Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

# Official Journal

## of the European Communities English edition Information and Notices

ISSN 0378-6986

## C 27 E

**Volume 43**

**29 January 2000**

Notice No Contents Page

I _(Information)_

**EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT**

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2000/C 27 E/001) E-0668/98 by Sir Jack Stewart-Clark to the Commission

Subject: Commission proposal for levy on blank tapes (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

(2000/C 27 E/002) E-0850/98 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the Commission

Subject: Introduction of a neighbouring-country compatibility assessment for all national legislation (Supplementary
Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

(2000/C 27 E/003) E-0931/98 by Riitta Myller, Reino Paasilinna, Pertti Paasio and Jörn Donner to the Commission

Subject: The Commission and freedom of expression (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

(2000/C 27 E/004) E-0942/98 by Allan Macartney to the Commission

Subject: ‘Ship-shaped’ production facilities for oil exploration (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

(2000/C 27 E/005) E-0976/98 by Armelle Guinebertière to the Commission

Subject: Legality, under European competition law, of the reservation of a quarter of French government and local
authority contracts for workers’ production cooperatives (WPCs) (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

(2000/C 27 E/006) E-1002/98 by Gianni Tamino to the Commission

Subject: Flouting of Community legislation in the contracting procedure for the ‘Cispadana’ road project (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

(2000/C 27 E/007) E-1777/98 by Reimer Böge to the Commission

Subject: Agenda 2000 and the WTO agreements (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

(2000/C 27 E/008) E-2879/98 by Panayotis Lambrias to the Commission

Subject: Infringement of Directive 91/674/EEC concerning insurance undertakings (Supplementary Answer) . . . . 8

(2000/C 27 E/009) E-2983/98 by John McCartin to the Commission

Subject: Excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

## EN

Notice No Contents _(continued)_ Page

(2000/C 27 E/010) E-2984/98 by John McCartin to the Commission

Subject: Derogations in motor insurance in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Joint supplementary answer to Written Questions E-2983/98 and E-2984/98 . . . . . . . . . 9

(2000/C 27 E/011) E-3099/98 by Umberto Bossi to the Commission

Subject: Professional relations among professional soccer players (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

(2000/C 27 E/012) E-3709/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission

Subject: GMO marketing approval dossier �C/NL/96/10, Directive 90/220/EEC (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . 11

(2000/C 27 E/013) E-4092/98 by Carlos Robles Piquer to the Commission

Subject: European coordination of defence industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

(2000/C 27 E/014) E-0163/99 by Mark Watts to the Commission

Subject: Railway services in the United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

(2000/C 27 E/015) E-0183/99 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission

Subject: Authorisation/approval of genetically modified seeds (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

(2000/C 27 E/016) E-0221/99 by José Mendes Bota to the Commission

Subject: Portugal lagging behind in the European single market (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

(2000/C 27 E/017) E-0388/99 by Gerhard Schmid to the Commission

Subject: Objective 5b projects in Bavaria (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

(2000/C 27 E/018) E-0417/99 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the Commission

Subject: Free movement of Greenlanders in the EU and the EEA (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

(2000/C 27 E/019) E-0506/99 by Klaus Lukas to the Commission

Subject: Sixth value added tax directive/Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

(2000/C 27 E/020) E-0513/99 by Sérgio Ribeiro to the Commission

Subject: Trade agreement with the Republic of South Africa in the textile and clothing sector . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

(2000/C 27 E/021) E-0514/99 by Sérgio Ribeiro to the Commission

Subject: Trade agreement with the Republic of South Africa in the textile and clothing sector . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0513/99 and E-0514/99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

(2000/C 27 E/022) E-0680/99 by James Nicholson to the Commission

Subject: Cancer research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

(2000/C 27 E/023) E-0687/99 by Fernand Herman to the Commission

Subject: General incentive to grow crops for non-food purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

(2000/C 27 E/024) E-0881/99 by Ursula Schleicher to the Commission

Subject: Toxic moulds in maize flour and maize products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

(2000/C 27 E/025) E-0897/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Attempts to break up the European Space Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

(2000/C 27 E/026) E-0906/99 by Manuel Escolá Hernando to the Commission

Subject: Spanish policy on xenotransplants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

(2000/C 27 E/027) E-0917/99 by Eryl McNally to the Commission

Subject: Equal opportunities and the Fifth Framework Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

(2000/C 27 E/028) E-0946/99 by Freddy Blak to the Commission

Subject: Disastrous cutbacks at Romanian children’s homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

(2000/C 27 E/029) P-0950/99 by Bernd Lange to the Commission

Subject: Ban on the hormone disruptor tributyltin (TBT) in ship coatings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

(2000/C 27 E/030) E-1017/99 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the Commission

Subject: Failure to comply with commitments entered into by DG XII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

## EN

Notice No Contents _(continued)_ Page

(2000/C 27 E/031) E-1057/99 by Phillip Whitehead to the Commission

Subject: EMEA procedure for the notification of the parallel distribution of centrally- authorised medicinal products 28

(2000/C 27 E/032) P-1120/99 by Astrid Thors to the Commission

Subject: Production of retreaded passenger and truck tyres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

(2000/C 27 E/033) P-1376/99 by Ole Krarup to the Commission

Subject: EU funding for the ETUC (European Trade Union Confederation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

(2000/C 27 E/034) P-1377/99 by Werner Langen to the Commission

Subject: Law on chimney sweeping in the Federal Republic of Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

(2000/C 27 E/035) P-1378/99 by Barbara Weiler to the Commission

Subject: European Voluntary Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

(2000/C 27 E/036) P-1379/99 by Xaver Mayer to the Commission

Subject: Protection of beavers �flood damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

(2000/C 27 E/037) P-1380/99 by Johannes Swoboda to the Commission

Subject: Income tax levied on assets in a Member State of the Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

(2000/C 27 E/038) P-1381/99 by Mark Watts to the Commission

Subject: Deregulation of public transport services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

(2000/C 27 E/039) P-1382/99 by Joan Colom i Naval to the Commission

Subject: EU aid to the Spanish flax industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

(2000/C 27 E/040) P-1383/99 by Pedro Aparicio Sánchez to the Commission

Subject: Information on the Structural Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

(2000/C 27 E/041) P-1384/99 by Per Gahrton to the Council

Subject: EU defence policy �implications of the Cologne Summit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

(2000/C 27 E/042) P-1385/99 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the Commission

Subject: Discrimination against Dutch contractors under German tax legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

(2000/C 27 E/043) E-1389/99 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission

Subject: Discrimination against EU citizens in the Federal Republic of Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

(2000/C 27 E/044) E-1471/99 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the Commission

Subject: New German tax legislation for the building sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1385/99, E-1389/99 and E-1471/99 . . . . . . . . . . . 38

(2000/C 27 E/045) P-1387/99 by Carlos Costa Neves to the Commission

Subject: Production of refined sugar in the Azores Autonomous Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

(2000/C 27 E/046) E-1388/99 by Freddy Blak to the Commission

Subject: Video surveillance of employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

(2000/C 27 E/047) E-1390/99 by Klaus Hänsch to the Commission

Subject: Commission report on checks on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road transport . 40

(2000/C 27 E/048) E-1392/99 by Ursula Schleicher to the Commission

Subject: Application of directives on the general right of residence of citizens of the Union in Portugal . . . . . . 41

(2000/C 27 E/049) E-1393/99 by Bernd Lange to the Commission

Subject: Subsidies for Vion VVaG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

(2000/C 27 E/050) E-1394/99 by Jannis Sakellariou to the Commission

Subject: Paul van Buitenen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

(2000/C 27 E/051) E-1395/99 by Gerhard Schmid to the Commission

Subject: Management of Österreichisch-Bayerische Kraftwerke AG power stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

(2000/C 27 E/052) E-1397/99 by Mathieu Grosch to the Commission

Subject: Equivalence as regards conditions for entitlement to an early retirement pension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

## EN

Notice No Contents _(continued)_ Page

(2000/C 27 E/053) E-1399/99 by Gerhard Schmid to the Commission

Subject: Daytime running lights and light-sensitive switches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

(2000/C 27 E/054) E-1400/99 by Michl Ebner and Doris Pack to the Commission

Subject: The Commission’s infringement proceedings against cross-border book price-fixing in Austria and Germany 46

(2000/C 27 E/055) E-1401/99 by Michl Ebner to the Council

Subject: Promoting and safeguarding lesser-used languages in the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

(2000/C 27 E/056) E-1402/99 by Michl Ebner to the Commission

Subject: EU approval number for vehicle registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

(2000/C 27 E/057) E-1404/99 by Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Payments to flax farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

(2000/C 27 E/058) E-1405/99 by Mary Banotti to the Commission

Subject: Possible side-effects of the drug Roaccutane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

(2000/C 27 E/059) E-1406/99 by Mary Banotti to the Commission

Subject: Ireland and CITES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

(2000/C 27 E/060) E-1407/99 by Mary Banotti to the Commission

Subject: Single person travel supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

(2000/C 27 E/061) E-1408/99 by Mary Banotti to the Commission

Subject: Job-sharing facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

(2000/C 27 E/062) E-1409/99 by Glyn Ford to the Commission

Subject: Sites of Special Scientific Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

(2000/C 27 E/063) E-1410/99 by Mark Watts to the Commission

Subject: Licensing of children’s entertainers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

(2000/C 27 E/064) E-1411/99 by Carlos Carnero González to the Commission

Subject: Evacuation of the settlements at Malmea in the Community of Madrid (Spain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

(2000/C 27 E/065) P-1473/99 by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero to the Commission

Subject: Xenophobic attacks in Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1411/99 and P-1473/99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

(2000/C 27 E/066) E-1412/99 by Francis Decourrière to the Commission

Subject: Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

(2000/C 27 E/067) E-1414/99 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission

Subject: Hunting of wolves and wolverines in Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

(2000/C 27 E/068) E-1416/99 by Bartho Pronk to the Commission

Subject: Accommodating refugees from Kosovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

(2000/C 27 E/069) E-1417/99 by Nelly Maes to the Commission

Subject: Freedom of movement and freedom to practice medicine; supernumerary doctors working on the black in
Belgium; unfair competition; infringement of directives 93/16/EEC, 82/76/EEC and Article 12 of the Treaty . . . . 58

(2000/C 27 E/070) E-1418/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Financing to the value of 5000 billion lire provided by the Italian state railway company to certain trade
unions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

(2000/C 27 E/071) E-1419/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Protecting jobs at the Cooperativa Ceramica Industriale, Livorno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

(2000/C 27 E/072) E-1420/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Reorganisation of the fire brigade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

(2000/C 27 E/073) E-1421/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Recognition of Antonio Zotti’s parental rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

(2000/C 27 E/074) E-1422/99 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Council

Subject: Bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

## EN

Notice No Contents _(continued)_ Page

(2000/C 27 E/075) P-1424/99 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission

Subject: Fishery relations between the EU and Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

(2000/C 27 E/076) P-1425/99 by Gary Titley to the Commission

Subject: Contracts awarded by the Commission in the field of consumer protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

(2000/C 27 E/077) E-1428/99 by Agnes Schierhuber to the Commission

Subject: Preparing European institutions for enlargement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

(2000/C 27 E/078) E-1430/99 by Gary Titley to the Commission

Subject: Contracts awarded by Directorate-General XXIV under the restricted tender procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 65

(2000/C 27 E/079) E-1432/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission

Subject: Restructuring plan for the Spanish shipbuilding industry and its consequences for the Galician shipyard
Astilleros del Noroeste, SA (Astano) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

(2000/C 27 E/080) E-1433/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission

Subject: Allocation of Structural Fund resources within Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

(2000/C 27 E/081) E-1435/99 by Gérard Caudron to the Commission

Subject: Health hazard for young children from toys containing phthalates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

(2000/C 27 E/082) E-1439/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission

Subject: Renewal of the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

(2000/C 27 E/083) E-1442/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission

Subject: Distribution of Cohesion Fund resources among the autonomous regions of the Spanish state . . . . . . . 69

(2000/C 27 E/084) E-1443/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission

Subject: Introduction of a pilot job creation scheme in Galicia pursuant to the Treaty of Amsterdam . . . . . . . . 70

(2000/C 27 E/085) E-1444/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission

Subject: Cultural development of the less-used European languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

(2000/C 27 E/086) E-1445/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission

Subject: Recognition of multilingualism on the basis of the existing legislation in the Member States . . . . . . . . 71

(2000/C 27 E/087) P-1495/99 by Ingo Friedrich to the Commission

Subject: Binding ruling on equality in the use of the working languages English, French and German in all European
institutions and bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1445/99 and P-1495/99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

(2000/C 27 E/088) E-1446/99 by Erik Meijer to the Commission

Subject: Subsidised relocation of Akcros Chemicals B.V. from Roermond to Greiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

(2000/C 27 E/089) P-1447/99 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission

Subject: Persecution of Gypsies in Kosovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

(2000/C 27 E/090) P-1448/99 by Giovanni Pittella to the Commission

Subject: Infringement procedure initiated against Italy in respect of training and employment contracts and the
serious repercussions on businesses which have helped to create jobs in recent years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

(2000/C 27 E/091) E-1449/99 by Rainer Wieland to the Commission

Subject: Breakdown of Commission staff by grade and Member State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

(2000/C 27 E/092) E-1451/99 by Herbert Bösch to the Commission

Subject: Financing of projects in Ischia (Italy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

(2000/C 27 E/093) E-1454/99 by Ingo Friedrich to the Commission

Subject: Disposal containers for dangerous disposable waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

(2000/C 27 E/094) E-1459/99 by Glyn Ford to the Commission

Subject: Brewery ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

## EN

Notice No Contents _(continued)_ Page

(2000/C 27 E/095) E-1460/99 by Richard Corbett to the Commission

Subject: Proposed amendments to the Recreational Craft Directive 94/25/EC to include exhaust and sound emission
requirements laid down in the European Commission document Doc.III 76032/97-EN, revision 6 dated 9.12.1998 77

(2000/C 27 E/096) E-1461/99 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission

Subject: Demarcation of the Argentinian EEZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

(2000/C 27 E/097) E-1462/99 by Laura González Álvarez to the Commission

Subject: Project to enlarge the port of Citadella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

(2000/C 27 E/098) E-1464/99 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission

Subject: EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

(2000/C 27 E/099) E-1466/99 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission

Subject: Representation of women on committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

(2000/C 27 E/100) E-1467/99 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission

Subject: Use of fat from deep-fat fryers in animal feedingstuffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

(2000/C 27 E/101) E-1468/99 by Lucio Manisco to the Council

Subject: Death sentence passed on the Kurdish leader Öçalan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

(2000/C 27 E/102) E-1469/99 by Lucio Manisco to the Commission

Subject: Death sentence passed on the Kurdish leader Öçalan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

(2000/C 27 E/103) P-1472/99 by W.G. van Velzen to the Commission

Subject: Effect on public health of mobile phone transmitter masts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

(2000/C 27 E/104) P-1474/99 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission

Subject: Management of waste oils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

(2000/C 27 E/105) E-1475/99 by Ioannis Marínos to the Council

Subject: Persecution of Gypsies in Kosovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

(2000/C 27 E/106) E-1476/99 by Richard Corbett to the Commission

Subject: Postal tariffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

(2000/C 27 E/107) E-1477/99 by Robert Evans to the Council

Subject: Administrative detention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

(2000/C 27 E/108) E-1478/99 by Robert Evans to the Commission

Subject: Administrative detention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

(2000/C 27 E/109) E-1479/99 by Rosa Díez González, Alejandro Cercas and Carmen Cerdeira Morterero to
the Commission

Subject: Structure of public welfare and social cohesion systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

(2000/C 27 E/110) P-1484/99 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the Council

Subject: Police action on the Via Baltica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

(2000/C 27 E/111) P-1485/99 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann to the Commission

Subject: British beef affected by tuberculosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

(2000/C 27 E/112) P-1486/99 by Luckas Vander Taelen to the Commission

Subject: International architectural competition relating to the European Quarter in Brussels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

(2000/C 27 E/113) P-1487/99 by Marie Isler Béguin to the Commission

Subject: Environmental impact and working conditions �Caleras de San Cucao enterprise, Asturias (Spain) . . . . 92

(2000/C 27 E/114) P-1488/99 by Liam Hyland to the Commission

Subject: EU policy for the World Canals Conference, Ireland, 16-18 May 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

(2000/C 27 E/115) P-1489/99 by Brian Crowley to the Commission

Subject: Radiation from office computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

(2000/C 27 E/116) P-1490/99 by Pat Gallagher to the Commission

Subject: The new EQUAL Community initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

## EN

Notice No Contents _(continued)_ Page

(2000/C 27 E/117) P-1491/99 by Struan Stevenson to the Commission

Subject: Electricity interconnection �Scotland/Northern Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

(2000/C 27 E/118) P-1492/99 by Christa Klaß to the Commission

Subject: Innovative schemes for women in agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

(2000/C 27 E/119) P-1493/99 by Eryl McNally to the Commission

Subject: International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

(2000/C 27 E/120) P-1496/99 by Richard Howitt to the Commission

Subject: Budget line B7-651 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

(2000/C 27 E/121) E-1497/99 by Hans Kronberger to the Council

Subject: Groups hiring out mercenaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

(2000/C 27 E/122) E-1499/99 by Hans Kronberger to the Commission

Subject: Authorisation to market Austrian products in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

(2000/C 27 E/123) E-1500/99 by Hans Kronberger to the Commission

Subject: Directive 96/92/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

(2000/C 27 E/124) E-1501/99 by Christoph Konrad to the Commission

Subject: Return of trailers within the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

(2000/C 27 E/125) P-1507/99 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte to the Commission

Subject: French government’s ban on freight traffic in France on 11 August 1999 in connection with the solar
eclipse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

(2000/C 27 E/126) E-1509/99 by Elisabeth Schroedter to the Commission

Subject: Inadequate transposition of the amendment of the EU’s EIA directive in the Brandenburg Highways Act . 102

(2000/C 27 E/127) E-1512/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission

Subject: Report on use of uranium bombs by USA in Yugoslavia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

(2000/C 27 E/128) E-1514/99 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann to the Commission

Subject: Lifting of the ban on exports of British beef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

(2000/C 27 E/129) E-1515/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Siting of a SERT [treatment centre for drug addicts] within the fruit and vegetable market in Prato . . . . 104

(2000/C 27 E/130) E-1518/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Further information concerning Cartiere Milani and the privatisation procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

(2000/C 27 E/131) E-1520/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Siting of a waste dump in Aspio (Ancona) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

(2000/C 27 E/132) P-1521/99 by Ursula Stenzel to the Commission

Subject: Misuse of EU aid for apprentices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

(2000/C 27 E/133) E-1524/99 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission

Subject: State aid paid by the Spanish Government to electricity undertakings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

(2000/C 27 E/134) E-1525/99 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the Commission

Subject: Possible difficulties hindering the entry of new undertakings to the Spanish generating market . . . . . . 109

(2000/C 27 E/135) E-1526/99 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission

Subject: Ecological disaster in the Pego-Oliva marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

(2000/C 27 E/136) E-1527/99 by Stephen Hughes to the Commission

Subject: Position of the Somalia people in Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

(2000/C 27 E/137) E-1528/99 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission

Subject: Waste tip in Dos Aguas, Valencia (Spain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

(2000/C 27 E/138) E-1529/99 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission

Subject: Development of the ecologically valuable Manises golf course (Valencia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

## EN

Notice No Contents _(continued)_ Page

(2000/C 27 E/139) E-1530/99 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission

Subject: Action to promote Community slate exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

(2000/C 27 E/140) E-1531/99 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission

Subject: Funding of preparatory activities by the European Cities of Culture for the year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 114

(2000/C 27 E/141) E-1532/99 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission

Subject: Funding of preparatory activities by the European Cities of Culture for the year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 115

(2000/C 27 E/142) E-1533/99 by Erik Meijer to the Commission

Subject: Unequal treatment of religious communities by a national government (Jehovah’s Witnesses in France) . . 116

(2000/C 27 E/143) P-1535/99 by Reinhold Messner to the Commission

Subject: Renewal of motorway concessions in Italy and the Tyrrhenian-Brenner motorway link . . . . . . . . . . . 117

(2000/C 27 E/144) P-1536/99 by Anna Terrón i Cusí to the Commission

Subject: RAXEN database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

(2000/C 27 E/145) P-1538/99 by Evelyne Gebhardt to the Commission

Subject: Disbursement of resources from the Leonardi da Vinci programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

(2000/C 27 E/146) E-1539/99 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler to the Council

Subject: Promoting the ‘Königsbrücker Heide’ and ‘Am Spitzberg’ nature conservation areas (in Saxony, Germany) in
the context of the Community’s Konver initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

(2000/C 27 E/147) E-1540/99 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler to the Commission

Subject: Laying hens kept in the Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

(2000/C 27 E/148) E-1542/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission

Subject: COM in milk and situation of Galicia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

(2000/C 27 E/149) E-1543/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission

Subject: The COM in milk and tying milk quotas to the land factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

(2000/C 27 E/150) E-1544/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission

Subject: Discrimination concerning beef premiums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

(2000/C 27 E/151) E-1545/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission

Subject: Adoption and publication of the rural development aid regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

(2000/C 27 E/152) P-1546/99 by Marco Cappato to the Council

Subject: Arrest by Chinese police of thousands of members of the Fa Lun Gong Buddhist religious organisation . 125

(2000/C 27 E/153) P-1549/99 by Graham Watson to the Council

Subject: Presidential elections in Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

(2000/C 27 E/154) P-1550/99 by Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Presidential elections in Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

(2000/C 27 E/155) E-1551/99 by Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Subsidies for organic farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

(2000/C 27 E/156) E-1552/99 by Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: European Commission Task Force on Vitamins and Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

(2000/C 27 E/157) E-1593/99 by Glyn Ford to the Commission

Subject: Task force on vitamins and minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1552/99 and E-1593/99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

(2000/C 27 E/158) P-1556/99 by Olivier Dupuis to the Council

Subject: The 3 000 Kosovar prisoners still held in Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

(2000/C 27 E/159) E-1557/99 by Rolf Linkohr to the Commission

Subject: Questions on the EU complaints procedure �Directive 65/65/EEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

## EN

Notice No Contents _(continued)_ Page

(2000/C 27 E/160) E-1559/99 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Council

Subject: Fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

(2000/C 27 E/161) E-1560/99 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Council

Subject: Fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

(2000/C 27 E/162) E-1566/99 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission

Subject: Statistics on PPP’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

(2000/C 27 E/163) E-1567/99 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission

Subject: Legal status of statistics on PPP’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

(2000/C 27 E/164) E-1569/99 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Council

Subject: Dioxin measurements in foodstuffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

(2000/C 27 E/165) E-1572/99 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Council

Subject: Lack of limit values for dioxins and PCBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1569/99 and E-1572/99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

(2000/C 27 E/166) E-1570/99 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Council

Subject: Illegal marketing of genetically modified maize by the Pioneer seed company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

(2000/C 27 E/167) E-1577/99 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba I Böhm to the Commission

Subject: System for the distribution of tickets for the European Cup final held in Barcelona on 26 May 1999 . . . 137

(2000/C 27 E/168) E-1578/99 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the Commission

Subject: Health and consumer protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

(2000/C 27 E/169) E-1579/99 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the Commission

Subject: Repeal of the thirteenth transitory provision of the Italian Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

(2000/C 27 E/170) E-1580/99 by Erik Meijer to the Council

Subject: Exclusion ofsportsmen and women of Yugoslav nationality from sporting events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

(2000/C 27 E/171) E-1583/99 by Glyn Ford to the Commission

Subject: ‘Green’ fishmeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

(2000/C 27 E/172) P-1597/99 by Marco Pannella to the Council

Subject: International Criminal Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

(2000/C 27 E/173) E-1598/99 by Caroline Jackson to the Commission

Subject: Transparency of EU Scientific Committee Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

(2000/C 27 E/174) P-1599/99 by Maurizio Turco to the Council

Subject: Increasingly threatening attitude of the People’s Republic of China to Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

(2000/C 27 E/175) P-1602/99 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the Commission

Subject: Airlines and the rules relating to overbooking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

(2000/C 27 E/176) E-1663/99 by Lucio Manisco to the Commission

Subject: Citizens’ rights and airlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1602/99 and E-1663/99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

(2000/C 27 E/177) P-1604/99 by John Purvis to the Commission

Subject: Results of Research on Risks for Plutonium and Nuclear Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

(2000/C 27 E/178) P-1606/99 by Antonio Tajani to the Council

Subject: Internet and the Italian Government’s draft law on equal access to the media in election campaigns (‘par
condicio’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

(2000/C 27 E/179) P-1608/99 by Antonio Tajani to the Commission

Subject: Internet and the Italian Government’s draft law on equal access to the media in election campaigns (‘par
condicio’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

(2000/C 27 E/180) P-1609/99 by Marianne Thyssen to the Commission

Subject: Community legal basis for national aid measures for non-agricultural enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

(2000/C 27 E/181) P-1610/99 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the Commission

Subject: Unfavourable ruling by the Commission on compensation awarded by the Dutch Government to filling
station operators in the Dutch-German border region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

## EN

Notice No Contents _(continued)_ Page

(2000/C 27 E/182) P-1611/99 by Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: The use of Nandrolone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

(2000/C 27 E/183) E-1612/99 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the Commission

Subject: Child labour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

(2000/C 27 E/184) P-1617/99 by Gary Titley to the Commission

Subject: The forthcoming Directive on Metrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

(2000/C 27 E/185) E-1619/99 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission

Subject: Regional support areas in the Member States: compatibility with Community objectives . . . . . . . . . . 151

(2000/C 27 E/186) E-1621/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission

Subject: Excessive commission on exchanging lire for francs at Brussels Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

(2000/C 27 E/187) E-1629/99 by Phillip Whitehead to the Commission

Subject: Package travel directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

(2000/C 27 E/188) P-1633/99 by John Bowis to the Commission

Subject: Threat to birdlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

(2000/C 27 E/189) E-1634/99 by Mary Banotti to the Commission

Subject: Lifeguards at swimming pools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

(2000/C 27 E/190) E-1644/99 by Antonio Tajani, Giuseppe Gargani, Francesco Fiori and Mario Mauroto the
Commission

Subject: Freedom of access to education in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

(2000/C 27 E/191) E-1646/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission

Subject: Application of the new Regulation 1621/99 on dried grapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

(2000/C 27 E/192) E-1655/99 by Frank Vanhecke to the Commission

Subject: Community subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

(2000/C 27 E/193) P-1656/99 by Albert Maat to the Commission

Subject: Sale of wine with fascist labels in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

(2000/C 27 E/194) P-1657/99 by María Izquierdo Rojo to the Commission

Subject: Catastrophic losses in northern Granada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

(2000/C 27 E/195) P-1658/99 by Arlindo Cunha to the Commission

Subject: Berlin statement on the specific nature of Portuguese agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

(2000/C 27 E/196) E-1666/99 by Antonio Tajani, Mario Mauro and Guido Podestà to the Council

Subject: Massacres in East Timor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

(2000/C 27 E/197) E-1667/99 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Unfair exclusion of a soprano from the National Academy of St Cecilia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

(2000/C 27 E/198) P-1686/99 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission

Subject: Infringement of Community insurance legislation and distortion of competition in Greece . . . . . . . . . 161

(2000/C 27 E/199) P-1696/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission

Subject: Euronews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

(2000/C 27 E/200) E-1702/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission

Subject: Draft budget 2000 �expenditure relating to persons working with the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

(2000/C 27 E/201) E-1703/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission

Subject: Draft budget 2000 �expenditure resulting from special functions carried out by the Commission . . . . 164

(2000/C 27 E/202) E-1706/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission

Subject: Draft budget 2000 �Staff and administrative expenditure in European Community delegations and decentralised expenditure on support staff and administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1702/99, E-1703/99 and E-1706/99 . . . . . . . . . . . 165

(2000/C 27 E/203) E-1704/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission

Subject: LIFE programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

## EN

Notice No Contents _(continued)_ Page

(2000/C 27 E/204) P-1707/99 by Jan Andersson to the Commission
Subject: Commission’s plans regarding freedom of movement for workers in border regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

(2000/C 27 E/205) E-1724/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission

Subject: Regularisation of the universal postal service in the Galician countryside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

(2000/C 27 E/206) P-1726/99 by Werner Langen to the Commission

Subject: Meat hygiene legislation in Rhineland-Palatinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

(2000/C 27 E/207) P-1749/99 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission
Subject: Position of the Commission on electoral systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

(2000/C 27 E/208) P-1750/99 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the Commission

Subject: Conversion of the Apulia waterworks into a joint stock company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

(2000/C 27 E/209) P-1758/99 by Helena Torres Marques to the Commission

Subject: EU economic and social cohesion policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

(2000/C 27 E/210) E-1766/99 by António Campos to the Commission
Subject: The common agricultural policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

(2000/C 27 E/211) E-1773/99 by Liam Hyland to the Commission

Subject: Commission’s work programme for 1999 and new Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

(2000/C 27 E/212) E-1775/99 by Helena Torres Marques to the Commission
Subject: Membership of Commissioners’ ‘cabinets’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

(2000/C 27 E/213) P-1795/99 by Mogens Camre to the Commission
Subject: Undercutting of a Member State’s domestic labour force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

(2000/C 27 E/214) E-1819/99 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission

Subject: ‘Europe against Cancer’ programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

(2000/C 27 E/215) E-1827/99 by Mogens Camre to the Commission
Subject: Structural aid for private firms’ marketing and staff training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

(2000/C 27 E/216) E-1835/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission
Subject: Community initiative on fisheries in Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

(2000/C 27 E/217) P-1890/99 by Pietro-Paolo Mennea to the Commission

Subject: Facilities to be built close to Castel del Monte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

(2000/C 27 E/218) E-1912/99 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission
Subject: Substandard road construction funded by the 2nd Community Support Framework for Greece . . . . . . 175

(2000/C 27 E/219) E-2000/99 by Chris Davies to the Commission
Subject: Task Force on Vitamins and Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

(2000/C 27 E/220) P-2017/99 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission

Subject: Report on quality control of 2nd CSF projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

## EN

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/1

### I

_(Information)_

### EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2000/C 27 E/001) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0668/98**

**by Sir Jack Stewart-Clark (PPE) to the Commission**

_(10 March 1998)_

_Subject:_ Commission proposal for levy on blank tapes

I understand there is a Commission proposal to provide compensation to copyright holders for audio
reproduction of their material by adding a levy to the cost of blank tapes, recording and copying
equipment.

Such a proposal would have serious financial consequences on the local Talking Newspaper Associations
in the UK. The Talking Newspaper Associations provide a valuable service for the blind and partially
sighted persons by keeping them informed of news and events. Recordings are made onto blank cassette
tapes and distributed free of charge to listeners.

Does the Commission intend to permit exceptions to this proposal to exempt non-commercial services,
charities and Talking Newspaper Associations from having to pay a levy on recordings into blank
cassettes?

**Supplementary answer**
**given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(9 July 1999)_

Further to its answer of 8 May 1998 ( [1] ), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional
information.

The concerns raised by the question of the Honourable Member relate to the issue of private copying and
accessible media for blind and partially sighted people.

The Commission on 10 December 1997 adopted a proposal for a directive on the harmonisation of
certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society ( [2] ). This harmonisation initiative
addresses, among other subjects, the reproduction right and the communication to the public right
(including the right of making available to the public) together with limitations and exceptions to these
rights. The amended proposal for this draft directive was adopted on 21 May 1999 ( [3] ).

The Commission would like to emphasise that the main concern in drafting both its original and amended
proposals and all through the current legislative process is to maintain the balance between the rights of
the rightholders and the interests of other parties including users.

As regards private copying, the Commission shares Parliament’s proposed approach to distinguish on the
basis of the technology between analogue and digital private copying, to provide for a ‘fair compensation’
of the rightholders in both cases and, as regards digital private copying only, to establish a link with
technical measures.

C 27 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

Even if legislative exceptions may be provided to the reproduction right, it remains a basic right of the
rightholders. In copyright, usually, the exceptions are based on social, cultural or public order considerations. This is not the case for the private copying exception which most of the Member States have
introduced mainly due to the lack of enforceability of the exclusive right, as there was no way to control
private copying in the analogue world. Side by side with the exception, 12 out of 15 Member States
established levy systems for compensating rightholders. However, it is not the generalisation of the levy
systems which should be sought, and the formulation used by the Parliament which provides for ‘fair
compensation’ is flexible enough to allow the three Member States which do not have levy systems in
place to implement this obligation in accordance with their own tradition.

Finally, it must be noted that the Commission did not propose to introduce a compensation system in the
case of use by disabled people. The Parliament has proposed to extend the wording of the exception
provided by the draft directive in favour of disabled people. The Commission in its amended proposal has
fully taken into account this position. Thus, Member States would be free to choose to keep or introduce
an exception for the disabled at national level, according to their traditions and convictions. If they choose
to do so, they must meet the conditions spelt out in the directive and in the international instruments,
such as the ‘three step test’ which is also reiterated in the draft directive. These ensure exceptions are
limited to certain specific cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of works. Such an
optional exception constitutes a major step forward since most Member States do not provide for any
exception in favour of the disabled.

( [1] ) OJ C 310, 15.12.1998.
( [2] ) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.
( [3] ) COM(99) 250 final.

