do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2903/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. EU chemicals policy.
Date: 2000-09-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal experimentation, chemical product, testing

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/17

needs of the region concerned, but might include offering support to farmers for establishing, maintaining
or restoring traditional field boundaries if this goes beyond usual good farming practice in the area
concerned.

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 states that Member States shall take the environmental
measures they consider to be appropriate in view of the situation of the agricultural land used or the
production concerned and which reflect the potential environmental effects. These measures may include
support in return for agri-environmental commitments (under Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, as above),
general mandatory environmental requirements and also specific environmental requirements constituting
a condition for direct payments. This third possibility could include requiring farmers to maintain
environmentally beneficial
landscape features, such as hedgerows, as a condition to receive direct aid
payments.

(1) OJ L 391, 31.12.1992.

(2001/C 163 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2903/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: EU chemicals policy

What is the Commission(cid:146)s estimate of the number of chemicals in use across the EU which should be
subjected to safety-testing procedures, and:

(cid:129) how many animals would have to be killed in order to carry out such tests;

(cid:129) what type of animals would these include;

(cid:129) what measures would the Commission recommend to reduce the number of tests on live animals?

(2001/C 163 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3071/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Testing of chemicals on animals

It has been brought to my attention that the DG for the Environment is developing plans to test old
stockpiled chemicals on animals. I understand that this could involve between three and ten million
animals.

Following sustained criticism, the United States has scaled down the number of proposed experiments. The
Commission has set itself a target of reducing the number of experiments by 50 % by the year 2000. Does
the Commission believe that it will achieve that target?

Does it regard the proposed testing on animals as a proper use of resources?

What alternatives have been considered?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1946/2000 of 14 September 2000 temporarily suspending the issuing of export licences for certain milk products and determining what proportion of the amounts covered by pending applications for export licences may be allocated
Date: 2000-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export licence, milk, milk product

L 233/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.9.2000

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1946/2000

of 14 September 2000

temporarily suspending the issuing of export licences for certain milk products and determining
what proportion of the amounts covered by pending applications for export licences may be
allocated

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17
May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk
and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
1670/2000 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 of
26 January 1999 laying down special detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 as regards
export licences and export refunds in the case of milk and milk
products (3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1596/1999 (4),
and in particular Article 10(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

Uncertainty is a feature of the market in certain milk
products. It is necessary to prevent speculative applica-
tions that may lead to a distortion in competition

between traders. The issuing of export licences for the
products concerned should be temporarily suspended,
and licences for some of these products should not be
issued in respect of applications pending.

(2)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The issuing of export licences for milk products falling within
CN code 0402 10 is hereby suspended for the period from 15
to 30 September 2000, excluding licences for destination ‘970’.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 September 2000.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 14 September 2000.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48.
(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 10.
(3) OJ L 20, 27.1.1999, p. 8.
(4) OJ L 188, 21.7.1999, p. 39.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2907/00 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission. Homogenised milk.
Date: 2000-09-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: allergy, child, homogenised milk, labelling, public health

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/127

3. and 4.
their elected representatives. This subject remains a constitutional matter for the Member States.

The EC Treaty does not contain any express requirement to identify the views of individuals or

(2001/C 136 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2907/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Homogenised milk

It has been reported that homogenised milk can lead to increased sensitivity to milk in children and that it
aggravates arthritis.

Potentially more serious, homogenisation appears to increase the dangers posed by the chemical xanthine
oxidase (which is directly attributable as a cause of heart disease).

Since homogenisation seems to be carried out for cosmetic as opposed to hygiene reasons, does the
Commission take the view that it should seek to limit interference with milk production in the form of
homogenisation? If not, what action does it propose to take, perhaps in the form of new labelling
requirements?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any established scientific proof that the reported effects (increased
sensitivity in children, aggravation of arthritis, and heart disease) could be linked particularly to the
homogenisation of milk.

The research programme on the relation between food, health and nutrition deals, among other things,
with different aspects of allergy. It may be that these projects will provide more accurate information on
the relation between milk and allergy in the future.

If evidence is provided in the future that the process of homogenisation poses a threat to public health, the
Commission will examine what course of action should be followed.

