do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2727/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Price of arable land.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU statistics, agricultural statistics, comparative analysis, price of farm land

C 113 E/158

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

In 1992 the Community and the United States concluded a bilateral agreement on trade in large civil

2.
aircraft which governs public support for the European and US aerospace industries.

The Member States and the Commission intend to abide strictly by the conditions laid down in that
agreement, as they have done in the past.

The Commission assumes that the United States too is determined to abide by the agreement.

3.
and 4. Even assuming that the launch aid planned by a number of Member States for the A3XX is
regarded asbeing caught by Article 87(1), such aid should normally qualify for the exception under Article
87(3)(b) in respect of important projects of European interest.

(1) OJ C 52, 23.2.1999.

(2001/C 113 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2727/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Price of arable land

Would the Commission give figures on some comparable basis for the price of a hectare of similar arable
land in each of the Member States over each of the last ten years, or for as long a period as is possible?

Will it also give comparable figures for the United States, Canada, Australia and Argentina?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2000)

Most Member States have provided the Commission with figures on agricultural land prices every year
since 1973.

Figures for the period 1977-1998, accompanied by methodological information to help interpret them,
were published by Eurostat in the 1999 edition of (cid:145)Agricultural land prices and rents in the European
Union(cid:146) (1).

Figures on agricultural land prices come from administrative sources in most Member States, having been
recorded by the land registration or tax authorities. The main methodological differences between
Member States are explained in the above-mentioned publication. The lack of comparability between
Member States lies in the fact that Member States supply figures on agricultural land prices voluntarily.

The Commission has no comparable figures for the United States, Canada, Australia or Argentina.

(1)

ISBN 92-828-8381-7.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2700/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Agricultural support and accession of Slovenia.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Slovenia, accession to the European Union, agricultural expenditure

C 103 E/212

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

(2001/C 103 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2700/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Slovenia

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support
policies were extended to Slovenia on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and

structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

(2001/C 103 E/246)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2701/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Estonia

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support
policies were extended to Estonia on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and

structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2690/00, E-2691/00, E-2695/00, E-2699/00,
E-2700/00 and E-2701/00
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

To estimate the extra annual cost of agricultural support resulting from the accession to the Community of
Poland, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia and Estonia it would be necessary to know with a
reasonable degree of certainty the date, the terms and conditions of the accession of these countries to the
Community. These aspects will have to be defined in the accession negotiations with these countries, the
agricultural chapter of which was opened for negotiation in June 2000. Consequently, any cost estimate
made on the basis of assumptions indicated by the Honourable Member would necessarily be of a
hypothetical, speculative and uncertain nature. At
the negotiating process the
Commission is, therefore, not in a position to answer the questions asked by the Honourable Member.

the present state of
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2723/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Agricultural workforce.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural labour force, agricultural statistics, area of holding, harvester, milking machine, tractor

C 81 E/216

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

These examinations show a gradual process of price convergence in the 1990s. However, this process has
been rather uneven, not covering all goods and services and still influenced by exchange rate develop-
ments. Further, the level of price dispersion within the Community remains above that in the United
States.

It is difficult to say how much further the alignment of prices within the euro area will go, because the
European monetary union price transparency effect is just one of many factors having an impact on price
convergence. Nevertheless,
integrated American
economy may be considered as a lower bound.

the degree of price dispersion in the relatively well

A priori,
increased price transparency should lead to fiercer competition and put a strong downward
pressure on price levels, which should have a positive effect on the competitiveness of the euro area.
On the other hand, the possibility that the price transparency facilitates collusive behaviour should not be
excluded. This is one of the reasons why a strong Community antitrust policy is required.

(1)

(cid:145)Market integration and differences in price levels between EU Member States(cid:146), study 4 in The EU Economy:
1999 Review, European Economy, No 69, 1999. Section B2 in (cid:145)Economic Reform: Report on the functioning of
Community product and capital markets(cid:146), COM(2000) 26 final. Box 5 in the (cid:145)Report from the Commission on the
(cid:145)Car price differentials
implementation of the 1999 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines(cid:146), COM(2000) 143 final.
within the European Union on 1 May 2000(cid:146), Competition Directorate-General. Part E of the (cid:145)Single Market
Scoreboard(cid:146), No 6, May 2000. (cid:145)EMU and the integration of European product markets(cid:146), study carried out for the
Commission by Gasiorek et al., forthcoming.