(2000/C 27 E/002) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0850/98**

**by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission**

_(26 March 1998)_

_Subject:_ Introduction of a neighbouring-country compatibility assessment for all national legislation

Is the Commission aware that, according to reports from the Euregios, Member States regularly adopt
legislation which conflicts radically with that of neighbouring countries, causing difficulties to members of
the public and enterprises in border areas and reducing or entirely cancelling out the positive impact of
open borders in the European Union?

What view does the Commission take of the idea of drawing up a European Directive requiring Member
States to assess the compatibility of all relevant national legislation with that of neighbouring countries,
with the aim of avoiding such adverse effects?

**Supplementary answer**
**given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(2 August 1999)_

First of all, it should be pointed out that the Commission has to ensure that Member States’ legislation is
compatible with Community law, and more specifically with the rules governing the freedom of movement. It will therefore continue to use the powers conferred upon it by Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the
EC Treaty to do so.

During the discussions at the session of 27 May 1998 on Mrs A. Van Lancker’s draft report on frontier
workers (doc. A4-0168/98), which also proposed that the Commission adopt a draft directive which
would have the Member States carry out a ‘Europe test’ to assess the effects of their proposed legislation on
frontier workers, the Commission had stated that a proposal for a directive of this type did not appear to

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/3

be appropriate in this context, and that it would be better to foster cross-border cooperation between the
parties involved in order to resolve the problems which arose.

The Commission considers that the arguments put forward on that occasion are still valid now.

(2000/C 27 E/003) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0931/98**

**by Riitta Myller (PSE), Reino Paasilinna (PSE),**
**Pertti Paasio (PSE) and Jörn Donner (PSE) to the Commission**

_(26 March 1998)_

_Subject:_ The Commission and freedom of expression

It has come to our notice that the Commission has written to object to the TV series which appeared on
Finland’s Yleisradio TV 1st channel entitled ‘30 FIM per week creates 30 000 jobs a year’. The series was
intended for the general public and its aim was to describe the employment effect of demand for products
produced in Finland.

Under the principles of the EU’s internal market, goods, services and persons must be able to move freely
within the borders of the Community. However, it is not possible to use these provisions to interfere with
the freedom of expression in a Member State, as was clearly the case in the above-mentioned contact with
the Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that it does not attempt in future, relying on the rules of the
single market or on any other grounds, to restrict the enjoyment of free expression in the Member States?
The freedom of expression is one of the central principles of the European concept of democracy and thus
also of the European Union.

**Supplementary answer**
**given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 July 1999)_

In 1997, the Commission received details of a campaign broadcast and financed by the main public
television channel in Finland (‘Suomen Yleisradio’) entitled ‘30 Finnish marks per week creates 30 000 jobs
per year’. The purpose of this campaign was to promote the purchase of Finnish products among Finnish
television viewers, with the aim of creating more jobs in Finland.

Further to observations made by the Commission, the Finnish authorities acknowledged that this campaign
could restrict trade flows to the detriment of products imported from other Member States, contrary to
Article 28 of the EC Treaty (previously Article 30), in accordance with the interpretation given by the
Court of Justice (see judgments of 24 November 1982, ‘Commission of the European Communities
v Ireland’, Case 249/81, European Court Reports 1982, page 4005, and of 13 December 1983, ‘Apple
and Pear Development Council v K.J. Lewis Ltd and others’, Case 222/82, European Court Reports 1983,
page 4083).

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Members that, as a Community institution, it is
committed to respecting fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights,
and basic freedoms, in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (previously Article F).
The Commission does of course acknowledge that safeguarding freedom of expression appears among the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Community legal order. However, as reiterated by the Court of
Justice, each particular case should be assessed to see whether the national regulations forming the subject
of a dispute are necessary to the aim that they pursue and whether this aim could not be achieved by
measures restricting intra-Community trade to a lesser extent (see judgment of 26 June 1997, Vereinigte
Familiapress Zeitungsverlags und -vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag‘, Case C-368/95, European
Court Reports 1997, page I-3689, which is directly related to freedom of expression). In the case raised by
the Honorable Members’ question and in light of the Court’s rulings, the campaign to promote Finnish
products, broadcast and financed by a public broadcasting body, cannot be justified by reference to Article
30 of the EC Treaty (previously Article 36) and, in any event, goes beyond what is necessary and

C 27 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

appropriate for creating more jobs in Finland. This position was not aimed at, and nor did it succeed in,
endangering freedom of expression as recognised by Community law.

(2000/C 27 E/004) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0942/98**

**by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission**

_(30 March 1998)_

_Subject:_ ‘Ship-shaped’ production facilities for oil exploration

Does the Council Directive of 17 September 1990 on the procurement procedures of entities operating in
the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sector cover ‘ship-shaped’ production facilities for oil
exploration?

Given the revised OECD Understanding on Export Credits for Ships which came into force in 1996, would
such floating vessels be eligible for EU subsidies?

**Supplementary answer**
**given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(1 July 1999)_

Provided that the estimated value of the contracts is above the relevant threshold (ECU 400 000), Council
Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the
water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectores ( [1] ), which has replaced Council Directive 90/531/
EEC of 17 September 1990 ( [2] ) to which the Honourable Member refers, does apply where a contracting
entity within the meaning of Directive 93/38/EEC purchases, leases, rents or hire- purchases, with or
without option to buy, ‘ship-shaped’ production facilities for oil exploration.

The Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD) shipbuilding agreement was signed
by the Community, Japan, Korea, Norway and the United States in December 1994. It was ratified by the
Community in December 1995 and should have entered into force on 1 January 1996, but has not yet
done so because of American failure to ratify. Since the (revised) 1994 understanding on export credits on
ships is attached to it, it cannot be implemented yet and the rules of the current 1981 OECD understanding continue to apply.

In accordance with Article 3.4 of Council Regulation (EC) 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 on aid to
shipbuilding ( [3] ), credit facilities in accordance with the 1981 OECD understanding are regarded as aid
neutral and not counted under the shipbuilding aid ceiling. Whether ‘ship-shaped’ production facilities
would be eligible for such facilities would depend on whether they are self-propelled seagoing vessels as
defined in the regulation.

( [1] ) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
( [2] ) OJ L 297, 29.10.1990.
( [3] ) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.

(2000/C 27 E/005) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0976/98**

**by Armelle Guinebertière (UPE) to the Commission**

_(30 March 1998)_

_Subject:_ Legality, under European competition law, of the reservation of a quarter of French government
and local authority contracts for workers’ production cooperatives (WPCs)

French law on public procurement recognizes the existence of reserved rights for workers’ production
cooperatives (WPCs).

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/5

For instance, where government and local authority contracts are concerned (Article 62 et seq. and Article
260 et seq. of the Public Procurement Regulations), WPCs are granted preferential treatment through the
automatic reservation of a quarter of any given contract.

Although French law makes procurement open to suppliers throughout Europe, and WPCs in other EU
Member States may therefore bid for contracts, is it permissible for a State to reserve 25 % of any contract,
on principle, for suppliers with a particular status? In other words, does this not undermine competition
among firms within the EU, since not all the market in France is open on the same terms?

**Supplementary answer**
**given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(2 August 1999)_

The question of the compatibility of the rules laid down by the French law on public procurement in
reserving one quarter of public procurement contracts for workers’ production cooperatives (WPCs) is
currently being examined in detail by the Commission, which has already contacted the French authorities
on this matter.

The Commission is waiting until it has all the details it needs at its disposal before deciding on the
appropriate action to be taken.

(2000/C 27 E/006) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1002/98**

**by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission**

_(2 April 1998)_

_Subject:_ Flouting of Community legislation in the contracting procedure for the ‘Cispadana’ road project

Following Commissioner Bjerregaard’s reply to my Written Question (E-3972/97) ( [1] ) concerning the
‘Cispadana’ road project, I should like to inform the Commission that the stage of the contracting
procedure at which the bidders submit their documentation was completed on 27 February 1998 but
that this procedure was not carried out by the Italian authorities (Ministry of Public Works and ANAS) in
accordance with the provisions of Directive 93/37/EEC ( [2] ).

Has the Commission received the information requested from the Italian authorities and what conclusion
has it reached?

Does the Commission consider that, following the latest developments in this case, there are grounds for
bringing Italy before the Court of Justice for failing to meet its obligations under the Treaty, pursuant to
Article 169?

( [1] ) OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 44.
( [2] ) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

**Supplementary answer**
**given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 June 1999)_

On the basis of the information supplied by the Italian authorities, the Commission is now in a position to
give a supplementary answer to the question asked by the Honourable Member.

After the Commission had sent a letter to the Italian authorities requesting information on whether the
award of the contract in question flouted all public procedures, the Italian authorities took note of the fact
that the call for tender for this award procedure had not been received by the Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities (Publications Office).

C 27 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

The Italian authorities therefore promised to annul the procedure, launch a new one and provide the
Commission with full details of the award procedures for the contracts relating to the other lots.

The Italian authorities subsequently sent the Commission proof that the Publications Office had, for
publication purposes, been sent all the calls for tender for the different lots concerning construction work
on the Cispadana road project. There would therefore no longer appear to be any irregularities.

Given these circumstances, the Commission does not feel that there is any reason to initiate the procedure
for failing to meet the terms of Article 226 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 169).

As for the environmental part of the question, the Italian authorities are aware that the entire road project
needs to be assessed in the framework of an environmental impact assessment procedure in accordance
with Directive 85/337/EEC ( [1] ) before being approved.

( [1] ) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2000/C 27 E/007) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1777/98**

**by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission**

_(5 June 1998)_

_Subject:_ Agenda 2000 and the WTO agreements

1. Could the Commission explain the criteria on the basis of which agricultural aid is classified as ‘blue
box’ or ‘green box’ under the WTO agreements?

2. Could the Commission state the category under which the direct aid for beef and milk envisaged in
Agenda 2000 can be classified?

3. Should the aid provided under the American FAIR (Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform)
act be regarded, in principle, as eligible for inclusion in the ‘green box’ category?

4. Can the Commission confirm that the objective of establishing environmental standards for
agriculture and including them in future world trade rules is enshrined in the GATT agreements?

5. What reports or recommendationshave been submitted to date pursuant to paragraph 1 of the
Decision on trade in services and the environment ( [1] )?

6. What initiatives will the Commission take to ensure these agreements are effectively implemented at
international level, or to propose and effect changes to Article XIV of the Agreement?

( [1] ) OJ L 336, 23.12.1994, p. 265.

**Supplementary answer**
**given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 September 1999)_

1. ‘Blue box’ measures are those listed in Article 6(5)(a) of the agreement on agriculture (AA) ( [1] ), i.e.
direct payments under production-limiting programmes where:

�
payments are based on fixed area and yields; or

�
payments are made on 85 % or less of the base level of productions, or

�
livestock payments are made on a fixed number of head.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/7

‘Green box’ measures are those listed in Annex 2 of the AA, i.e. generally payments that have ‘no, or at
most minimal trade-distorting effects or effects on production’. They should not relate to prices applying to
any production undertaken nor should they relate to the type or volume of productions undertaken by a
producer.

2. Most direct payments in the beef sector are granted on a fixed number of heads in the framework of
production limiting programmes, and thus comply with Article 6(5)(a) of the AA (‘blue box’). In the dairy
sector direct payments will also be limited by the production quotas, which means that the payments are
also granted under the framework of a production limiting programme.

3. Payments under the ‘Fair Act’ have been notified to the World trade organisation (WTO) as ‘green
box’ measures. It might be argued that a production requirement is provided for in the ‘Fair Act’ which
excludes the payments from the ‘green box’. Such an interpretation would mean that payments should be
included under the support measures subject to reduction commitment. Such an inclusion would,
however, not lead to the result that the United States would exceed their committed ceiling, since the
ceiling is considerably higher than the actual support level.

4. The AA allows payments under environmental programmes to be classified as ‘green box’ measures
under certain conditions. The conditions are laid down in paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to the AA. In addition,
environmental measures are likely to be discussed in the upcoming round, where non-trade concerns have
to be taken into account as provided for in Article 20 of the AA.

5. In the ‘Decision on trade in services and the environment’, which is part of the Final Act embodying
the result of the Uruguay Round, WTO Members decided that the Committee on trade and environment
(CTE), established by the General Council of the WTO and open to all WTO Members, would examine and
report on the relationship between services trade and the environment including the issue of sustainable
development, in order to determine whether any modification of Article XIV of the Agreement on trade in
services (GATS) is required to take account of measures necessary to protect the environment. According
to Article XIV, nothing in the GATS Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement
by WTO Members of measures necessary, inter alia, to protect human, animal or plant life or health.

Accordingly, the Committee on trade and environment reported on the issue in its report of 1996 (WTO
document WT/CTE/1 of 12 November 1996). The report, which was the object of discussions in the
Ministerial Conference of Singapore in December 1996, indicated that discussion on this item had been
only exploratory, and did not include proposals or conclusions. The Committee on trade and environment
has therefore made no recommendation on this question up to now. The matter is likely to be discussed
further in upcoming CTE meetings.

6. The Commission’s approach to the WTO Millenium Round has been most recently set out in the
Commission’s Communication to the Council and the Parliament ( [2] ). The Commission states that a central
benchmark of the new round should be the WTO’s overall objective of sustainable development, and that
trade and environment policies should play a mutually supportive role in favour of sustainable development. Accordingly, the Commission is of the opinion that environmental considerations should be
integrated in the Community’s approach and therefore effectively addressed throughout the negotiation,
so as to achieve an overall outcome where environmentally friendly consequences can be identified in the
relevant parts of the package.

Without prejudice to the need to address environmental considerations through the negotiations, the
Communication sets out a number of specific issues to be addressed in the negotiations to clarify the
relationship between trade rules and environmental measures and to improve their interface.

In the Commission’s view, the Committee on trade and environment should also pursue and intensify its
work during the new Round, in order to ensure that environmental considerations are addressed
throughout the negotiations, and to provide a forum for exchange views and information on the
environment and sustainability reviews that the community and other WTO Members intend to undertake.

As regards agriculture in the new round, the Communication also clarifies that in the Commission’s
opinion, the Community’s approach to negotiations on agriculture will bear in mind the need to ensure
compatibility of certain rural and environmental policies in agriculture, through a recognition of the

C 27 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

‘multifunctional’ role of agriculture. This approach was confirmed in the Communication of the European
Communities to the WTO General Council of 23 July 1999 (WTO document WT/GC/W/273 of 27 July
1999).

( [1] ) OJ L 336, 23.12.1994.
( [2] ) COM(99) 331 final.

(2000/C 27 E/008) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-2879/98**

**by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission**

_(28 September 1998)_

_Subject:_ Infringement of Directive 91/674/EEC concerning insurance undertakings

According to allegations by various bodies which have now come to light and reached the attention of the
Commission, the Greek Ministry of Development is failing to show the necessary rigour in monitoring
compliance with Greek and Community legislation, thereby permitting many insurance undertakings to
accumulate deficits of millions of drachmas and illegally attempt to cover them during the following
accounting period. This is resulting in constantly increasing deficits, thereby placing policyholders in a
precarious position and allowing certain undertakings illegal access to stock exchange listing.

In the light of the information available to it, does the Commission consider that Directive 91/674/EEC ( [1] )
is being properly implemented in Greece and, if not, will it take appropriate measures?

( [1] ) OJ L 374, 31.12.1991, p. 7.

**Supplementary answer**
**given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(2 August 1999)_

Further to its answer of 5 June 1998 ( [1] ), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional
information.

Commission verification of the Greek texts ( [2] ) which implement Directive 91/674/EEC of 19 December
1991 on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings indicated that the
implementation was almost complete, with only one point in the national implementing text that needed
further clarification. However, following latest information from Greece the transposition has been
completed with Presidential Decree 64 of 24 March 1999. Formal notification of those measures is
awaited.

The supervision of Greek insurance companies lies strictly in the responsibility of the Member State itself
and in particular the Greek insurance supervisory authority. For the time being the Commission does not
have any specific information about Greek insurance companies indicating the accumulation of deficits
and inadequate protection of the interests of the insured. The Commission would welcome detailed
information on complaints the Honourable Member has received.

( [1] ) OJ C 310, 15.12.1998.
( [2] ) Presidential Decree 286; Legislative Decree 400/70 (consolidated version).

(2000/C 27 E/009) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-2983/98**

**by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission**

_(8 October 1998)_

_Subject:_ Excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland

Is the Commission aware of the excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland and does it consider
that this is due to lack of competition in the Irish market?

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/9

(2000/C 27 E/010) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-2984/98**

**by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission**

_(8 October 1998)_

_Subject:_ Derogations in motor insurance in Ireland

Will the Commission state whether the Irish market for motor vehicle insurance is affected by any
derogations from EU competition policy or other legislation and can the Commission state when such
derogations come to an end?

**Joint supplementary answer**
**to Written Questions E-2983/98 and E-2984/98**
**given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 August 1999)_

Further to its answer of 4 December 1998 ( [1] ), the Commission has now obtained the following
information.

Motor-vehicle insurance is covered by the third non-life insurance Directive, Council Directive 92/49/EEC
of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct
insurance other than life assurance and amending 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC ( [2] ) (class 10: third-party
liability), which introduced a single system whereby authorisation, once obtained from the competent
authorities of the home Member State, permits an undertaking to carry on business throughout the entire
Community, under either the right of establishment or the freedom to provide services. The objective of
this system (introduced by Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 92/49/EEC), is to increase competition in national
markets so that consumers can choose the insurance product which suits them best and the insurer they
prefer, irrespective of the company’s home Member State.

In practice, however, market realities sometimes prevent the development of a satisfactory level of
competition. The main problem lies in the differences in premiums set in the various Member States for
third-party liability class. This is not incompatible with Community law because both the criteria used by
insurance companies to set premiums and the number of claims submitted vary from Member State to
Member State. Various factors influence the setting of premiums in each of the Member States and result
in sometimes considerable differences in price.

Firstly, differences between Member States in the level of compensation paid may influence the level of
premiums. The Commission is currently examining the problem with a view to proposing a suitable
solution and possibly submitting a proposal for a directive adjusting the minimum compensation per type
of claim in the third-party liability class, as set out in the second car insurance Directive, Council Directive
84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles ( [3] ). However, this Directive contains
no binding stipulations about the amounts to be paid or the procedures to be followed by the Member
States. The latter may set higher or lower amounts, provided that these are no lower than the minimum
amounts stipulated in the Directive. The fact that some Member States offer a higher level of protection or
have their own methods of assessing claims may lead �among other things �to higher premiums.

Secondly, the third-generation insurance Directives introduced a single prudential and financial control
system that is applicable by the Member State in which the insurance company is established. However,
the criteria for assessing the financial health of firms are different in each Member State. It is the
responsibility of the competent authorities of the home Member State to monitor the financial health of
insurance companies, including their state of solvency and the establishment of adequate technical reserves.
Estimates of premiums and other financial resources are intended to cover a company’s underwriting
liabilities and solvency margin (Article 7 of Directive 92/49/EEC). The Directives also set out the minimum
standards for technical reserves. The Member State which grants the authorisation may lay down stricter
rules for the insurance companies for which it is responsible (Article 9 of Directive 92/49/EEC).

C 27 E/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

Consequently, the compatibility of the policy pursued by Irish insurance firms on premiums, with a view
to creating adequate technical reserves to meet their contractual obligations, must be assessed in the light
of Irish legislation and is the responsibility of the Irish authorities.

The situation is not, of course, the same for insurance companies which have obtained their authorisation
from another Member State, are under the prudential and financial control of that Member State and are
operating in Ireland as a service provider or have a second establishment in Ireland (agency or branch).
These firms may offer lower prices, if that is in line with the legislation in their home Member State and
allows them to set aside adequate technical reserves. Nevertheless, competition from firms operating
through secondary establishments or under the freedom to provide services has, at least until now, been
fairly limited, as insurance companies generally prefer to capture new markets through subsidiary
companies �which are legally independent entities, have their headquarters in the new Member State
and are under the prudential and financial control of that Member State. This helps them to integrate into
the host Member State and to adapt better to the habits of customers in each new market. Cases of firms
taking advantage of the freedom to provide services are even more rare in geographically remote island
states such as Ireland. Consequently, price differences resulting from the market impact of outside service
providers in the Irish market are still relatively limited.

Thirdly, experts’ fees, repair bills and running costs all vary from one Member State to another. Finally,
there are other differences relating to the identification and evaluation of risks. Setting premiums is a
commercial policy decision for each firm, and the criteria and methods used to assess potential claims are
freely chosen. In line with the principle of contractual freedom, insurance firms are free to accept or refuse
a customer. The same person may be considered as more or less of a risk by other companies depending
on the conditions imposed in each Member State and the criteria used to evaluate the risk.

The Commission has not yet had occasion to examine the agreement between insurers on the level of car
insurance premiums in Ireland in the light of Article 81 of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 85) on anticompetitive agreements, and more specifically in the light of Commission Regulation (EEC) 3932/92 of
21 December 1992 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements,
decisions and concerted practices in the insurance sector ( [4] ). The attention of the Honourable Member is
drawn to the report which the Commission has just sent to Parliament and to the Council on the
application of this Regulation ( [5] ).

( [1] ) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999.
( [2] ) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
( [3] ) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984.
( [4] ) OJ L 398, 31.12.1992.
( [5] ) COM(99) 192 final.

(2000/C 27 E/011) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-3099/98**

**by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission**

_(16 October 1998)_

_Subject:_ Professional relations among professional soccer players

Barriers should not be created that hinder or prevent free competition in the area of professional relations
between soccer players and sports promoters, or promoters in general, who operate in a complex and
constantly evolving industry.

The system adopted by the FIGC [Italian Football Federation], which involves the drawing up of a special
list, does not comply with Italian law since it does not meet the criteria required for the system to be
recognised as a professional body.

Private enterprise should not be prevented from bringing its inventiveness, creativity, research capacity,
initiative and imagination to the business of competitive sporting activities, where these activities
constitute industrial and commercial activities like any other.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/11

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. whether the notion of sports promoter, as defined by the FIGC, is at odds with the evolving
Community case law in the area of professional activities;

2. whether the FIGC regulation on sports promoters constitutes an obstacle to the freedom to provide
services, in particular in cases of professional activities being exercised jointly, in relation to the
applicability of the provisions of Italian law No 287/90?

**Supplementary answer**
**given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(2 August 1999)_

Further to its answer of 7 January 1999 ( [1] ), the Commission is now in a position to give the following
information.

In the European Union, football is organised on a territorial basis and, in principle, there is only one
association in each Member State which organises the game at national level.

In Italy, it is the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) which is the sports promoter for football. The fact that
every sport needs a promoter justifies granting this right to sporting organisations such as the FIGC.

In this respect, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it does not have any
information to suggest that, in carrying out its role as promoter, the FIGC is at odds with Community
principles and case-law regarding professional activities or the free movement of services.

Indeed, the Court of Justice has frequently ruled (see the most recent example of the Bosman judgment of
15 December 1995 ( [2] )) that Community provisions regarding the free movement of services should not be
in conflict with rules which are justified for reasons of a non-economic nature relating to the specific
nature of certain matches.

Finally, the assessment of whether the FIGC’s activity is compatible with Italian Law No 287/90 on the
rules for the protection of competition and the market is the responsibility of the Italian authorities and
cannot be carried out by the Commission, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

( [1] ) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999.
( [2] ) Case C-415/93, ECR I-4921.

(2000/C 27 E/012) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-3709/98**

**by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission**

_(11 December 1998)_

_Subject:_ GMO marketing approval dossier �C/NL/96/10, Directive 90/220/EEC

The Scientific Committee on Plants has delivered a negative opinion on the application by Avebe for
marketing authorization for a transgenic potato. It concludes that ‘without an adequate risk assessment of
the potential consequences of horizontal gene transfer from the GM plants to humans, animals and the
environment ... it is not possible to fully assess the safety of the transgenic potato lines’.

Can the Commission please indicate:

1. Whether the Dutch advisory committee and the Dutch competent authority gave a positive recommendation for this application?

2. Whether they reached their conclusions on the basis of the same detailed dossier as that of the SCP
and in particular, whether the marketing application considered by the Dutch and other competent

C 27 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

authorities contained specific information and risk assessment data on the inclusion of the npt III gene
coding for amikacin antibiotic resistance?

3. What reasoned responses it received from the other national competent authorities?

4. Whether, under the provisions of Article 19(4) of Directive 90/220/EEC ( [1] ) which lays down that ‘in
no case should the description of the GMO or the evaluation of foreseeable effects including
pathogenic and/or ecologically disruptive effects be kept confidential’, the Commission will now, in
the public interest, publish in full the marketing application, the complete text of the SCP’s opinion
and the responses of all the national competent authorities?

( [1] ) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.

**Supplementary answer**
**given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 July 1999)_

Further to its answer of 15 February 1999 ( [1] ), the Commission is now able to provide the following
additional information.

With regard to the publication of the complete opinion of the scientific committee on plants, the
Commission has postponed its reply on this specific point because of claims of confidentiality by the
notifier. After examination of the legal aspects connected with the publication of the full opinion (Article
19 of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of
genetically modified organisms and Article 10 of Commission Decision 97/579/EC of 23 July setting up
scientific committees in the field of consumer health and food safety ( [2] )) the Commission considers that the
complete opinion can now be published apart from one sentence. This opinion will be put on the Internet
as soon as possible.

( [1] ) OJ C 289, 11.10.1999, p. 75.
( [2] ) OJ L 237, 28.8.1997.

(2000/C 27 E/013) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-4092/98**

**by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission**

_(14 January 1999)_

_Subject:_ European coordination of defence industries

The approach of NATO’s fiftieth anniversary is being accompanied by a succession of studies into the
major changes which have occurred on the international scene during the 50 years of NATO’s existence
and the need for an agreement concerning tasks and challenges for the future. The differences in the
political views held by America and Europe may become more accentuated if ways are not found of
establishing cooperation between the defence industries on either side of the Atlantic with a view to
developing the new technology of the 21st century.

Does the Commission believe that the European defence industry will soon achieve a sufficient size and
degree of coordination capability to allow constructive dialogue with the highly integrated industry in the
USA? In this connection, what would be the effect of the differences in legal status which exist between the
major defence companies of Germany and the United Kingdom, which are privately owned, and those in
France, which are mainly in the public sector?

**Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission**

_(18 March 1999)_

The Commission shares the concerns and the views that the Community needs a strong and competitive
defence related industry, able to deal on an equal basis with its American counterparts and to contribute to
the strengthening of the common foreign and security policy.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/13

An efficient, strong European industry should not be seen in opposition to the American industry, but as
complementary to the American industry in the global market. If Europe wishes to be a real partner for
the United States, with American companies participating in European programmes in the same way as
European companies may participate in American programmes, the European defence industry must be
able to compete in terms of financial and technological resources as well as with attractive commercial

programmes.

The Commission is well aware that differences in shareholding structures (ranging from widely dispersed
to the highly concentrated, either in state or in private hands) among the various companies in the
European industry add to the complexity of the consolidation process.

To ensure success in the process of creating solid, competitive trans-European defence companies, it is
essential that, at all levels, Member States and European institutions maintain the appropriate pressure to
keep up the momentum for consolidation.

(2000/C 27 E/014) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0163/99**

**by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission**

_(11 February 1999)_

_Subject:_ Railway services in the United Kingdom

What is the public subsidy (in euros) per km of railway track in each of the following countries:

France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Belgium, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark, Austria, Holland,
Finland, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom?

**Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 September 1999)_

The public subsidy (in million euros, Euro exchange rate of 10 February 1999 for non-euro zone) in the
Member States in 1996 (the latest year for which full figures are available) was as follows:

These figures partially provided the basis for the calculation of public subsidy granted in the Member
States to the railway sector during the period 1994-1996 as published in the sixth annual Commission
survey on state aid. It has to be borne in mind that Member States are obliged to request state aid
clearance for only a limited part of these amounts.

The Commission would point out that it is difficult to trace a meaningful relation between public subsidy
and the length of the network because of different conditions in different Member States relating, for
example, to the intensity of use of network, density of population, quality of public service, productivity,
or competitiveness in the market.

C 27 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

However, a comparison of public subsidy with the length of the railway network in 1996 in each Member
State as published by Eurostat (EU transport in figures ( [1] )) would give the following figures in euros per
kilometre of railway track:

( [1] ) ISBN 92-828-3670-3.

(2000/C 27 E/015) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0183/99**

**by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission**

_(11 February 1999)_

_Subject:_ Authorisation/approval of genetically modified seeds

1. What is the current state of approvals of genetically modified seeds in the EU Member States?

2. If there are already approved seeds, does the Commission have any detailed information (e.g. lists)
concerning the varieties approved, the characteristics modified, and the dates of approval?

3. Does the Commission know which varieties (applicant companies, stating date of approval process,
scheduled end of examination) are being examined at present?

**Supplementary answer**
**given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 July 1999)_

The topic addressed by the Honourable Member has been the subject of an important change of
Community legislation. Through Council Directive 98/95/EC of 14 December 1998 amending, in respect
of the consolidation of the internal market, genetically modified plant varieties and plant genetic resources,
Directives 66/400/EEC, 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 66/403/EEC, 69/208/EEC, 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC
on the marketing of beet seed, fodder plant seed, cereal seed, seed potatoes, seed of oil and fibre plants and
vegetable seed and on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species ( [1] ), a link has been
established between the hitherto completely separate procedures for the official approval of varieties of
agricultural and vegetable plant species under Council Directives 70/457/EEC of 29 September 1970 on
the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plan species ( [2] ) and 70/458/EEC of 29 September 1970
on the marketing of vegetable seed2 on one hand and for the authorization of genetically modified plant
material under Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the
environment of genetically modified organisms (GMO) ( [3] ) and Regulation (EC) 258/97 of 27 January
1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients ( [4] ) of the Parliament and of the Council,
respectively, on the other hand. The new directive, which will become effective on 1st February 2000,
requires that a genetically modified variety of agricultural and vegetable plant species within the meaning

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/15

of Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 90/220/EEC shall be accepted for inclusion in the official variety
catalogues only if all appropriate measures have been taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and
the environment.

The risk assessment procedure required under the directive shall be equivalent to that laid down in
Directive 90/220/EEC. Such a procedure will be introduced on a proposal from the Commission for a
Council regulation based on the appropriate legal base in the EC Treaty, and it shall take full account of
amendments introduced during the ongoing revision of Directive 90/220/EEC. Until this regulation enters
into force, genetically modified varieties of plants shall, prior to their inclusion in an official catalogue,
undergo the risk assessment procedure as laid down in Directive 90/220/EEC.

Where material derived from a genetically modified plant variety is intended to be used as a food or food
ingredient, the procedures applicable under Regulation (EC) 258/97 on novel foods and novel food
ingredients must also be applied prior to its listing in an official catalogue.

Furthermore, the national and common official catalogues of plant varieties must clearly indicate any
variety which is genetically modified. Any labels or documents accompanying seed of genetically modified
varieties of plants must clearly indicate that the product has been genetically modified.

In the light of this background information, the answers to the Honourable Member’s questions are as
follows:

1. The GMO plant materials, which have been approved by Member States on the basis of Commission
decisions for placing on the market pursuant to Directive 90/220/EEC and for which consent has been
given for specific use, are listed in a document sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the
Secretariat general of the Parliament.

2. A number of Member States have notified to the Commission the acceptance for inclusion in their
official catalogues of genetically modified varieties of agricultural and vegetable plant species under
Directives 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC respectively. A list of these varieties with the dates of
approval is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament.
Where in such notifications reference has been made to the relevant Commission decisions pursuant
to Directive 90/220/EEC, the characteristics modified have been recorded.

However, as a consequence of either the periods currently applicable to the common catalogue
system, or certain pending approvals for complementary uses (e.g. field growing, food, feed use, as in
the case of maize or oilseed rape) or pending court cases at Member State level, only two genetically
modified varieties which belong to the chicory species, have been accepted for inclusion in the
common catalogue of varieties of vegetable plant species for marketing of seeds throughout the
Community under Directive 70/458/EEC, following authorisation for placing on the market for
breeding activities, pursuant to Directive 90/220/EEC.

3. The GMO products awaiting approval, the product notification details and the notified company, both
under Directive 90/220/EEC and Regulation (EC) 258/97, are set out in lists sent direct to the
Honourable Member and the Secretariat general of the Parliament.

The Commission knows about pending national approvals under Directives 70/457/EEC and 70/458/
EEC to the extent that Member States notify applications for variety approval pursuant to these
directives. However, the notifications of such applications are currently not required to indicate
whether the respective varieties are genetically modified or not.

( [1] ) OJ L 25, 1.2.1999.
( [2] ) OJ L 225, 12.10.1970.
( [3] ) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
( [4] ) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

C 27 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/016) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0221/99**

**by José Mendes Bota (PPE) to the Commission**

_(12 February 1999)_

_Subject:_ Portugal lagging behind in the European single market

The Commission has issued a public warning to Portugal over the failure to transpose a number of
Community directives aimed at the completion of the European single market into national law.

The legislation concerned includes the directive on public procurement in the water, energy, transport and
telecommunications sectors and the directive on the possibilities open to undertakings in those sectors.

Both directives were to have been transposed by 30 June 1997.

An even worse case is the failure to accede to the Rome Convention on the protection of authors and
performers, copyright and related rights. In this case there is a time-lag of four years, going back to January
1995.

In the light of this situation, can the Commission say what reasons the Portuguese Government has given
in order to justify its failure to act, which is not only causing direct harm to the rights of individuals and
undertakings but is also giving Portugal a negative image in the process of European integration?

