do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3606/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Antibiotics in eggs.
Date: 2000-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, antibiotic, egg, health control

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/177

(2001/C 163 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3606/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Antibiotics in eggs

In its reply to Written Question E-1093/00 (1), the Commission referred to a report on the monitoring
scheme which had not yet been forwarded to it by the Italian authorities. Would the Commission state
whether it has obtained a copy of the report yet, and if so, what findings it contains in relation to the issue
raised in that earlier Written Question? Would the Commission also state what action it has taken or
intends to take?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 18.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues
thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and
Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1) requires the Member States to submit an annual report on
residue monitoring in food of animal origin which includes eggs. The Member States can select each year
which specific substances they will target for residue testing.

The Commission received the 1999 report from Italy in June 2000.
quinolones or sulfonamides.

In 1999,

Italy did not target

Moreover the Italian authorities informed the Commission that they could not follow up the study carried
out by (cid:145)Altro Consumo(cid:146) because of a lack of precise information on the origin of the eggs and the
analytical methods applied.

In 2000, Italy has included these groups of substances in their residue plan for eggs. Results will be
available as from April 2001.

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(2001/C 163 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3608/00

by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: MEDIA II grants for cinemas

A Hamburg cinema, which meets the requirements for a grant under the MEDIA II programme that
expires this year, has tried in vain to obtain financial support in accordance with the programme criteria. It
failed because it is not a member of a European cinema network. It was unable to join a network because
there is an unlimited moratorium on further members.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. The MEDIA II programme only supports cinema operators who are members of a cinema network.

What conditions must an applicant fulfil in order to participate in a network?

2. How does the Commission ensure that cinema operators who deserve support obtain access to the

networks without being subject to discrimination?

3.

If the Commission cannot safeguard such access, does it give preference when selecting networks to
those which provide access and allocate funds free from discrimination?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2565/2000 of 22 November 2000 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 17th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1531/2000
Date: 2000-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, white sugar

23.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 295/7

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2565/2000

of 22 November 2000

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 17th partial invitation to tender issued
within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No
1531/2000

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13
September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets
in the sugar sector (1), as amended by Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1527/2000 (2), and in particular the second subpara-
graph of Article 18(5) thereof,

and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to
tender in question.

(3)

(4)

Following an examination of the tenders submitted in
response to the 17th partial
invitation to tender, the
provisions set out in Article 1 should be adopted.

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1531/2000 of 13 July
2000 on a standing invitation to tender to determine
levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (3),
requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the
export of this sugar.

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1531/
2000 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the
case may be, account being taken in particular of the
state and foreseeable development of the Community

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 17th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued
pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1531/2000 the maximum
amount of the export refund is fixed at 41,429 EUR/100 kg.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 November 2000.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 22 November 2000.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 252, 25.9.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 175, 14.7.2000, p. 59.
(3) OJ L 175, 14.7.2000, p. 69.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3588/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Budgetary contributions of Member States.
Date: 2000-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Internet site, Member States' contribution, access to EU information, use of languages

C 174 E/84

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

Reply

(8 March 2001)

The United Kingdom authorities have not referred the matter of the submarine docked in Gibraltar to the
Council, which cannot therefore reply to these questions.

(2001/C 174 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3588/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Budgetary contributions of Member States

It is noted with regret that the Commission, when asked in Written Question E-2025/00 (1) to indicate the
net contributions of each of the Member States for the last financial year, did not list the net contributions
as requested, but instead referred to a website which was only available in French and did not, in any case,
provide the required information; furthermore, the Commission stated that (cid:145)despite the availability of
estimates of budgetary balances by Member State, it is to be noted that there exists no optional way to
measure net contributions.(cid:146)

Could the Commission explain the above statement, and, in particular, identify what other ways it believes
exist of calculating net contributions other than subtracting the amounts received from the European
institutions from the amounts paid in to those same institutions, and could the Commission, in any event,
list in the answer to this question without reference to any website (useful though websites may be as
additional sources of information) the financial contributions and receipts of each of the European Union(cid:146)s
Member States for the last two financial years for which figures are currently available?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 170.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2001)

The Commission is sending to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament
the report on the allocation of 1999 Community operating expenditure by Member State. The Honourable
Member will see this is in English.

