do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0126/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Droit de suite.
Date: 2001-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: approximation of laws, artist's resale right, literary and artistic property, work of art

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/255

(2001/C 174 E/274)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0126/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Droit de suite

Is the proposal for a directive on Droit de Suite compatible with Article 295 of the EC Treaty as amended?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

The Court of Justice confirmed in Opinion 1/94 (1) that in the field of intellectual property the Community
has internal competence to harmonise national laws pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 (ex Articles 100 and
100a) of the EC Treaty. It has also ruled, under consistent case law, that Article 295 cannot be interpreted
as reserving to the national legislature, in relation to industrial and commercial property, the power to
adopt measures which would adversely affect the principle of the free movement of goods within the
common market. The Court has suggested the idea of approximating national legislation in this field in the
future (2).

The proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the resale right for the
benefit of the author of an original work of art (3) seeks to introduce a harmonised legal framework for
resale rights in order to ensure that the market in modern and contemporary works of art operates
properly within the Community.

It thus complies with the objectives stated in Articles 94 and 95 concerning the harmonisation of laws and
is compatible with Article 295 (ex Article 222) of the EC Treaty.

(1) Opinion 1/94 of 15 November 1994 (Reports of Cases 1994, p. I-5267).
(2) Commission v. United Kingdom, C-30/90 (Reports of Cases 1992, p. I-829); Spain v. Council, C-350/92 (Reports of

Cases 1995, p. I-1985).

(3) OJ C 178, 21.6.1996.

(2001/C 174 E/275)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0134/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Secrecy of legislative proceedings

Will the Commission seek the advice of its Legal Service so as to determine whether the continued practice
of the Council of Ministers meeting in secret, even when discussing legislation, is consistent with:

(a)

the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and

(b)

the constitutional traditions common to the Member States?

Does the Commission consider that this practice complies with Article 6 of the Treaty on European
Union?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2001)

The Council(cid:146)s decision-making arrangements are set out in its rules of procedure, adopted pursuant to
the EC Treaty. These rules were amended in order to take into account transparency requirements. On the
basis of the rules, the Council can meet in camera or hold open meetings. Under these circumstances, the
Commission does not wish to comment on Council practices.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 224/2001 of 1 February 2001 concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 2097/2000
Date: 2001-02-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Finland, Sweden, award of contract, export licence, export refund, oats

L 31/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.2.2001

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 224/2001

of 1 February 2001

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of oats issued in
Regulation (EC) No 2097/2000

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),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2097/2000
of 3 October 2000 on a special
intervention measure for
cereals in Finland and Sweden (5), and in particular Article 8
thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of
oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from
Finland or Sweden to all third countries was opened
pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2097/2000.

(2)

(3)

(4)

Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2097/2000 provides
that the Commission may, on the basis of the tenders
notified, in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, decide to
make no award.

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of
Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 a maximum refund should
not be fixed.

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

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 26
January to 1 February 2001 in response to the invitation to
tender for the refund for the export of oats issued in Regula-
tion (EC) No 2097/2000.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 February 2001.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 1 February 2001.

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 249, 4.10.2000, p. 15.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0171/01 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Consultation and the CFP review.
Date: 2001-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common fisheries policy, political participation, transparency in decision-making

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/139

(2001/C 235 E/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0169/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Irregularities in the placing of land registry studies in Greece

On 10 November 2000, I tabled Question E-3647/00 (1) on irregularities in the placing of land registry
studies in the Second Principal Programme for a land registry of Greece. In its reply the Commission,
having confirmed that it had in fact received complaints, stated that it had received a reply from the Greek
authorities to a letter which it had sent them and was examining it.

Will the Commission say whether it has completed its detailed evaluation of the Greek authorities(cid:146) written
reply? If so, is it in a position to give precise answers to my previous questions?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 198.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2001)

The Commission can confirm to the Honourable Member that it has now completed its evaluation of the
Greek authorities(cid:146) written reply regarding the allegations of irregularities during the tendering procedure
for studies on a land registry for Greece. The Commission has sent a new letter to the Greek authorities on
this matter in order to clarify certain aspects of the procedure which remain unclear.

