do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3784/00 by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Secret protocol to the St Malo Declaration.
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Parliament, European defence policy, powers of the institutions (EU)

C 174 E/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2001)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the additional answer to his Written Question E-0951/00 (1).

(1) See page 3.

(2001/C 174 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3784/00

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Secret protocol to the St Malo Declaration

At the St Malo Summit of 3 and 4 December 1998, the French and British Governments issued a joint
Declaration on European defence. According to the Declaration, the EU (cid:145)must have the capacity for
autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a
readiness to do so, in order to respond to military crises(cid:146). At the same time, the Declaration said that
collective security was a matter for NATO and that NATO had a predominant role in the territorial
defence of Europe.

According to a newspaper article which appeared in the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad on 8 March
2000, there was allegedly a secret protocol attached to the Declaration, which laid down that the European
Parliament should never be involved in the shaping of the future European Security and Defence Policy.

Are the Council and its Secretary-General aware of the existence of any such protocol to the St Malo

1.
Declaration?

2. Will the Member States, the European Commission and the European Parliament be informed about
the contents of the protocol?

Reply

(12 March 2001)

1.
The Franco-British Declaration on European defence to which the Honourable Member refers was
adopted by the Heads of State or Government of France and the United Kingdom at the bilateral Summit
held in St Malo on 3 and 4 December 1998.

The European Council met on 11 and 12 December 1998 in Vienna. On that occasion it welcomed

2.
the Franco-British Declaration made at St Malo.

3.
The Council does not know of any secret protocol attached to the Franco-British Declaration on
European defence and stating that the European Parliament should never be involved in the establishment
of the future European Security and Defence Policy.

4.
The European Council has on several occasions recalled that the development of the Common
European Security and Defence Policy is an integral part of the strengthening of the Common Foreign and
Security Policy, on which the Parliament is kept regularly informed under Article 21 of the Treaty on
European Union.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2608/2000 of 29 November 2000 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 18th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1531/2000
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, white sugar

30.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 301/69

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2608/2000

of 29 November 2000

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 18th 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 18th 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 18th 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 41,270 EUR/100 kg.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 November 2000.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 29 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-3683/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Amounts allotted under and implementation of the Cohesion Fund.
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, distribution of aid

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/193

(2001/C 163 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3683/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Amounts allotted under and implementation of the Cohesion Fund

(29 November 2000)

Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted to each Member State under the Cohesion
Fund during the 1994-1999 programming period and what was the out-turn in each country?

Can it say what aggregate amounts have been allotted to each Member State under the Cohesion Fund in
2000 and what has been the out-turn to date in each country?

How does the Commission view out-turn of the Cohesion Fund during the 1994-1999 programming
period in each of the recipient Member States?

How does the Commission view out-turn of the Cohesion Fund so far in the year 2000 in each of the
recipient Member States?

Does it have any means of rectifying implementation of the Cohesion Fund in recipient Member States that
are not implementing it fully or properly?

Could unused appropriations be transferred to Cohesion Fund countries which are making full and
effective use of the resources allocated to them?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

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

(2001/C 163 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3684/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Amounts allotted under and implementation of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted to each Member State under the ERDF
during the 1994-1999 programming period and what was the out-turn in each country?

Can it say what aggregate amounts have been allotted to each Member State under the ERDF in 2000 and
what has been the out-turn to date in each country?

What is its assessment of ERDF out-turn in each Member State during the 1994-1999 programming
period?

How does the Commission view ERDF out-turn so far in the year 2000 in the individual Member States?

Does it have any means of rectifying implementation of the ERDF in Member States that are not
implementing it fully or properly?

Could unused appropriations be transferred to Member States which are making full and effective use of
the resources allocated to them?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3826/00 by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission. Improper use of the Valpolicella brand name in a publicity campaign against drink-driving.
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, Italy, advertising, alcoholism, defamation, designation of origin, red wine, road safety

C 235 E/24

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

(2001/C 235 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3826/00

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Improper use of the Valpolicella brand name in a publicity campaign against drink-driving

An article published on 12 November 2000 in the Verona newspaper (cid:145)Arena(cid:146) reveals that Valpolicella
Consortium advertisements have been used in Ireland in a campaign against drink-driving in an improper
and damaging way. The Valpolicella brand name is shown in the campaign with the letters (cid:145)police(cid:146), which
appear within the word, highlighted in red so as to create an obvious connection between the name of the
wine and checks by police officers.