The Commission has explored the issues related to the definition of budgetary or net balances in its report
on the operation of the own resources system, in particular in annex 3 on the concept and measurement
of the budgetary balance. The statistical annex of this report also provides data on budgetary balances
according to different definitions. This report and its annex is also sent direct to the Honourable Member
and to the Parliament(cid:146)s secretariat.

(2001/C 174 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3590/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Health expenditure in Cuba

Would the Commission give a detailed financial breakdown, including historic figures, on support to the
Cuban health sector?

Would the Commission be specific about the nature of that support, for example, did it include funding
for infrastructure?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3593/00 by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission. Availability of EU statistics in official languages.
Date: 2000-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU statistics, access to EU information, official language, use of languages

C 151 E/192

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty gives the Community the right to encourage cooperation
between Member States in the field of culture. The issue raised by the Honourable Member is not a
Community matter, however. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, this is a matter exclusively for the
Member State concerned.

(2001/C 151 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3593/00

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pes(cid:228)l(cid:228) (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Availability of EU statistics in official languages

(22 November 2000)

We have observed that it is not possible to obtain some of the most important statistics from the Eurostat
services on the Internet in any languages other than English, French or German. As many of the indexes
are complicated, this makes it awkward to access the Eurostat services.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to improve the opportunities for citizens to obtain
some of the most important economic statistics in all the EU(cid:146)s official languages?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

Eurostat is very attentive to the issue of citizens having access to statistical data in the various Community
languages.

However, at present, Eurostat only has sufficient human and financial resources to make its published
information available to users in English, French and German, but not in all 11 Community languages.
information published more quickly, which users consider very
Moreover, the need to have statistical
important, also prevents documents from being made available in all the Community languages.

Nevertheless, Eurostat does try each year to produce one or more publications in all 11 Community
languages (e.g. (cid:145)Europe in figures(cid:146)) with a wide circulation (300 000 copies).

Eurostat will, however, investigate the possibility of publishing a range of basic statistical indicators on the
Internet in the 11 Community languages for 2001.

(2001/C 151 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3597/00

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: The Emcdda and the Santa Maria de Feira summit

(22 November 2000)

When the European Summit at Santa Maria de Feira adopted the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2000-2004,
it decided as follows (1):

The Member States according to technical tools and guidelines provided by Emcdda to give reliable
information on the five key epidemiological indicators in a comparable form drawn up by the Emcdda
and adopted by the Council:

1.

extent and pattern of drug use in the general population;

2. prevalence of problem drug use;
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3631/00 by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Situation of managerial staff in the European Union.
Date: 2000-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EP resolution, drafting of EU law, middle management, senior management

C 136 E/236

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Commission has not been informed of the problem referred to by the Honourable Member. On the
basis of the limited information at its disposal, it does not feel able to take any steps to deal with this
matter.

It would therefore ask the Honourable Member, if he can provide further information, to draft a new and
more detailed version of his question.

(2001/C 136 E/278)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3631/00

by Stefano Zappal(cid:224) (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Situation of managerial staff in the European Union

(22 November 2000)

After the European Parliament(cid:146)s Committee on Social Affairs, Employment and the Working Environment
had adopted report A3-0196/93, Parliament approved the resolution on the situation of managerial staff in
the European Union contained therein on 25 June 1993 (1). What action has the Commission taken in
response to Parliament(cid:146)s demands?

(1) OJ C 194, 19.7.1993, p. 347.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

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

(2001/C 136 E/279)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3640/00

by Ant(cid:243)nio Campos (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Common Agricultural Policy

One of the Union(cid:146)s most important objectives (cid:129) if not the most important (cid:129) for the next few years is
enlargement. This will require extensive political reforms, including reform of the CAP.

Will the Commission therefore state by how much the EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure is to be
increased as a result of enlargement in relation to the three countries mentioned below, assuming that
these countries will be entitled to the same treatment as currently applies to the fifteen EU Member States:

1.

2.

3.

Increase in EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure, following the accession of Poland.

Increase in EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure, following the accession of Hungary.