The Commission is consequently obliged to wait for the response from the Greek authorities to this last
letter before deciding what action to take.

(2001/C 235 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0171/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Consultation and the CFP review

What plans does the Commission have to consult stakeholders as widely as possible following publication
of the Green Paper on the CFP review?

(2001/C 235 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0211/01

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Consultation on CFP review

What plans does the Commission have to consult stakeholders as widely as possible following publication
of the Green Paper on the CFP review?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0174/01 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Fisheries and the precautionary principle.
Date: 2001-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, common fisheries policy, environmental protection, fishery management, precautionary principle

C 235 E/142

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-173/01 and E-0213/01
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2001)

The Commission intends to keep the candidate countries informed of the consultation process for the
Common Fisheries Policy review through the normal meetings which regularly take place with these
countries, notably the meetings organised in the framework of the Association Agreements.

(2001/C 235 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0174/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Fisheries and the precautionary principle

The EC Treaty requires that Community policy on the environment should be based on the precautionary
principle (Article 174). How does the Commission intend to apply the precautionary principle to fisheries
policy decisions?

(2001/C 235 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0214/01

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Fisheries and the precautionary principle

The EC Treaty requires that Community policy on the environment should be based on the precautionary
principle (Article 147). How does the Commission intend to apply the precautionary principle to fisheries
policy decisions?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0174/01 and E-0214/01
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The application of the precautionary principle is recognised in two forthcoming Communications by the
the key elements in achieving the integration of environmental protection
Commission as one of
requirements, including conservation of biodiversity, into the Common Fisheries Policy. Firstly a strategy
for the integration of environmental protection requirements and secondly an Action Plan for biodiversity
for fisheries will be presented to the Council and the Parliament during spring of this year.

The Commission has also explained in the recently adopted Communication on this principle and
multiannual arrangements (1) how this work will be carried forward for the commercially important
species. The two Communications mentioned above will explain how the principle will be applied in
a broader sense,
leading to full
including to non-target species, habitats and food web interactions,
integration into the fisheries policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0193/01 by Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Second Chance Schools.
Date: 2001-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Social Fund, competence of the Member States, educational institution, integration into employment, principle of subsidiarity

C 235 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

The Commission would draw attention to the fact that the use of cash dispensers is often a cheaper
alternative for obtaining local currency.

(1) See answer to Written Question P-0052/99 by Mr Tamino (OJ C 325, 12.11.1999).
(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.

(2001/C 235 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0193/01

by Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Second Chance Schools

The purpose of Second Chance schools is to integrate young people lacking qualifications in an education
and training programme with a view to gaining employment.

The first pilot establishment was set up in Marseilles in November 1997 and began teaching courses
in January 1998. It has since successfully taken on more than 300 students.

Unfortunately, the school has been unable to function properly due to a lack of coordination between the
European Commission and the French state services.

As it is, the disbursement of the European Social Funds that provides the bulk financing for state schools is
carried out by the regional representatives of the French State in accordance with the principle of
subsidiarity.

Apparently the current system does not provide the Second Chance school in Marseilles with the funding
it requires to function.

The establishments in question must meet specific criteria in order to receive funding, yet the special
nature of this type of school, as described in the Commission(cid:146)s White Paper (cid:145)Teaching and Learning
Towards a Learning Society(cid:146) is not taken into account.

Could the Commission outline the measures that it intends taking to rectify this situation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The integration of young people into the labour market remains one of the political priorities of the
European Social Fund (ESF) during the new programming period 2000-2006.

However, the management of ESF-cofinanced programmes is based on strict compliance with the principle
of subsidiarity.