**Supplementary answer**
**given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(9 July 1999)_

Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors ( [1] ) states that Portugal may
provide that the measures implementing this directive only apply with effect from 1 January 1998. Council
Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the
water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors ( [2] ) provides that Portugal take the implementing
measures by 30 June 1997, and that these come into effect on 1 January 1998.

When Portugal did not communicate national implementing measures transposing the two directives by
the dates laid down, the Commission initiated the procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty
(ex Article 169). Reasoned Opinions were issued in early February 1999.

With regard to copyright and related rights, it is true that there has been a substantial delay in Portugal’s
transposing the Community directives. The Commission was obliged to refer certain cases to the Court of
Justice. The Commission points out, however, that, in adopting a series of Decree-Laws dated 21 November
1997, Portugal finally complied with its obligations pursuant to Council Directive 92/100/EEC of
19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the
field of intellectual property ( [3] ), Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of
certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and
cable retransmission ( [4] ) and Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of
protection of copyright and certain related rights ( [5] ).

Lastly, infringement proceedings have had to be initiated on the grounds of Portugal’s failure to accede to
the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting
Organizations (The Rome Convention, 1961).

( [1] ) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
( [2] ) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.
( [3] ) OJ L 346, 27.11.1992.
( [4] ) OJ L 248, 6.10.1993.
( [5] ) OJ L 290, 24.11.1993.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/17

(2000/C 27 E/017) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0388/99**

**by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 March 1999)_

_Subject:_ Objective 5b projects in Bavaria

1. What projects have been funded under the Objective 5b programme in Bavaria (in the various
administrative districts) from 1994 to date, and what sums were involved in each case?

2. What projects have been funded from the European Union research budget in Bavaria (in the various
administrative districts) from 1994 to date, and what sums were involved in each case?

3. What projects have been funded by the European Social Fund (not Objective 5b) in Bavaria (in the
various administrative districts) from 1994 to date, and what sums were involved in each case?

4. What projects have been funded by European Union initiatives (listed separately) in Bavaria (in the
various administrative districts) from 1994 to date, and what sums were involved in each case?

**Supplementary answer**
**given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 July 1999)_

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2000/C 27 E/018) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0417/99**

**by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Commission**

_(1 March 1999)_

_Subject:_ Free movement of Greenlanders in the EU and the EEA

What is the position of Greenlanders under the rules on free movement in the EU and the EEA?

**Supplementary answer**
**given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 August 1999)_

Further to its answer of 19 April 1999 ( [1] ), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional
information.

According to Articles 182 to 188, and Article 299(3) of the EC Treaty (ex Articles 131 to 136a, and
Article 227(3)) and the Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 November 1997 amending at mid-term,
Decision 91/482/EEC on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the Community ( [2] ),
Greenlanders enjoy the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the Union ( [3] ). It is
obvious that the exercise of the right of establishment and provision of services must entail a right of
entry ( [4] ) and residence. However, Article 186 of the EC Treaty excludes the overseas states and territories
from the scope of the free movement of workers in the absence of agreements adopted for this purpose by
the Member States.

C 27 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

As far as the European Economic Area is concerned, the French Government, by way of a declaration
annexed to the Final Act of the protocol, noted that the Agreement on the European Economic Area does
not apply to overseas countries and territories associated to the European Economic Community pursuant
to the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community ( [5] ).

( [1] ) OJ C 325, 12.11.1999, p. 114.
( [2] ) OJ L 329, 29.11.1997.
( [3] ) Although Article 183(5) of the EC Treaty mentions only the right of establishment, Article 232 of the aforesaid
Council Decision refers to the arrangements applicable to establishment and provision of services. See also Article
233b of the same Council Decision concerning the recognition of professional qualifications.
( [4] ) According to Article 5(1) of the Act of Accession of Danemark to the Schengen Convention, this Convention does
not apply to Greenland. However, according to Article 5(2) of the same Act, people travelling between Greenland
and Schengen countries (or Iceland and Norway) are not controlled at the frontiers.
( [5] ) See Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area �Final Act �Joint Declaration �Agreed
Minutes �Declaration by the Governement of France, OJ L 1, 3.1.1994.

(2000/C 27 E/019) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0506/99**

**by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission**

_(8 March 1999)_

_Subject:_ Sixth value added tax directive/Austria

During the accession negotiations Austria was granted a derogation with respect to the application of the
sixth value added tax directive. This enabled it to charge tax on the renting of land for residential purposes
at a reduced rate until 31 December 1998.

The Commission is asked in this context:

1. Did the Federal Austrian Government apply for an extension of the derogation referred to above?

2. If so, when was the application made, and what action was taken by the Commission?

3. If not, what implications does the passing of this deadline have for the applicable tax rate?

4. Can it give any accurate information on the rate of tax on the renting of land for residential purposes
that has applied since 1 January 1999?

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(26 April 1999)_

1. and 2. The Austrian government did not apply for an extension of the derogation allowing it to
apply a reduced rate of tax on the letting or leasing of property for residential use until 31 December
1998.

3. and 4. Since 1 January Austria has been obliged to apply the common VAT system to the letting or
leasing of property for residential use. In principle, this means that it has to exempt the letting or leasing
of such property from VAT under Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes �Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment ( [1] ). It may, however, allow taxpayers to opt for
taxation of such transactions (Article 13C(a) of the Directive). Should they do so, they must apply the
normal rate of VAT.

( [1] ) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/19

(2000/C 27 E/020) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0513/99**

**by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission**

_(8 March 1999)_

_Subject:_ Trade agreement with the Republic of South Africa in the textile and clothing sector

Representatives of the textiles and clothing sector claim that under the trade agreement with South Africa
a reduction or even abolition of the customs charges for various categories of textile and clothing products
is being negotiated. This liberalisation would be lop-sided, with greater openness on the part of the
Community market.

The sector continues to play an important role in the economy of the European Union as a whole,
representing for over 4 % of GVA in 1996 and almost 8 % of jobs in the processing industry; in certain EU
countries and regions, its economic and social importance is very considerable.

The sector has been going through a very difficult period, with the loss of 600 000 jobs between 1990
and 1996, and there are forecasts that this trend will continue, with a further 800 000 jobs being lost in
the next few years. This situation and these forecasts are the result of over-increasing trade liberalisation,
particularly by means of bilateral accords (such as that with Turkey) and the entry into force of the final
phase of VAT and the opening up of the market, since 1 January 1998, to the candidate countries for EU
accession.

This process has placed the sector under major competitive pressure, and it is not unfrequently used as a
‘bargaining counter’ in certain global negotiations. Moreover, it has been one of the sectors worst hit, if
not in fact the worst hit, by the so-called ‘Asian crisis’.

Is the information concerning the agreement with South Africa true? What categories of textile and
clothing products are covered by the negotiations? What undertakings are being given with regard to
reducing or abolishing customs duties? What is the timetable for the dismantling of customs tariffs, and
what are the compensations?

(2000/C 27 E/021) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0514/99**

**by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission**

_(8 March 1999)_

_Subject:_ Trade agreement with the Republic of South Africa in the textile and clothing sector

A trade agreement with South Africa which may include clauses concerning the textile and clothing sector,
is currently under negotiation. Following my previous question about these negotiations and their terms,
I would now ask the Commission what precautions it is taking with regard to protecting European labels
and fighting counterfeits, and what internal compensation mechanisms it intends to mobilise to deal with
the foreseeable consequences of this agreement for the industry in Europe, particularly SMEs?

**Joint answer**
**to Written Questions E-0513/99 and E-0514/99**
**given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 May 1999)_

The Commission has negotiated a trade, development and co-operation agreement with South Africa in
accordance with the negotiating directives it received from the Council on June 1995 and March 1996.
According to these last directives, the negotiations, in the trade field, were aimed at establishing a free
trade area (FTA) over a transitional period lasting, in principle, a maximum of 10 years and in accordance
with the World trade organisation (WTO) rules.

C 27 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

Asymmetry and differentiation are among the main principles of the FTA reflecting the developmental
approach of the agreement. In recognition of South Africa’s economic restructuring efforts currently
underway, the Community will open up its market faster and more extensively for South African products
than it will ask South Africa to do for Community products. These principles are also reflected in the
different trade sectors, including textiles and clothing, where the Community will open its market faster
and more extensively to South Africa than this country will open to the Community exports. The
principles of asymmetry and differentiation also reflect the different levels of competitivity of the industries
of the two parties.

The Community aims to achieve the largest market access for its products into South Africa, including
total free access, over an appropriate period of time. In exchange, it has offered to South Africa free access
in a shorter period of time (six years). At the end of the transitional period, South Africa will, in principle,
still maintain customs tariffs on European products. However, the agreement contains a review clause
which provides for the consideration, no later than five years after the entry into force of the agreement, of
further steps in the process of liberalisation, in particular in the textiles and clothing sector.

The Commission seeks to ensure the protection of European labels and the fight against counterfeiting in
the framework of its general activities which include anti-fraud actions covering several sectors, including
textiles and clothing, independently of the negotiations with South Africa.

(2000/C 27 E/022) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0680/99**

**by James Nicholson (PPE) to the Commission**

_(26 March 1999)_

_Subject:_ Cancer research

Will the Commission indicate the financial and other practical support which it provides for research into
cancer?

**Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 April 1999)_

During the Biomed 2 (1994-1998) programme, 35 million € was allocated directly for an action on cancer
research. However, an additional amount of perhaps 5 million € was used to support related research
under other parts of the programme.

During the Telematics application programme (1994-1998) 12 million € were allocated to a cluster of
research projects on telematics applications for collaborative work of health professionals. These applications are of a generic nature and can be used for multiple disciplines. However, in the framework of the
above-mentioned cluster, cancer professionals and hospitals were chosen for validation of the Telematics
tools developed in the projects.

In the quality of life and management of living resources programme of the 5th framework programme
(1999-2002) cancer research is specifically covered in activities of a generic nature. Related research will
also be carried out in key action 1 (food and health), key action 2 (cell factory), key action 4 (environment
and health), and key action 6 (ageing population and disabilities).

In addition, the Commission’s Joint research centre (JRC) is supporting the development of new cancer
therapies based on its nuclear know-how. One network of clinicians is working with the JRC high flux
reactor in Petten to develop boron-neutron capture therapy (BNCT) against glyoma, and another network
is using very special actinides produced by JRC and coupled to monoclonal antibodies to develop

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/21

α-immunotherapies against leukemia. During the 5th framework programme (1999-2002) these two
projects will spend about 11 million €.

Moreover, in the second action plan of the Europe against cancer programme 1990-1994 (extended until
1995), grants were given to 29 projects for a total amount of 0,87 million € in the area of research and
cancer. During the first two years of the third action plan of the Europe against cancer programme (19961997), grants were given to 24 projects for a total amount of 8,09 million € in the area of data collection
and research.

(2000/C 27 E/023) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0687/99**

**by Fernand Herman (PPE) to the Commission**

_(26 March 1999)_

_Subject:_ General incentive to grow crops for non-food purposes

The problem of markets for European agricultural products is becoming more and more acute and a
number of Member States are trying �not without difficulty �to launch policies that will not be too
costly for the European budget.

In this context ‘non-food’ outlets, i.e. outlets for agricultural products for purposes other than human
consumption, offer a partial solution to the problem, but Agenda 2000 says nothing on this matter.

Could the Commission envisage, as requested by some Member States, granting a premium of Euro 90 to
100/hectare as a general incentive for non-food uses �as defined in the regulation on industrial set-aside
�, if necessary in a framework of agro-environmental measures?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 May 1999)_

It is clear that the use of agricultural products for non-food purposes provides an excellent possibility for
diversifying outlets and preventing overproduction.

While the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) proposed by Agenda 2000 does not envisage a
‘non-food’ policy as such, the Agenda does contain proposals likely to lead to the adoption of measures in
favour of renewable raw materials, both from the point of view of the operation of the market and from
the point of view of structural policy.

Hence, Agenda 2000 adopted by the Heads of State and Government at the Berlin European Council of
24-25 March 1999 envisages a reference rate for compulsory set-aside of 10 % from the 2000/01
marketing year to the 2006/07 marketing year inclusive.

Processing industries should therefore in the years to come be able to count on supplies of renewable raw
materials at reasonable prices and so take advantage of this period to improve market penetration for their
products and become more competitive.

The production of non-food products is, moreover, always possible under the voluntary set-aside
arrangements.

Also, the new regulation on rural development expressly encourages ‘non-food’ production. Member States
will therefore have the possibility of actively contributing, by means of part-financing, to the promotion of
this sector under their regional development programmes.

C 27 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/024) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0881/99**

**by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission**

_(8 April 1999)_

_Subject:_ Toxic moulds in maize flour and maize products

According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 3 March 1999, in Germany 13 % of almost 300
samples of maize, semolina, polenta and maize flour which were tested, showed fuminosine contamination
at over 1 000 microgrammes per kilogramme of maize product. Fumonisines are moulds formed from
fusaria, a group of the Ascomycetes, which mainly produce toxins in maize. In horses and pigs even small
quantities of these toxins cause severe illnesses. Studies in South Africa and China indicate that consumption of such contaminated maize can lead to the development of cancers of the liver and the oesophagus
in humans. At present, there is inadequate information about the toxic effects of fuminosines in humans.

1. Is the Commission aware of this problem?

2. Does the Commission intend to adopt measures with regard to residue limit values on and in cereals
for these dangerous mould toxins?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 May 1999)_

Fumonisins, toxins discovered in 1988, are produced by the moulds Fusarium moniliforme (= Fusarium
verticilloides) and Fusarium proliferatum that commonly contaminate maize. They have been found as
natural contaminants in maize and maize-based food and feed from many parts of the world. Many
different types of fumonisins have been identified of which only fumonisin B1 (FB1) and to a lesser extent
fumonisins B2 and B3 are found as natural contaminants in food and feed.

The fumonisins appear to be the causative agents of at least two animal toxicoses: equine leukoencephalomalacia (ELEM) in horses and porcine pulmonary oedema (PPE) in pigs. Experimental studies have
revealed that the toxins are able to induce liver and kidney damage in many species. In 1993, the
International agency for research on cancer (IARC) concluded that toxins derived from Fusarium
moniliforme are possibly carcinogenic to humans (group B2), whereas there is limited evidence for the
carcinogenicity of FB1 and FB2. Studies are in hand to provide further information with respect to
carcinogenic effects. In addition, epidemiological evidence (correlation studies) has suggested a link
between dietary fumonisin exposure and human oesophageal cancer in some locations with high disease
rates.

The Commission is currently financing a project under the standards, measurements and testing programme to identify and validate an analytical method suitable for various maize-based food products.

The Commission acknowledges that there are gaps in the toxicological information available. The scientific
committee for food has been requested to assess the health risk associated with exposure to the different
fusarium toxins in cereals, taking into account the current state of knowledge, to indicate, on the basis of
the current knowledge, which of the Fusarium toxins are of most concern for public health and for which
there is an urgent need for future research or need for measures to reduce the presence of these toxins in
cereals, and to indicate if possible the nature of toxicological studies to elucidate the toxicology of these
toxins.

On the basis of the opinion of the scientific committee for food and other relevant information, the
Commission will consider which measures are appropriate in order to limit, if necessary, the present of
these mycotoxins in food and feed.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/23

(2000/C 27 E/025) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0897/99**

**by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission**

_(8 April 1999)_

_Subject:_ Attempts to break up the European Space Agency

In the last few years various attempts have been made to break up ESOC (European Space Operations
Centre) and the ESA (European Space Agency) and replace them with equivalent bodies lately set up at
national level, for example the control centres in Toulouse, Oberpfaffenhofen, and Rome operated by the
French (CNES), German (DLR), and Italian space agencies.

A recent ESA document (ESA/C(98) 103) put forward two options for the international space station
project. On the one hand, it was suggested that the control centres be based within ESOC. The alternative
proposal to assign the tasks to the French and German centres was supported primarily by the biggest
contributors to the ESA budget, namely countries such as Germany, France, and Italy.

In late December 1998 the ESA Council selected the latter option.

Can the Commission explain:

1. On what criteria was the above decision based, bearing in mind that the ESOC option was more
advantageous from the overall cost point of view?

2. What kind of relations, cooperation, or supervision do the Commission and Parliament maintain,
pursue, or exercise vis-à-vis the ESA and ESOC?

3. Does the Commission consider it desirable to preserve the immense fund of professionalism and
know-how which ESOC has built up, given than Europe is increasingly strengthening its cohesion?

4. Does it believe that a single control centre would suffice for European space missions, bearing in mind
not least that the high costs entailed cannot be financed by individual Member States acting singlehandedly?

5. Has it drawn up documents on European space policy?

6. What is its general view of the matter?

**Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 May 1999)_

The European Space Operations Centre (ESOC) is one of the three technical centres of the European Space
Agency (ESA) and is therefore directly under its authority.

The ESA is an intergovernmental agency made up of 14 member countries, of which only 12 are
Community Member States. Although numerous exchanges take place between the ESA and the Commission and cooperation is desired, as recently reaffirmed by Council Resolution of 22 June 1998 on the
reinforcement of the synergy between the European Space Agency and the European Community, there
are no organic links between these two entities.

Going beyond the question of ESOC’s future, which has to be considered in the light of the current debate
on the future of government-owned technical space centres in Europe, ESA’s decision of 30 November
1998 (ESA/C/98 103) is in keeping with the undertakings given by ESA’s member countries at the
ministerial-level Council meeting in Toulouse in October 1995 on the impact on industry of the decision
to participate in the International Space Station (ISS).

On first analysis, it may be surprising to find that there are several centres in Europe for the positioning
and control of satellites, such as the ESOC, and that the public sector is managing centres which are
increasingly involved in commercial activities. This would be to forget the strategic side of such centres.
Further development is possible and is likely in time. It will depend on there being a joint decision to
achieve progressive specialisation in public space centres in Europe and, as far as the Community is
concerned, on changes in foreign and common security policy.

C 27 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

The Commission, for its part, is in favour of trying to establish synergies and increasing the consistency
between the ESA’s space policy and that laid down at EU level in the Commission communication
of December 1996 entitled ‘The European Union and Space’ ( [1] ).

( [1] ) COM(96) 617 final.

(2000/C 27 E/026) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0906/99**

**by Manuel Escolá Hernando (ARE) to the Commission**

_(8 April 1999)_

_Subject:_ Spanish policy on xenotransplants

The Council of Europe’s spokesman on bioethics recently cast doubt on Spanish legislation on xenotransplants, describing it as posing a threat to humans.

Spanish legislation provides that researchers may conduct trials on humans involving the transplantation
of organs taken from transgenic pigs when trials with primates have proved successful and no virus
infections have been detected for a period of six months.

Does the Commission share the opinion voiced by the Council of Europe’s spokesman on bioethics with
regard to Spanish legislation? If so, what action will it take?

What is the Commission’s view of the fact that the Spanish Minister for Health has not accepted the
moratorium on this type of research recommended by the Council of Europe?

Does the Commission share the Council of Europe’s view that such research should be suspended?

**Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 May 1999)_

Discussion of the subject of xenotransplants has been takin place within various Council of Europe bodies
for several years. In 1997, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe made a recommendation
(RC(97)15) on xenotransplants calling on the Member States to regulate and register all activities relating
to basic and applied research, the breeding of animals for xenotransplants and the long-term monitoring of
transplanted subjects. Furthermore, in January 1999 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
adopted a recommendation calling for a moratorium on xenotransplants, but this is not legally binding.
Lastly, a Working Party on Xenotransplants has been jointly set up by the Council of Europe Steering
Committees on Bioethics and on Public Health, on which the Commission has observer status.

The regulation of clinical trials is an area of national competence. However, the pooling of scientific
research efforts, in particular to evaluate the risks of infection due to xenotransplants, and research on
ethics is a priority under both the 4th and the 5th framework research programmes.

(2000/C 27 E/027) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0917/99**

**by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission**

_(8 April 1999)_

_Subject:_ Equal opportunities and the Fifth Framework Programme

Can the Commission assure me that reference will be made in the tender documents for all projects to the
equal opportunities and mainstreaming focus which Parliament added to the Fifth Framework Programme?

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/25

**Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 May 1999)_

The Commission’s communication ‘Women and science: Mobilising women to enrich European
research’ ( [1] ) of 18 February 1999, presents the activities foreseen by the Commission to promote women’s
involvement in research. Among the different measures that will be taken to enhance the participation of
women in the Community’s fifth framework programme is the inclusion in all calls for proposals for
research and technological development (RTD) actions, of a specific reference to the equal opportunities
policy and encouragement of women to submit proposals or to take part in them.

From 6 March to 1 April 1999, a first wave of 29 calls for proposals concerning all the specific
programmes under the fifth RTD framework programme were published in the Official journal ( [2] ). They
all contain the following reference: ‘The European Community pursues an equal opportunities policy and,
in this context, women are particularly encouraged to either submit proposals or to be involved in their
submission’.

Furthermore, in the guide for proposers that is made available to all potential participants, Chapter I.3
‘Implementation’, contains a specific section I.3.4 devoted to ‘Gender equal opportunities’: ‘In line with the
Commission’s strategic approach of mainstreaming equal opportunities in all Union policies, particular
account is taken in the fifth framework programme of the need to promote the participation of women in
the fields of research and technological development. Therefore women are encouraged to participate in
proposals for the above mentioned RTD activities’.

( [1] ) COM(99) 76 final.
( [2] ) OJ C 64, 6.3.1999, OJ C 72, 16.3.1999, OJ C 76, 19.3.1999, OJ C 77, 20.3.1999, OJ C 80, 23.3.1999, OJ C 85,
27.3.1999, OJ C 92, 1.4.1999.

(2000/C 27 E/028) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/99**

**by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission**

_(13 April 1999)_

_Subject:_ Disastrous cutbacks at Romanian children’s homes

I have learnt from various sources about the deplorable conditions caused by cutbacks at many Romanian
children’s homes.

Large numbers of children are being put out onto the streets, and children’s homes are closing. Everything
that has been built up over the past few years at the children’s homes is being lost, with mass
redundancies, minimal budgets for food and no money for water.

1. Does the Commission carry out frequent investigations to ascertain whether EU funds are being used
properly for Romanian children’s homes?

2. Has it made any unannounced visits to EU-funded children’s homes in Romania?

3. Is the admission into the EU of a country which does not respect the most basic human rights
acceptable?

4. Is the Commission aware of the situation in Romanian children’s homes?

**Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 May 1999)_

The Commission is aware of the situation of children in institutions in Romania.

After the first emergency period in the early 1990’s, in which humanitarian aid was allocated to the
institutions in greatest need, Phare programmmes since 1994 have mainly been directed towards the

C 27 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

funding of structural reform of the child protection services. The objective is to have a diversity of child
care services throughout Romania, thereby reducing as much as possible the number of children in
institutions.

Phare funds are not directly allocated to orphanages, but to projects. The Commission delegation in
Bucharest monitors all the Community funded projects through monthly meetings with the implementation units and through monitoring visits. The Commission has not paid so far any unannounced visits to
Community supported orphanages. Such visits may however be undertaken in the future.

In 1997 the Romanian government launched a global reform of the children’s protection system. It
adopted a new legal framework guaranteeing children’s rights and decentralising the decision making
power and administration to the county administration (judets). This reform is expected to result, in the
medium term, in a substantially smaller number of children in institutions and a marked improvement of
standards in these institutions.

However, due to the economic crisis, counties often lack the resources to finance the institutions which
have been transferred from the state. Under the Phare programme the Commission has allocated 450 000 €
in 1997 to help the Department for child protection (DPC) and the county authorities in the elaboration of
the new child protection strategy. Once that has been achieved, 10 million € have been allocated in 1998
for a global programme supporting the implementation of the strategy, the main aim of which is the
reintegration of abandoned children into their families and the prevention of new abandonment.

The 1998 regular report on Romania ( [1] ) adopted by the Commission in November 1998, states that
‘progress has been made and that the reform strategy, supported by the Phare programme, has started to
bear fruit. There is encouraging evidence that the number of children reintegrated into their families or
adopted by foster families has increased. However, there is scope for further improving policy implementation, in particular by promoting the reintegration of children into their families’.

( [1] ) COM(98) 702 final.

(2000/C 27 E/029) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-0950/99**

**by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission**

_(7 April 1999)_

_Subject:_ Ban on the hormone disruptor tributyltin (TBT) in ship coatings

The European Commission has to date refrained from imposing a ban on the hormone disruptor TBT in
ship coatings and instead declared itself in favour of a worldwide ban under an IMO agreement.

1. In the Commission’s opinion, what is the probability of a worldwide ban on TBT on the basis of an
IMO agreement?

2. When, in the view of the Commission, is the IMO agreement banning TBT expected to be
concluded?

3. When will the Commission take the necessary steps to ensure that, irrespective of the outcome of the
negotiations on an IMO agreement, a ban on the use of TBT in ship coatings will be imposed in Europe
this year?

**Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 May 1999)_

The International maritime organisation (IMO) is currently preparing for the introduction of a worldwide
ban on the use of tributy1 tin (TBT) in antifouling paints for ships. At the last meeting of the IMO marine

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/27

environmental protection committee (MEPC 42) it was agreed that a global instrument will be prepared
ensuring a ban of the application of antifouling paints containing organotin compounds acting as biocides
by 1 January 2003, and a complete prohibition of the presence of such paints on all ships from 1 January
2008. This was agreed unanimously by IMO States.

Since then Member States and other IMO States have submitted papers to MEPC 43 (scheduled for JuneJuly 1999) which outline ways in which the statutory framework should be established to ensure a legal
instrument which comes into force by the due dates. The proposals will be considered at MEPC 43.

Member States and other IMO States are determined that the legal instrument is one which ensures
ratification on time. Member States will be fully involved with the decision-making process at IMO to
ensure this occurs. For this reason, the Commission has every confidence that a global ban will be in force
by the dates already set by IMO.

In the Community the marketing and use of TBT for use in antifouling paints on ships is restricted by
Directive 89/677/EEC, 8th amendment to Directive 76/769/EEC on restrictions on the marketing and use
of dangerous substances and preparations ( [1] ). The provisions on TBT have recently been subject to review
and a draft Commission directive adapting Directive 76/769/EEC to technical progress was given a
favourable opinion by the technical progress committee on 12 February 1999. According to the revised
provisions TBT may only be used in antifouling paints on ships longer than 25 metres if the antifouling
system provides for controlled release of TBT. The use on boats shorter than 25 metres is banned. In
addition, the use of TBT in antifouling paints is totally banned in inland waters of the Community. The
Commission directive provides also for a review of the provisions before 1st January 2003. The review will
take full account of the developments in the IMO and be initiated as soon as the IMO has formally agreed
on a global ban on TBT.

Like all antifouling paints TBT falls under the scope of the recently adopted Directive 98/8/EC concerning
the placing of biocidal products on the market ( [2] ). This provides for the re-evaluation of all biocidal
products by 2008. If an agreement cannot be reached in the IMO context, TBT will be subject to a reevaluation under the Directive and appropriate measures will be proposed in accordance with the results
of the assessment.

( [1] ) OJ L 389, 30.12.1989.
( [2] ) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998.

(2000/C 27 E/030) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1017/99**

**by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission**

_(20 April 1999)_

_Subject:_ Failure to comply with commitments entered into by DG XII

On 15 October 1998 DG XII (Directorate for standards, measurement and testing �C 03) signed a
cooperation contract with the reference number SMT 4-CT 98-5514 with two firms established in the
United Kingdom, Epsilon Holdings Ltd and R and D Performers Representative, attached to the University
of Greenwich.

Under the terms of that contract, the Commission undertook to pay the sum of ECU 229 860 within a
period of two months from the commencement date so that the work approved by the services of DG XII
could be carried out. No such payment has been made to date, and in the course of numerous contacts
with representatives of the firms concerned arguments have been put forward alleging, inter alia, a lack of
budgetary resources.

Is the Commission aware of the reasons for the above delay?

How will it respond in order to ensure that the commitments entered into vis-à-vis the above parties to the
contract are complied with, and when will it do so?

C 27 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

**Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 May 1999)_

The Commission wishes to thank the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to the delay in making
payment for contract SMT4-CT98-5514.

Following a check, it has been found that this payment should now have been credited to the project
coordinator’s bank account.

The delay was due to a number of reasons, in particular the delay by the contractor in providing the bank
guarantee requested (the contract was therefore actually signed on 7 December 1998 and not 15 October
1998 as stated in the question) and the fact that the 1998 payment appropriations concerned had been
fully used up.

In view of their request, the Commission will of course pay the contractors damages, in accordance with
current rules, for the delay since it exceeded the agreed period of 60 days between the signing of the
contract and payment being made.

(2000/C 27 E/031) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1057/99**

**by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission**

_(20 April 1999)_

_Subject:_ EMEA procedure for the notification of the parallel distribution of centrally- authorised medicinal
products

Can the Commission please clearly state its commitment to ensure that the EMEA will issue a public
statement within 120 days from the end of this year that contains the following data:

1. The number of Notifications received by the Human Medicines Evaluation Unit of the EMEA of Intent
to parallel import products by registered importers in each calendar month of each year from the
issuance of the EMEA procedures covering this trade i.e. from November 1998. The first annual
summary to cover the period from November 1998 until 31 December 1999 both months inclusive.

2. An analysis of Notifications by Member States.

3. The average time taken to process the Notification(s).

4. The number of (and analysis of the nature of) any objections made by the regulatory authority to the
notifier.

5. The total income received by the EMEA in respect of the Notification of Intent to parallel import a
medicinal product.

6. The costs incurred in the processing of the Notifications, sub-divided into the appropriate cost centres.

**Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 May 1999)_

The procedure for notification to the European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products (EMEA) of
parallel distribution for centrally authorised products entered into force on 20 November 1998.

A full report on EMEA activities on notifications of parallel distribution for centrally authorised products
will be made public as part of the 1999 EMEA activity report. Annual activity reports are adopted by the
EMEA management board at its December meeting and are made public in early January of the following
year on the EMEA Internet site (http://www.eudra.org/emea.html).

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/29

Since the entry into force of the procedure in November 1998, the EMEA has received a total of
31 notifications for parallel distribution of medicinal products for human use. Products originate from a
large number of Member States, including Belgium, France, Italy and Austria. Member States of destination
are mainly Germany and Scandinavian countries. To date, all notifications have been processed within the
time frame set out in the procedure (30 working days).

Detailed costing elements on processing of notifications are being currently investigated as part of the
overall analytical accounting and time recording systems which the EMEA has put in place in order to
identify its detailed costs. The results will provide a basis for the review of the administrative charges at the
end of 1999, which were provisionally set at euro 3 000.

(2000/C 27 E/032) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1120/99**

**by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission**

_(20 April 1999)_

_Subject:_ Production of retreaded passenger and truck tyres

Is the Commission aware that a number of Member States are unilaterally considering implementation of
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Regulations 108 and 109 which recommend
uniform provisions for the approval of production of retreaded passenger and truck tyres?

Is it not correct that, as a contracting party to the UNECE agreement, (1) the EC has exclusive competence
to determine initially whether to adopt UNECE Regulations 108/109; (2) the Member States must defer to
the exclusive competence of the European institutions in this area and await a final decision; and (3) any
action taken prior to such decision by a Member State is invalid?

Furthermore, what action does the Commission intend to take on this issue?

**Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 May 1999)_

The Regulations of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) concerning uniform
conditions of approval for the manufacture of rethreaded tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers
(Regulation 108) and for commercial vehicles and their trailers (Regulation 109) were adopted before the
accession of the Community to the revised UNECE agreement of 1958. These two regulations enter into
force on 23 June 1998 for all the contracting parties that had not served notice of their disagreement with
the regulations. As none of the Member States serve notice of disagreement, Regulations 108 and 109 are
applicable, on an optional basis, in all the Member States with the exception of Ireland which is not an
individual contracting party to the revised agreement.

When it acceded to the UNECE revised agreement of 1958 on 28 March 1998, the Community declared
that it restricted its accession to the recognition and approval of the UNECE regulations set out in Annex II
to Council Decision 97/836/EC of 27 November 1997 with a view to accession by the European
Community to the Agreement of the United National Economic Commission for Europe concerning the
adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted
to and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for a reciprocal recognition of approvals granted
on the basis of these prescriptions (‘Revised 1958 Agreement’) ( [1] ). As Regulations 108 and 109 had been
notified to the contracting parties prior to the Community’s accession to the revised agreement, the
Community could not be bound by regulations that had not been notified to it and had in fact not yet
entered into force at that time. These two regulations were therefore not included in Annex II to the
abovementioned Decision. The Member States may therefore administer and develop them, while complying however with the provisions of Article 6 of the said Decision.

C 27 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

It is important to remind the Honorary Member that the Commission is currently examining whether it
would be appropriate to transmit to the Council a proposal concerning the accession of the Community to
UNECE Regulations 108 and 109 and that the Council could adopt, if appropriate, a proposal to this effect
after Parliament has give a favourable opinion.

( [1] ) OJ L 346, 17.12.1997.

(2000/C 27 E/033) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1376/99**

**by Ole Krarup (EDD) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ EU funding for the ETUC (European Trade Union Confederation)

Will the Commission carry out an investigation within its own Directorates to provide details of the
contributions received by the ETUC (European Trade Union Confederation) from the EU? How much does
the EU pay to the ETUC as an organisation and how much money do its affiliated organisations receive?
The investigation should include contributions of all kinds, including expenses paid to members and other
affiliates for travel, accommodation etc.

The ETUC did not wish to provide information concerning the amounts which the organisation and its
members receive from the EU.

**Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and the European sectoral trade union federations do
not receive operating subsidies from the Commission.