(2001/C 81 E/277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2723/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural workforce

Will the Commission indicate the number of people engaged in agriculture in each Member State in each
of the last ten years and what proportion of the total workforce in each case this represents?

(2001/C 81 E/278)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2724/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Tractors

What is the number of tractors per hundred hectares of arable land in each of the Member States?

(2001/C 81 E/279)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2725/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Milking machines

What is the number of milking machines per hundred cows in each of the Member States?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2707/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Security features in euro notes.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, industrial counterfeiting, paper money, powers of the institutions (EU)

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/217

Austria:

CPIs at the NUTS-2 level are not published but are available on request (a charge is made).

Portugal:

Regional CPIs are published at Nomenclature of territorial statistical units (NUTS)-2 level.

Finland:

Regional CPIs at NUTS-2 level are published.

Belgium, Denmark, Greece, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom
do not publish regional CPIs.

(2001/C 89 E/246)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2707/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Security features in euro notes

Will the Commission state whether any modern security features that might have been incorporated into
the design of euro notes have been sacrificed because not all of the proposed printing plants were
technically capable of producing them?

If so, which security features have been dropped?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

The European Central Bank bears sole responsibility for deciding on the security features of euro
banknotes and overseeing their production. The Commission is therefore unable to answer questions on
the subject.

(2001/C 89 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2720/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: State aid in extraction industries

What is the Commission(cid:146)s estimate of the amount of state aid per employee in the extraction industries
(mining, etc.) in each of the Member States each year for the last five years for which figures are available?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

Whilst data are not available for all extraction industries, according to the eighth survey on state aid in the
Community (1) published in April 2000 and reporting on the period from 1994 to 1998, the amounts of
state aid destined to current production per employee in the following coal producing Member States are
given below. It should be noted that 1997 and 1998 aid has been notified by the French Government but
is still being examined by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2675/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission. Protection of European firms in Kosovo.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, European undertaking, Kosovo, aid to undertakings

C 151 E/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

The water framework Directive (1) which Parliament and the Council recently adopted strongly promotes
integrated planning and management of surface waters and groundwater as regards both quality and
quantity, based on six-year management plans covering the whole of each river basin. The plans must be
put into operation by 2009. The water framework Directive requires Member States, in the course of
preparing their river basin management plans, to analyse (cid:129) for each river basin (cid:129) its geological,
hydrological, ecological and other characteristics, the impact of human activity on water status, and the
economics of water use. The analyses must be completed by 2004, and an operational monitoring
programme for water status must be established by 2006. The latter two deadlines fall during the period
of the ROP and will provide a basis for implementing it in accordance with Community legislation.

(1) PRES/2000/283.

(2001/C 151 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2675/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Protection of European firms in Kosovo

The answer given by Commissioner Patten to Written Question E-1032/2000, despite the rather
(cid:145)embarassing(cid:146) nature of its content, shows that the role played by parliamentary control is a cornerstone
of democracy, not only for the Member States but also for the European Union itself. With regard to the
matter in hand, the Commission(cid:146)s undertaking (cid:129) contained in the abovementioned answer (cid:129) to bring the
concerns raised to the attention of UNMIK opens up a clear channel of communication between myself as
a Member of the European Parliament, the Commission in its capacity as the EU authority responsible, and
UNMIK, which is overseeing the crisis situation in Kosovo.

When and by what means does the Commission plan to make the necessary representations to UNMIK, as
promised in the abovementioned answer, and to what extent will it keep me informed of these measures?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

In line with its statement (Written Question E-1032/00 (1)) that it would draw United Nations (UN) Mission
in Kosovo (UNMIK) attention to the issues raised by the Honourable Member, but it is for UNMIK to
respond directly to the Honourable Member, the Commission has already sent the Honourable Member a
copy of the letter which it has sent to UNMIK. The Commission has also provided the Honourable
Member with the contact details of the relevant official in UNMIK.

