WRITTEN QUESTION E-0876/01 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission. Food aid to Russia.
Date: 2001-03-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Russia, aid policy, export refund, food aid, re-import

C 340 E/114

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

for consent is submitted to
Under Article 3(2) of Directive 97/11/EC, projects for which a request
a competent authority before 14 March 1999 shall be governed by the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC
prior to the amendments, not the amended version. The project in question was submitted to the
competent authority before 14 March 1999.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 340 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0876/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Food aid to Russia

The Court of Auditors Special Report (1) concerning the programme to supply agriculture products to the
Russian Federation reveals the difficulties encountered in supplying goods to Russia.

In any future food aid schemes will the Commission refrain from supplying it to countries of current

1.
commercial interest to Community exporters?

Does experience with the state-to-state agreement on food aid to Russia give the Commission cause

2.
to reassess exporter liability for that country, see previous Questions E-0979/00 (2) and E-2792/00 (3)?

(1) OJ C 25, 25.1.2001.
(2) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 6.
(3) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 177.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

The Community policy on Food Aid and Food Aid management

1.
improvement of food security of developing countries.

is oriented towards the

The policy, in line with the Food Aid Convention and its Code of Conduct, is carefully oriented to avoid
any adverse effects on the production and commercial import structures of the recipient countries.

There have been rare exceptions to those principles, made only in a few urgent cases in countries going
through economic crisis for which an immediate (and temporary) response was deemed necessary.

As to the future, on the basis of an assessment of the food aid/food security instrument, the Commission is
currently drafting a Communication on food aid and food security which will reiterate the principles
mentioned above.

2. Written Question E-979/00 by the Honourable Member (1) relates to the specific matter of re-
importation of goods eligible for refund. The Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question E-2792/00 (2) also
relates to the re-importation of goods eligible for refund.

Special Report No 18/2000 by the Court of Auditors concerning the programme to supply agricultural
products to the Russian Federation does not imply that any of these goods were re-imported into the
Community. Moreover, supplies under the programme are not eligible for export refunds (Article 2(4) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 of 17 December 1998 on a programme to supply agricultural
products to the Russian Federation (3)).

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/115

To simplify the task of exporters, the Commission laid down special measures for the export to Russia of
goods eligible for refunds in a Decision of 28 July 1999, renewed by a Decision of 21 June 2000.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001.
(2) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001.
(3) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998.

(2001/C 340 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0881/01

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Laser pointer pens

I understand that, in the United States, lasers are classified in a slightly different way from in the EU. The
American national standard for lasers has six classes, and the method of allocation is different from the
European standard. This has caused some problems with labelling. In some cases, American class 2 lasers
would be classified as class IIIA using the European standard. Laser pointers usually contain class II lasers
Importing into the EU pointers
which give a suitable range and power for their intended purpose.
classified and labelled in accordance with the American standard means that they may be classified
incorrectly and consequently mislabelled. What measures have been taken, or are to be taken, to ensure
that pens imported into the EU are labelled in accordance with the EU standard?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission is currently carrying out a technical examination of the problem mentioned by the
Honourable Member and will communicate to her the results of its research within the next few weeks.
The Commission will also raise this specific issue in the Emergency Committee (under the General Product
Safety Directive, Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 (1)) on 22 June 2001, in order to have
Member States experiences.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(2001/C 340 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0882/01

by Carlos Carnero GonzÆlez (PSE) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Complaint regarding the construction of an industrial estate in a special bird protection area in

San Fernando de Henares (Spain)

The El Molino cultural association has issued a complaint regarding the go-ahead given by San Fernando
de Henares town council (Community of Madrid, Spain) for a project to build an industrial estate on a site
set aside as ZEPA (special bird protection area) 142. The partial encroachment into and alterations to the
area would be in breach of the European legislation in force, not least Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

According to the local media, the complaint was lodged with the Commission on 2 September 2000, and
in a written reply dated 16 January 2001 the Commission reportedly stated that the complaint was
admissible and that a procedure was being launched to ascertain and investigate the facts referred to in the
complaint (Cr(cid:243)nica de Madrid, 12 February 2001).