin America
decentralised cooperation programmes (AL INVEST, ALURE, ALFA, URB-AL). Rumours to that effect are
purely speculative.

It is of course the Commission(cid:146)s duty to evaluate the external aid instruments for which it is responsible in
the light of the objectives it is pursuing, the practical results achieved using those instruments and the
means at its disposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2532/00 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. EU funding for water project (Rio Sao Francisco, Brazil).
Date: 2000-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Brazil, EU financing, hydraulic works

C 89 E/204

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2000)

The delegations representing the Governments of the Member States and the Commission, which have
scrupulously respected the remit of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), have not so far put forward
any formal proposals at the IGC on the inclusion of sport in the EC Treaty.

It was the European Council which set the IGC(cid:146)s ambitious but very focused remit:
institutional issues left open in Amsterdam that need to be settled before enlargement(cid:146).

(cid:145)to resolve the

The positions adopted by the Commission at the IGC take account of this framework. The Commission
has chosen not to propose any extension of powers at this Conference.

(2001/C 89 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2532/00

by Wolfgang Kreissl-D(cid:246)rfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: EU funding for water project (Rio Sao Francisco, Brazil)

(25 July 2000)

The Brazilian Government has announced a plan to divert part of the Rio Sao Francisco and channel water
into the states of Pernambuco, Paraiba, CearÆ and Rio Grande do Norte in order to overcome the water
shortage in those regions. This project is highly controversial in terms of both its technical feasibility and
its contribution to sustainable development for the good of the people in the region. According to
government figures, the cost of engineering and construction work alone will amount to 3,5 billion real.

Can the Commission say whether EU funding has been requested and/or has already been granted for this
project? If so, can the Commission justify its assessment of the project(cid:146)s sustainability? If a financial
contribution was refused, can the Commission say on what grounds?

Can the Commission provide more detailed answers to the following questions, should the diversion of the
water be feasible:

(cid:129) how high a price would the end-user pay?

(cid:129) how would the costs be divided between government, farmers and private households?

(cid:129) how would the environmental aspects of the project be resolved in view of the ecologically precarious

state of the river?

(cid:129) is there a detailed plan for the sustainable development of

the Sao Francisco valley and the

surrounding areas which takes due account of the needs of the people in the region?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The Brazilian government and the Commission have never discussed such a plan. The Commission has not
received any project of this kind to date.

As a result it is not in a position to answer the Honourable Member(cid:146)s specific questions.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1640/2000 of 25 July 2000 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3201/90 laying down detailed rules for the description and presentation of wines and grape musts
Date: 2000-07-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: fruit product, grape, labelling, product designation, wine

26.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 187/41

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1640/2000

of 25 July 2000

amending Regulation (EEC) No 3201/90 laying down detailed rules for the description and presen-
tation of wines and grape musts

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16
March 1987 on the common organisation of the market in
wine (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1677/99 (2),
and in particular Article 72(5) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 (3), as
last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1427/96 (4), lays down
general rules for the description and presentation of
wines and grape musts.

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3201/90 (5), as last
lays
amended by Regulation (EC) No 160/2000 (6),
down detailed rules for the description and presentation
of wines and grape musts.

German legislation recognises a series of supplementary
traditional terms used for quality wines psr from that
country. It should be possible for those terms to be used
optionally on labels for those wines and so they should
be included in Article 3(3)(a).

In view of an application from Chile, provision should
be made for wines originating in that country to bear
the name of a vine variety included in the list in Annex
IV even though only 85 % of the wine in question is
made from grapes of the vine variety whose name it

bears, on condition that
character of the wine.

that variety determines the

(5)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EEC) No 3201/90 is hereby amended as follows:

1. In Article 3(3)(a), the following indent is added:

‘(a) for German quality wines psr.:

— “Selection”,
— “Selektion”,
— “Classic”,
— “Klassik”.’

2. In Article 13(2)(b), the following indent is added:

‘— Chile.’