However, in the context of calls for proposals, trade union organisations may submit requests for financial
support for actions with a European dimension in the field of industrial relations and the social dialogue.
The Commission may thus allocate funds to targeted actions of this kind which are limited in time and
which require resources over and above those available to the requesting body.

In this context, the ETUC has received subsidies for the information and training of workers’ representatives on European issues in the context of line B3-4002 and for joint actions with another social partner in
the context of developing the European social dialogue (line B3-4000). In the case of these joint actions, in
agreement with and at the request of the ‘employer’ party, the ETUC sometimes manages the financing.

(2000/C 27 E/034) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1377/99**

**by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Law on chimney sweeping in the Federal Republic of Germany

A law on chimney sweeping was passed in the Federal Republic of Germany on 15 September 1969.
Among its more important clauses, the law stipulates that the remuneration for the legally prescribed
activity of borough (Bezirk) master chimney sweep is a fee governed by public law and that the law has
the effect of imposing a legal obligation to accept contracts between the borough master chimney sweep,
to whom a working district is allotted, and the owner of a house in that district. The remuneration is
prescribed to the various Federal Länder.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/31

I therefore wish to ask the Commission:

1. Does such legislation exist in other Member States of the European Union?

2. Does this law on chimney sweeping, which imposes a considerable financial burden on the citizens of
the Federal Republic of Germany, infringe the EC Treaty, which prescribes harmonization of living
conditions?

3. What does the Commission intend to do to meet the need for an adjustment to the law?

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

In the absence of harmonisation at Community level, and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,
each Member State is free to regulate the profession of chimney-sweep, provided that the regulations are
neither discriminatory nor disproportionate. Since the aim of Community law is to ensure the free
movement of professionals and not to harmonise the conditions for taking up and pursuing a profession,
the work carried out by the Commission does not provide it with information on the legislation governing
chimney sweeps in all the Member States. In any case, it is the Commission’s opinion that a legally
prescribed remuneration system does not infringe the rules of the internal market.

The internal market demands equal treatment with regard to access to a professional activity; Community
nationals wishing to take up the profession of chimney-sweep should not be subject to any discrimination
based on nationality.

In Germany, chimney sweeps do not just provide traditional chimney-sweeping services, but the public
authorities have also given them responsibility for checking the safety of heating systems to protect against
the risk of fire in houses. The chimney-sweep is not allowed to carry out both the installation and
maintenance of heating systems. It seems that the profession of borough master chimney sweep
(‘Bezirksschornsteinfegermeister’) is conditional upon having German nationality. This condition is not
compatible with the right of establishment referred to in Article 43 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 52).

The nationality requirement could not be justified under the first paragraph of Article 45 of the EC Treaty
(ex Article 55) on the grounds that the master chimney-sweep has been given responsibility by the public
authorities for carrying out checks and is thus exercising official authority. The use of Article 45,
paragraph 1, can only therefore be justified in cases where the activities are in themselves directly and
specifically connected with the exercise of official authority (see, most recently, ‘Commission v Spain’,
C-114/97, judgment of 29.10.1998, point 35 ( [1] ) concerning private security services). The control of
heating systems is without doubt an activity which contributes to security in houses. This does not,
however, provide grounds for justifying the nationality requirement.

The nationality requirement would also not seem to be justifiable under Article 46 of the EC Treaty (ex
Article 56). This provision constitutes an express derogation from the principle of equal treatment on the
grounds of public policy, public security or public health. This facility for the Member States to restrict the
right of establishment is not, however, intended to exclude an economic sector as such from the
application of internal market rules (see point 42 of the aforementioned ECJ judgment).

Finally, with regard to the implementation of Community competition rules, the Commission would point
out that its field of competence only extends to cases which have an appreciable effect on trade between
Member States. Thus, for as long as there is no sign of such an effect, the Commission is not required to
examine the compatibility of national law with these rules.

The Commission does not share the opinion of the Honourable Member that the EC Treaty prescribes the
harmonisation of living conditions for citizens of the European Union. In fact, any such objective for a
Community initiative would need to be justified in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. There is
no such justification.

( [1] ) ECR 1998 I, page 6717.

C 27 E/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/035) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1378/99**

**by Barbara Weiler (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ European Voluntary Service

The members of the European Voluntary Service suffer major disadvantages in some cases compared to
other, national voluntary services. They have, for example, no uniform legal status and forfeit their
entitlements to unemployment and child benefit.

1. Does the Commission intend to propose common rules so that the legal situation of European
volunteers may be improved?

2. How does the Commission rate the chances of the Member States defining a common status for the
European Voluntary Service that includes coordination of social protection and tax arrangements for the
volunteers?

3. How long is it likely to be before the Member States agree on a common status for European
volunteers?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

The Commission attaches great importance to the elimination of all legal and administrative barriers to
access to the European Voluntary Service Programme and to transnational mobility for young European
volunteers and recognition of the particular nature of their situation.

However, the ‘European voluntary service for young people’ programme is based on Article 149 (ex-Article
126) of the EC treaty pursuant to which the Community must encourage cooperation between Member
States while fully respecting their responsibility in this area, and this rules out harmonisation of the
existing system.

The Community action has already had an impact on existing legislation in certain Member States but the
Commission considers that there is still room for improvement. This is why it plans, in the context of
following up the Green Paper ‘Education, training, research: the obstacles to transnational mobility’ ( [1] ), to
propose a recommendation concerning notably young volunteers with a view to recognising the particular
nature of transnational voluntary activities and to eliminating the legal and administrative barriers and the
legal uncertainty associated with the mobility of young volunteers.

As regards social protection for volunteer development workers, who are not part of the European
Voluntary Service Programme ( [2] ), the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, adopted
Recommendation 85/308/EC ( [3] ) on 13 June 1985. On 31 March 1992 the Commission presented an
initial report on the application of this recommendation ( [4] ) and, very recently, on 2 July 1999, a new
report ( [5] ).

( [1] ) COM(96) 462 final.
( [2] ) COM(98) 201 final.
( [3] ) COM(85) 260 final.
( [4] ) SEC(92) 591 final.
( [5] ) COM(99) 326 final.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/33

(2000/C 27 E/036) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1379/99**

**by Xaver Mayer (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Protection of beavers �flood damage

In connection with the flooding of the banks of the Rivers Isar and Danube in Germany in the spring of
this year it has been discovered that beavers have undermined flood protection dams. This has endangered
the stability of the dams. The question is whether possible threats to the safety of the dams should be
eliminated by management of the beaver population.

1. Can the Commission say what protection beavers enjoy under the directive on the protection of
species?

2. Can the Commission say what action could be taken under the present rules on protection to prevent
beavers from undermining flood protection dams and to make dams already undermined secure again?

3. Does the Commission see a need to call for a study that enables the possible dangers to be assessed
and measures to avert them to be developed?

**Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission**

_(10 September 1999)_

The Commission is aware that successfully reintroduced beaver ( [1] ) populations (presumably Castor fiber)
exist on the rivers Isar and Danube (Donau) in Germany.

Even if in this case destruction of flood protection dams by beavers can not be excluded, damage by
similar rodents such as the coypu ( [2] ) (Myocastor coypus) or the muskrat ( [3] ) (Ondatra zibethica) might be
taken into consideration too. These two last mentioned species do not fall under European nature
protection legislation.

1. As far as species protection is concerned the European beaver (Castor fiber) is protected pursuant to
Article 12 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC ( [4] )), which means that Member States have to establish a
system of strict protection prohibiting all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of this species
in the wild, as well as deliberate disturbance or deterioration or destruction of breeding sites.

2. However, under the conditions given in Article 16 Member States may derogate from the provisions
in Article 12 in the interest of public safety. The question of which measures are most appropriate to
guarantee on the one hand efficient flood protection and on the other hand sufficient species protection,
has to be addressed by the authorities of the Member State.

3. These authorities have to decide under their own responsibility whether in a particular case a specific
examination for an assessment of dangers and measures is necessary.

( [1] ) Fr.:Castor / D: Biber.
( [2] ) Fr.:Ragondin/ D: Nutria.
( [3] ) Fr.:Rat musqué / D: Bisamratte.
( [4] ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

C 27 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/037) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1380/99**

**by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Income tax levied on assets in a Member State of the Union

At the request of an Austrian citizen who owns a house in Spain, I wish to ask the Commission:

1. Does this make the Austrian liable to income tax in Spain �whether or not he lets the house?

2. Would he be liable to income tax only if he let the house to a third party?

3. Does this arrangement infringe EU legislation (e.g. avoidance of double taxation)?

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

The Spanish legislation provides that residents and non-residents who own a property in Spain, even if
that property is occupied by the owner and is a non-rented property, have to include in their income,
subject to personal income tax, 2 % of its adjusted rateable value. In case of non-residents the income tax is
levied at a flat rate of 25 %. For residents, the rate of taxation is the marginal rate of personal income tax
applied to taxable income (up to 56 %).

According to the convention of 20 December 1966 concluded between Austria and Spain for the
avoidance of double taxation, modified by the Protocol of 24 February 1995, and in particular Articles 6
and 24(1)(a), income from immovable property is taxable solely where the property is located, i.e. in Spain
in the present case. So, no double taxation of such income could take place for that taxpayer.

The Commission does not see how that legislation, which does not appear to contain any discriminatory
provisions, could be in infringement with Community law.

(2000/C 27 E/038) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1381/99**

**by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Deregulation of public transport services

Will the Commission please state the extent to which deregulation of public transport services has taken
place to date in each EU Member State.

**Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 September 1999)_

The Commission sponsored the ‘Isotope’ research report which distinguished between (a) deregulation, in
which there is open access to the market (competition ‘on the ground’); (b) limited competition, in which
operators hold exclusive rights for particular routes or areas but have to take part in competitive tendering
every few years (competition ‘for the ground’); (c) the classical model, in which an operator enjoys an
exclusive right indefinitely without competition.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/35

Information is not kept centrally in a comprehensive form. The information the Commission holds
indicates that deregulation has been introduced for all bus services in the United Kingdom (other than in
London and Northern Ireland), that limited competition has been introduced for some or all bus services in
Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom (London), and that
limited competition has also been introduced for some or all conventional rail services in Germany, the
Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

(2000/C 27 E/039) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1382/99**

**by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ EU aid to the Spanish flax industry

For a number of weeks now, the Spanish press has been criticising the huge increase in EU aid to the
Spanish flax industry �which has risen from ESP 23 million in 1993-1994 to more than
ESP 10 000 million in 1998-1999 �as well as the fact that a number of public officials or their relatives
have materially benefited from these large subsidies. In the wake of these reports and the ensuing political
debate, a number of senior officials have felt called on to resign.

Is the Commission aware of these facts? Can it state whether it has identified any cases of fraud or
irregularity, or whether it intends to open an investigation to determine whether the Spanish authorities
responsible for administering CAP aid can be called to account?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(9 September 1999)_

The increase in Community expenditure on Spanish fibre flax merely reflects how the area sown to flax in
Spain has expanded over recent marketing years: 187 ha in 1993/94, 3 599 ha in 1994/95, 11 497 ha in
1995/96, 46 613 ha in 1996/97, 49 045 ha in 1997/98 and 92 202 ha in 1998/99.

The Community legislation governing the common organisation of the market in flax has developed
considerably over the period in question. Grant of the aid has been made subject to many conditions
precisely to prevent aid being paid for areas not really used to grow flax. For instance, growers are now
obliged to conclude contracts with primary processors, who must undertake to process the flax and be
granted approval. From the 1998/99 marketing year, grant of the aid is also subject to a minimum yield in
flax straw.

Checks on the expenditure declared by Spain under the fibre flax aid scheme as part of the clearance of
accounts of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) for the 1994 and 1995
financial years revealed certain shortcomings in the current control arrangements. A flat-rate penalty of
10 % was accordingly applied to the financial years concerned. As part of the EAGGF clearance of accounts
for 1996 to 1998, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities what measures they had taken to
mitigate the shortcomings found previously. The work and procedures concerned are under way.

The Commission has learned through the press of the events referred to by Honourable Member and the
work of the committee set up by the Spanish Parliament to investigate the matter. In addition, the
European Fraud Prevention Office (OLAF) has asked the Spanish courts (the fraud-prevention prosecutor,
to be precise) to investigate whether Community aid for fibre flax has been being correctly administered
and checked by the competent authorities and, if not, whether there are likely to be criminal proceedings.
The OLAF will follow the investigation closely.

C 27 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/040) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1383/99**

**by Pedro Aparicio Sánchez (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Information on the Structural Funds

Following the adoption and publication of the new regulations laying down general provisions for the
Structural Funds and of the regulations for the individual Funds, pursuant to Article 7(3) of EC (Council)
Regulation No 1260/99 ( [1] ), the Commission should have established the breakdown by Member State of
the available commitment appropriations.

Can the Commission provide information on the notification made to the Kingdom of Spain, in the form
of the full text, including, for Objectives 1 and 2, the distinction between appropriations allocated to the
regions and those allocated to areas eligible for transitional aid?

( [1] ) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

**Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 September 1999)_

In accordance with Article 7(3) of the Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds,
on 1 July 1999 the Commission fixed indicative breakdowns by Member State of the commitment
appropriations available for the programming under Objectives 1, 2 and 3 and for assistance under the
Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance outside Objective 1 regions. The Decisions in question were
published in Official Journal L 194 of 27 July 1999. The relevant extract from the Official Journal has
been sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament Secretariat.

As provided under Article 7(3), for Objectives 1 and 2 these breakdowns distinguish allocations of
appropriations to regions and areas benefiting from transitional support.

(2000/C 27 E/041) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1384/99**

**by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Council**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ EU defence policy �implications of the Cologne Summit

Controversy has arisen in Sweden over the interpretation of some of the decisions taken by the European
Council at the summit held in Cologne on 3-4 June 1999 concerning the further development of the
common foreign, security and defence policy. Will the Council therefore say whether the Cologne decision
means that the WEU is to be integrated to some extent into the EU? Does the Cologne decision mean that
the EU will be able to carry out military operations only following a UN Security Council resolution or
could situations arise in which the EU also intervenes militarily without a UN mandate? Does the Cologne
decision represent a step in a process towards a common EU defence policy and a common defence or is it
the absolutely final step in giving the EU a ‘military capability’?

**Reply**

_(22 October 1999)_

1. The Treaty on European Union provides for closer institutional relations between EU and WEU, with
the possibility of ‘the WEU integration into the EU, should the European Council so decide’.

2. The Cologne European Council addressed the capacity of the Union to effectively undertake crisis
management and tasked the General Affairs Council to prepare the conditions and the measures necessary

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/37

to achieve this objective, including the definition of the modalities for the inclusion of those functions of
the WEU which will be necessary for the EU to fulfil its new responsibilities in the area of the Petersberg
tasks. The aim is to take the necessary decisions by the end of the year 2000. The EU Presidency will
present a progress report to the Helsinki European Council meeting.

3. The Honourable Member will recall that Article 11 of the TEU mentions, among the objectives of the
Common Foreign and Security Policy, the preservation of peace and strengthening of the international
security in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The European Council in Cologne
reaffirmed this principle.

The aim of the European Council was clearly to strengthen the Common Foreign and Security Policy by
providing it with the necessary means to carry out crisis management tasks.

The question of collective defence of Member States is equally clearly not addressed, the conclusions of the
European Council recalling that NATO remains the foundation of the collective defence of its Members
and not the policy of the Union.

(2000/C 27 E/042) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1385/99**

**by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Discrimination against Dutch contractors under German tax legislation

1. Is the Commission aware that, on 19 March 1999, the German Bundesrat adopted a bill concerning
new tax legislation including Article 50a(7) and (8) of the Income Tax Act?

2. Is it true that, under these provisions, the principals of foreign contractors (or subcontractors)
engaged on projects in Germany are required to withhold 25 % of the total value of the contract to cover
tax payments?

3. Does the Commission agree that, as a result of this provision, foreign companies are reticent about
accepting contracts in Germany, which constitutes a restriction on the free movement of persons, goods
and services?

4. What view does the Commission take of this provision and its admissibility and what measures does
it intend to take if appropriate?

(2000/C 27 E/043) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1389/99**

**by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Discrimination against EU citizens in the Federal Republic of Germany

On 1 April a change to income tax law was introduced in the Federal Republic of Germany. Under § 50a
(7) of the Income Tax Law, German firms which have awarded a contract to foreign contractors, including
EU citizens or businesses, are required to pay only 75 % of the agreed remuneration to the contractor and
the remaining 25 % direct to the tax authorities in Germany, in order to cover any tax liability on the part
of the foreign contractor.

This rule results in discriminatory treatment of contractors from other EU countries:

1. What is the Commission’s opinion of these new provisions of German tax legislation?

2. What action does the Commission intend to take against these provisions, which discriminate against
citizens of other EU countries?

C 27 E/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

For the Commission’s assistance, I attach an article from the newspaper Die Welt of 22 May 1999 entitled
‘Granting of contracts to foreigners made more difficult’.

(2000/C 27 E/044) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1471/99**

**by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ New German tax legislation for the building sector

New tax legislation for the building sector came into force in Germany on 1 April 1999, including Article
50a (7) and (8) concerning the 25 % rule. The effect of this rule is that bodies using foreign companies (as
contractors or sub-contractors) to carry out work in Germany must withhold 25 % of the gross sum
involved and forward it to the tax authorities. A refund can only be made in the subsequent calendar year
when the foreign company has furnished proof that it is not liable to taxation in Germany.

1. Is the Commission familiar with Article 50a of the new German law?

2. Can the Commission examine whether the article in question is consistent with EEC legislation, in
particular with the provisions on the Internal Market?

3. If not, does the Commission take the view that this legislation puts foreign companies at a
disadvantage compared with German companies?

4. What action does the Commission intend to take to put a stop to this?

**Joint answer**
**to Written Questions P-1385/99, E-1389/99 and E-1471/99**
**given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 September 1999)_

The Commission is aware of the new German tax provision included in the Act of 24 March 1999, which
came into force on 1 April. An investigation has shown that this legislation could affect the freedom to
provide services, one of the four freedoms on which the single market is based. On 28 July the
Commission decided to initiate an infringement procedure against Germany under Article 226 of the EC
Treaty (formerly Article 169).

According to the latest information from the German Government, it has tabled a bill designed to abolish
the provision at issue.

(2000/C 27 E/045) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1387/99**

**by Carlos Costa Neves (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Production of refined sugar in the Azores Autonomous Region

Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 (known as the Poseima regulation) ( [1] ) lays down
the objective of establishing ‘specific measures to remedy, in respect of certain agricultural products, the
difficulties caused by the remote and insular nature of the Azores and Madeira’.

The Azores Autonomous Region has the clearly-established right to import sugar-cane, ‘in such a way that
the total annual volume of sugar refined in the Azores does not exceed 10 000 tonnes’. This limit ‘shall be
assessed taking account of the development of local sugar beet production’ �in other words, the amount
of sugar produced from beet (see Poseima, Article 3(4)). This means that the limit of 10 000 tonnes on

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/39

refined (cane) sugar will be reduced in line with the amount of (beet) sugar produced, on the basis of the
following equation: Cane sugar = Beet sugar �10 000 tonnes.

Under Poseima, Articles 3(3) and 8, the Azores Autonomous Region has the right to export its surpluses,
within the above limit, to its traditional markets.

Under Commission Regulation (EEC) 1321/98 of 25 June 1998 ( [2] ), the Azores Autonomous Region was
allowed only the amount of cane required to produce 6 500 tonnes of refined sugar, instead of the 9 000
tonnes which it had requested.

The firm known as Sinaga, which has been in existence for over a century, is one of the most important
companies in the Azores, in terms of the number of jobs it provides (it employs 150 people), the 500
farmers who depend on it and the other activities related to it.

The industry is also of major importance for the crop rotation system.

The Commission:

1. Can it explain why, when a request was made by the Azores Autonomous Region in April 1998 for a
9 000-tonne limit for cane sugar under Poseima, only 6 500 tonnes were agreed under Commission
Regulation (EEC) 1321/98 of 25 June 1998?

2. Can it also state whether refineries in mainland Portugal are supplied with sugar cane on the basis of
reduced levies, and, if so, what amounts are involved and on what grounds the practice is justified?

( [1] ) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992, p. 1.
( [2] ) OJ L 183, 26.6.1998, p. 27.

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 September 1999)_

Council Regulation (EEC) 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 introduces specific measures for the Azores and
Madeira relating to certain agricultural products. The quantity of products covered by the specific supply
arrangements is determined on the basis of the basic needs of the markets in the region and taking into
consideration traditional local production and trade flows.

Commission Regulation (EEC) 2177/92 of 30 July 1992 ( [1] ) lays down detailed rules for applying the
specific supply arrangements for the Azores with regard to sugar. It stipulates that the raw sugar of
Community origin covered by the above arrangements is brought into the Azores for refining and
consumption. Since the consumption declared by the Portuguese authorities for the 1998/99 marketing
year amounted to 6 300 tonnes, the quantity of 6 500 tonnes fixed for this marketing year for
importation under the specific supply arrangements is largely sufficient, taking account of local sugar
production from beet.

Turning to the supply of raw sugar to the Portuguese refineries, Article 303 of the Act of Accession of
Spain and Portugal provided for adequate preferential supply arrangements for those refineries and
Community’s statement annexed to the final act of the Treaty of Accession referred to the need for an
overall review of the sugar refining industry in the Community, particularly in Portugal.

Accordingly, Council Regulation (EC) 1101/95 of 24 April 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) 1785/81 on
the common organisation of the market in the sugar sector and Regulation (EEC) 1010/86 laying down
general rules for the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry ( [2] ) fixes the
maximum supply requirements per marketing year of the refining industry in mainland Portugal at
292 000 tonnes, expressed as white sugar. That Regulation also provides for a minimum purchase price
and reduced import duty to be paid on imports of raw cane sugar intended for those supplies. For the
1998/99 marketing year, Commission Regulation (EC) 1375/98 of 29 June 1998 opening import quotas
in respect of special preferential raw cane sugar from the ACP States and India for supply to refineries in
the period 1 July 1998 to 28 February 1999 ( [3] ) fixes the duty at EUR 54,1 per tonne of standard quality

raw sugar.

( [1] ) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.
( [2] ) OJ L 110, 17.5.1995.
( [3] ) OJ L 185, 30.6.1998.

C 27 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/046) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1388/99**

**by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Video surveillance of employees

It has become increasingly common for employers to use video surveillance, not only to monitor
customers but also their own employees. It has even got to the point that many employees are under
surveillance outside the workplace. By hiring private detectives, employers keep their employees under
surveillance both during and outside working hours.

Does the Commission not take the view that such a practice constitutes an unacceptable infringement of
employees rights which unnecessarily casts them in a suspicious light?

**Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

The Commission is aware of the use of technical devices such telephone-tapping and video surveillance in
the workplace for the purpose of monitoring the conduct or work performance of employees.

At Community level, there is no specific provision on the surveillance of employees in Directive 95/46/EC
of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to
the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data ( [1] ).

At international level, the 1996 International labour organization (ILO) code of practice on the protection
of worker data ( [2] ) does not exclude the monitoring of workers but it clearly restricts it. Monitoring is
subject to two conditions. First, it can only be conducted if the workers concerned are informed in advance
of the employer’s intentions. Secondly, employers cannot simply choose the method and means of
monitoring that they consider to be most suitable for their aims, but they should take into consideration
the consequences for the privacy of workers and give preference to the least intrusive means of
surveillance.

In the case of secret or continuous monitoring, the code has taken a very restrictive approach. Continuous
monitoring is limited to cases in which surveillance is necessary in order to deal with specific problems
related to health and safety or to the protection of property. Secret monitoring is only accepted as long as
specific provisions of national law foresee it.

The Commission is currently analysing, in the framework of the protection of privacy of employee data,
Member States’ legislation on this matter.

( [1] ) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.
( [2] ) Code of practice on the protection of worker’s personal data, Doc MEWP/1996/5.

(2000/C 27 E/047) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1390/99**

**by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Commission report on checks on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road
transport

In its report on checks on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road transport
(COM(97) 698 final), the Commission notes that the level of checks and the incidence of penalties
imposed for offences vary extremely widely between the Member States. Of over 1 million offences
detected throughout the EU, Germany accounts for over 900 000.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/41

1. How does the Commission explain this state of affairs?

2. What does it intend to do in order to ensure compliance with the law and fair competition
throughout the EU?

**Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 September 1999)_

In its last report on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road transport for the period
1993-1994 ( [1] ), the Commission set out the statistics provided by the Member States concerning the
number of checks made and offences detected by their competent authorities. The Commission recognises
that the statistics for this period indicate the significant effort put into enforcement operations by the
German authorities.

Unfortunately, the overall picture has been distorted for a number of reasons. Firstly, despite reminders,
three Member States, Greece, Italy and Austria did not make returns for this period; secondly, both Finland
and Sweden as new Member States were in the process of setting up appropriate enforcement mechanisms;
thirdly, some Member States such as Belgium, France and Portugal only sent in partial data, while the
United Kingdom indicated that the enforcement operations of its police force were not yet assimilated into
the statistics return provided.

Member States are continuing to consolidate their data collection and statistical presentations for the
Commission. It should also be noted that the 1993-1994 report period was the first time that Germany
included the statistically significant enforcement operations of the Länder through the BAG (Bundesamt für
Güter verkehr).

The Commission has taken action against those Member States that failed to supply data and has obtained
data from all Member States for the next Report. In the case of some Member States the threat of legal
action was made.

The Commission recognises that Member States approach enforcement in different ways. Germany, for
example, concentrates on a large number of checks. Other Member States have fewer checks but higher
penalties whilst other Member States target specific transport activities.

The arrival of the new digital tachograph will allow the Commission to press for the introduction of higher
minimum levels of checks. A report which will evaluate the effectiveness and uniformity of enforcement
practice in the Member States is also in preparation and it will include various proposals for improvements.

( [1] ) COM(97) 698 final.

(2000/C 27 E/048) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1392/99**

**by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Application of directives on the general right of residence of citizens of the Union in Portugal

The district and city of Cascais in Portugal, where a very large number of citizens of other European Union
Member States reside, have only one registration office for foreigners. In view of the large daily influx of
applicants from third countries, the office has difficulty in properly carrying out its functions. This
jeopardises the implementation and effective application of the directives on the general right of residence
(Directives 90/364/EEC ( [1] ), 90/365/EEC ( [2] ) and 93/96/EEC ( [3] )).

Is the Commission aware that:

1. citizens of the Union applying for a residence permit can sometimes be obliged to queue for several
days in order to hand in applications or collect permits;

C 27 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

2. a helpful measure with a view to applying the directives on the general right of residence of citizens of
the Union effectively might be to divide applicants, for organisational purposes, into those of
European Union origin and those of third country origin?

( [1] ) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 26.
( [2] ) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 28.
( [3] ) OJ L 317, 18.12.1993, p. 59.

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

Article 9(3) of Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement
and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families ( [1] ), which applies
mutatis mutandis to the beneficiaries of Directives 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence,
90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have
ceased their occupational activity, and 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for
students, provides that Member States shall take the necessary steps to simplify as much as possible the
formalities and procedure for obtaining the residence documents. Furthermore, the decision concerning
whether or not to grant the first residence permit should be taken as soon as possible and in any case not
later than six months from the date of application for the permit.

Procedural problems and delays in handling the residence permit applications of the beneficiaries of
Community law might be contrary to the above-mentioned provisions. Any beneficiary of Community law
who considers that his rights have been endangered by such problems or delays, may address a complaint
to the Commission giving details and requesting the Commission to examine whether the administrative
practice described is contrary to Community law.

Nevertheless, it is up to the Member States to decide whether the simplification of formalities and
procedure involve the division of applicants into those who are beneficiaries of Community law and
those who are not. The Commission would draw attention to the fact that third-country national family
members of Union citizens are also beneficiaries of Community law. Therefore the division suggested by
the Honourable Member of applicants into those of Union origin and those of third country origin might
not serve all the beneficiaries of Community law.

( [1] ) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(2000/C 27 E/049) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1393/99**

**by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Subsidies for Vion VVaG

The Hanover insurance company HDI Haftpflichtverband der deutschen Industrie and the Bavarian
insurance company HUK-Coburg propose to merge in July 1999. The registered office of the new firm
resulting from the merger, Vion VVaG, is to be in Coburg. The decision on the location of the office was
taken as a result of substantial financial incentives from the Land of Bavaria, the level of which is not
publicly known.

1. Is the European Commission aware of the financial assistance for Vion VVaG from the government
of the Land of Bavaria? If so, what level of assistance is being provided by the Land of Bavaria in this case?

2. Have the subsidies and incentives from the Land of Bavaria been notified as aid to the Commission?

3. Are such subsidies compatible with European law on competition and aid, and in particular
Article 87 of the EC Treaty?

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/43

**Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 September 1999)_

The attention of the Commission was drawn by the Honourable Member’s letter of 22 June 1999 to
alleged state aid of the Land Bavaria in favour of Vion VvaG.

As explained in a letter dated 16 July 1999 the Commission has asked the German authorities for a
statement and information about the alleged state aid. The German authorities have not yet answered this
letter.

The Commission will inform the Honourable Member about the results of the investigation.

(2000/C 27 E/050) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1394/99**

**by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Paul van Buitenen

According to a report in the Süddeutsche Zeitung of 7.6.1999, the EU official Paul van Buitenen who,
through his report to the Commission last December, played a decisive part in the exposure of cases of
corruption and fraud, has been transferred to a department which does not match his qualifications and
skills (‘counting light bulbs’).

1. Has van Buitenen in fact been transferred to the materials procurement department, and since when
has he been employed there and for what work is he specifically responsible?

2. If such a transfer has taken place, was it the Commission’s intention to disqualify van Buitenen from
an appropriate position by transferring him in this way for disciplinary reasons?

**Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 September 1999)_

1. Mr Van Buitenen was transferred to a new post, in the interests of the service, by decision of the
Appointing Authority (AIPN) of 9 April 1999, with effect from 16 April 1999.

In the Commission’s view, his new post does match his professional qualifications. It requires sound
practical experience in the field of accounting as well as a thorough knowledge of the financial regulation
and the use of computer tools, all of which Mr Van Buitenen possesses.

In this post he is responsible for a new, centralised accounting team for the Buildings Policy and
Management Unit. This team is responsible for general and analytical accounting, including outside the
budget. The annual budget it is required to manage amounts to approximately EUR 210 million, plus
around EUR 29 million more for its activities outside the budget. Mr Van Buitenen’s first job is to set up
this new team, which will be about ten strong.

2. It was decided to create this post last year, and the vacancy notice was published in March 1999
independently of Mr Van Buitenen’s assignment to the post. His transfer to such a post cannot be seen as a
punishment.

C 27 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/051) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1395/99**

**by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Management of Österreichisch-Bayerische Kraftwerke AG power stations

Österreichisch-Bayerische Kraftwerke AG (ÖBK) has given up managing its power stations independently
and assigned their management to Grenzkraftwerke GmbH Inn/Donau (GKW), which is owned by
Bayernwerk Wasserkraft AG and Österreichische Elektrizitätswirtschafts-AG. The transfer was made without a public invitation to bid.

As the companies involved are majority state-owned, I would ask the Commission:

1. Should there have been a public invitation to bid for the management of the ÖBK power stations? If
so, why, and if not, why not?

2. If so, what action will the Commission be taking?

**Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 October 1999)_

The award of a service contract by the österreichisch-bayerische Kraftwerke AG (ÖBK) falls under the
scope of application of Directive 93/38/EEC of the Council of 14 June 1993 on the coordination of the
procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications
sectors ( [1] ) as amended by Directive 98/4/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 ( [2] ),
if ÖBK is a contracting entity in the meaning of this directive, and the value of the contract equals or
exceeds the threshold of the Directive.

It seems that the first condition has been fulfilled. ÖBK is a contracting entity in the meaning of Article 2
paragraph 1 of the Directive, that exercises an activity within the meaning of paragraph 2 a) ii), relating to
the provision or operation of fixed networks intended to provide a service to the public in connection with
the production, transport or distribution of electricity or the supply of electricity to such networks.

The Commission does not have elements enabling an assessment of the contract value. However, the
transfer of the management by ÖBK to the Grenzkraftwerke GmbH Inn/Donau �as addressed by the
Honourable Member �can be defined, according to the Commission, as a service within in the meaning
of Annex XVI B, category 27 (other services) of the Directive. Article 16 provides that these service
contracts shall be awarded in accordance with Articles 18 and 24 of the Directive, which oblige the
contracting entity to communicate to the Commission every awarded contract which equals or exceeds the
threshold of the Directive, within two months of the award of the contract of the results of the awarding
procedure by means of notice.

The Commission is therefore of the opinion that for the transfer of the management by ÖBK to the
Grenzkraftwerke GmbH Inn/Donau no public invitation to tender was needed.

( [1] ) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
( [2] ) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998.

(2000/C 27 E/052) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1397/99**

**by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Equivalence as regards conditions for entitlement to an early retirement pension

A German man resident in Belgium has worked and lived for approximately 12 years in Germany and
approximately 30 years in Belgium. In neither case was he a frontier worker, as he lived in the respective

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/45

country where he worked. In Belgium the possibility exists of an early retirement pension from the age
of 60. Employees who have worked as frontier workers in Germany receive the full pension from the
Belgian state until they become entitled to the old-age pension from Germany. As the person in question
was not a frontier worker, the pension is paid only in respect of the period of insurance in Belgium. In
Germany an early retirement pension is possible from the age of 60 under § 38 of volume 6 of the Social
Security Code. The person in question meets all the conditions for entitlement to such a pension other
than the requirement for the applicant to have been unemployed for 52 weeks within the last year and a
half prior to the start of payment of the pension. The person concerned was registered unemployed in
Belgium for two years prior to applying for the pension and did not make himself available for work in
Germany.