The ESF, despite its role as cofinancer, is therefore not involved in examining and selecting the projects to
be funded, as programme implementation is the responsibility of the Member State.

Consequently, regardless of the potential benefits of any specific project, the Commission is not in
a position to contact the programme managing authorities in order to try to influence their choices.

This means uncertainties regarding the procedures for taking account of the Second Chance School under
ESF programming for 2000-2006 cannot be put down to any lack of coordination between the
Commission and the French state services.

Any questions concerning this project should therefore be sent to the competent national authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0177/01 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Fleet renewal and overcapacity.
Date: 2001-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: FIFG, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishing fleet, fishing industry, fishing vessel, modernisation aid

C 235 E/144

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

(2001/C 235 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0209/01

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Fishing fleet overcapacity

The Commission estimates that the EU fleet is at least 40 % too large for the available resources. What
plans will the Commission propose to tacklet this serious problem?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-176/01 and E-0209/01
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2001)

According to the reports of two groups of independent experts set up to advise the Commission during
preparation of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleet (MAGP), fishing mortality rates
on the fish stocks in European waters are excessive. The figure of 40 % is typical of the reduction in fishing
mortality that would be required to manage the fish stocks on a sustainable basis.

In response to the conclusions of the expert groups, the Commission proposed substantial cuts in fishing
effort for both the MAGP III (1992-1996) and the MAGP IV (1997-2001). However on both occasions the
reductions originally proposed by the Commission were considered by the Council to be too severe.

The reductions in effort achieved during the MAGP III and the MAGP IV were not sufficient to counteract
the effects of technological progress, which tends to make the fleet more efficient with time. In view of
this, the Commission considers that the European fleet remains much too large for the available resources.

The Commission intends to tackle this problem by proposing further permanent reductions in fishing
effort following the MAGP IV.

(2001/C 235 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0177/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Fleet renewal and overcapacity

The OECD estimates that € 1,3 billion was spent in 1997 to subsidise the European fisheries sector. A large
proportion of this was used for fleet renewal and modernisation. Considering the large overcapacity of the
EU fleet, does the Commission consider that this was money well spent and what safeguards are in place
to make sure that the funds are not used to fuel overcapacity?

(2001/C 235 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0208/01

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Fleet renewal and overcapacity

The OECD estimates that € 1,3 billion was spend in 1997 to subsidise the European fisheries sector. A large
proportion of this was used for fleet renewal and modernisation. Considering the large overcapacity of the
EU fleet, does the Commission consider that this was money well spent? What safeguards are in place to
make sure that the funds are not used to fuel overcapacity?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 221/2001 of 1 February 2001 fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2014/2000
Date: 2001-02-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: ACP countries, award of contract, common wheat, export licence, export refund

2.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 31/11

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 221/2001

of 1 February 2001

fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the invitation to tender
issued in Regulation (EC) No 2014/2000

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 7 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of
to certain ACP States was opened
common wheat
pursuant
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2014/
2000 (5).

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.

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

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

(3)

(4)

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 26 January to 1 February 2001,
pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC)
No 2014/2000,
the maximum refund on exportation of
common wheat shall be EUR 15,50/t.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 February 2001.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 1 February 2001.

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 241, 26.9.2000, p. 23.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 222/2001 of 1 February 2001 fixing the maximum export refund on barley in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2317/2000
Date: 2001-02-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, barley, export, export refund, third country

L 31/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.2.2001

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 222/2001

of 1 February 2001

fixing the maximum export refund on barley in connection with the invitation to tender issued in
Regulation (EC) No 2317/2000

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 for the export of
barley to all third countries except for the United States
of America and Canada was opened pursuant
to
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2317/2000 (5).

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.

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

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

(3)

(4)

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 26 January to 1 February 2001,
pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC)
No 2317/2000, the maximum refund on exportation of barley
shall be EUR 0,00/t.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 February 2001.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 1 February 2001.

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 267, 20.10.2000, p. 23.