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day
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, 25 July 2000.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 8.
(3) OJ L 232, 9.8.1989, p. 13.
(4) OJ L 184, 24.7.1996, p. 3.
(5) OJ L 309, 8.11.1990, p. 1.
(6) OJ L 19, 25.1.2000, p. 19.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2582/00 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European Parliament and Council Directive on energy requirements for ballasts for fluorescent lighting ‐ generation of waste.
Date: 2000-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, lighting equipment

C 103 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

(2001/C 103 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2582/00

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: European Parliament and Council Directive on energy requirements for ballasts for fluorescent

lighting (cid:129) generation of waste

Following Parliament(cid:146)s approval of the Council(cid:146)s common position without amendment on 5 July 2000,
the directive on energy requirements for ballasts for fluorescent lighting will shortly enter into force.

Has the Commission investigated how much waste is expected to be generated in future if magnetic
ballasts may no longer be used?

Does the Commission have any information concerning how electronic ballasts are to be disposed of and
how environmentally acceptable they are compared with magnetic ballasts?

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

(20 September 2000)

The Commission does not expect a perceptible increase of the generation of waste due to the requirements
set out in the draft directive on energy efficiency requirements for ballasts for fluorescent lighting (1).

The main environmental problem related to the disposal of magnetic ballasts are the capacitors containing
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). Contrary to the magnetic ballasts, electronic ballasts do not contain such
capacitors. This absence of PCB-containing capacitors in electronic ballasts constitutes a clear environ-
mental advantage compared to the magnetic ballasts. However, detailed assessments of all environmental
impacts from the waste management of electronic ballasts have not been undertaken so far. This is in
particular true for the most common recovery route of these components (cid:129) the smelting together with
other metal scrap.

(1) OJ C 274 E, 28.9.1999.

(2001/C 103 E/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2586/00

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Adoption of the European Parliament and Council Directive on energy efficiency requirements for

ballasts in fluorescent lamps (cid:129) implications for SMUs in the European Union

Following Parliament(cid:146)s adoption without amendments on 5 July 2000 of the Council(cid:146)s common position,
the directive on energy efficiency requirements for ballasts in fluorescent lamps will shortly enter into
force.

When drawing up its common position, did the Council consider the implications of this directive for
SMUs in the European Union?

Is the Council aware that all firms which at present manufacture magnetic ballasts will be required to halt
their production in the foreseeable future (at the latest in five years(cid:146) time), with the loss of many jobs in
the Member States concerned?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2531/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Projects cofinanced by the Community in Condado (Ponteveda, Spain).
Date: 2000-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Galicia, operational programme

C 53 E/204

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

(2001/C 53 E/269)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2531/00

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Projects cofinanced by the Community in Condado (Ponteveda, Spain)

On 4 August 1997 an agreement was signed between the district of Condado, comprising the munici-
palities of Ponteareas, Salvaterra, Salceda and Mondariz, the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture and the
Galician Regional Government, under which Condado would receive Ptas 500 million from the PRODER
programme (a programme for the development and economic diversification of rural areas), cofunded by
the Community, for a series of projects to be carried out between 1997 and 1999. The agreement
provided for a number of projects connected with the development of the rural heritage, agri-tourism,
rural tourism and small businesses, and included the renovation of the Pazo de Picoæa in Salceda and the
Casa del Conde in Salvaterra, the redevelopment of the area around Vilasobroso castle, the construction of
a (cid:145)castro(cid:146) to provide accommodation for rural tourism, the establishment of a Wine Museum in the Doæa
Urraca cellars in Salvaterra castle, the creation of an archaeological information centre at the Castro de
Troæa in Ponteareas and the construction of a golf course at P(cid:237)as.

Democracy demands transparency, and information for citizens, and sometimes the European Community
must compensate for the lack of information from some local administrations, which conceal facts from
inhabitants of the area. Withholding information in this way runs counter to the public information
requirement laid down by the regulations on the Structural Funds.