Is it possible to treat the period of unemployment in another Member State (Belgium) as equivalent to the
period of unemployment in Germany as regards the conditions for entitlement to an early retirement
pension from Germany?

Could Council Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 ( [1] ) of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the
Community be amended to that effect?

( [1] ) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

**Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 September 1999)_

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the Court of Justice’s ruling in
the D’Amico case ( [1] ) that Community law does not prohibit a rule of national law which requires, for the
acquisition of the right to early retirement pension, that the person concerned has been unemployed for a
certain time and thus available to the employment bureau of the Member State in question.

The Court based its reasoning on the fact that unemployment benefits are closely linked to the situation in
the region in which the person concerned became unemployed, as vacant posts vary from one region of
the Community to another. This is also reflected by the fact that Council Regulation (EC) 118/97 of
2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within
the Community and Regulation (EEC) 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation
(EEC) 1408/71 ( [2] ) limits the export of unemployment benefits to a period of three months. During this
three-month period, the link with the Member State where the worker became unemployed is maintained
by the fact that the competent institution of that Member State remains obliged to reimburse the
unemployment benefits involved.

The German authorities are therefore not obliged to recognise registration with a Belgian unemployment
institution as being equivalent to registration in Germany.

The Commission has recently adopted a proposal to simplify the rules ( [3] ), Article 3(2) of which makes
provision for assimilation of the facts. This means that Member States whose laws, regulations or
administrative provisions attribute legal effects to the occurrence of certain facts or events should, to the
extent necessary, take account of the same facts or events occurring in any other Member State as though
they had taken place in national territory.

Under the co-decision procedure, this proposal is currently being discussed by Parliament and the Council,
which is expected to adopt it unanimously.

( [1] ) Judgment of the Court of 9 July 1975, 20-75 D’Amico, ECR 1975, p. 891.
( [2] ) OJ L 28, 30.10.1997.
( [3] ) OJ C 38, 12.2.1999.

C 27 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/053) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1399/99**

**by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Daytime running lights and light-sensitive switches

1. Does the Commission have information suggesting that the introduction of compulsory daytime
running lights in road transport following the example of Scandinavian countries could lead to a reduction
in the number of accidents?

2. Is the Commission considering proposing the introduction of compulsory daytime running lights in
the European Union?

3. Is the Commission considering encouraging the introduction of a light-sensitive switch?

4. Is the Commission considering taking other measures in order to permit the main effects of daytime
driving with lights to be achieved, without the possible attendant negative effects?

**Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission**

_(10 September 1999)_

The accident reduction effect of daytime running lights has been extensively researched on the basis of
available evidence following its adoption in some Member States as well as Hungary and Canada. It has
also been assessed on the basis of the effects of trial experiments following the use of daytime running
lights on vehicle fleets. Overall, the results indicate that daytime running lights can reduce accidents,
especially fatal accidents, and that the effect varies directly with latitude and is most pronounced in
Scandinavian countries.

Evidence from some of the more robust studies, relevant to Central Europe, indicates that the accident
reduction effect in these latitudes is modest but statistically significant. There is an on-going debate about
the magnitude of the accident reduction effect of daytime running lights.

The Commission, in close cooperation with the High Level Group of representatives from each Member
State on road safety, is still investigating the effects of daytime running lights and, in particular, their
impact upon increased fuel consumption, and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, currently estimated to lie
between 0,4 % and 2,5 %. The actual outcome depends very much upon the type of daytime running light
arrangement adopted, or the mix of alternative daytime running light arrangements adopted. The ‘twilight
switch’ can automatically activate headlamps when ambient daylight levels are low, or there is poor
visibility, so they are not active for a large proportion of daytime running hours. This offers lower levels of
additional fuel consumption and CO 2 emissions.

The extent to which daytime running lights increases fuel consumption is a significant issue within the
context of current initiatives to improve the fuel economy of passenger cars. The Commission will
therefore consider this issue carefully in its evaluation of the overall effects of daytime running lights.

(2000/C 27 E/054) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1400/99**

**by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) and Doris Pack (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ The Commission’s infringement proceedings against cross-border book price-fixing in Austria and
Germany

1. In a series of resolutions, most recently on 20 November 1998 (Resolution B4-0991/98 ( [1] )),
Parliament has expressed an opinion on the subject of cross-border book price-fixing. With regard to the
proceedings instituted by the Commission, Parliament assumes that dialogue with the Commission will
continue in Parliament’s next legislative term and that the Commission will abide by the usual procedures
and not take a final decision in this matter before then.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/47

(a) When does the Commission intend to organise, as called for in Parliament’s resolution of 20 November
1998, the public hearing on price-fixing and on the question of the significance of Article 128(4) of
the EU Treaty and other aspects involving competition, cultural and consumer policy, with the
participation of the cross-border book trade?

(b) What action has the Commission taken to establish binding rules enabling both national book pricefixing agreements and also cross-border agreements within homogenous linguistic areas to be deemed
not contrary to the rules of competition?

2. In its recent resolution of 8 February 1999 on price-fixing for books in homogenous, cross-border
linguistic areas, the Council of Ministers of Cultural Affairs once again called on the Commission to take
account, when applying European rules on competition, of the provisions and implications of Article
128(4) of the EU Treaty, of the special importance of the cultural role of the book market and of the
specific value of the book as a cultural object, as well as relevant national cultural policies. The cultural
clause has been further reinforced, following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, in Article
151(4).

When applying European competition rules, in the light of what laws will the Commission take account of
Article 151(4), reinforced by the Amsterdam Treaty, and national decisions on cultural policy if, as is
regularly the case, neither the advantages nor the disadvantages of a cultural policy measure can be clearly
identified?

( [1] ) OJ C 379, 7.12.1998, p. 391.

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

1. As regards the competition cases referred to by the Honourable Members (i.e. the notification from
German and Austrian publishers on the fixing of book prices between Germany and Austria and the
various complaints lodged against such price-fixing), the Commission would point out that, under the
legislation in force and the relevant case law, the Commission is required to enforce the Community rules
on competition and must do so in complete independence. The rules do not provide for intervention by
other institutions in individual competition cases, apart from consultation of the national authorities
within the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Monopolies under Article 10 of Council
Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 (First Regulation implementing (the former) Articles 85 and 86 of
the Treaty) ( [1] ). At its meeting on 14 July 1999 the outgoing Commission agreed to take no decision on the
cases in question. The final decision thus rests with the new Commission, which can confirm that it will
continue the dialogue with Parliament.

(a) The Commission would point out that on 16 and 17 September 1998, in accordance with the
procedural rules in force ( [2] ), it conducted hearings of the parties, complainants and other third parties,
including writers’ representatives, in the cases referred to by the Honourable Members, to ensure that
the procedural rights of the parties concerned were fully respected.

(b) As regards the legal framework for examining the cross-border fixing of book prices, the Commission
takes the view that the provisions in force, namely the competition rules laid down in Article 81
(former Article 85) et seq of the EC Treaty and the cultural clause in Article 151(4) (former Article
128(4)), make it possible to analyse each case in depth and to take account of all the relevant factors,
including the cultural aspects. This view is borne out by the Commission’s past decisions on such
matters and by the past rulings of the Court of Justice ( [3] ).

2. Article 151(4) of the EC Treaty stipulates that the Commission is to take cultural aspects into
account in its action under other provisions of the Treaty, with a view to ensuring respect and
encouragement for the diversity of cultures within the European Community. When applying the
competition rules laid down in the EC Treaty, the Commission therefore assesses in a constructive manner
whether an agreement or practice pursues cultural aims and comprises cultural arrangements which are
actually put into practice and could justify restrictions on competition proportional to the aims pursued.
Such assessment may give rise to the application of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty, which provides that the
Commission may grant exemption to agreements and restrictive practices if the advantages to consumers
outweigh the disadvantages, on condition that the agreements or practices in question do not impose
greater restrictions than are needed to achieve their aims and that they do not eliminate competition in
respect of a substantial part of the products in question. The Commission also takes account of any

C 27 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

changes made by the parties concerned. Cultural benefits may rank as advantages to consumers for the
purposes of these rules. To sum up, then, an exemption may be granted in the light of Article 151(4) of
the EC Treaty only if the agreement or practice in question satisfies all the conditions laid down in Article
81(3) of the EC Treaty. This means that the cultural benefits claimed must be clearly demonstrated.

( [1] ) OJ 13, 21.2.1962; this Regulation was last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.
( [2] ) Cf Article 19 of the abovementioned Regulation No 17 and Commission Regulation No 1999/63/EEC of 25 July
1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Regulation No 17 (OJ 127, 20.8.1963); the latter has
now been repealed and replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) 2842/98 of 22 December 1998 on the hearing of
parties in certain proceedings under (the former) Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 354, 30.12.1998).
( [3] ) Cf. Commission decision of 25 November 1981, VBBB and VBVB (OJ L 54, 25.2.1982, p. 12); Commission
Decision of 12 December 1988, Publishers Association �Net Book Agreements (OJ L 22, 26.1.1989); Court of
Justice judgment of 17 January 1984 in Joined Cases 43/82 and 63/82, VBVB and VBBB v Commission (1984
Reports); Court of First Instance judgment of 9 July 1992 in Case T-66/89, Publishers Association v Commission
(1992 Reports, II-1995); Court of Justice judgment of 17 January 1995 in Case C-360/92 P Publishers Association
v Commission, (1995 Reports).

(2000/C 27 E/055) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1401/99**

**by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Promoting and safeguarding lesser-used languages in the EU

Will the Council outline its policy on the safeguarding and promotion of lesser-used languages in the
European Union and will it back new initiatives aimed at promoting cultural and linguistic exchanges
between, for example, young people in Ireland in the west of the Community, and young people in the
east of Germany who are living in peripheral regions?

**Reply**

_(22 October 1999)_

The Honourable Member is referred to the Council’s reply dated 21/1/99 to oral question H 0038/99 put
by Mr Pat Gallagher on the same subject.

The Council would also like to point out that it awaits with interest the Commission’s forthcoming
proposal for an action programme on regional and minority languages.

(2000/C 27 E/056) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1402/99**

**by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ EU approval number for vehicle registration

The registration of motor vehicles is known to involve a considerable amount of bureaucracy. The
introduction of the EU approval number was intended to reduce the number of administrative steps
required. However, the vehicle registration offices in the Member States do not possess the necessary
infrastructure, so that the EU approval number cannot be used in Italy, for example. Since Italian vehicle
registration officials do not have access to the vehicle’s technical data and other information on which the
EU approval number is based, purchasers are still required to present a large number of papers, from the
EC certificate of conformity to the certificate of noise levels.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/49

That being so, will the Commission not urge the Member States to ensure that their various vehicle
registration offices are enabled to make use of the technical details on which the EU approval number is
based, thereby simplifying the registration of vehicles?

**Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

The Honourable Member wishes to know whether the approval number recorded on the EU conformity
certificate gives vehicle registration offices access to the vehicle’s technical data recorded for the EEC typeapproval.

Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers ( [1] ) has led to national vehicle approval
systems being gradually replaced by a Community type-approval procedure. In particular, this framework
directive stipulates that the manufacturer must complete a certificate of conformity for each vehicle
manufactured in conformity with the approved prototype.

Vehicles are registered on the basis of this certificate, which should contain all the various data required to
register the vehicle, establish the amounts of the different taxes payable and apply any specific driving
rules. It also contains the EEC type-approval number, which is there primarily to enable the authorities
responsible for registration to access vehicles’ technical data quickly and easily.

Directive 70/156/EEC does not cover the accessibility of these technical data for the purposes of vehicle
registration or taxation. This is a matter for the individual Member States and as such is managed by them
autonomously. The Commission does not have any information on the accessibility of motor vehicles’
technical data, recorded for the EEC type-approval, to administrations other than those responsible for
granting the type-approval.

( [1] ) OJ L 42, 23.2.1970.

(2000/C 27 E/057) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1404/99**

**by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Payments to flax farmers

In order to avoid delay in the payment of aid to flax farmers, the Commission has been considering the
possibility of introducing a system of advances on the aid involving the lodging of a security.

Is there any further information on this at the present time?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 September 1999)_

Community rules governing the common organisation of the market in flax and hemp will require, as
from the 1999/2000 marketing year, new restrictions on the conditions for granting aid for fibre flax.

Recent requirements for checking minimum flax straw yield have been amended. The obligation
henceforth to weigh the straw in the processing plant was introduced to make checks more rigorous,
less numerous and therefore easier to carry out. This requirement may, in fact, delay the payment of aid,
so the Commission has been closely examining the possibility of introducing a system of advance payment
of aid subject to the lodging of a security.

C 27 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

However, such a solution would not be without its drawbacks. The nature of the sector requires strict,
albeit difficult, checks on eligibility for aid before it is paid. A system of advances could be, from the point
of view of managing Community funds, an additional source of administrative complexity in a sector
which is already complex enough, and would increase the financial risk to the Community.

Moreover, the Commission has undertaken, as part of the 1999/2000 prices package, to submit a proposal
to reform the fibre flax and hemp sector with the intention of applying it to the 2000/01 marketing year.
The Commission will naturally take account of all the problems linked to the current arrangements in the
reform proposals.

Given the above, it was decided not to adopt a system of advances on aid at the present time.

(2000/C 27 E/058) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1405/99**

**by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Possible side-effects of the drug Roaccutane

Could the Commission please inform me if it is aware of the possible serious side-effects of the acne
prescription medicine Roaccutane?

The label warning for Roaccutane in France for many years featured explicit warnings with regard to
depression, psychosis and behavioural problems.

On 3 March 1987, the French National Agency introduced further increased label warnings. The FDA
(USA) National Health Authority for many years featured explicit label warnings for Roaccutane including
depression, psychosis, psychiatric disorders, and further increased those warnings in March 1998 to
include suicide, suicide attempts and suicide ideation.

Can the Commission report whether there are plans to harmonise warnings, given a situation in which the
manufacturers, Roche Products Ltd, can apply explicit warnings featuring suicide in some countries and
not apply such warnings in other countries?

**Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

The Commission is fully aware of the possible serious side effects of the medicinal product called
Roaccutane, the active ingredient of which is Isotretinoin, and which is used for the treatment of severe

acne.

The medicinal product has been marketed in most of the Member States since 1983. The use of the
medicinal product is restricted to the management of severe acne, which has failed to respond to other
therapies. The medicine is available on prescription only, and in some Member States its use is restricted to
use by specialist dermatologists.

Since the time of first marketing, Roaccutane has been strictly contra-indicated for women where there is
any risk of pregnancy, since it is known to be teratogenic.

More recently new information on psychological side effects has emerged, including details of depression
and suicide attempts. These side effects were subject to extensive discussion and investigation by all
Member States within the pharmacovigilance working party of the committee for proprietary medicinal
products during the period March-October 1998.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/51

Following these discussions, variations to the terms of the marketing authorisation have been introduced in
all Member States where the product is marketed, to ensure the inclusion of special warnings on the risks
of depression, suicide or suicidal tendencies and the need for particular care to be taken with respect to the
monitoring of patients who have been prescribed this medicine. These warnings have been introduced into
the prescribing information and the patient information leaflets.

The Commission is satisfied that these actions have succeeded in harmonising the warnings appropriately
in all Member States where the product is on the market.

(2000/C 27 E/059) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1406/99**

**by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Ireland and CITES

With reference to the answer given by the Commission to my Question for Question Time No H-0043/
99 ( [1] ), as the Commission is well aware, the reason why the Community is not party to CITES is precisely
because Ireland has not ratified the Convention. Once Ireland ratifies CITES, the Community can accede to
the Convention. That will give legal security by binding EU Member States to the Convention, as is the
case for several other international conventions.

I also refer the Commission to the resolution of the CITES Conference of Parties at Kyoto in 1992 which
urges ‘the Member State not party to CITES to ratify the Convention as soon as possible’. This concern
among other CITES parties remains, despite the existence of separate EC regulations on CITES.

Is not the Commission aware that, as a non-party to CITES, Ireland is one of the few Member States not to
have been surveyed for illegal trade? There is therefore no independent evidence at all of the extent of
illegal trade in Ireland and all that implies.

Since CITES is one of the major international conventions on conservation, with recent accessions of
countries such as Cambodia and Jamaica, does not the Commission think that it is unfortunate that a
Community Member State still has not joined the Convention, thus depriving the EU the power to shape
future policy?

Could the Commission in its response consider these issues more carefully and given an indication of how,
within the limits of its administrative powers, it can help to give the issue of Ireland’s ratification a higher
profile on the political agenda?

( [1] ) Debates of the European Parliament (February 1999).

**Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 October 1999)_

This question relates to the reply the Commission gave to Honourable Member’s the Oral Question
H-43/99 concerning Ireland’s non-ratification of the convention on international trade in endangered
species (CITES) during question time at Parliament’s February 1999 part-session ( [1] ).

While the Commission must again point out that it has no legal means to compel Ireland’s ratification, it
agrees with the Honourable Member that it is regrettable that Ireland has not ratified this convention given
that all other Member States are parties and that ratification would be helpful to the Community in the
context of Council Regulation (EC) 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by
regulating trade therein ( [2] ).

C 27 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

The Commission would point out however, that ratification of CITES by Ireland will not in itself lead to
the accession to CITES by the Community. The latter depends on the ratification of an amendment to the
text of the Convention by certain other CITES parties. The Commission is actively discussing this question
with the CITES parties concerned.

On a positive note, the Commission understands that draft legislation recently tabled in the Irish
Parliament (aimed at amending Ireland’s 1976 Wildlife Act) will operate as an instrument of ratification.
This legislation is expected to be adopted in the coming months, and the Commission is hopeful that the
Honourable Member’s concerns will thereby be satisfactorily addressed.

( [1] ) Debates of the Parliament (February 1999).
( [2] ) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2000/C 27 E/060) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1407/99**

**by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Single person travel supplement

Can the Commission indicate whether the supplements applied to single people’s travelling costs is
contrary to Community law?

**Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 October 1999)_

There is no specific Community legislation on the supplements applied to single travellers. In June 1990,
the Council adopted the Directive 90/314/EEC ( [1] ) on package travel, package holidays and package tours,
the purpose of which is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
States relating to packages sold or offered for sale in the territory of the Community. The directive is
designed to protect consumers who contract package travel in the Community.

Article 2.4 of the Directive defines the consumer as the person who takes or agrees to take the package
(‘the principal contractor’), or any person on whose behalf the principal contractor agrees to purchase the
package (‘the other beneficiaries’) or any person to whom the principal contractor or any of the other
beneficiaries transfers the package (‘the transferee’). Therefore the Community text does not make any
distinction between travellers, single or not, and its provisions apply to all of them.

Generally, market mechanisms impose a ‘higher price for single travellers’ on the basis that they would
cause higher accommodation costs.

( [1] ) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2000/C 27 E/061) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1408/99**

**by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Job-sharing facilities

As you are no doubt aware, job-sharing in the public sector is allowed and, where possible, must be
granted to someone making an application for it. However, no such obligation currently exists in the
private sector.

Could the Commission indicate whether there are any EU directives being discussed or planned with a
view to introducing obligatory job-sharing facilities in the private sector?

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/53

**Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 September 1999)_

The Commission considers that job sharing can be a very useful means of improving flexibility and
reconciling work and family life. In general, it is important, however, that the arrangements are voluntary
and that all the parties concerned are fully committed and flexible enough to make the system work. In
these circumstances, the Commission does not consider that a Community directive to require the
introduction of compulsory job-sharing schemes would be appropriate. It does, however, consider that it
would be appropriate for Member States to examine their laws and other regulatory provisions to ensure
that they do not inhibit the development of job sharing arrangements, provided that adequate security
continues to be provided to the workers concerned. This would be consistent with the 1999 Employment
Guidelines (Guideline 17).

(2000/C 27 E/062) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1409/99**

**by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Can the Commission indicate what percentage of its land each of the fifteen Member States currently
designates as worthy of conservation and therefore of listing as Sites of Special Scientific Interest?

**Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission**

_(10 September 1999)_

The Honourable Member asked the Commission what percentage of their land the Member States
designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest. However, while that classification is used in the United
Kingdom, it does not exist under Community law.

On the other hand the Commission publishes a ‘Naturabaromètre’ stating the percentage of the land
surface of each Member State that is proposed under the Community Birds and Habitats Directives, namely
Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds ( [1] ), and Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ( [2] ).

This ‘Naturabaromètre’ is updated every 4 months. It is published in the free information bulletin entitled
‘Natura 2000’ and is available on website http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg11/nature/natura.htm.

( [1] ) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
( [2] ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2000/C 27 E/063) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1410/99**

**by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Licensing of children’s entertainers

Will the Commission please indicate what legislation exists within the EU governing the licensing and
training of children’s entertainers, and whether such persons are required to bring safety equipment with
them to performances? Are they also required to insure themselves to at least a minimum level?

C 27 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

There is no legislation at Community level governing the training of children’s entertainers and the issue of
licences to practice. The matter raised does not therefore fall within the responsibility of the Commission.

(2000/C 27 E/064) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1411/99**

**by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Evacuation of the settlements at Malmea in the Community of Madrid (Spain)

Last week, the central government delegation in the Community of Madrid evacuated the makeshift
settlements at Malmea. The operation was carried out by large numbers of police, acting with the support
of Madrid Council. Hundreds of families of Romanian origin (including more than one hundred minors
under the age of 16), who had occupied the site for some time, were dispersed in an uncontrolled manner.
Tragically, a child was run over during the incident, and died from his injuries. These devastating events
have been widely reported in the media, provoking widespread social concern and condemnation across
the political and social spectrum. The incident demonstrates the lack of any real social integration policy
aimed at immigrants living in existing makeshift settlements in the Community of Madrid and throughout
the rest of Spain. The immigrants at Malmea were living in sub-human conditions, and their situation
following the eviction will clearly continue to be unacceptable when measured against the values of
equality and solidarity which are fundamental to all the states of the European Union. Furthermore, these
events show once again that governments (the Spanish in this case) continue to treat the problem of illegal
immigration as a public order issue, rather than one of social integration.

Is the Commission aware of these facts and, if not, does it intend to ask the Spanish authorities for all the
relevant information? Does the Commission agree that, in accordance with the values and policies which
are fundamental to the European project, all Union Member States have an obligation to implement a
policy of social integration of immigrants, so as to avoid such dreadful conditions as those which exist in
temporary settlements in Spain, and should not resort to public order measures as in Malmea, the terrible
consequences of which are clear?

Is the Commission of the opinion that the instruments of economic and social cohesion at the Union’s
disposal should also be used by the Member States to achieve such integration? What measures does the
Commission intend to take to ensure that groups of immigrants in similar situations are able to live
normal lives, without suffering the hardship in evidence in regions such as the Community of Madrid and,
especially, to ensure that the needs of children are taken into account?

(2000/C 27 E/065) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1473/99**

**by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Xenophobic attacks in Spain

Recent months have seen a serious escalation in racist and xenophobic attacks in Spain. In the current
month of July, a mosque and a home have been set on fire, an immigrant has been attacked in the street
and a group of Romanians has been forcibly expelled from Madrid. Such incidents had previously been
isolated events in Spain, which if anything gives still more cause for concern. The relevant Spanish
legislation is antiquated and incapable of providing an adequate response to such problems, chiefly because
it emphasises the police and security aspects in relation to immigrants while neglecting more important
aspects such as measures designed to foster tolerance and social integration.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/55

In view of the need to put an end to xenophobic and racist attacks of this kind in all the countries of the
European Union, what projects or initiatives is the Commission planning to put forward, bearing in mind
its new powers in this area following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, in order to combat
such attacks by means of active policies to integrate immigrant groups in the Member States concerned?

**Joint answer**
**to Written Questions E-1411/99 and P-1473/99**
**given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 October 1999)_

The Commission, with the Parliament and the European Council, condemns all forms of racism and
xenophobia and deeply regrets the acts of racist violence seen across the Union and beyond. The
Commission recalls its communication of 25 March 1998 on an action plan against racism and its
communication to the European Council in Cologne on 3 and 4 June 1999 on countering racism,
xenophobia and anti-semitism in the candidate countries ( [1] ).

The Commission also recalls the joint action adopted by the Council on 15 July 1996 concerning action to
combat racism and xenophobia ( [2] ). The Council took note in May 1998 of a first assessment of the
fulfilment by Member States of their obligations under this joint action. A further review of the
implementation of the joint action will be carried out by the end of June 2000.

Moreover, the Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Members about the poor living
conditions of large numbers of people resident in the Union and in particular of many migrant and
travelling communities. The Member States and their local and regional authorities clearly have the
primary responsibility for dealing with these problems. However, the Commission agrees with the
Honourable Members that Community action can make a contribution to the integration of migrants and
so to the improvement of their living and working conditions and to the reduction of racist violence and
xenophobia. The Commission has in the past, with the support of the Parliament, provided financial
assistance to projects which promote the integration of refugees and of other legally resident migrants and
to projects which specifically combat racism.

It is vital that migrants are given equal access to mainstream Community programmes and initiatives, in
particular those which promote education and training and the social integration of disadvantaged groups.
The European social fund is open to the participation of all legal residents of the Union, including refugees
and other migrants, and the new Community initiative EQUAL will, following the agreement at the Berlin
European Council, pay particular attention to the fight against discrimination in the labour market. The
Commission agrees that Member States should, where appropriate, take into account the needs of migrant
communities when drawing up their priorities for the implementation of the funds.

In the same way, the Commission intends to use its new powers under Articles 13 (ex Article 3) and 137
(ex Article 118) of the EC Treaty to promote co-operation between Member States on fighting discrimination and social exclusion. In doing so, it will be important to ensure that the needs of migrants are fully
taken into account along with other disadvantaged groups. In addition, following wide consultation with
all relevant actors, including the Member States, members of the Parliament, the social partners and nongovernmental organisations on how to give effect to Article 13, a broad consensus has emerged on the
need for legislative measures at European level to prohibit racial discrimination in a range of social and
economic fields, to sanction discriminatory behaviour and to provide effective redress for victims. Based on
this consensus, the Commission intends to come forward soon with proposals for law.

The Commission believes that measures taken by Member States in conjunction with the expulsion of
illegally resident third country nationals should respect the human rights of those concerned. It also recalls
that, under Title IV of the EC Treaty, the Council shall adopt, within a period of five years after the entry
into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, measures concerning illegal immigration and illegal residence,
including repatriation of illegal residents.

( [1] ) COM(99) 256 final .
( [2] ) OJ L 185, 24.7.1996.

C 27 E/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/066) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1412/99**

**by Francis Decourrière (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

With reference to the application of Annex III of Council Directive 92/43/EEC ( [1] ) of 21 May 1992, the text
states under Stage 2, paragraph 2b, that assessment of the Community importance of a site will take into
account the geographical situation of the site in relation to the migration routes of species in Annex II and
whether it belongs to a continuous ecosystem situated on both sides of one or more internal Community
frontiers.

Socio-economic activities are sometimes totally different on the two sides of a frontier and are governed by
national law. For example, hunting and fishing are legitimate and traditional activities in France in coastal
areas under public ownership while this is not the case on the other side of the frontier in Belgium.

1. As the economic, social and cultural requirements and the regional and local characteristics must be
taken into account (Article 2 of the Directive referred to above) how does the Commission intend to
harmonise the management of these frontier areas, which are environmentally very important (classified as
nature reserves, biogenetic reserves, etc.) and are affected by a species in Annex II (Phoca vitulina), with
such diverse activities?

2. Is one form of management required for these sites?

3. Will these frontier areas benefit from special conditions, in particular financial conditions, during the
implementation phase of Directive 92/43/EEC and its effective implementation in 2004?

( [1] ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

**Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

1. Under Article 6(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora ( [1] ), the Member States are responsible for site management. Each
Member State must draw up the conservation measures needed to meet the ecological requirements of
Annex II species present on the sites. The Commission is involved in the selection of sites but not their
management.

2. The Directive does not require a single form of management for these sites. Each Member State must
assess with its neighbours the degree of cooperation required to ensure that the Directive’s objective is
achieved.

3. Article 8 of the Directive, which relates to the cofinancing of conservation measures on sites hosting
priority habitat types or species, does not give priority to cross-border sites. However, several Community
instruments allow special attention to be given to these sites. The Commission encourages Member States
to use these existing instruments for Natura 2000 cross-border site management.

( [1] ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2000/C 27 E/067) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1414/99**

**by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Hunting of wolves and wolverines in Finland

Is the Commission aware the wolves are being hunted in Finland in contravention of EU rules? Wolves can
be hunted in Finland on the basis of an annually approved quota during the period between 1 November
and 31 March 1997 authorisation was given for the hunting of 15 wolves and in 1998 for the hunting of
nine wolves.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/57

Finland’s own wolf population is fairly small, some 70-90 animals, which equates to five annually
breeding. Taking into account those wolves whose lairs and habitat are chiefly situated in border areas in
Russia, the wolf population in Finland was put at 120 animals in 1997.

The justification for the hunting of wolves is that they are pests and should be eliminated. However,
wolves kill or injure only tiny numbers of domestic and farm animals. In 1997 the cost of the damage
caused by wolves in North Karelia was put at FIM 63 912. In response, the Ministry for Agriculture and
Forestry approved a hunting quota of 10 wolves. By comparison, in 1997 wolverines caused damage to
the reindeer population whose cost amounted to FIM 5 648 700. Nevertheless, no hunting permits were
issued for wolverines.

**Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 October 1999)_

The Commission became aware of possible problems in relation to wolf hunting in Finland through
complaints and through the biennial report on derogations transmitted by Finland under Article 16 of
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats of wild fauna and
flora ( [1] ). This report, which arrived at the Commission on 9 July 1999 concerns the years 1997 and 1998.

The Commission is currently analysing the report in order to take a decision on the conformity of the
derogation to shoot wolves and other large carnivores. In this end, the Commission requested the Finnish
authorities to provide additional information on the application of specific grounds under Article 16 of
Council Directive 92/43/EEC. This information reached the Commission in August 1999. Once the
analysis is finished, the Commission will take all appropriate measures, if any discrepancies should be
found.

( [1] ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2000/C 27 E/068) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1416/99**

**by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Accommodating refugees from Kosovo

Accommodating refugees from Kosovo is an increasingly serious problem.

Does the Commission feel it would be possible to use for the emergency accommodation of refugees
ocean-going vessels providing they have the requisite facilities and accommodation to receive hundreds of
refugees?

**Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 September 1999)_

If the Honourable Member’s question refers to the reception within the territory of the Community of
refugees from Kosovo, 14,3 million € from the Community budget was provided to Member States for
their reception and care. The precise details concerning accommodation of these refugees was a matter for
the Member States, but to the Commission’s knowledge, no ships were used for accommodation purposes.

If the Honourable Member’s question refers to the reception within the region (Albania, former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia and Montenegro) of refugees and displaced persons from Kosovo, this took the
form either of reception in host families or in refugee camps. The Community, via ECHO, participated in
the running of these camps. The use of ships was not considered.

If, however, the Honourable Member is referring to the use of ships for the reception within Kosovo of
those refugees and displaced persons who have returned to Kosovo in recent weeks, this was obviously not
considered. The majority of these people have already returned either to their places of origin or are being
accommodated with family elsewhere in Kosovo.

C 27 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/069) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1417/99**

**by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Freedom of movement and freedom to practice medicine; supernumerary doctors working on the
black in Belgium; unfair competition; infringement of directives 93/16/EEC, 82/76/EEC and
Article 12 of the Treaty

Directives 82/76/EEC ( [1] ) and 93/16/EEC ( [2] ), which both cover the freedom of movement of doc tors and
recognition of their diplomas, certificates and formal qualifications, are blatantly being infringed by the
Belgian state with important consequences at the personal level, and also for the state.

The information at my disposal (provided by the personnel department of a Brussels teaching hospital)
show that in the three teaching hospitals in Brussels alone more than 200 trainee specialists (in French:
‘MACS �Médecins Assistents Candidats Spécialistes’) are working under an illegal contractor of employment as supernumerary doctors (médecins surnumeraires), even though they are bound by the same terms
of employment without the appropriate remuneration pursuant to Annex I of directive 93/16/EEC.

The ‘supernumerary doctor’s’ contract is equivalent to that of the pseudo-selfemployed, which is a wellknown feature of the catering trade. This is without doubt discriminatory with regard to the trainee
specialists in question, but it also represents a loss of income amounting to millions of euros for the
Belgian federal and regional authorities as a result of pseudo-selfemployed persons working on the black
who, moreover, are in unfair competition with the hospitals not taking part in this practice.

Is the Commission aware of this discrimination for which there are no objective grounds and which is
therefore arbitrary? Does the Commission believe that this practice is an infringement of directives 82/76/
EEC and 93/16/EEC? Has the Commission any information on other Member States, or can it conduct an
inquiry into such infringements in the Member States? If so, which Member States are involved?

Can the Commission state whether it has already taken action to put an end to this form of malpractice
which is an infringement of Article 12 of the Treaty of Amsterdam (formerly Article 6)? Is the
Commission prepared to take any other action in the immediate future to ensure that these directives are
applied and that they constitute more than a moral obligation?

( [1] ) OJ L 43, 15.2.1982, p. 21.
( [2] ) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

With regard to the right of trainee specialist doctors to receive appropriate remuneration, it should be
noted that some categories of doctors who undergo specialist medical training do not benefit from the
provisions of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and
the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications.