Although a publicity campaign against drink-driving is a legitimate and praiseworthy initiative, does the
Commission not consider that the use of a specific registered appellation of origin, such as the Valpolicella
Consortium, constitutes a defamatory act resulting in considerable commercial damage to the brand name?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to resolve the situation?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

The Irish authorities have informed the Commission that no official campaign against drink-driving has
been organised in that Member State in the way described by the Honourable Member.

The publicity cited in the Verona newspaper (cid:145)L(cid:146)Arena(cid:146) appeared on some items imported from the United
Kingdom and it was an isolated and accidental occurrence. The items were immediately withdrawn from
the market once the Irish authorities became aware of the incident.

(2001/C 235 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3841/00

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Transport of animals

As the Commission has often recognised the failure of some EU Member States in implementing Council
Directive 91/628/EEC (1)
(amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC (2)) within the EU borders, can the
Commission provide an evaluation of the implementation of the provisions of this Directive during the
export of animals from the last place within the EU(cid:146)s borders to the first place of unloading within third
countries of final destination?

Can the Commission specify the following:

(cid:129) As Article 9 of Directive 91/628/EC provides for the application of certain welfare assistance standards
to animals which are suffering or are injured (also as a result of the use of means of transport not
complying with the provisions of the Directive), do such animals benefit from those assistance
standards at the first place of unloading in third countries? And if not, can the Commission explain
why?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3690/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU contribution to the Andalusian plan to promote development in Morocco.
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Andalusia, EU programme, Morocco, development aid, regional development

C 163 E/198

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

The second project is called (cid:145)Nutritional Enhancement of Diet in Europe (Neodiet)(cid:146), where one of the issues
studied were plant sterols like polyphenols, which contribute to the healthy image of olive oil and improve
its stability. The project has been financed within the scope of the concerted action FAIR-CT97-3052.

(2001/C 163 E/230)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3690/00

by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: EU contribution to the Andalusian plan to promote development in Morocco

The Andalusian Regional Government will be allocating ESP 1 500 million to finance operations to
promote development in Morocco under a cross-border plan, which will initially remain in force until
2005.

The programme is the first to have been agreed between a European region and a country linked by such
close ties to the Union as Morocco. In addition to the contributions from the Autonomous Community of
Andalusia and Morocco, the Andalusian Regional Government takes the view that the Union should be
involved in the project, since this would boost the Intered and Medea programmes already under way.

Can the Commission say whether it is willing to accept the suggestion by the Andalusian regional
government spokesman that it should participate actively in the joint programme being undertaken by
Morocco and Andalusia by offering its active assistance and material support to enable the programme to
achieve its aims?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

The Commission welcomes the aid of ESP 1 500 million pesetas which Andalusia is to earmark for a cross-
frontier development plan with the Kingdom of Morocco. This cross-border cooperation will certainly help
to develop the north of the country, the region which is the main source of the migratory pressure upon
the EU from Morocco.

As regards the MEDA II (2000-2006) programme, the Commission compiled a country strategy paper
(CSP), which was discussed with the Member States. This CSP served as a basis for drawing up, with the
Moroccan authorities, the 2000-2002 national indicative programme (NIP). The Member States delivered a
positive opinion on the NIP, which was recently adopted by the Commission.

Since no such request was made by the Kingdom of Morocco, the 2000-2002 NIP does not include any
cross-border project or programme. Under the MEDA regulation cross-frontier projects cannot be financed
under bilateral programming.

The Commission could consider financing a Moroccan component of a project under the Interreg
programme, which covers only the frontier areas of the EU, if the Kingdom of Morocco so requested and
if the Member States agreed as part of a future revision of the NIP.
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and on information to be published on those securities (codified version)"
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: interinstitutional agreement, legal code, securities

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/69

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and
on information to be published on those securities (codified version)’

(2001/C 116/16)

On 20 September 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 November
2000. The rapporteur was Mr Lehnhoff.

At its 377th plenary session on 29 and 30 November 2000 (meeting of 29 November) the Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 112 votes in favour, none against and no
abstentions.

1.
The Committee supports the Commission’s proposal for
the codification of Community legislation on the admission
of securities to official stock exchange listing and on the
information to be published on these securities.