Increase in EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure, following the accession of the Czech Republic.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at the 71st meeting on 18 November 1999 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.1578 - Sanitec/Sphinx (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2000-11-22
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: advisory committee (EU), application of EU law, competition law, economic concentration, plumbing equipment

22.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331/5

of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at the 71st meeting on 18 November 1999
concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.1578 (cid:151) Sanitec/Sphinx

OPINION

(2000/C 331/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has a Community
dimension within the meaning of Article 1(3), constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article
3(1)(b), of the EC Merger Regulation and that it constitutes a case of cooperation under the EEA
Agreement.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant product markets as

stated in the draft decision.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment according to which the relevant
geographic market should be considered narrower than EEA and that the Nordic area or, alternatively,
the Nordic countries separately constitute a separate relevant geographic market from continental
Europe.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the concentration as notified:

(a) would not lead to the creation or strengthening of dominant positions in any relevant product

market in Continental Europe;

(b) would lead to the strengthening of a dominant position, in the ceramic sanitary ware market or,
alternatively, in the markets for WCs, WC cisterns and washbasins in the Nordic area, or alter-
natively in Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland;

(c) would further lead to the creation of a dominant position in the market for bathtubs in the Nordic

area or, alternatively, in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway;

(d) would lead to the strengthening of a dominant position in Norway or, alternatively, lead to the

creation of a dominant position in the market for shower screens in the Nordic area.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Sanitec are

adequate to remedy the competitive situation in the Nordic countries.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration, subject to the
condition of full compliance with the commitments offered by Sanitec, should be declared compatible
with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

7. The Advisory Committee invites the Commission to take into account all the other points raised by the

Member States during the discussion.

8. The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of

the

European Communities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3624/00 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission. Payments of family allowances for migrant workers.
Date: 2000-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Belgium, Türkiye, equal treatment, family benefit, migrant worker

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/183

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Commission regrets that in the absence of more detailed information it is not able to comment on the
elements to which the Honourable Member refers or to gauge whether a breach of Community law is
involved.

(2001/C 163 E/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3624/00

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Payments of family allowances for migrant workers

In the case of a Turkish migrant worker employed and living in Austria, with his wife and children
resident in Belgium, is it incumbent on the Austrian or the Belgian authority to pay family allowances/
children(cid:146)s allowances?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The EEC-Turkey Association Agreement and its Additional Protocol of 1970 contain certain social security
provisions. Under this agreement the Association Council adopted in 1980 social security provisions for
Turkish workers moving within the Community and for their families residing within the Community
(Decision No 3/80) (1).

As the Commission(cid:146)s proposal for implementing these provisions has not been adopted by the Council, the
question of whether individuals can rely directly on the provisions contained in Decision No 3/80 has
been tried by the European Court of Justice in a number of cases. As Community law now stands
(judgement of the Court of 4 May 1999 in case C-262/96 (cid:129) Sema S(cid:252)r(cid:252)l v. Bundesanstalt f(cid:252)r Arbeit) (2),
Turkish nationals falling under the scope of the above-mentioned provisions can rely on the principle of
equal treatment, as contained in that decision, for their social security rights under the national legislation
of the Member States.

In the situation mentioned by the Honourable Member, any right to family benefits for those concerned
(presuming that the Turkish migrant worker(cid:146)s wife and children are also of Turkish nationality) needs to be
answered on the basis of national
legislation in Austria and Belgium with due consideration to the
application of the above-mentioned principle of equal treatment.

In practice this means that an Austrian or Belgian institution, when applying its own national legislation
on family benefits, must put the Turkish migrant worker and his family members on an equal footing with
its own nationals.

(1) OJ C 110, 25.4.1983.
(2) ECR 1999 p. I-2685.

(2001/C 163 E/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3625/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: ACP ambassadors

Would the Commission clarify what the policy is on meetings with ambassadors from ACP countries? Is it
the case that they do not meet the President of the Commission, as was the case in the past?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2564/2000 of 22 November 2000 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2000-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit

23.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 295/5

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2564/2000

of 22 November 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,

In compliance with the above criteria,
the standard
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
standard values for imports from third countries,
in
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 23 November 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 22 November 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 295/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.11.2000

to the Commission Regulation of 22 November 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 20 10

0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70,
0805 20 90

0805 30 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
204
999
052
999
052
999
204
999

052
999
052
528
600
999
388
400
404
999
052
064
388
400
999

102,6
115,6
109,1
116,0
116,0
84,7
84,7
73,5
73,5

64,7
64,7
71,8
28,7
77,4
59,3
41,1
72,8
83,0
65,6
72,3
55,9
78,5
101,9
77,2

(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’.