In fact, the field of application of this Directive is restricted to Community nationals and the obligation to
provide appropriate remuneration for periods of training undertaken by specialist doctors only arises for
medical specialities which are common to all the Member States or to two or more of them, as mentioned
in Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 93/16/EEC.

Under these conditions, different types of status may co-exist without this contravening Community law.

As regards the other points in the question, the Commission considers that these do not fall within its field
of competence, but are the responsibility of the Member States’ authorities, including the courts and
judicial authorities.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/59

(2000/C 27 E/070) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1418/99**

**by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Financing to the value of 5000 billion lire provided by the Italian state railway company to certain
trade unions

By means of a notarial deed of 10 May 1995 which was drawn up between the Italian state railway
company (FS) and the FILT-CGIL, FIT-CISL, FISAFS-CISAL and UIL-Transporti trade unions, railway
workers’ recreational facilities were transferred free of charge to the abovementioned trade union bodies.
These facilities comprise buildings in Rome, Bologna, Verona, Turin, Milan, Naples, Pisa, etc., 60 film
projection rooms, 84 tennis complexes, 300 games rooms, 160 cafeterias, 400 bars, 160 libraries, luxury
hotels, day nurseries, billiard rooms, allotments, campsites, skating rinks, hockey fields, watersports centres,
beach resorts, sports complexes, football fields, volleyball and basketball courts, etc.. They represent a
turnover of approximately 800 billion lire and their total value is estimated at approximately 5000 billion
lire. An annual 0,12 % levy is deducted from the wages of railway employees and 20 % commission is
charged on all organised stays, on enrolment charges and on the fees paid by approximately 270 railway
staff who work at the DLF but are paid by the FS.

In view of the above, can the Commission say whether:

1. there are any European directives which prevent trade unions from being financed by employers?

2. such a transfer constitutes a distortion of free competition in the leisure and tourism sector?

3. it considers (in view of the fact that the FS is publicly owned) that the transfer constitutes a serious
loss of public assets which in this instance have been given to private individuals belonging to nonrecognised associations?

4. it considers that the transfer interferes with the current privatisation of the FS?

5. it is to express a general view on the matter?

**Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 October 1999)_

The Commission has no information about the notarial deed of 10 May 1995 and in particular the details
pertaining to the transfer.

1. There are no European directives on the financing of trade unions by employers. The financing of
trade unions is governed by the rules and customs specific to the national social traditions.

2. As regards the possibility of distorting free competition in the leisure and tourism sector, it seems
quite unlikely that this transfer will have any impact at Community level: the consequences for the market
are much the same irrespective of whether the ‘Dopolavoro ferroviario’ is managed directly by the ‘Ferrovie
dello Stato’ (FS) or by the trade unions.

3. FS is a limited company in the form of a ‘Società per Azione’ (SpA). Prseumably the FS took the
transfer decision of its own accord. It is not for the Commission to pronounce on the advisability or
impact of this decision. Besides, the legal form under which the trade unions operate, which is governed
by the rules and customs particular to the national social traditions, does not a priori rule out their
managing the assets of ‘Dopolavoro’.

4. Pursuant to Article 295 (ex-Article 222), the EC Treaty in no way prejudices the rules in Member
States governing the system of property ownership and the Commission therefore does not pursue a
privatisation policy. Hence it is not for the Commission to pronounce on the privatisation policies of the
Member States.

5. Since management of the assets of ‘Dopolavoro’ is a national prerogative, the Commission considers
that it is not competent to pronounce on this matter.

C 27 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/071) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1419/99**

**by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Protecting jobs at the Cooperativa Ceramica Industriale, Livorno

The Cooperativa Ceramica Industriale in Livorno, which has 130 employees, is Italy’s largest producer of
ceramic insulators. Recently it has been experiencing the damaging effects of the new policy being pursued
by ENEL (Italy’s national electricity company) which is intended to increase competition between suppliers
by means of bulk purchasing, the awarding of supply contracts to a limited number of companies, and so

on.

In view of the above, can the Commission say whether or not it considers that a business strategy
constitutes a serious threat to employment on account of the difficulties which it causes to many
companies, in particular very small ones, which can no longer hope to win contracts?

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member the Commission is unable to assess
whether the measures taken by ENEL to obtain products from suppliers are in breach of the Community
rules on competition or whether they are legitimate measures which entail no distortion or discrimination
and are in compliance with the said rules in that a company with ENEL’s legal and economic
responsibilities is obliged to take such measures for the purposes of obtaining the products in question.

As a rule, a company such as ENEL invites suppliers to compete with each other on the basis of objective
conditions laid down in the specifications for public procurement contracts. Suppliers, for their part, may
submit tenders either on their own or as part of a consortium if they see this as necessary in order to meet
the requirements set by the authority awarding the contract or as a more suitable way of countering the
competition from other tenderers.

(2000/C 27 E/072) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1420/99**

**by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Reorganisation of the fire brigade

This question has been transformed into an oral question O-0200/99.

**Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 October 1999)_

The Commission does not have the information requested by the Honourable Member in its possession.
Indeed, for reasons of subsidiarity, the matters in question are dealt with at Member-State level.

However, we would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the Civil Defence Unit’s website: http://
europa.eu.int/comm/dg11/civil/ which contains the ‘Vade-mecum of Civil Protection in the European
Union’ which includes a description of the organisation of the emergency services in the 15 Member
States.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/61

(2000/C 27 E/073) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1421/99**

**by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Recognition of Antonio Zotti’s parental rights

For a number of years Antonio Zotti, an Italian citizen, has been engaged in a fierce legal battle to secure
recognition of his parental rights over his own daughter Sabrina, who has not yet reached the age of
majority and who is currently living with her Romanian mother Alina Bodea.

Despite the fact that the Italian authorities have awarded custody to the father and although the visas
allowing his daughter to leave the country have expired, the mother has taken the child to Romania and is
refusing to allow Antonio Zotti any contact with her.

In view of the above, could the Commission say:

1. whether or not it thinks that representations should be made to the Romanian authorities in order to
secure recognition of Antonio Zotti’s parental rights?

2. which directives regulate such issues at European level?

3. whether it is to express a general view on the matter as a whole?

**Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 October 1999)_

According to the Honourable Member’s description of the case, an Italian national has been awarded
custody of his child by the Italian authorities. The mother, a Romanian national, has taken the child to
Romania in breach of the custody order and has even deprived the father of his visiting rights since she
refuses to allow him any contact with his daughter.

1. There is as yet no Union legislation for resolving such cases where a child has been abducted across
international frontiers. Neither the Commission nor any other Union institution would therefore be
competent to approach the Romanian authorities concerning this unfortunate case.

2. On 25 October 1980 a Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was
concluded in The Hague. According to Article 1 of this Convention, its aims are ‘(a) to secure the prompt
return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and (b) to ensure that rights
of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other
Contracting States.’

The Hague Conference on Private International Law has supplied information to the effect that the
Convention has been signed and ratified by Italy and that Romania has acceded to the Convention but
Romanian accession has not yet been accepted by Italy. Once this formality has been completed, the case
could be referred to the central authorities whom Italy and Romania have designated under Article 6 ‘to
discharge the duties imposed by the Convention’.

Particulars of the Italian and Romanian central authorities are being sent direct to the Honourable Member
and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2000/C 27 E/074) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1422/99**

**by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Council**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade

The ‘mistake’ which led to the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade is a serious event on account
of the diplomatic and strategic implications it may have, but it also highlights once again the role (and the
associated responsibilities) of the EU Member States’ governments within the Atlantic Council and of the
NATO military bodies which are an offshoot thereof.

C 27 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

Can the Council say:

1. how it intends to react to the weakening of the efforts made by the G8 countries in order to secure a
diplomatic solution to the crisis provoked by the ‘mistake’ in question?

2. What action it intends to take in order to prevent the emergence of further tension between East and
West, of which Europe would be the main victim?

3. What procedures it intends to follow in order to establish responsibility within the Atlantic Alliance
with a view to ensuring that the general public does not blame the European Union as well?

4. Whether or not it is of the view that the governments of the EU Member States which are members of
the Atlantic Council, and also the European Parliament, should be reassured regarding the ability to
tailor military operations to the political and diplomatic objectives which the Alliance occasionally
defines?

5. Whether or not it considers that (in view of the challenges which have emerged from the Yugoslav
crisis) it should do all in its power to speed up the process leading to political union?

**Reply**

_(8 November 1999)_

1. On 17 May 1999, the General Affairs Council meeting in Brussels shared the profound regret
expressed by the United Nations Security Council over the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.

2. The Council saw no evidence of tension in EU-China relations following the incident.

3. Procedures to establish responsibility within the Atlantic Alliance are the responsibility of the North
Atlantic Council. The Council is furthermore convinced that the general public was fully aware of the fact
that NATO, and not the EU, was conducting military action in the FRY.

4. It is undeniable that the Kosovo crisis has encouraged Member States to look at ways of further
strengthening the common foreign and security policy.

(2000/C 27 E/075) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1424/99**

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

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Fishery relations between the EU and Argentina

In view of the serious deterioration in fishery relations between the EU and the Republic of Argentina
caused by Argentina’s failure to comply with the conditions laid down in the fishery agreement with the
EU and by the adoption of internal legislative measures which discriminate against the European-owned
freezer fishing fleet set up under the protection of Community legislation and promoted by the EU, can
the Commission say what measures it intends to adopt to remedy the situation, thereby achieving stability
in bilateral cooperation and ensuring that the fleet can carry on normal fishing activities without
discrimination?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

The Commission would point out that due to the current state of the hake stocks in Argentinean waters
normal fishing activities have not been possible for any part of the Argentinean fishing fleet over the past
year, due to the need to introduce management measures to redress the situation.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/63

The Community has contested the measures introduced by Argentina, on procedural grounds, because they
did not respect the notification foreseen in the agreement and, on substantive grounds, because the
introduction of different fishing areas according to the type of vessel (freezer or fresh) has no scientific
basis and adversely affected the vessels transferred definitively under the agreement with Argentina.

Pending satisfactory resolution of the divergence of view on this issue and because the Community
considers that the agreement is unbalanced following the Argentinean regulations, the Commission has
suspended the transfer of the balance of financial contribution for scientific and technical co-operation
related to the fisheries agreement.

(2000/C 27 E/076) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1425/99**

**by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Contracts awarded by the Commission in the field of consumer protection

Each year, the European Commission’s Directorate-General XXIV awards a number of contracts to
consultants to undertake studies in the field of consumer protection.

1. What general criteria are used in the selection of consultants by DG XXIV?

2. Which contracts for studies have been awarded by DG XXIV under the open tender procedure in the
last two years?

3. Which contracts for studies have been awarded by DG XXIV under the restricted tender procedure in
the last two years?

4. Could the Commission confirm that, for tenders valued at less than EUR 100 000, DG XXIV is still
able to choose whether to apply either the open tender procedure or the restricted tender procedure?

5. If it does have a choice, on what basis does DG XXIV feel it useful to proceed with a restricted tender
procedure when an open tender procedure may be regarded as more transparent?

**Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

1. The general criteria used are the expertise of possible candidates.

2. and 3. The Commission is forwarding to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of
the Parliament the lists of contracts.

4. The Commission can confirm that for tenders valued at less than 100 000 € its services are able to
choose whether to follow either an open tender procedure or a restricted tender procedure. All the study
markets fall under annex 1A of Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
procedures for the award of public service contracts ( [1] ). The publication of an open call for tender is always
possible, whatever the amount of the contract. A restricted call for tender is authorised for contracts under
133 000 €. Contractors have in this case to be selected from an existing list of possible candidates. Under
an amount of 13 200 €, the possibility exists to conclude contracts directly with third parties. In any case,
all the contracts for an amount above 46 000 € have to be justified before the advisory committee on
procurement and contracts set up under Article 60 of the financial regulation.

5. The restricted procedure was set up to ease the administrative burden in the case of dossiers of
minor economic importance or where, given the degree of specialisation, the possible contractors in the
market are limited and well known. The restricted procedure is not necessarily less transparent. Possible
candidates are selected and put on a list after having been invited through an open call published in the

C 27 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

Official Journal to show their interest for carrying out work in various fields of activities indicated in the
call. The list is valid for several years. During this period, new interested candidates can ask to be added.
When using the restricted procedure, the Commission is obliged to take into consideration all possible
candidates on the list. A service seeking to have recourse to the restricted procedure always takes into
account the type of study requested, the timetable to be respected for getting the results and the expertise
available for the work to be done. Whenever possible, the results of studies will be published on the
Commission’s web site.

( [1] ) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2000/C 27 E/077) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1428/99**

**by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Preparing European institutions for enlargement

It is quite certain that enlargement of the European Union will take place, and the staff of the European
institutions will face new tasks in the near future.

Is the Commission preparing its own officials for enlargement?

If so, what are the measures being taken and do they include appropriate courses in the languages of the
countries applying for accession?

**Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

The Commission has organized courses in Czech, Hungarian and Polish for those of its translators who
wish to learn these languages. Courses in Estonian and Slovene are planned for the coming year. It has not
yet been possible to arrange courses in the languages of the other five applicant countries.

A senior official has been appointed as adviser on enlargement in the translation service with the remit of
providing technical assistance and advice to the national centres set up in each applicant country for the
translation of Community legislation; promoting contacts with universities in these countries in order to
gear translator training to the Commission’s likely future needs; and developing a network of free-lance
translators and agencies in these countries with an eye to current and potential requirements. The
translation service has also seconded a member of its staff to the Technical assistance information
exchange office (TAIEX) to assist it in its work of aligning the applicant countries’ legislation with that of
the Community.

Concerning interpretation, the Commission’s Joint interpreting and conference service (JICS) has undertaken to increase its language coverage of meetings to 16 languages. In this context and in view of the
interpretation requirements for the forthcoming enlargements, the JICS has undertaken a variety of
preparatory measures including presentations by diplomatic representatives of the candidate countries,
and the organisation of professional language courses for JICS interpreters, currently Czech and Polish,
which will next year include all the ‘first wave’ languages. Other JICS actions of wider scope include
pedagogical, technical and financial assistance to university training courses in interpretation in the
countries concerned; the ear-marking of 80 study-grants for student interpreters with candidate country
languages and test panels in the candidate countries to select free-lance interpreters. The JICS has also

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/65

appointed an adviser on enlargement who co-ordinates JICS work with TAIEX, which also benefits from
another JICS official seconded on a full-time basis.

(2000/C 27 E/078) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1430/99**

**by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Contracts awarded by Directorate-General XXIV under the restricted tender procedure

In cases where DG XXIV awards tender contracts under the restricted tender procedure, could the
Commission clarify:

1. how it ensures that the consultants selected to undertake such studies act in an impartial and objective

manner,

2. how it ensures that the individuals working on behalf of the consultants contracted to undertake such
studies do not have any connections with, or interests in, organisations, commercial or otherwise,
which may have a specific interest in the outcome of the study, and

3. how it further ensures that the consultants undertaking the study respect the principles and
obligations, laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, to consult widely before drafting their final
recommendations?

**Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

1. In any call for tender, the Commission always requests information about the personal situation of
the contractor. The Commission also gives the list of the minimum criteria which have to be fulfilled to be
awarded the contract. In the case of the more important studies, the Commission requests interim reports.
This gives the Commission an opportunity to verify the development of the work and to control the
conduct of the study.

2. To any call for tender, are always annexed the general terms and conditions applicable to service
contracts awarded by the Commission. Article 3 of these general terms and conditions specifies that the
contractor undertakes not to make use of and not to divulge to third parties any facts, information,
knowledge, documents or other matters communicated to him or brought to his attention in the
performance of the contract or any results arising therefrom. He shall continue to be bound by this
undertaking after the expiry of the contract. If the contractor uses his own staff in performance of the
contract, he shall obtain from each staff member a written undertaking that they will respect the
confidentiality of any information brought to their attention in the performance of the work and that
they will not divulge to third parties or use for their own benefit or that of any third party any document
or information not available publicly, even after completion of their assignment. A copy of the undertaking shall be sent to the Commission.

3. The protocol to which the Honourable Member refers provides that ‘Without prejudice to its right of
initiative, the Commission should, except in cases of particular urgency or confidentiality, consult widely
before proposing legislation and, wherever appropriate, publish consultation documents.’

This provision applies to the Commission. Consultants, however, are not covered. The Commission will, of
course, respect fully this provision before proposing any legislation if a study were to lead to the
conclusion that Community legislation might be necessary.

C 27 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/079) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1432/99**

**by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Restructuring plan for the Spanish shipbuilding industry and its consequences for the Galician
shipyard Astilleros del Noroeste, SA (Astano)

Council Regulation (EC) 1540/98 ( [1] ) of 29 June 1998 on aid to shipbuilding defines the latter as the
construction of self-propelled seagoing commercial vessels and excludes military vessels.

On 6 November 1995, the Spanish Government presented to the European Commission a plan for the
reconstruction of the naval sector that was the subject of lengthy negotiations until it was formally
approved on 6 August 1997. Later, at a meeting of the Council of Ministers in April 1999, the majority of
the Council opposed the possibility of new aids for the sector being considered.

Given the key role played by the shipbuilding industry, especially the Astano shipyard, in the Galician
economy and in the Ferrol constituency:

1. What are the general substance and requirements of the Reconstruction Plan for the Spanish naval
sector approved by the Commission in August 1997?

2. On what grounds can the prohibition on Astano from continuing its traditional activity of shipbuilding, in which it always played a leading role, be justified?

3. How will Astano’s current production be affected by a change of status, should it be privatised? In that
event, could it resume its shipbuilding activities?

( [1] ) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 1.

**Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 September 1999)_

As the Honourable Member will be aware, Astano is one of the publicly-owned yards in Spain. It is
engaged in ship repair and offshore activities (building oil platforms and similar structures). It has not been
engaged in shipbuilding since 1987.

The publicly-owned yards in Spain have undergone a series of restructuring programmes in recent years,
benefiting from substantial state aids in derogation from the normal state aid rules for the shipbuilding
sector.

As part of the package of aids approved, in 1991 the Commission authorised aid under Council Directive
90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on aid to shipbuilding ( [1] ) in the form of loss compensation amounting
to 126 779 million pesetas. As a counterpart for this aid to minimise possible distortions to intraCommunity competition, the Commission accepted the cessation of shipbuilding at Astano as an
equivalent to a closure of capacity (as would normally be required in restructuring aid cases). Under the
terms of the Commission’s decision, the yard was to remain closed to shipbuilding for a period of 10 years
up until March 1997.

Subsequently, in 1997, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) 1013/97, of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain
shipyards under restructuring ( [2] ), the Commission exceptionally approved a further and final restructuring
package based on the plan to which the Honourable Member refers. Together with similar aids approved
in 1996, the overall package of aid amounted to a total of 318 112 million pesetas. Under this plan
through a series of measures (including workforce reductions, investments and productivity improvements)
the objective was to restore the yards to viability by 31 December 1998.

Under the terms of the Commission’s decision, the aids were approved subject to various conditions,
particularly as regards capacity reductions and production limitations. As part of these counterpart
measures the Spanish government gave an undertaking that Astano would continue to remain closed to
conventional shipbuilding but would continue its repair and offshore activities (including the construction
of floating production storage and offloading vessels) without receiving contract-related aid under the
directive.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/67

That remains the position, which is unaffected by the successor arrangements to Directive 90/684/EEC, as
laid down in Council Regulation (EC) 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to
shipbuilding ( [3] ) to which the Honourable Member also refers. Likewise, any change of ownership of
Astano would have no effect on the limitations placed on its activities.

( [1] ) OJ L 380, 31.12.1990.
( [2] ) OJ L 148, 6.6.1997.
( [3] ) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.

(2000/C 27 E/080) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1433/99**

**by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Allocation of Structural Fund resources within Spain

The Structural Fund and, in particular, the ERDF resources earmarked for investment and received by the
Spanish Government for allocation to the country’s Objective 1 Autonomous Communities have not been
distributed fairly (not even over such a long reference period as 1994-1999) on the basis of objective
criteria such as population size and per capita income. The reason for this is that the government assumes
responsibility for directly allocating over 50 % of the resources, which it subsequently invests in accordance
with criteria which do not correspond to the purposes which justify the existence of the Structural Funds.
The result is a geographical distribution which prevents the resources from achieving the objective
assigned to them under Community law. This state of affairs is particularly detrimental to autonomous
communities such as Galicia. In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

What reasons could there be under Community regulations to account for the pursuit of such a policy by
the Spanish Government?

Of the Structural Fund (especially ERDF) resources earmarked for productive investment or infrastructure
projects, what proportion out of the total allocated to Spain and in relation to the population of Spain’s
Objective 1 Autonomous Communities was assigned to Galicia during the 1994-1999 period?

What criteria are to be followed during the 2000-2006 period as regards the distribution of the Structural
Fund resources to be allocated to Spain and earmarked for the Objective 1 Autonomous Communities?

**Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission**

_(9 September 1999)_

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

(2000/C 27 E/081) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1435/99**

**by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Health hazard for young children from toys containing phthalates

I should like to draw your attention to the very serious health hazard for young children posed by toys
and educational materials containing plasticizing agents called phthalates, particularly those which children
put in their mouths. Animal experiments have demonstrated the toxicity and carcinogenic nature of these
products (which are very harmful for the liver and reproduction).

The French government has taken prompt action by imposing a one-year ban on the sale certain objects of
this kind which children put in their mouths.

C 27 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

Does the Commission intend to intervene immediately to draw up a list of products on sale in the
European Union containing phthalates? This substance which is used to make plastic more malleable does
not feature in the list of substances contained in toys or educational materials; this omission must be
rectified to allow parents to monitor them.

Can it give assurances that, as a next stage, it will intervene with all the Member States to prevail on them
to ban the use of this dangerous substance in all products intended for children? It had already adopted a
position on this matter in 1998 when it banned six phthalates, which proves that even then it was very
concerned about this toxic substance. Unless a ban is imposed throughout the EU, children will continue
to be exposed to this health hazard.

On behalf of all parents, I should like to ask the Commission: does it intend to assume its responsibilities
and take the necessary steps to protect public health?

**Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

The Commission is well aware of concerns that certain toys and childcare articles which in certain
conditions release phthalates may pose a health hazard for children. It has already taken several initiatives
in this field and intends shortly to propose a Community measure designed to ensure a high and
standardised level of child health protection. In 1998 the Commission did not propose banning phthalates
in the products concerned. However, on 1 July 1998 the Commission recommended that the Member
States test childcare articles and toys intended to be placed in the mouth of children of less than three
years of age and take the necessary measures to ensure a high level of child health protection.

To date, eight Member States (Denmark, Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Austria, Finland and Sweden) have
prohibited or formally announced their intention to prohibit the use of phthalates in certain childcare
articles and toys, via national measures of varying scope. The Netherlands and the United Kingdom have
announced their intention to impose phthalate release limits for the products in question.

On several occasions the Commission consulted the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Eco-Toxicity and the
Environment on the risks posed by the products in question. The Committee concluded that one phthalate
widely used in soft PVC toys, namely diisononylphthalate (DINP) gives grounds for concern, while another
phthalate, (di-2- ethylhexylphthalate (DEHP)), could constitute an even greater hazard. These considerations
apply particularly to certain childcare products and toys which are entirely or partly made of soft
phthalate-containing PVC which are placed in the mouth by small children. Hence the Commission
considers that protective measures must be adopted in respect of these products.

The Commission considers that it is not enough just to prepare a list of childcare products containing
phthalates at this stage. Rather, Community measures must be adopted as rapidly as possible in order to
ensure a standard high level of child health protection throughout the Community, in compliance with the
principles of the EC Treaty, and with an eye to the smooth functioning of the internal market for the
products in question.

(2000/C 27 E/082) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1439/99**

**by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Renewal of the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement

In view of the negative position of the Kingdom of Morocco, the Member States (including the Spanish
state) and the Commission did not show the necessary interest for the renewal of the EU-Morocco fisheries
agreement which was signed on 15 November 1995 and lapsed at the end of 1999. It is now intended to
replace this agreement by a convention based on the creation of joint undertakings and on certain
conditions of activity; this, in practice, would mean breaking the link between the vessels and crews and

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/69

their Community ports and territories of origin. The attitude of the Community institutions and the
Member States does not take account of the interests of the Galician fleet based in the ports of Ribeira,
O Morrazo and A Guarda, which �in a fisheries-dependent region �send 170 vessels and some 3 000
workers to the Canarian and Saharan fishing-grounds. Nor is account taken of the character of the Galician
undertakings which pursue their activity in those fishing-grounds with fishing licences: these undertakings
typically have owners who possess only one vessel, which makes it, in practice, impossible for them to
become joint undertakings under Moroccan control. In 1995 the Community showed a different attitude,
negotiating the fisheries agreement in the context of EC-Morocco economic relations as a whole; on the
eve of the Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean Conference, the EC did not sign the twelve-year economic
association agreement with Morocco until the latter had accepted the fisheries agreement.

Does the Commission intend to act along lines similar to those of 1995, and conduct the fisheries
negotiations in the context of EU-Morocco relations as a whole, with a view to reaching an agreement
which will not lead to the loss of vessels and crews which are of particular importance to the economy of
Galicia?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

It is true that the fisheries and association agreements in 1995 between the Community and Marocco were
negotiated in parallel. Whilst the circumstances which prevail in 1999 may not be identical, historically,
the fisheries relationship has been closely entwined with the overall political and economic relationship
between the parties. The Commission does not consider that that close interrelationship will change.

(2000/C 27 E/083) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1442/99**

**by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Distribution of Cohesion Fund resources among the autonomous regions of the Spanish state

Can the Commission state the amount allocated to Galicia in Cohesion Fund monies over the period 19941999 and the status of these monies as a proportion of the total allocation to the Spanish state as a whole?

Can the Commission confirm that Galicia, a territory which stands in particular need of modernisation as
far as its communications and transport structures are concerned, and is currently classified as an
Objective 1 region while accounting for over 7 % of the population of Spain, has received investment
only to the value of 1,3 % of the total allocated in Cohesion Fund resources to the Spanish state since the
Fund’s creation?

**Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 September 1999)_

The Cohesion Fund was set up by Regulation (EC) 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 ( [1] ) to provide part-financing
for environment and transport projects in the recipient countries at national level. The Commission
therefore has no regional statistics.

It is worth stressing, moreover, that the investments to be part-financed by the Fund are approved by the
Commission on the basis of projects communicated to it by the Member States concerned.

Summary tables showing the subsidies granted to Spain under the Cohesion Fund for the period 1993-99
are being sent directly to the Honourable Member and the Parliament Secretariat.

( [1] ) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.

C 27 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/084) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1443/99**

**by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Introduction of a pilot job creation scheme in Galicia pursuant to the Treaty of Amsterdam

Although the unemployment rate in Galicia stands at 17 % of the active population, neither the regional
government nor the central government of the Spanish state has instituted a job creation plan for Galicia
under the policy enshrined in the Treaty of Amsterdam and agreed by the Luxembourg European Council.
Both governments have merely submitted ‘job creation plans’ to the EU which simply re-present budget
headings already accounted for, relabelling them to bring them into apparent line with the Union’s
requirements while introducing no significant innovations which might entail any real change in policy on
a matter of crucial importance for the Galician economy.

In view of this, does the Commission consider it possible to introduce a pilot job creation scheme in
Galicia for 2000-2006, pursuant to the Treaty of Amsterdam?

**Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 September 1999)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his oral question H-442/99
during question time at Parliament’s September 1999 part-session ( [1] ).

( [1] ) Debates of the Parliament (September 1999).

(2000/C 27 E/085) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1444/99**

**by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Cultural development of the less-used European languages

Actions in the cultural field contribute to the promotion of cultural pluralism in Europe, as well as to its
diversity and variety. The so-called minority languages are, however, still badly served by the EU budget.

What is the Commission’s position regarding the need for equitable budget treatment of the cultural
programmes based on the EU’s less-used languages?

**Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 September 1999)_

Learning and disseminating minority languages does of course help to maintain linguistic and cultural
diversity of the Community. The Commission has contributed to the promotion of regional and minority
languages in the Community by the implementation until 1998 of an action �Promotion and safeguard
of regional and minority languages and culture �funded by a specific item (B3-1006). The budget for this
item rose from 100 000 € in 1993 to 4 million € in 1988. The main activities involved in promoting
these languages were funding for projects presented by the language minorities concerned and for
information activities (Mercator information network), language research and funding for the European
Bureau for Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL).

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/71

In 1999 the promotion of regional and minority languages was funded under other budget headings:
A-3015 (1 million € to finance activities of the EBLUL and the Mercator information network); B3-1000
(Cooperation in the fields of education and youth policy): 2,5 million € to support operations for the
promotion and protection of regional languages and cultures in the Community ) and B3-2004 (500 000 €
under the programme for a multilingual information society to contribute to the promotion of linguistic
diversity in the Community, including the less-used regional languages).

The 1999 call for proposals specifically targeted preparatory measures which will enable the Commission
to formulate a solid and consisent set of proposals reflecting the European citizen’s needs for a future
multiannual programme for the development of the European dimension of education through learning,
promoting and disseminating regional and/or minority languages.

In addition, this autumn the Commission is to adopt a proposal for a decision to organise a European
Languages Year in 2001. The aim of the event will be to increase public awareness of linguistic diversity in
the Community and to encourage citizens to learn more languages, including minority languages.

Minority languages as vehicles of local and regional culture are supported by Community cultural
programmes designed to maintain cultural diversity in the Community. The Ariane programme (Support
programme for books and reading, and culture) has so far financed operations relating to the literature of
minority languages. For example, in 1998 it contributed to the Mosaic project in support of a network of
publishers of minority languages. Similar operations promoting minority languages will always be eligible
under the Framework Programme on Culture 2000-2004 which can support cooperative action to
enhance multilingualism and innovatory projects promoting public access and participation in regional
cultural diversity.

(2000/C 27 E/086) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1445/99**

**by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Recognition of multilingualism on the basis of the existing legislation in the Member States

The EU proclaims, in all its texts and directives, the linguistically and culturally diverse nature of Europe,
stresses the linguistic and cultural diversity of its Member States, and quite consciously promotes the need
for Community policies to encourage the least-used languages and lesser-known cultures of Europe.

In view of the variations in the legislation on the status of languages in the different Member States, it
would be desirable, for the recognition and future development of the languages concerned, for the Union
itself to adopt the most positive aspects of the existing Member State legislation as regards the treatment of
‘minority’ languages. A clear example here is the Spanish state, in which Galician, Basque and Catalan are
recognised as co-official languages having the same status as Spanish.

In the light of the above, what is the Commission’s view on the possibility of conferring the status of
official EU languages not only on the official languages of the Member States, but also on those languages
which are official in the Member States?

(2000/C 27 E/087) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1495/99**

**by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Binding ruling on equality in the use of the working languages English, French and German in all
European institutions and bodies

Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 ( [1] ) clearly requires the use of the now eleven official languages
within the European institutions. Article 1 makes no distinction between official and working language,

C 27 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

although such a distinction exists in practice. Given the forthcoming eastward enlargement of the EU and
the consequent increase in the number of official languages, it would be appropriate for there to be a
uniform and binding requirement concerning the working languages to be used in all European institutions
and bodies.

It is essential that any ruling on working languages in EU institutions and bodies allow for the equal use of
German alongside English and French.

Of the EU’s total population of over 370 million, more than 90 million, i.e. one in four EU citizens, have
German as their mother tongue.

In 1997 Germany accounted for 62 % of net payments from the EU budget (Austria 4 %).

In most Central and Eastern European countries German leads English as the most important foreign
language and so performs an important bridging function in the accession process.

When will the Commission be putting forward a proposal for the binding adoption of English, French and
German as the working languages of the European institutions and bodies in place of the current, nonuniform system?

( [1] ) OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p. 385.

**Joint answer**
**to Written Questions E-1445/99 and P-1495/99**
**given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 October 1999)_

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that under Article 290 of the
EC Treaty (former Article 217) the rules governing the languages of the Community institutions are to be
‘determined by the Council, acting unanimously’. The Treaty does not provide for Commission proposals
on this matter.

(2000/C 27 E/088) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1446/99**

**by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Subsidised relocation of Akcros Chemicals B.V. from Roermond to Greiz

1. Is the Commission aware that Akcros Chemicals B.V. (formerly Haagen Chemie, owned by AKZO
Nobel Chemicals) which produces lead and metal stearates and non-vinyl semi-finished products for the
plastics industry intends to close its establishment in Roermond (Limburg, Netherlands) with 1 200
workers instead of carrying out its original intention of transferring production to the Limax site (also
owned by Akcros) in Roermond-East, which is due to be developed?

2. Is the Commission also aware that the reason given by AKZO Nobel for this closure in Roermond �
a town with a high level of unemployment by Dutch standards �is an investment subsidy of 35 % which
it is being given to transfer non-vinyl production to Greiz (Thuringia, Germany) while the production of
lead stearates is to be transferred to Düren (North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany)?

3. Can the Commission say whether this transfer is being wholly or partially funded by European Union
money? If so, why? How does the expected growth in the number of jobs in Greiz match up to the
expected job losses in Roermond? What are the costs of each new job?

4. Does the Commission think it right that promoting employment in an area with a shortage of jobs
should be carried out by using public subsidies to take jobs away from another area where there is also a
shortage? If not, what is the Commission intending to do to stop firms’ unnecessary juggling with jobs and
the loss of employment?

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/73

**Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

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

(2000/C 27 E/089) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1447/99**

**by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Persecution of Gypsies in Kosovo

A few days ago, Euronews and RAI television broadcast pictures of the entire Gypsy community of Kosovo
abandoning the province en masse.