2.
The Committee has repeatedly advocated that Com-
munity legislation should be simpler and clearer so as to make
it more accessible to the general public and has already noted
that the application of the Commission’s decision of 1 April

1987 and the subsequent conclusions of
the Edinburgh
European Council Summit in December 1992 on this subject
are moves in the right direction. Similarly, the Committee
welcomes the inter-institutional agreement of 20 December
1994 whereby the European Parliament, the Council and the
Commission have agreed that an accelerated procedure may
be used for the fast-track adoption of codification instruments,
provided that no changes of substance are made to the
instruments affected by legislative codification.

Brussels, Brussels, 29 November 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3801/00 by Earl of Stockton (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Longline fishing.
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: FAO, action programme, bird, fishing industry, protection of animal life

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/21

the Commission
transparency and to keep Community exporters duly informed,
For the sake of
periodically publishes an updated list of control agents approved by the Member States in the C series of
the Official Journal. The warning which accompanies the list published in Official Journal C 295 of
18 October 2000 features nothing new; it is the same warning which appeared when the list was first
published.

The purpose of this warning is simply to remind exporters of the precautions to be taken with regard to
documents issued by the control and supervisory agents.

(2001/C 235 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3801/00

by Earl of Stockton (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Longline fishing

What action is currently being taken or is being considered to counter the threat caused to seabirds by
longline fishing?

Will the Commission consider calling on the relevant organisations and authorities to introduce measures
to mitigate the danger, including:

1.

using bird-scaring line with plastic streamers attached,

2. weighting the lines so that they sink faster and pose less risk,

3. prohibiting the discharge of offal at sea, which attracts seabirds to the lines,

4.

setting the longlines at night when albatross and other seabirds are less likely to be foraging?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Community is well aware of the incidental catches of seabirds in longline fisheries and has therefore
actively participated in the preparation of the Food and agriculture organisation (FAO) International plan
of action for reducing incidental catch of seabirds. This plan foresees the presentation of voluntary national
plan of action to reduce incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries where this occurs.

The Community has the intention to present a Community plan of action to the next FAO fisheries
committee (COFI) at the end of February 2001. This plan of action will recall the commitment of the
Community towards the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources (CCAMLR) conservation and
control measures that have been incorporated into Council Regulation (EC) No 66/98 of 18 December
1997 laying down certain conservation and control measures applicable to fishing activities in the
Antarctic and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2113/96 (1). Those CCAMLR mitigation measures include the
one quoted in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question and are already implemented.

(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1998.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2614/2000 of 29 November 2000 on the issuing of system B export licences for fruit and vegetables
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export licence, export refund, fruit, vegetable

L 301/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.11.2000

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2614/2000

of 29 November 2000

on the issuing of system B export licences for fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2190/96 of
14 November 1996 on detailed rules for implementing Council
Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit
and vegetables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
298/2000 (2), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,

Whereas:

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1877/2000 (3) fixed the
indicative quantities laid down for the issue of export
licences other than those requested in the context of
food aid.

information now available to the
In the light of
Commission,
quantities have been
exceeded in the case of hazelnuts in shell, walnuts in
shell, oranges,

lemons, table grapes and apples.

indicative

the

(1)

(2)

(3)

refund for all products covered by licences applied for
under system B from 16 September to 15 November
2000 should be the indicative rate,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The percentages for the issuing of system B export licences, as
referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2190/96, and
applied for between 16 September and 15 November 2000, by
which the quantities applied for and the rates of refund applic-
able must be multiplied, are as fixed in the Annex hereto.

The above subparagraph does not apply to licences applied for
in connection with food-aid operations as provided for in
the Agreement on Agriculture concluded
Article 10(4) of
during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations.

Those overruns are without prejudice to compliance
with the limits resulting from the agreements concluded
in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty. The rate of

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 November 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 29 November 2000.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 34, 9.2.2000, p. 16.
(3) OJ L 225, 5.9.2000, p. 10.

30.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 301/81

ANNEX

Percentages for the issuing of licences and rates of refund applicable to system B licences applied for between 16
September and 15 November 2000

Product

Percentage for the
issuing of
licences

Rate of refund
(EUR/tonne net)

Tomatoes

Shelled almonds

Hazelnuts in shell

Shelled hazelnuts

Walnuts in shell

Oranges

Lemons

Table grapes

Apples

Peaches and nectarines

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

18,0

45,0

53,0

103,0

66,0

45,0

45,0

23,0

36,0

27,0