(2001/C 136 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2909/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: National systems of collecting waste glass disrupted by the functioning of the European market

The sale of collected waste glass in the Netherlands is currently facing competition from firms in
1.
Germany where the (cid:145)green point(cid:146) system operates, whereby industry contributes towards the cost of
collection. One effect of this competition is that German glass recycling firms are increasingly offering
their waste glass on the Dutch market. For example, the firm of Heije of Moerdijk imports glass from
Berlin while there is the glass recycling firm of Maltha in the immediate vicinity at Fijnaart, 10 kilometres
away. There is now a risk of the Dutch waste glass being dumped. There is also a threat to stop collecting
waste. Is the Commission aware of this problem (1)?

2.
Does the Commission agree that it is absolutely unacceptable for recycled materials to be transported
over such distances, and that the basic principle should be that recycled materials are used at as short a
distance as possible from the point where they are collected?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2862/00 by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission. Euratom Safeguards Directorate.
Date: 2000-09-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAEC, access to EU information, activity report

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/115

(2001/C 136 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2862/00

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Euratom Safeguards Directorate

The European Parliament(cid:146)s resolution of 6 July 1988 (B2-0520/88 (1)) called upon the Euratom Safeguards
Directorate to submit a comprehensive annual report to Parliament. This was subsequently altered to a
biennial report.

Can the Commission state when the next such comprehensive report will be published, and can it confirm
that, thereafter, these reports will indeed be published on a biennial basis and will be open to public
scrutiny?

(1) OJ C 235, 12.9.1988, p. 70.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

The Commission is in the process of reviewing the way the Euratom Safeguards Office conducts its
activities and the priorities assigned to it.

Once the priorities have been clarified, a comprehensive report on the operation of Euratom Safeguards
will again be submitted at regular intervals to the Parliament. Only the parts dealing with non-classified
information may be made available to the public.

(2001/C 136 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/00

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: The Galicia-Northern Portugal Working Community and the EU(cid:146)s programmes for 2000-2006

On the occasion of taking over the biannual presidency of the Galicia-Northern Portugal Working
Community, Mr Manuel Fraga, President of the Galician regional government, spoke of the need to
reinforce economic and social ties in this Euro-region in the context of the action programmes for 2000-
2006, taking account of the changed circumstances arising from the entry into the Union of the new
eastern European Member States. Is the Commission taking specific account of the existence and actions of
the Galicia-Northern Portugal Euro-region, given its special function in Europe, by supporting specific
investments and programmes with a view to making particular contributions to its development and
organisation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

The Community is supporting very significant investments in GalicIA and the North region of Portugal
under Objective I of the Community Structural Funds for 2000-2006. This assistance is included in the
Community support frameworks for Spain and Portugal recently adopted by the Commission.

Beyond this action to be implemented at Member State level the Commission will be giving particular
attention to joint action by the Galicia and North regions under the Interreg III Community Initiative to
promote cross-European cooperation and harmonious and balanced territorial development in Europe.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1950/2000 of 14 September 2000 fixing production refunds on cereals and rice
Date: 2000-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cereals, production refund, rice

L 233/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.9.2000

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1950/2000

of 14 September 2000

fixing production refunds on cereals and rice

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30
June 1992, on the common organisation of the market in
cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/
2000 (2), and in particular Article 7 (3) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22
December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in
rice (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1667/2000 (4),
and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1722/93 of
30 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the arrangements
concerning production refunds
and rice
sectors (5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 87/1999 (6),
and in particular Article 3 thereof,

in the

cereals

Whereas:

(1)

Regulation (EEC) No 1722/93 establishes the conditions
for granting the production refund; whereas the basis for
the calculation is established in Article 3 of the said
Regulation; whereas the refund thus calculated must be

(2)

(3)

fixed once a month and may be altered if the price of
maize and/or wheat changes significantly.

The production refunds to be fixed in this Regulation
should be adjusted by the coefficients listed in the
Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 1722/93 to establish
the exact amount payable.

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The refund referred to in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No
1722/93, expressed per tonne of starch extracted from maize,
wheat, barley, oats, potatoes, rice or broken rice, shall be
EUR 11,30/t.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 September 2000.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 14 September 2000.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18.
(4) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 3.
(5) OJ L 159, 1.7.1993, p. 112.
(6) OJ L 9, 15.1.1999, p. 8.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2887/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Dangerous dogs.
Date: 2000-09-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competence of the Member States, domestic animal, physical aggression, public safety

C 136 E/124

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

After having requested and obtained information from the German government about the scope and
content of its bilateral air transport agreements, as well as about the experience of implementation of the
provisions of the law, the Commission is in the process of analysing and assessing whether those
provisions discriminate against citizens of the Union who are not German nationals.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2001/C 136 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2887/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Dangerous dogs

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce legislation on dangerous dogs in the EU?