It is has been estimated that some 100 000 Gypsies living in Kosovo will be forced to abandon their
homes by the Kosovars, who are accusing them of being ‘Serb collaborators’.

What is the Commission’s position on this new round of ethnic cleansing whose victims, this time, are the
entire Gypsy community of Kosovo, who are suffering the same kind of persecution as the Serbs allegedly
meted out to the Kosovars and what measures will it propose to put an end to this persecution and to
enable the people affected to return to their place of origin and their homes?

**Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission**

_(10 September 1999)_

The Commission is opposed to, and strongly condemns ethnic cleansing of any sort directed at any ethnic
community. The Union condemned ethnic cleansing as carried out by the Serbian authorities on other
ethnic communities, and has condemned recent incidents in Kosovo involving members of other ethnic
communities.

The Union is participating in the United Nations mission in Kosovo (UNMiK), the civilian administration of
Kosovo. This civilian administration, working together with the military administration, military force for
Kosovo (KFOR), is in the process of ensuring that such incidents cease, and that a tolerant, peaceful, multiethnic society is built in Kosovo, in which all can participate fully.

(2000/C 27 E/090) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1448/99**

**by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Infringement procedure initiated against Italy in respect of training and employment contracts and
the serious repercussions on businesses which have helped to create jobs in recent years

According to figures published by the Commission itself (Eurostat), unemployment is an extremely serious
problem within Europe. There are reportedly at least 16 million unemployed people in the EU and one of
the worst-affected regions is Southern Italy.

Very serious social and economic repercussions may stem from the recent Commission decision to initiate
an infringement procedure against Italy on the grounds that the training and employment contracts
concluded over the last four years by many southern Italian SMEs with young unemployed people (who
would otherwise be excluded from the employment market) on the basis of the EU’s own employment
promotion guidelines are illegal.

C 27 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

Has the Commission thought about the implications of its decision? Does it think it right to punish the
very companies which have made a significant contribution to job creation (which is essential in regions
with very high uneployment) and thereby run the risk of making the problem worse?

Does the Commission not believe that what it has actually done is to apply, in a restrictive and partial
fashion, the rules intended to prevent distortion of competition, as laid down in Article 87 of the Treaty?
Will this not ultimately benefit companies which use the free market in order to carry out extensive
restructuring exercises at the expense of SMEs with higher staffing ratios which operate in disadvantaged
regions?

Does the Commission not consider the position it has adopted in this matter to be contrary to the
principles of high employment, social and economic cohesion and solidarity which provide the basis for
European integration (Article 2), to the new Title on employment and to the recent employment pact
initialled at Cologne?

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

In its application of competition policy, the Commission takes account of the objectives set for employment and for economic and social cohesion.

With this in mind, and in order to make it clear to Member States which criteria it uses to decide whether
employment aid is compatible with the common market, the Commission adopted the ‘Guidelines on aid
to employment’ ( [1] ) in July 1995.

The Commission examined the training and employment contracts provided for in Law 196/97 (under
which aid may be granted for converting fixed-term contracts into open-ended contracts) and in Laws 863/
84, 407/90, 169/91 and 451/94 (under which aid may be granted for hiring staff on training or
employment contracts) and found that they constituted aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) (formerly
Article 92(1)) of the EC Treaty.

Article 88(3) (formerly Article 93(3)) of the EC Treaty requires that Member States inform the Commission
of ‘any plans to grant or alter aid’. Since the Italian authorities did not notify the above Laws (in particular
Laws 863/84, 407/90, 169/91 and 451/94) the Commission has no choice but to consider that the aid is
in breach of Community law.

As regards the compatibility of these measures with the common market, the Commission carried out its
assessment in the light of the about regulatory framework and found that employment aid can be declared
compatible with the common market if it meets certain criteria, in particular, if it is granted for the
creation of new jobs for the young unemployed or for other workers experiencing particular difficulties
entering or re-entering the labour market, for example, the long-term unemployed. However, such aid is
incompatible if it does not meet these criteria. In accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC)
659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty ( [2] ), the Commission, in its final decision on 11 May 1999, ordered the recovery of the incompatible
aid unlawfully granted by a Member State with a view to restoring the status quo ante.

The Commission is also aware that such decisions may not be well received by public opinion. However,
the result of any state aid decision must be assessed bearing in mind the contribution made by competition
policy to growth and to stable job creation. The purpose of competition policy is to ensure the proper
functioning of the single market and thus to ensure that firms become more competitive in the long term;
this is the only guarantee of sustainable growth, whereas aid tends to compartmentalise the market and
sometimes merely displaces the unemployment problem from one region or Member State to another.

( [1] ) OJ C 334, 12.12.1995.
( [2] ) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/75

(2000/C 27 E/091) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1449/99**

**by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Breakdown of Commission staff by grade and Member State

Is the Commission aware that on 27 April 1999 the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) published a
table showing the breakdown of Commission staff by grade and country?

The source given is ‘European Commission, position on 1 March 1999’. The statistics published in the FAZ
contain a number of inaccuracies, in particular in the following areas:

A figure of 275 instead of 273 for Austria, 3 884 instead of 4 074 for Belgium, 517 instead of 1 326 for
Germany (!), 1 882 instead of 2 069 for Italy etc. This gives a total of 15 696 instead of the figure
indicated: 16 861. Adding up the last column gives a figure of 14 966 instead of the 16 861 shown.

What is the Commission’s attitude towards the figures published in the FAZ and towards the obvious
inaccuracies in the light of the source quoted by the FAZ? Can the Commission make available the original
on which the publication is allegedly based?

**Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

The Commission had not been informed that the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung would be publishing the
table to which the Honourable Member refers.

The table is indeed taken from the monthly statistical bulletin on the Commission’s staff, produced by the
Commission, which is being forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament
Secretariat.

The table shows the officials and temporary staff paid from the administrative budget.

Without knowing the source of the data proffered by the Honourable Member, the differences between the
two figures could be explained by the fact that those provided by the Honourable Member do not include
the officials in the language services. The correct figure for staff of German nationality is 1 581 (517 refers
to Danish staff).

(2000/C 27 E/092) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1451/99**

**by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Financing of projects in Ischia (Italy)

Three projects on Ischia �two in the port of Ischia and one to do with the untapped medicinal spring of
Nitrodi outside the town of Ischia �are to be supported by the European Union. Construction has not yet
started.

Can the Commission explain:

1. In what form are these projects being supported by the European Union?

2. How is the overfall financing being planned and what system will be used for the breakdown of
funding between the EU and the region?

3. What is the timescale envisaged for completion of these projects?

C 27 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

**Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission**

_(9 September 1999)_

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

(2000/C 27 E/093) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1454/99**

**by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Disposal containers for dangerous disposable waste

1. Is it true that disposal containers for dangerous waste such a contaminated needles, cannulas and
scalpels etc. are not deemed to be medical accessories pursuant to Directive 93/42/EC ( [1] ) concerning
medical devices, even though the containers are available before, during and after the operation or
treatment in the treatment room for health and preventive reasons to guarantee infection-free disposal of
contaminated instruments with no risk of injury?

2. In the MEDDEF directive the question of classification as a medical device depends on the purpose
intended by the manufacturer, the example given for accessories being the bags used to pack resterilised
accessories which are exactly the same as disposal containers in that they minimise the risk of infection.
Why does the Commission make this distinction?

3. Why is the Commission opposed to EC labelling of disposal containers for dangerous waste

( [1] ) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1.

**Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 October 1999)_

1. Disposal containers for dangerous medical waste, such as contaminated needles, cannulae and
scalpels, are not considered as ‘medical devices’ pursuant to Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June
1993 concerning medical devices, since they do not meet the intended purpose definition of a medical
device as described in Article 1, 2a). In fact, medical devices are products to be used for patients for the
purpose of diagnosis of a disease, for treatment of an injury, for the modification of the anatomy etc.

The Commission recognises that there is a risk in handling dangerous waste, but preventive measures to
guarantee for instance disposal of contaminated instruments, with no risk of injury for the handler by
using disposal containers are the object of other legislation, in particular on worker protection.

2. Medical devices documents, such as ‘guidelines for the classification of medical devices’, are not
legally binding, and are drafted through a process of consultation with the interested parties (authorities,
industry, third parties) to help to ensure a coherent interpretation of Directive 93/42/EEC.

The classification as ‘accessories to medical devices’, as rightly identified by the Honourable Member,
depends on the purpose intended by the manufacturer for the product based on Article 1, 2b) of Directive
93/42/EEC.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/77

Bags used to pack re-sterilised medical devices are meant to guarantee the quality of the devices to be
reused, so ensuring an appropriate level of protection of the patient and are therefore accessories to
medical devices. Containers for waste, albeit contaminated medical device waste, have not the intended
purpose to protect the characteristics of the disposed devices, and are therefore not accessories to medical
devices.

3. Manufacturers may only put the CE marking, foreseen by Directive 93/42/EEC, on medical devices.
As disposal containers are neither medical devices nor accessories to medical devices they may not bear
the above-mentioned marking. However this does not mean that they could not bear other markings or
labels.

(2000/C 27 E/094) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1459/99**

**by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Brewery ties

Does the Commission have any plans to review the possibility for regulating the system of brewery ties
which still applies in the UK?

**Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission**

_(10 September 1999)_

The Commission has this year adopted three individual exemption decisions for the national brewers, Bass,
S&N and Whitbread. The brewers notified their leases because the current block exemption regulation
concerning exclusive purchasing agreements, while containing special provisions for beer-supply agreements, did not cover the British beer delivery contracts as the beer tie did not come within the ambit of
the regulation. The individual exemptions mentioned are valid in the case of Bass and S&N until the end of
2002 and for Whitbread until the end of 2008.

The Commission has no plans to propose any specific regulation for the beer sector. The current block
exemption regulation will expire by the end of 1999. It is the Commission’s firm intention to replace this
regulation and other regulations concerning vertical agreements with one, wide ranging and general block
exemption regulation that will not contain sector-specific provisions. In July 1999 the Commission sent
for consultation to Member States a draft block exemption regulation and draft guidelines. After the
consultation of Member States these draft texts will be published for consultation of third parties.

(2000/C 27 E/095) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1460/99**

**by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Proposed amendments to the Recreational Craft Directive 94/25/EC to include exhaust and sound
emission requirements laid down in the European Commission document Doc.III 76032/97-EN,
revision 6 dated 9.12.1998

Does the Commission agree that these amendments to Directive 94/25/EC ( [1] ) are retrospective in that the
definitions given for ‘major engine modification’ will encompass all existing craft that replace or refurbish
their engines for ‘wear and tear’ reasons?

Do not the amendments therefore place an undue cost burden on small businesses in the engine and boat
building industries, (estimated costs of £15 000 per engine/installation)? Would the Commission state what

C 27 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

steps are being taken to cut the cost of compliance testing so that the low volume engine and boat
building industries are not fatally harmed?

Does the Commission accept that, unless the proposal is modified, there is a risk that the only beneficiaries
will be the large engine manufacturers from America and the Far East? What steps is the Commission
taking to protect the European marine engine industry so that it does not perish, as did the European
motorcycle industry many years ago?

( [1] ) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 15.

**Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 October 1999)_

The document to which the Honourable Member refers is a working document which was redrafted early
this year. The current draft is still being discussed with Member States, industry and users. The
Commission is currently collecting and analysing comments and suggestions. All these will be taken into
consideration before the Commission adopts a proposal to be submitted to the Parliament.

(2000/C 27 E/096) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1461/99**

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

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Demarcation of the Argentinian EEZ

In view of the Commission’s failure to answer my previous question on this subject and in view of the
Commission’s outspoken, surprising and in my opinion contradictory answer to my question E-3472/
98 ( [1] ), it is important to know the grounds on which the Commission has changed its views. In its
previous answer to my written question E-0496/98 ( [2] ) it stated that it ‘agrees that situations such as those
which led to this seizure (of the Arpón) cause difficulties in interpretation and generate a degree of
instability for the ships operating in this region’. Now, by contrast, merely because no further vessels have
been seized, that insecurity or ‘instability’ is deemed no longer to exist and, consequently, ‘no further
action is required’.

This argument is a weak one and contradicts the Commission’s previous answers to my questions E-3951/
97 ( [3] ) and E-0496/98.

Does the Commission not believe that, even though no further vessels have been seized, the ‘difficulties in
interpretation’ and ‘degree of instability for the ships operating in this region’, to which the Commission
previously referred, still persist?

Does the Commission continue to uphold its previous argument that ‘the coastal state has a clear duty
under the terms of Article 56(2) and 75 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea to provide all the details
necessary to define an EEZ and that it is answerable under international law if it fails to do so’?

If so, does the Commission not believe that it should take measures to ensure that Argentina complies
with the obligations laid down in the Convention on the Law of the Sea and put an end to the situation of
‘instability’ which has been generated?

( [1] ) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999.
( [2] ) OJ C 323, 21.10.1998, p. 41.
( [3] ) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 5.

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

In reply to the Honourable Member’s question and further to the answers given by the Commission to
questions P-1424/1999 ( [1] ), P-464/99 ( [2] ), E-3472/98 ( [3] ), E-3471/98 ( [4] ), P-2559/98 ( [5] ), E-496/98 ( [6] ),

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/79

E-399/98 ( [7] ) and E-3951/97 ( [8] ) put by the Honourable Member on the same subject, the Commission can
inform him that at its request the demarcation of the Argentinian exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and in
particular the Argentinian federal fisheries law are now under discussion within the Council Working Party
on the Law of the Sea.

In this body, the Commission and Member States have the possibility of examining all aspects of the
matter.

( [1] ) See page 62.
( [2] ) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999, p. 76.
( [3] ) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999.
( [4] ) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 74.
( [5] ) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 25.
( [6] ) OJ C 323, 23.10.1998.
( [7] ) OJ C 386, 17.12.1998.
( [8] ) OJ C 310, 15.12.1998.

(2000/C 27 E/097) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1462/99**

**by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Project to enlarge the port of Citadella

In February 1999 the Citadella municipal government team and the Balearic Government approved the
project to enlarge the port in that city drawn up by the construction company Dragados y Construcciones
SL. An investment of around Ptas 13 500 million is planned for the project, Ptas 6 600 million of which
will be used for a housing development covering a 50,4 hectare area in Cala’n Busquets.

If this urban development project is carried out alongside the port enlargement, the population of Citadella
will grow by 25 %, which will lead to a enormous increase in water consumption and affect the
environment in the area.

A series of irregularities have been committed in connection with this project:

�
the planned development does not tally with the growth forecasts for Citadella contained in the
Regional Planning Directives (DOT) (the Balearic Government has passed a law placing a moratorium
on urban development which applies to sectors C2 and C3, where the housing development is to be
built);

�
no rigorous study has been carried out on the environmental and social costs;

�
approval was not preceded by an environmental impact report or by the mandatory report by the
Directorate-General for the Coastline.

Given that one of the above points represents a violation of Directive 85/33/EEC ( [1] ) on the assessment of
the effects of certain projects on the environment:

1. Will the Commission take action to ensure compliance with Article 2 of the above Directive, which
lays down that Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that projects likely to have
significant effects on the environment, as in the present case, are made subject to an assessment with
regard to their effects?

2. Will the Commission closely study and monitor this project, which is scheduled to be carried out in
the year 2000?

( [1] ) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

C 27 E/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

**Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 October 1999)_

The Commission had not been aware of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission will make the contacts needed in order to obtain all of the details concerning that
situation and to establish that Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
impact of certain public and private projects on the environment ( [1] ) has been properly implemented.

The Commission will duly inform the Honourable Member of the outcome of the action taken.

( [1] ) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, OJ L 73, 14.3.1999.

(2000/C 27 E/098) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1464/99**

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

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement

The current EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement, which is of great importance for the Community fishing
industry and has a major impact on employment, particularly in less-favoured European regions highly
dependent on fishing, is about to expire.

1. Can the Commission say what budgetary allocation it will set aside to finance the new agreement
which may eventually be concluded?

2. Can the Commission provide information on the timetable drawn up by the Kingdom of Morocco
and the composition and rank of the Community delegation?

3. Bearing in mind the importance of bilateral trade and financial relations between the EU and
Morocco, what other Directorates-General will be involved in the negotiations on a new agreement
alongside DG XIV?

4. Can the Commission say what funds the EU has assigned to Morocco under the MEDA cooperation
programme in the course of 1999 and what funds it plans to allocate in the future?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

1. The Council, at a first reading, entered 125 million € as a reserve, the same amount as for the
agreement in force. In view of the uncertainty regarding the form of cooperation with Morocco as regards
fishing and the very high and very variable costs involved, the Commission considers the inclusion of this
amount in the budget to be appropriate. In line with the progress of the negotiations, the Commission will
update this amount in accordance with the budgetary procedures in force.

2. and 3. The Commission was authorised by the Council at its meeting on 10 June 1999 to start
exploratory contacts with the Moroccan authorities aimed at seeking and developing together new
mechanisms for cooperation in the fisheries sector which would be advantageous to the two parties. The
Commission immediately, in June, sent a letter to the Moroccan authorities requesting the beginning of the
exploratory contacts. The Moroccan authorities answered on 9 July 1999, stating their willingness to hold
a meeting to start discussions between the two parties after 15 September 1999. The detailed timetable for
the meetings will be drawn up as soon as the first exploratory contacts are started. The negotiations for a
new fisheries agreement will be conducted by the Commission acting as an institution.

4. With regard to cooperation with Morocco within the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean
partnership, the Commission has planned projects and programmes in 1999 for an amount of
176 million €.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/81

(2000/C 27 E/099) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1466/99**

**by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Representation of women on committees

The Members of the European Parliament and European citizens have problems in obtaining information
about the advisory, management and regulatory committees which assist the Commission with the
implementation of Union law under the so-called commitology procedure. These committees, of which
are there probably more than 450, mainly comprise representatives appointed by the Member States. Can
the Commission give overall details of the membership of the committees in question, broken down by
sex? What percentage of the members of all the committees assisting the Commission are women?

**Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 October 1999)_

As the Honourable Member states, many committees exist to assist the Commission in the so-called
comitology procedures. The collection of data on the percentage of women and men in all these
committees is beyond the present possibilities of the Commission. Moreover, the designations to these
committees are made by the Member States, leaving the Commission no formal power to intervene.
However, the Commission intends to gather data concerning committees established by it as part of its
work to implement its policy on gender mainstreaming.

(2000/C 27 E/100) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1467/99**

**by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Use of fat from deep-fat fryers in animal feedingstuffs

In connection with the dioxin scandal in Belgium it has emerged that the dioxin discovered in animal
feedingstuffs would appear to come from the fat used in the production of the feedingstuffs themselves.
Although it is not yet clear how this has come about, it is thought that dioxin is present in the deep-fat
fryers used in restaurants, in which the fat is repeatedly heated.

In Sweden the recycling of frying fats in the production of animal feedingstuffs is prohibited. Does the
Commission intend to ban the use of high-risk fats in animal feedingstuffs throughout the Union? How
does the Commission monitor the types of fat used in the production of animal feedingstuffs?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(18 October 1999)_

As an aftermath of the recent dioxin contamination of oils, a programme of legislative measures, in order
to guarantee the safety of products used in animal nutrition, has been recently presented to the Parliament
and to the Council. Amongst these legislative measures, it is envisaged to complete the current list of feed
materials the use of which is prohibited in compound feedingstuffs in order to include products for which
the traceability is not fully guaranteed, or products of dubious safety. The use in animal nutrition of
recycled oils and fats from the food sector is questioned.

The Commission is examining together with the standing committee for feedingstuffs the existing
monitoring systems of these recycled oils and fats in the different Member States and also in third
countries from which these products are imported, and the safety of these products with regard to their
composition and to recycling process.

C 27 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

The controls on fats used in animal nutrition are currently a responsibility of the Member States and shall
be carried out in accordance with Council Directive 95/53/EC of 25 October 1995 fixing the principles
governing the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition ( [1] ). The Commission, for
the time being, has only the possibility to carry out on-the-spot checks in animal nutrition when
infringements are notified. In this respect a proposal for a Parliament and Council directive ( [2] ) to extend
the legal basis for Commission checks is under discussion at Council level.

( [1] ) OJ L 265, 8.11.1995.
( [2] ) OJ C 346, 14.11.1998.

(2000/C 27 E/101) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1468/99**

**by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Death sentence passed on the Kurdish leader Öçalan

In view of the farcical trial and the resulting death sentence passed on the Kurdish leader Öçalan:

1. does the Council not think that it should make urgent representations to the government in Ankara,
so that it can be announced in Parliament that the death sentence has with immediate effect been
commuted to imprisonment?

2. does the Council not think that it should make an official announcement to the effect that the death
sentence in question constitutes the Turkish Government’s umpteenth violation of human rights and
the basic principles of international law?

3. does the Council not therefore think that, in the meantime, it should:

(a) suspend all trade preference agreements (both customs agreements and others) between the
European Union and Turkey?

(b) suspend the current negotiations on Turkey’s accession to the European Union?

(c) ban all arms trading between Turkey and the EU Member States?

**Reply**

_(8 November 1999)_

With regard to the death sentence passed on Mr Abdullah Öçalan by the State Security Court of Ankara on
29 June 1999, the Presidency of the European Union has reiterated to the Turkish authorities, and will
continue to do so, the Union’s well-known position on capital punishment as a matter of principle,
irrespective of the defendant and the offence of which he is convicted. The Union has also reiterated its
condemnation of all forms of terrorism.

The Council notes that the Supreme Court convened on 7 October for Mr Öçalan’s appeal and has been
adjourned until 21 October. The Council underlines the fact that Turkish law provides for the sentence to
be reviewed by the Supreme Court on appeal, and that it is within the discretion of the Turkish Grand
National Assembly to decide whether or not to confirm any death sentence passed by a Turkish Court. Yet,
the Council continues to express the hope to the Turkish Government that Turkey will follow what has
invariably been the practice for the past fifteen years and not carry out the death sentence passed on
Mr Öçalan. In the light of Turkey’s declared intention to become a member of the EU, it has been
underlined that the non-application of capital punishment forms part of the common values and thus of
the acquis of the European Union.

The Council does not believe that any form of suspension of cooperation with Turkey would help the
Union to keep Turkey informed of its positions, including on the Öçalan case. On the contrary, the
Council is encouraged by the recent improvement of atmosphere in EU-Turkey cooperation following the

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/83

earthquakes in Turkey and Greece as well as developments in bilateral Greek-Turkish relations, and is
convinced that dialogue with Turkey, which will embrace all issues, is the only right way forward to bring
Turkey closer to the values and objectives of the European Union. In this context, the Council wishes to
underline the importance it attached to the participation of Foreign Minister Cem in the General Affairs
Council luncheon on 13 September 1999.

(2000/C 27 E/102) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1469/99**

**by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Death sentence passed on the Kurdish leader Öçalan

In view of the farcical trial and the resulting death sentence passed on the Kurdish leader Öçalan:

1. Does the Commission not think that it should make urgent representations to the government in
Ankara, so that it can be announced in Parliament that the death sentence has with immediate effect
been commuted to imprisonment?

2. Does the Commission not think that it should make an official announcement to the effect that the
death sentence in question constitutes the Turkish Government’s umpteenth violation of human rights
and the basic principles of international law?

3. Does the Commission not therefore think that, in the meantime, it should:

(a) suspend all trade preference agreements (both customs agreements and others) between the
European Union and Turkey?

(b) suspend the current negotiations on Turkey’s accession to the European Union?

(c) ban all arms trading between Turkey and the EU Member States?

**Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 September 1999)_

The death sentence passed on the leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), Abdullah Öçalan, on
29 June by the Court of State Security in Ankara provoked reactions from many quarters in the Union,
including the Presidency which called on Turkey not to carry it out. Similar views were expressed on the
Commission’s behalf by the Member of the Commission responsible who invited the Turkish authorities to
take account of the EU’s opposition to the death penalty.

It should be borne in mind that capital punishment has not been exercised once in Turkey since 1984 and
that a draft Criminal Code is currently before the Turkish Parliament providing for its abolition. If the
sentence on Mr Öçalan were to be carried out, this would clearly nullify all Turkey’s efforts to put an end
to the death penalty.

The Commission does not consider that the possibility of retaliatory measures against Turkey, as suggested
by the honourable Member of Parliament, need be examined at this stage. It is monitoring the action to be
taken on the Court of State Security’s decision closely and can confirm that the Turkish authorities
concerned will take the EU’s position into account.

Turkey is included in the enlargement process and has been the subject of a regular annual report on its
progress towards accession since the Cardiff European Council in June 1998. The Commission is due to
present its next report by the end of the year and will take due account of developments in the Öçalan

case.

C 27 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/103) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1472/99**

**by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Effect on public health of mobile phone transmitter masts

In recent months concern has been expressed in several Member States of the European Union at the
alleged harmful effect on health of mobile phone transmitters, in particular when they are installed on the
roofs of flats, hospitals and health-care establishments.

1. Can the Commission say what research data it has on the possible harmful effects on health of
installing masts on the roofs of buildings in the various Member States?

2. In the light of recent research findings, can the Commission indicate the possible harmful effects on
health �in particular, the non-thermal effects �for users who make frequent use of mobile phones?

3. Given the concern that has been expressed, is the Commission prepared to earmark money in the
budget for EU research programmes for a European study into the possible harmful, non-thermal effects of
installing mobile phone transmitters and the possible harmful effects on the users of mobile phones?

**Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

The Commission has taken due note of concerns on possible harmful effects on health of electromagnetic
fields.

On 9 March 1999, the Council and the Parliament adopted Directive 1999/5/CE on radio equipment and
telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity ( [1] ). This Directive
lays down the requirements that radio transmitters need to meet in order to be placed on the market and
be operated. It envisages that Member States may restrict operation for health reasons, e.g. by imposing
certain minimum distances between the transmitter and the public.

On 2 July 1999, the Council adopted a recommendation proposed by the Commission on the limitation of
exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields ( [2] ). This takes account of the scientific opinion of
the International commission on non-ionizing radiation, supported by the Commission’s scientific steering
committee referring to established effects on human health of exposure to electromagnetic fields.

In this context, it should be noted that the extensive research done in Europe through the co-ordinated
action of the COST 244 and 244bis projects over the last decade has not demonstrated any reproducible
detrimental effects on health at the levels of radio-frequency emissions typical of mobile phones and cell
masts.

As a result of widespread use of mobile phones, it is clear that if there is an adverse health effect, it could
be a longer term effect. Therefore, research should continue to measure such effects and the results of
current and future research in this area will be considered in the context of the reporting procedure
provided for in the text of the recommendation.

In the context of the 5th framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration ( [3] ), the programme on ‘quality of life and management of living resources ( [4] )’ foresees in its key action
4 ‘environment and health’ specific research on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation and in
particular epidemiological and biomedical studies to determine possible effects linked to non-ionising
radiation, particularly from cellular phones and antennas. Several applications relevant to this field are now
being evaluated and are processed for possible funding for the 1999 budget.

( [1] ) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.
( [2] ) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.
( [3] ) OJ C 173, 7.6.1997.
( [4] ) COM(98) 305 final.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/85

(2000/C 27 E/104) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1474/99**

**by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Management of waste oils

According to the Commission’s answer (E-3211/97 of 5 February 1998 ( [1] )) to my question concerning the
management of waste oils, ‘... the Commission will open a file ... on the basis of which it will contact the
Greek authorities in order to ask for information on the actual implementation in Greece of Directive 75/
439/EEC, as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC ( [2] ). When it receives a reply from Greece the Commission
shall not fail to invoke the powers conferred upon it by Article 169 of the EC Treaty, if appropriate.’

What was the Greek authorities’ reply concerning the implementation of the above Directives, in particular
Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 87/101? Should Greece have failed to implement the Directives, will the
Commission actually invoke the powers conferred upon it by Article 169 of the EC Treaty and when?

( [1] ) OJ C 223, 17.7.1998, p. 1.
( [2] ) OJ L 42, 12.2.1987, p. 43.

**Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 October 1999)_

The Commission has, on several occasions, asked the Greek authorities to provide information on the
implementation of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as
amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986. As the Greek authorities did not
communicate any information concerning this issue, the Commission has opened infringement procedings
against Greece on the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 169) for failure to provide the
implementation report required under Article 18 of the Directive.

(2000/C 27 E/105) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1475/99**

**by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Persecution of Gypsies in Kosovo

A few days ago, Euronews and RAI television broadcast pictures of the entire Gypsy community of Kosovo
abandoning the province en masse.

It is has been estimated that some 100 000 Gypsies living in Kosovo will be forced to abandon their
homes by the Kosovars, who are accusing them of being ‘Serb collaborators’.

What is the Council’s position on this new round of ethnic cleansing whose victims, this time, are the
entire Gypsy community of Kosovo, who are suffering the same kind of persecution as the Serbs allegedly
meted out to the Kosovars and what measures will it propose to put an end to this persecution and to
enable the people affected to return to their place of origin and their homes?

**Reply**

_(8 November 1999)_

The Council shares the Honourable Parliamentarian’s concern that the Serb and other non-Albanian
populations have to a large extent left or have been forced to leave Kosovo. The Council recalls that
UNSCR 1244 foresees the right to return of all refugees and displaced persons. The Council fully supports
the efforts of UNMIK to promote reconciliation and cooperation between the various ethnic and other
groups in Kosovo and remains strongly committed to a democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo.

C 27 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

In their contacts with leading figures of the Kosovo Albanian community, EU Representatives have
underlined in clear terms that the persecution of Kosovo Serbs, Roma and other ethnic groups is
unacceptable and has to stop immediately.

The International Community will make every effort to facilitate the return of refugees and displaced
persons. In the meantime, the EU continues to provide humanitarian assistance to a large number of
refugees in Serbia. ECHO has recently allocated 56,1 million euro for humanitarian assistance to this effect.

(2000/C 27 E/106) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1476/99**

**by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Postal tariffs

Some national postal authorities charge a different rate for letters sent to an address in the same country
(however far away) than to an address in another Member State (however close by). Is this compatible with
the Treaty, notably the provision on non-discrimination on grounds of nationality?

**Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 October 1999)_

The Commission is in favour of cost-based prices for each of the services involved in providing the
universal postal service, as called for in Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal
services and the improvement of quality of service ( [1] ).

The costs incurred by certain postal operators for distributing a letter in the same Member State may differ
from those incurred for a letter sent to another Member State, whereby the distance travelled has only a
marginal impact. A purely domestic service involves a single operator with his network historically
adapted to that service, whereas a cross-border service involves different operators, each of whom provides
a part of the service using his own network, thereby increasing the complexity and cost of the distribution

process.

In view of the impact of costs on the rates, it cannot therefore be excluded that domestic and cross-border
situations are treated differently. Since postal services have not yet been liberalised, it is for the Member
State and the postal operator concerned to show that the difference in rates is justified. This requires an
examination of the individual case pursuant to Articles 49 (ex Article 59) and 86(2) (ex Article 90) of the
EC Treaty.

( [1] ) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.

(2000/C 27 E/107) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1477/99**

**by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Council**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Administrative detention

Would the Council inform me as to what efforts they are making to try to ensure the Israeli government
meets international standards regarding the practice of administrative detention, and in particular Article 9
of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights?

I would like to remind the Council of the case of Bilal Dakrub, one of 22 Lebanese detainees held by
arbitrary detention in Israel, prisoners who are held either without trial or long after their sentences have
expired.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/87

**Reply**

_(8 November 1999)_

The European Union continues to follow closely the situation of Lebanese detainees held by Israel as well
as other administrative detainees held by other states of the region.

The relations with Israel are presently governed by an Interim Agreement pending the conclusion of the
Euro-Mediterranean Agreement signed in 1995. The Interim Agreement states in particular that ‘relations
between the Parties, as well as the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect of human
rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an
essential element of that Agreement (Art. 1).’ Therefore, the European Union expects that all the provisions
of the Interim Agreement are equally respected by all the signatories.

The Union has raised the issue of Lebanese detained by Israel, or under Israeli control, with the Israeli
authorities and reiterated its concern about the use of administrative detention at the 55th UN Commission on Human Rights in 1999. The Council can assure the Honourable Member that it continues to
address the human rights violations in the region with the aim of ensuring the partner countries’
awareness of the necessity to meet the provisions of international human rights instruments, including
those of the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights.

(2000/C 27 E/108) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1478/99**

**by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Administrative detention

Would the Commission inform me as to what efforts they are making to try to ensure the Israeli
government meets international standards regarding the practice of administrative detention, and in
particular Article 9 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights?

I would like to remind the Commission of the case of Bilal Dakrub, one of 22 Lebanese detainees held by
arbitrary detention in Israel, prisoners who are held either without trial or long after their sentences have
expired.

**Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

The Commission is aware of the practice of administrative detention in Israel and the case of the Lebanese
citizen Bilal ’Abd al-Husayn Dakrub, who is still detained in Israel despite the expiration of his original
prison sentence in 1988 ( [1] ). Apparently, Mr Dakrub and the other Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel are
held as possible ‘bargaining chips’ for an exchange against four Israeli soldiers still missing in combat since
the 1980s and believed to be in the hands of Islamist militias in Lebanon ( [2] ).

There is justified hope that these exchanges will form part of an Israeli-Lebanese peace agreement
including the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied Southern Lebanon within one year as announced
by Israel’s new Prime Minister Barak.