Will the Commission give details of projects cofinanced by the European Community during the period
1994-1999 in Condado, in the province of Pontevedra?

What amount of joint funding did the Community provide for these projects? What was the total cost of
the projects?

Have all the projects for which Community cofinancing was requested been completed? If not, is there any
provision for an extension to enable the projects to be completed? Until what date would an extension be
possible?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.
2000/501/EC: Commission Decision of 25 July 2000 amending Decision 97/778/EC and updating the list of border inspection posts approved for veterinary checks (notified under document number C(2000) 2258) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2000-07-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, appointment of staff, border control, veterinary inspection

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 200/61

COMMISSION DECISION

of 25 July 2000

amending Decision 97/778/EC and updating the list of border inspection posts approved for
veterinary checks

(notified under document number C(2000) 2258)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/501/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing
the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), and in
particular Article 6(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the
organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending
Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, and 90/675/EEC (2), as last amended by Directive 96/43/EC (3), and in
particular Article 6(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Commission Decision 97/778/EC (4), as last amended by Decision 2000/126/EC (5), draws up a list
of border inspection posts approved for veterinary checks of live animals and animal products from
third countries.

At the request of the French authorities and following a Community inspection, a border inspection
post at the airport of Vatry must be added to the list.

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing
Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Decision 97/778/EC, the list of border inspection posts for France is amended by the
addition of the following entry:

1

Vatry

2

0215199

4

HC-T

5

3

A

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 July 2000.

For the Commission

David BYRNE

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 9.
(2) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 56.
(3) OJ L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 315, 19.11.1997, p. 15.
(5) OJ L 36, 11.2.2000, p. 30.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2579/00 by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (PSE) to the Commission. Legislation on safer car fronts to protect pedestrians and cyclists.
Date: 2000-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, motor car, pedestrian, product design, proposal (EU), road safety, two-wheeled vehicle

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.
Communication pursuant to with Article 12(5)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 on the information provided by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature
Date: 2000-07-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: classification, customs regulations, information, tariff nomenclature

C 212/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.7.2000

Communication pursuant to with Article 12(5)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 on the
information provided by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classifi-
cation of goods in the customs nomenclature

(2000/C 212/07)

Binding tariff information ceases to be valid from this day if it becomes incompatible with the inter-
pretation of the customs nomenclature as a result of the following international tariff measures:

Amendments to the Harmonised System explanatory notes and the compendium of classification opinions
approved by the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC document No 0160 (cid:151) report of the 24nd Session of
the HS Committee):

AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO BE DONE UNDER AN ARTICLE 8 PROCEDURE OF
THE HS CONVENTION AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS EDITED BY THE HS COMMITTEE OF THE
WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANISATION

(24th SESSION OF THE HSC IN OCTOBER 1999)

DOC 0160

Amendments to the explanatory notes of the nomenclature annexed to the HS Convention
33.05
36.06
39.24
71.18
7118.10 Subheading explanatory note
83.09
84.21
84.28
85.24
8524.39 Subheading explanatory note
8524.99 Subheading explanatory note

K/5
K/8
K/7
K/9
K/9
K/10
K/16
K/14
K/15
K/15
K/15

Classification opinions approved by the HS Committee
1905.90/3
2008.20/1
2008.99/2
3305.10/2
3305.10/3
3808.20/1
3824.90/11
3924.90/1
8309.90/1
8421.29/1
8421.29/2
8428.90/2
8473.30/2
8517.30/1
9501.00/1

K/2
K/3
K/3
K/5
K/5
K/6
K/8
K/7
K/10
K/12
K/12
K/14
K/11
K/4
K/13

Information regarding the contents of these measures can be obtained from the Directorate-General of
Taxation and Customs Union of the Commission of the European Communities (Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat
200, B-1049 Brussels) or can be downloaded from the Internet site of this Directorate-General

(http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/index_en.htm).