If so, on what grounds does the Commission justify action at Community rather than at Member State
level? Should not the principle of subsidiarity dictate that this should be left to Member States to decide?

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce EU rules to ban Staffordshire bull terriers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it currently has no plans to propose
Community harmonisation designed to ban dangerous dogs. It therefore has no intention of proposing
any rules banning Staffordshire bull terriers.

In this case, the Commission believes that it is up to the Member States to adopt the appropriate national
measures, while complying with the rules of the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 28 and 30 (ex Articles 30
and 36) thereof.

Indeed, although Article 28 stipulates that Member States may not adopt national measures that create
restrictions on the free movement of the animals concerned, Article 30 authorises them to do so if such
measures are justified on grounds of the protection of the health and life of humans, provided that the
restrictions concerned are proportionate to the objective to be attained and are applicable without
distinction.

(2001/C 136 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2888/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Airport malaria

Will the Commission state whether it is satisfied that the rules on the spraying with insecticide of aircraft
arriving from the tropics are being properly applied, given the increase in the number of cases of airport
malaria reported, especially in France, Belgium and the United Kingdom, outlined in the August edition of
the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1954/2000 of 14 September 2000 fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1701/2000
Date: 2000-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, common wheat, export refund, third country

15.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 233/43

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1954/2000

of 14 September 2000

fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the invitation to tender
issued in Regulation (EC) No 1701/2000

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30
June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in
cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/
2000 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of
29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the
granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be
taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3),
as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2513/98 (4), and in
particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

An invitation to tender for the refund on exportation of
common wheat
third countries was opened
pursuant
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1701/
2000 (5).

to all

Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 provides that
the Commission may, on the basis of the tenders noti-
fied,
in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, decide to fix
a maximum export refund taking account of the criteria

referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95.
In that case a contract is awarded to any tenderer whose
bid is equal to or lower than the maximum refund, as
well as to any tenderer whose bid relates to an export
tax.

(3)

(4)

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

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

For tenders notified from 8 to 14 September 2000, pursuant to
the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1701/
2000, the maximum refund on exportation of common wheat
shall be EUR 0,00/t.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 September 2000.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 14 September 2000.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 313, 21.11.1998, p. 16.
(5) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p. 18.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1944/2000 of 14 September 2000 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2000-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, grape, import price, pip fruit, stone fruit

15.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 233/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1944/2000

of 14 September 2000

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and
vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(2)

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

the standard
In compliance with the above criteria,
import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the
Annex to this Regulation,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of
21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the
last
import arrangements
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1498/98 (2), and in particular
Article 4(1) thereof,

fruit and vegetables (1), as

for

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Whereas:

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the
outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade nego-
tiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the
in
standard values for imports from third countries,
respect of the products and periods stipulated in the
Annex thereto.

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regula-
tion (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex
hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 September 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 14 September 2000.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.
(2) OJ L 198, 15.7.1998, p. 4.

L 233/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.9.2000

to the Commission Regulation of 14 September 2000 establishing the standard import values for determining
the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

ANNEX

CN code

0702 00 00

0707 00 05

0709 90 70

0805 30 10

0806 10 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

0809 30 10, 0809 30 90

0809 40 05

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
999
052
628
999
052
628
999
388
524
528
999
052
064
400
999
388
400
512
800
804
999
052
064
999
052
999
052
060
064
066
068
400
624
999

85,5
85,5
85,5
142,3
113,9
75,4
96,2
85,8
59,8
93,2
62,7
71,9
74,1
58,3
204,2
112,2
89,9
57,3
69,9
199,0
74,7
98,2
78,3
56,4
67,3
97,3
97,3
71,3
64,9
55,3
46,6
51,1
125,4
226,5
91,6

(1) Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2543/1999 (OJ L 307, 2.12.1999, p. 46). Code ‘999’ stands for ‘of

other origin’.