The Commission has thus put (cid:145)a clear channel of communication(cid:146)
Member and UNMIK,
administration of Kosovo.

in place between the Honourable
the competent authority for all questions relating to the international civil

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 15.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2665/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission. Truck stopping distances.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: commercial vehicle, intelligent transport system, road safety, safety device

C 113 E/148

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

(2001/C 113 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2665/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Truck stopping distances

Does the Commission agree that, since persuasion has not proven to be an effective means of encouraging
truck drivers to increase their following distances, some alternative means of bringing this about must now
be identified and implemented?

Will the Commission agree to EU support for developmental research to validate the existing experimental
distance-sensing systems, so that trucks can be fitted with these systems that will:

(cid:129) warn drivers when they are travelling too close to the vehicle ahead (given their speed);

(cid:129) effectively reduce the vehicle(cid:146)s speed by decelerating and/or applying the brakes if the driver does not
take appropriate action such as increasing the following distance within a reasonable period of time?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2000)

The safe braking distance for motor vehicles depends on static parameters, such as pay load and the
vehicle(cid:146)s braking system, and dynamic parameters such as speed and roll, and external factors such as road-
surface grip, and weather and visibility conditions. In addition driver skill and physical condition likewise
play a part.

Devices that automatically keep a distance from the vehicle ahead are one of
the many possible
applications of intelligent transport system technologies, the development and validation of which, and
the search for optimum conditions for their deployment, are being covered by several projects receiving
support under Community research programmes. Since the various applications will operate in accordance
with algorithms using common parameters and their interaction, the Commission feels that an integrated
overall approach is more likely to ease their dissemination in a consistent reliable and economically
acceptable manner.

As part of its (cid:145)eEurope(cid:146) action plan adopted on 24 May 2000 (1), the Commission announced its intention
to suggest forms of action intended to deploy those intelligent transport systems on the roads by the end
of 2001. That action should also relate to any headway systems that maintain a safe braking distance for
heavy lorries, the practical terms and conditions for which remain to be determined.

(1) Com (2000) 330 final.

(2001/C 113 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2677/00

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

(1 September 2000)

Subject: European Movement

Could the Commission please inform the House which budget heading funds the European Movement,
how much money this involves and how the organisation utilises these funds?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2789/00 by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Tuberculosis.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU initiative, cooperation policy, developing countries, infectious disease, public health

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/177

(2001/C 113 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2789/00

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Tuberculosis

Nearly two million people throughout the world die from tuberculosis each year, despite the existence of
an effective and cost-effective treatment programme known as the Directly Observed Treatment Strategy
(DOTS) which could cure most TB cases in 6-9 months.

Does the European Union have any plans to finance any initiatives put in place in Africa and Asia to
combat the spread of this major disease? If not, will the Council investigate the possibility of introducing
such an initiative?

Reply

(16 November 2000)

As part of the cooperation agreements concluded with many developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin
America (cid:129) either bilaterally, or multilaterally as in the case of the Cotonou Agreement with the ACP
countries (cid:129) the European Union is supplying significant assistance for public health projects, including
projects designed to work towards the eradication of tuberculosis and other communicable diseases.

Furthermore, the Honourable Members(cid:146) attention is drawn to the procedural conclusions approved by the
Development Council on 18 May 2000 relating to the three major transmissible diseases, HIV/AIDS,
malaria and tuberculosis.

(2001/C 113 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2792/00

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Re-importation of goods eligible for refunds

Further to my question E-0979/00 I would advise the Commission that, in the case of milk and beef, most
products are defined as particularly sensitive to speculative trading.

In the light of the latest reductions in refunds, is the Commission contemplating a more restricted version
of this list since it has to be assumed that the problem is a particularly topical one for products eligible for
very high refunds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 2000)

For the moment the Commission does not intend to shorten the list of sensitive products in Annex V to
Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for
application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (1). Although refund rates have fallen
for some products there is still a risk of reimportation if the goods attract a reduced or zero rate of import
duty rather than the non-preferential rate. Nor can it be ruled out that refund rates in some sectors may
increase in the future.

(1) OJ L 102, 17.4.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2697/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Agricultural support and accession of Bulgaria.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, EU aid, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, accession to the European Union, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/79

(2001/C 136 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2696/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Slovakia

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support
policies were extended to Slovakia on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and

structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

(2001/C 136 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2697/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Bulgaria

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support
policies were extended to Bulgaria on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and

structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

(2001/C 136 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2698/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Romania

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support
policies were extended to Romania on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and

structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?