The Israeli authorities are well aware of the importance which the Union attaches to the rule of law and to
strict respect for the undertakings to which Israel has subscribed by her accession in 1991 to the
International covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR). Although Article 9 of the ICCPR makes clear
that no-one should be subjected to arbitrary detention, administrative detention is allowed under Israeli
law ( [3] ). The Commission uses every appropriate opportunity afforded by its regular contacts with the Israeli
authorities to express its views on the human rights situation in Israel. Furthermore, individual Member
States party to the ICCPR do have a specific mandate to raise human rights issues with Israel as being a
party to that covenant.

C 27 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

Once the delayed ratification of the concluded Euro-Mediterranean association agreement between the
Union and Israel is completed, the Union as a whole, and the Commission as such, will be in an enhanced
position to exercise a positive influence regarding all human rights-related issues in the framework of the
political dialogue with Israel established by the agreement. A particular human rights clause stipulates that
respect for human rights constitutes an essential element of the Agreement. Under the present interim
agreement, Israel is already subject to the principle of human rights.

In this context, the Commission welcomes recent positive developments regarding human rights in Israel,
including government statements leaning towards restricting the use of administrative detention and the
High Court judgment which effectively has outlawed all forms of torture under all circumstances.

( [1] ) Reportedly, Dakrub was arrested in occupied Southern Lebanon in 1986, transferred to Israel and then tried by a
Military Court in Lod for membership of an illegal organization. He was sentenced to two and a half years’
imprisonment. His sentence expired on 16 August 1988 but he is still in detention now.
( [2] ) Ron Arad (since 1986), Zachary Baumel, Zvi Feldman and Yehuda Katz (since 1982).
( [3] ) Administrative detention as applied in Israel and the Occupied Territories is based on Articles 108 and 111 of the
Defence (Emergency) Regulations enacted in September 1945 by the British authorities governing the Mandate of
Palestine. In March 1979 the Emergency Powers (Detention) Law was enacted which introduced greater administrative and judicial safeguards to administrative detention in Israel. In 1980 similar provisions were extended to the
Occupied Territories.

(2000/C 27 E/109) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1479/99**

**by Rosa Díez González (PSE), Alejandro Cercas (PSE)**
**and Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Structure of public welfare and social cohesion systems

Studies published recently by the OECD and the ILO support the idea contained in the recent Commission
communication on a convergence strategy to modernise social protection that unemployment and
retirement benefits, pensions and other publicly funded social protection schemes not only do not have a
negative impact on employment levels, they also help to maintain consumer demand and protect
individuals and families from a progressive decline in their standard of living. The 63 % of European
public welfare expenditure devoted to pensions and health contributes to a redistribution of income
without which 40 % of families would live in relative poverty. According to the European Community
Household Panel, in the case of Spain the figure is even higher �Spanish families have 10 % less saving
capacity than the average European family.

How does the Commission view these conclusions, both in the framework of debates on reform of the
system of public welfare and social cohesion in the Union, and in the light of attempts to cut back welfare
systems, or to combine them with extensive private social protection and pension schemes, accessible to
only a certain proportion of European citizens and workers?

**Answer given by Mme Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

Social protection systems are of fundamental importance in the Community and publicly funded social
protection systems provide the bulk of expenditure on social support, health care and pensions in the
Member States. They play a crucial role in ensuring income redistribution and social cohesion. Social
protection systems need to adapt to the social and economic realities in which they operate, and which
have changed significantly since the creation of these systems. In its recent communication on ‘A
concerted strategy for modernising social protection’ ( [1] ), the Commission suggested launching a new
process of collective reflection about the future of social protection and to base this new process on four

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/89

objectives: to make work pay and to provide secure income; to make pensions safe and pension systems
sustainable; to promote social inclusion and to ensure high quality and sustainable health care.

These objectives make it clear that the fight against social exclusion and the modernisation of social
protection have to go hand in hand. The development of private supplementary pension schemes could be
helpful in facilitating the modernisation of public pension systems because, on the one hand, such schemes
could reduce the demographic pressure on existing public systems and thereby promote their future
viability and, on the other hand, by supplementing publicly funded systems, private supplementary
pension schemes could provide a means of maintaining a high level of social protection overall.

The balance between private and state funded schemes is a matter for individual Member States to decide
and each Member State retains exclusive responsibility for organising and financing of its social protection
systems, including pension schemes. In the overall policy mix, it is important to pay special attention to
those who do not have the means to invest in a supplementary pension.

One issue to resolve at European level is the drawing-up of a proper legal framework for private pension
funds which both establishes stringent prudential requirements to protect consumers but allows adequate
investment freedom so that pension fund assets can benefit from the single capital market and be
profitably invested.

The Commission’s communication ‘Towards a single market for supplementary pensions’ ( [2] ) examines the
elements which could be introduced in a draft directive on the prudential supervision of pension funds.
Adoption of such a directive has been identified as a top priority in the action plan on financial services
(Commission’s communication ‘Implementing the framework for financial markets: Action plan’ ( [3] )) as
endorsed by the Council on 25 May 1999 and later by the Cologne European Council.

( [1] ) COM(99) 347 final.
( [2] ) COM(99) 134 final.
( [3] ) COM(99) 232 final.

(2000/C 27 E/110) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1484/99**

**by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Council**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Police action on the Via Baltica

During the last few weeks the leading Finnish newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, has published on its news
and comment pages worrying reports that the police on the Via Baltica, the road linking the Baltic States
to Poland and central Europe, have been imposing fines on foreign drivers. According to these reports,
drivers have been able to negotiate the size of the fines and pay them on the spot without receiving any
form of receipt.

Although in a poor state of repair, the Via Baltica is an important route for motor vehicles travelling from
northern Europe towards central Europe and offers a practical alternative to crossing Sweden and
Denmark. Since these problems will concern the European Union, particularly in connection with the
forthcoming enlargement, all the uncertainties surrounding the use of this road should be cleared up in
good time.

1. Does the Council know whether the payments levied by the police forces of the applicant countries
on EU Member States nationals using the Via Baltica are appropriate and lawful in all respects?

2. If it emerges that the attitude adopted by the authorities is inappropriate, what steps does the Council
plan to take to ensure that these unofficial administrative practices are abolished in the applicant countries
and that the citizens of the EU Member States can use this road without being forced to make arbitrary
payments?

C 27 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

**Reply**

_(22 October 1999)_

The Via Baltica is recognised by the applicant Baltic States as an important traffic route for their
integration into the European Union and for this reason it receives special support under their transport
policies.

The Council has not been informed of any specific cases of charges or fines being imposed on foreign
drivers on the Via Baltica in Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania. If there were any illegal practices by individual
police officers, the problem raised by the Honourable Member would fall within the more general
framework of the eradication of corruption in the applicant States.

In this context, it should be remembered that the Accession Partnerships, which were established by the
Commission in April 1998 on the basis of guidelines and priorities defined by the Council and constitute
an essential element of the strategy developed by the Union to lead the applicant States towards accession
to the Union, include an important chapter on the fight against organised crime and corruption. The fight
against corruption in particular is the subject of a short-term priority in the Accession Partnership with
Latvia and Lithuania.

In May 1998, the experts on the fight against organised crime concluded a pre-accession pact between the
Member States of the Union and the applicant States which also dealt with the fight against corruption.

Implementation of the pre-accession strategy and, in particular, the priorities defined by the Partnerships is
regularly monitored in the Association bodies established by the Europe Agreements. In this context, the
fight against corruption was discussed in the Association Council bodies in recent months.

If the information contained in the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat to which the Honourable Member refers
is verified, and there is confirmation of illegal practices on the Via Baltica, the Union will not fail to raise
this point with the applicant Baltic States concerned in the framework of the Europe Association
Agreements.

(2000/C 27 E/111) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1485/99**

**by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ British beef affected by tuberculosis

Reports of the marketing of British beef originating from animals affected by tuberculosis have appeared in
the French press.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

When does it intend to prohibit these practices, which are completely inconsistent with the precautionary
principle, and to ensure the safety of food consumed by Europeans?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 September 1999)_

Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in
fresh meat ( [1] ) lays down that meat must come from animals that have undergone an ante-mortem and
post-mortem inspection by an official veterinarian. The meat must be declared unfit for human consumption if during these inspections it is found that it comes from animals in which generalised tuberculosis is
found or from animals which have produced a positive or inconclusive reaction to tuberculosis and in
which an examination has revealed only localised tuberculous lesions in a number of organs or a number
of areas of the carcass. Further provisions apply when localised tuberculous lesions are found. These

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/91

measures are designed to eliminate risks of transfer of the disease to humans. Any meat that is not in
conformity with the requirements of Directive 64/433/EEC shall not be placed on the market.

It is the task of the Member States to ensure that tuberculosis in animals is properly controlled, and that
meat complies with the safeguards laid down in Community legislation.

The Commission has requested further information on this question from the authorities concerned. As
soon as relevant information becomes available, the Commission will inform the Honourable Member.

( [1] ) OJ L 121, 29.7.1964, consolidated by Directive 91/497/EEC (OJ L 268, 24.9.1991), and amended by Directive 95/
23/EC (OJ L 243, 11.10.1995).

(2000/C 27 E/112) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1486/99**

**by Luckas Vander Taelen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ International architectural competition relating to the European Quarter in Brussels

The Léopold and European Quarters in Brussels are undoubtedly among the most sorely tried urban areas
in the Union. The presence of the European institutions and property speculation have played a decisive
role in the sudden and drastic transformation of the urban and social fabric of the quarter and of the
setting in which its people live.

In May 1997 the Commission and the Brussels-Capital Region launched an international architectural
competition for the development of the public areas in the European Quarter. Designs were selected in
two phases. The winning design was the one that had been most severely criticised since the beginning of
the first phase! During the first phase the adjudication panel had considered some important options in the
winning design to be completely unrealistic, examples being the Rue de la Loi tunnels and the demolition
of the Résidence Palace, and had denounced the poor knowledge of the local environment it revealed. This
is not surprising, given that the participants had not been made aware of the observations and wishes
expressed by local people and experts in the field. On the other hand, the Commission was, among other
things, represented on the adjudication panel by a member throughout the design selection procedure.
Following irregularities discovered during the selection procedure, which took the form of non-compliance
with Directive 92/50/EEC ( [1] ) of 18 June 1992 concerning procedural rules on the award of public service
contracts and with the competition rules concerning the criteria for the evaluation of designs and the
composition of the adjudication panel, a complaint was made to the Council of the Belgian State and to
the Commission (Complaint 98/5025, SG(98) A/17139) by one of the architects taking part in the
competition.

Can the Commission say how far it was involved in the organisation and holding of the competition? How
does it intend to respond to the complaint referred to above? In the event of internal irregularities in the
administration of the competition, what measures does it intend to take to improve the situation? Does it
not see a need to block the implementation of the winning design and to reopen the discussion on the
award of prizes before a final decision is taken? Does it not also see a need so to change the competition
rules that they require the involvement of the local inhabitants in the planning? Does it intend to initiate
the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the EC Treaty against Belgium for non-compliance with the
directive on public service contracts?

( [1] ) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

With regard to the contract in question, the only contracting authority is the Brussels-Capital Region. The
Community’s involvement is limited to participation in the funding. The panel included one official from
the Council, one from the Parliament and one from the Commission.

A complaint has been made to the Commission, alleging, amongst other things, that the rules of the
competition were broken with regard to the composition of the panel and the voting procedure. The rule
on the anonymity of projects vis-à-vis the panel was also allegedly broken.

C 27 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

The matter is being examined in the light of the applicable Community law, in particular Council Directive
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts. The Belgian authorities were questioned on this point in a letter of 18 December 1998. As no
reply was received within the deadline set, the Commission broached the subject again in a letter of 3 May
1999 and at a meeting with the Belgian authorities on 21 May 1999. The Belgian authorities explained
their position in a letter of 14 June 1999. They pointed out that, notwithstanding the fact that certain
provisions on the appointment of deputies for panel members had not been respected, there was nothing
to suggest that the members of the panel had been biased in favour of one of the candidates or that the
composition of the panel could have affected the final choice. In any case, according to the Belgian
authorities, the complainant himself did not require that the rules be applied to the letter �on the
contrary, by defending his project he brought about a loss of anonymity for all the projects. The
Commission is currently conducting an in-depth investigation of this reply.

As far as the Commission is aware, the prizes have already been awarded. Moreover, the contract for
architectural services has been allocated to the sole winner of the competition, and, in this connection,
measures would have been taken to involve the various parties involved.

(2000/C 27 E/113) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1487/99**

**by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Environmental impact and working conditions �Caleras de San Cucao enterprise, Asturias (Spain)

The Caleras de San Cucao enterprise located in Agüera (Llanera, Asturias, Spain), whose activity consists of
producing lime via the calcination of limestone and dolomite products, is currently under investigation by
the Commission over its practice of burning toxic and hazardous waste (residue from water-purifying
plant) without authorisation. The objective is to determine the existence or otherwise of non-compliance
with Directive 75/442/EEC ( [1] ), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC ( [2] ), on waste. The working conditions
at this enterprise have been and remain detrimental to the health of the workers and local residents; the
toxic waste burnt on the premises contains high levels of heavy metals and other dangerous substances.
The results of the tests carried out at the Environmental Technology Laboratory of the University of
Oviedo (see the expert report requested by the Seventh Magistrates’ Court of Oviedo) indicate an extremely
high level of contamination from sedimentable material, which can only be explained by the absence of
particle elimination equipment. The undertaking has no authorisation to handle toxic and hazardous
waste, and therefore does not possess the necessary means of protection for such tasks. It is thus in breach
of Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from
the risks related to chemical agents at work ( [3] ), Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the
protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work ( [4] ), and Council Directive
94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous waste ( [5] ). The local and regional
authorities in Asturias are not acting as rigorously as they could in this case: the corrective measures
concerning quarries laid down in the 1 December 1995 resolution of the public works ministry of the
regional government of Asturias have been systematically ignored.

Can the Commission explain the current state of affairs concerning the procedures under way? Does the
Commission not consider it necessary to widen the terms of the investigation already opened into the
irregularities claimed to have been perpetrated by Caleras de San Cucao concerning the health of its
workers and local residents? Does the Commission not consider that this undertaking and the regional
government of Asturias should be penalised for permitting the incineration of toxic waste in breach of
Council Directives 94/67/EC, 98/24/EC and 90/394/EEC?

( [1] ) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
( [2] ) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
( [3] ) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998, p. 11.
( [4] ) OJ L 196, 26.7.1990, p. 1.
( [5] ) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 34.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/93

**Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 October 1999)_

The Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question
E-4104/98 by Mrs González Alvarez ( [1] ) on the environmental problems caused by the industrial activity
of the ‘Caleras de San Cucao’ company. The Commission has started enquiries on a case which it
established by its own investigations. Furthermore, the Commission has received a letter on the same
subject, which has been registered as a complaint.

As part of their investigation into this matter, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities to comment
on the reported facts, in particular on the company’s authorisation to incinerate residual waste, on the
nature of this waste and on the legal or administrative measures taken by the national authorities
concerning this matter. Having received from the plaintiff further details relating to the company
concerned, the Commission has again approached the Spanish authorities in order to obtain more detailed
information so that it may be established whether an infringement of Community law has occurred.

In their reply, the Spanish authorities confirm that no environmental damage has been caused by the
company in question. According to the Spanish authorities, several corrective measures have been imposed
on this company by the authorities with a view to making the company adopt cleaner, new technologies.
Furthermore, the Spanish authorities deny that this company burns waste or dangerous waste. They state
that the company does not manage waste and has burnt sewage sludge only once in order to assess the
possibility of retrieving the limestone contained in the waste. They concluded, however, that the waste did
not have the calories necessary for calcination.

However, the Commission will examine closely the new information brought by the Honourable Member.

As for Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers
from the risks related to chemical agents at work, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s
attention to the fact that Member States have until 5 May 2001 to implement the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary for compliance with this Directive.

The Commission does not have sufficient information to comment on the possible infringement of Council
Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to
carcinogens at work ( [2] ). The Spanish authorities will therefore be contacted to obtain the information
necessary for assessing the situation.

( [1] ) OJ C 386, 17.12.1998.
( [2] ) OJ L 196, 26.7.1990, p. 1.

(2000/C 27 E/114) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1488/99**

**by Liam Hyland (UEN) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ EU policy for the World Canals Conference, Ireland, 16-18 May 2001

As the Commission is no doubt aware, a World Canals Conference is held each year. The theme of the
conference which Ireland will host in 2001 from 16-18 May is ‘Living Heritage’. Conference venues
include Dublin Castle and the Waterfront Hall, Belfast.

Will the Commission outline ways in which it can contribute to the success of the conference and will it
agree that, in view of the positive multi-functional role of canals in Ireland and the Member States, it will
draw up an action plan for the EU’s inland waterways/canals?

C 27 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

**Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 October 1999)_

One of the aims of developing the trans-European transport network is to use the existing waterways in
order to build up a consistent, interoperable and economically and ecologically rational network of inland
waterways which will enable these to provide a cheap, safe and environmentally-friendly form of transport
in an optimum manner.

Moreover, inland waterways perform multiple functions, in addition to that of transport, such as waterborne tourism, regional planning, water management (irrigation, drinking water and groundwater replenishment) apart from that of ‘heritage’ (Canal du Midi in France, boat lifts on the Canal du Centre in
Belgium). These are both factors that the Commission is attempting to include in its various areas of
thinking, such as those relating to infrastructure charges.

Against this backdrop the Commission is noting, with interest, the outcome of the various events
highlighting the part played by waterways, including the World Canals Conference.

(2000/C 27 E/115) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1489/99**

**by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Radiation from office computers

The Commission will be aware of new research which suggests that office computers are capable of
making office workers sick by flooding their bodies with harmful radiation but that a new device can be
installed on top of computer screens which is designed to counter the effects of such radiation.

How does the Commission, therefore, intend to respond to the conclusion that low frequency magnetic
fields account for over a third of sick building syndrome?

**Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 September 1999)_

In June, 1998 the Commission presented a proposal for a Council recommendation ( [1] ) on the limitation of
exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields. This was adopted by the Council on 8 June
1999 ( [2] ).

This text takes account of the scientific opinion of the International commission on non-ionising radiation,
supported by the Commission’s scientific steering committee.

The results of ongoing and future research in this area will be considered in the context of the reporting
procedure provided in this text.

( [1] ) COM(99) 247 final.
( [2] ) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.

(2000/C 27 E/116) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1490/99**

**by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ The new EQUAL Community initiative

Under the new Structural Fund proposals, the existing ADAPT and Employment initiatives are to be
replaced with a single initiative to be called EQUAL.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/95

Will the Commission give assurances that the new initiative will benefit people with disabilities and will it
ensure a proper role for NGOs?

**Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 September 1999)_

According to the terms of Regulation (EC) 1262/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 21 June
1999 on the European social fund ( [1] ), the Community initiative EQUAL aims to promote new means of
combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market.

The Commission is expected to adopt in the near future the draft guidelines for this initiative which will be
implemented according to horizontal themes, all of them of potential interest to the disabled. On the basis
of the experience drawn from the Employment and Adapt initiatives, the multi-partnership dimension of
projects will be strengthened, which means that each project should draw on the co-operation between, in
particular, public authorities, the social partners, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) within the
territory or the sector concerned.

As with Employment and Adapt, the Member States will be entirely responsible for the project selection
procedures.

( [1] ) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 27 E/117) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1491/99**

**by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Electricity interconnection �Scotland/Northern Ireland

1. Has the Commission noted the ruling by a court in Mannheim, Germany, that a long-term power
purchase agreement signed between a municipal utility and its supplier before the start of liberalisation, is
invalid under European law? Does the Commission therefore agree with me that the decision by the UK
Government, as owners of Northern Ireland Electricity at the time, to enter into a contract with Scottish
Power to build the Scotland-Ireland Electricity Interconnector, without holding an open competition for
the contract to provide the next tranche of electricity in Northern Ireland, should be similarly annulled?

2. In the ‘harmonisation report’ on the EU electricity sector recently presented to the Council of
Ministers and Parliament, the Commission argues that long-term reservations of capacity (such as those
resulting form power purchase agreements) should be regulated and restricted to rights of priority use of
the line and should come with the obligation to make unused capacity available to the short-term market.
Given that the agreement for the Scotland-Northern Ireland Electricity Interconnector contains no such
provisions and was arrived at without allowing open competition from existing or potential power
producers in Northern Ireland, does this not constitute a restriction of competition within the meaning
of Article 85 (restrictive business agreements) of the EC Treaty?

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

1. The Commission has noted that a court in Mannheim has ruled an exclusive long-term supply
contract between a municipal undertaking and its regional supplier on the basis of national competition
law to be illegal because it restricted competition. The Commission considers the facts of the case at issue
in Mannheim and those of the present case to be different and, accordingly, it does not agree with the
analogy suggested by the Honourable Member.

Indeed, the court in Mannheim found that a set of provisions �including, an exclusive supply clause and
a resale prohibition �in a 10-year contract concluded between an electricity producer and a local

C 27 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

distributor had the effect of partitioning the geographical market in a a manner contrary to national
competition law. The power purchase agreement concluded between Northern Ireland Electricity and
Scottish Power is different because it does not contain an exclusive supply clause and does not provide for
an absolute resale prohibition outside the territory covered by Northern Ireland Electricity.

2. The Commission would point out that the agreements concluded between Northern Ireland
Electricity and Scottish Power will lead to the creation of the first electricity interconnection between
Ireland and Scotland, and that half of the new transmission capacity will be made available to third-parties
from the beginning of the operation of the cable. Moreover, the duration of the power purchase agreement
at issue in this case is limited to less than six years.

In its second report on harmonization requirements ( [1] ) quoted by the Honourable Member, the Commission pointed out that even long-term capacity reservation agreements may be indispensable in order to
promote the construction of new interconnection capacity.

The Commission would also draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that the present
agreements do not deal with the allocation of unused capacity. Indeed, the capacity used by the parties
under the power purchase agreement will be subject to the general rules governing the use of the
interconnector which are in the process of being drawn up by the Office for the regulation of electricity
and gas in Northern Ireland.

( [1] ) COM(99) 164 final.

(2000/C 27 E/118) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1492/99**

**by Christa Klaß (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Innovative schemes for women in agriculture

What stage has the implementation of the programme ‘Innovative schemes for women in agriculture’
reached? How many projects have been assisted under the programme? How many applications have still
to be processed? What proportion of the resources has already been disbursed, and what happens to
money that is not disbursed?

Various German associations of rural women applied in good time for project assistance under this
programme. So far many of the applicants have received neither notification that the documents have been
received by the Commission nor a decision on the eligibility of their projects.

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 September 1999)_

The procedure for the evaluation and selection of projects under calls for proposals for pilot and
demonstration projects concerning innovative actions for women in agriculture and rural areas, while in
its final stage, is not yet complete. It is, therefore, not possible at this stage to reply to the Honourable
Member’s questions concerning the number of projects financed and the level of Community contribution
concerned. This information is scheduled for adoption before the end of this year.

The Commission can however confirm that every applicant who submitted a proposal within the specified
deadline has received a letter of confirmation of receipt. Applicants have also been sent follow-up
correspondence concerning the various stages in the evaluation and selection process. Further, those
applicants whose projects have been excluded during those stages of the evaluation and selection process
which have been completed have already been notified that their project cannot be taken into consideration for Community financial support under this call for proposals.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/97

(2000/C 27 E/119) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1493/99**

**by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)

What is the current position of ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)? Are partners
still committed?

**Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 September 1999)_

The engineering design of ITER is being conducted in the framework of the ITER engineering design
activities agreement (EDA) as extended till July 2001. Recently, the work has been re-oriented with the aim
of reducing the construction cost to 50 % of the initial estimate (i.e. to about 3 300 million €) and,
therefore, of reducing the technology objectives, while still fulfilling the overall mission of the programme.
The new design benefits from advances in physics and technology, achieved during the EDA. The study on
the outline design of the new device will be available at the end of the year.

The situation among the ITER partners is that the Community (with Swiss and Canadian participation),
Japan and Russia remain committed to complete the ITER EDA. The US �which completed its withdrawal
from ITER in July 1999 �is reviewing the strategy of its fusion energy sciences programme.

(2000/C 27 E/120) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1496/99**

**by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Budget line B7-651

Budget line B7-651 ‘Coordination of development policy, evaluation of the results of Community aid and
follow-up and inspection measures’ includes the following remark: It is also intended to cover the
financing of conducting a study on European Union standards and codes of conduct for enterprises in
third countries following the keen interest in the subject by industry, trade unions and civil society.

Could the Commission give an update on action taken with regard to Parliament’s wish to conduct a
study? Is the Commission doing the study internally or has it put out a tender?

**Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 October 1999)_

The Commission is fully aware of the Parliament’s resolution proposing initiatives on Community
standards and codes of conduct for European enterprises operating in third countries and of the Parliament
wish to conduct a study on this subject through budget line B. 7-6.

As the Honourable Member is aware, the budget line is mostly devoted to evaluation of programmes of
cooperation in developing countries financed by the Commission (mid-term evaluations, final evaluations,
sectoral and global evaluations).

Given the complexity of the proposed study, there is a need for widespread consultations between the
different parties concerned in order to define the objectives of the study and to elaborate detailed terms of
reference.

Since this is of such major importance, over the last year the Commission has organised a number of
meetings on codes of conduct relating to respect for social rights. It intends to continue this type of
meetings and promote exchanges of information and experience between those interested in developing
such codes. These meetings and exchanges will provide an essential input for an analysis of the content of
practices developed in Europe.

C 27 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/121) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1497/99**

**by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Council**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Groups hiring out mercenaries

There have recently been increasingly frequent reports of groups hiring out mercenaries, usually from
Europe and mainly to Africa, but also to other theatres of war.

1. Is the Council aware of these activities?

2. Does the Council see action to combat such groups as a task to be performed at Union level?

3. Has the Council already taken steps to prevent such machinations? If so, what steps? If not, why not?

**Reply**

_(22 October 1999)_

The Council has taken note of the numerous reports of foreign mercenaries of different nationalities in
countries such as Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Angola and in the Western Balkans.

The Council expressed its position on foreign mercenaries in particular in its Conclusions on Prevention
and Resolution of Conflicts in Africa of 2 June 1997, in which Member States have committed themselves
to study the possibility of taking further measures to restrain their citizens from acting as mercenaries in
violent conflicts.

(2000/C 27 E/122) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1499/99**

**by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Authorisation to market Austrian products in Italy

Time and again Austrian manufacturers of technical products encounter problems when exporting their
goods to Italy. These problems are due to the delay in obtaining authorisation to market these products in
Italy. (This may in fact constitute an insurmountable barrier to market access for manufacturers who, being
of a typically Austrian size, do not have the financial resources to see such lengthy and expensive
procedures through.)

It takes Austrian manufacturers of trailers for transporting semi-liquid manure, for example, excessive time
and effort to obtain certificates of roadworthiness for their products in Italy. As this measure has the same
impact as quantitative restrictions, it has an adverse effect on the free movement of goods within the
Union.

Please indicate:

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Has it already taken action to prevent it, and if so, what action?

3. Or does it intend to do so?

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/99

**Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

The Commission has discussed with the Italian authorities the compatibility with the EC Treaty of the
national law on towing mechanisms and has requested an amendment of the present regulation, in order
to allow the registration of agricultural trailers accompanied by devices which are not foreseen in the
national law, but legally produced or marketed in another Member State. For safety reasons, the
registration of these trailers will be allowed only providing that they will be used with appropriate
coupling devices.

An answer to the Commission’s request is expected by the end of October.

(2000/C 27 E/123) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1500/99**

**by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Directive 96/92/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity

1. Does the Commission believe that the Austrian laws, regulations and administrative provisions, and
especially the Electricity Industry and Organisation Act (ElWOG), are fully consistent with the provisions,
objectives and intentions of Directive 96/92/EC ( [1] ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of
19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? If not, what
reservations does the Commission have?

2. If so, how does the Commission arrive at the view that the provisions of section 69(9) of the ElWOG
comply with current Community law and especially with the provisions and principles of Directive 96/92/
EC?

3. Does the Commission believe that the legislation which excludes energy supply undertakings from
the liberalized electricity market until 31 December 2003 is consistent with current Community law and
especially with the provisions and principles governing the internal market in electricity? If so, why? If not,
why not, and what action will the Commission be taking to rectify the situation?

4. Can the Commission confirm that the provisions of section 69(9) of the ElWOG reinforce a
monopoly position, especially that of the grid operator, at least until 2003? If not, what factors argue
against this view?

5. Can the Commission rule out the possibility that the legislation (section 69(9) of the ElWOG) under
which authorised clients (e.g. Land electricity companies) are denied participation in the liberalised
electricity market represents an abuse of a market-dominating position?

( [1] ) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997, p. 20.

**Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission**

_(18 October 1999)_

1. Over the last two years the Commission has been closely monitoring the implementation of Directive
96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the
internal market in electricity into national legislation. During the implementation period, which ended for
most Member States on 19 February 1999, four multilateral conferences concerning implementation issues
were held and a series of bilateral meetings took place with each Member State. The preliminary result of
the Commission’s assessment of the implementation of the electricity directive has been presented in the
second report from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament on the state of liberalisation of the
energy markets ( [1] ) to which also a detailed annex with Member State by Member State assessments has
been added. It is available on the Commission’s internet page. Most Member States, including Austria, have
co-operated in a very constructive manner and have informally discussed their electricity laws in draft with
the Commission in order to avoid any major implementation failures. With regard to Austria, the outcome

C 27 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

of these consultations is that the Commission, on the basis of available information, and subject to the
comments below, does not see any incompatibility of the Austrian electricity act (ElWOG) with the
electricity directive. However, the Commission always expressed (as it did with most other Member States),
the caveat that the final assessment whether some provisions would be fully in line with the directive and
the EC Treaty rules might have to be reassessed in the light of the application of these provisions.

2. to 5. The Austrian provision determines that existing contracts may be cancelled on 31 December
2003, even if the stipulated contract period would last longer. On the other hand, it also obliges the
contract partners to observe their contract commitment until 31 December 2003 by invalidating possible
legal instruments based on change of legislation arguments. In any case, the prerequisite for the application
of this provision of § 69 (9) is that a legally valid power purchase contract beyond 2003 already exists.
With regard to the Commission’s assessment of this provision, the Honourable Member is probably aware
of a complaint that the Commission has recently received in this respect. The Commission is currently
examining the arguments put forward and has not yet come to a final conclusion. It is therefore, at this
moment, not possible to give any further assessment with respect to the alleged non-compliance of this
provision with the electricity directive and the competition rules of the EC Treaty.

( [1] ) COM(99) 198 final.

(2000/C 27 E/124) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1501/99**

**by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Return of trailers within the EU

1. Is the Commission aware that the return of a caravan registered in Germany (and immobile for
several years) from Italy to Germany is possible only on condition that it is equipped with a ‘short
registration number for transfers’, which is not, however, recognised in Italy and Austria, according to the
Oberhausen Road Transport Authority?

2. Does this requirement not contravene current Community law pursuant to Council Directive 70/156/
EEC ( [1] ) of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the typeapproval of motor vehicles and their trailers?

3. If the appropriate legislation in Italy and Austria does not contravene Community law, can the
Commission say how a Community procedure, or a procedure applying throughout the Community, for
the issue of a type-approval for a caravan can be initiated?

( [1] ) OJ L 42, 23.2.1970, p. 1.

**Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 October 1999)_

On the basis of the facts transmitted by the Honourable Member, it is not possible to determine to what
extent separate directives established within the framework of Council Directive 70/156/EEC in respect of
vehicles of this type are relevant to the case in point.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the communication of 15 May 1996 ( [1] ) which contains
its interpretation of Community rules governing the registration of vehicles, both new or previously
registered in another Member State.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the harmonisation of rules governing
Community type approval of vehicles of this type (caravan) is not yet complete. Accordingly the prevailing

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/101

national rules concerning single vehicle type- approval continue to be applied in the Member States
although it is possible that certain systems, components and separate technical units for caravans may have
been approved under Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws
of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers.

The Commission is hopeful that completion of the system of EC vehicle type-approval for vehicles of this
type will be agreed within the medium-term.

( [1] ) OJ C 143, 15.5.1996.

(2000/C 27 E/125) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1507/99**

**by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ French government’s ban on freight traffic in France on 11 August 1999 in connection with the
solar eclipse

On 27 July 1999 it was reported on the news that the French government is seeking to impose a ban on
(freight) traffic in France on 11 August in connection with the solar eclipse. The government says this is
for safety reasons.

1. Is the Commission aware of France’s intentions and, if so, is it of the opinion that this ban is
justified?

2. Does the Commission agree that this ban will paralyse international business and freight traffic,
thereby causing unnecessary financial damage, and that this is unacceptable?

3. Does the Commission agree that the ban is excessive given that lorries normally drive at night in
France and that no additional safety measures are taken?

4. Does the Commission agree that not only France but also the whole of international trade will be
affected by this ban and that France cannot therefore simply impose it?

5. What action does the Commission intend to take before 11 August to prevent the ban entering into
fore?

**Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission**

_(10 September 1999)_

In view of the fact that this question was obviously related to a specific time and event during the
Parliamentary recess the Commission wrote to the Honourable Member on 6 August responding to her
enquiries. In that letter the Commission said that it was aware of the French government’s intention to
impose a ban on freight traffic on 11 August 1999 because of the solar eclipse and was of the opinion
that such a ban would be justified if it was imposed for road safety reasons and if the measure is in
proportion to the aims pursued, even though it could affect international traffic. In the view of the
Commission the safety risk did not relate to darkness caused by the solar eclipse in France but rather to
the expected massive movements of people who wanted to watch the eclipse from certain locations.

In this particular case, the Commission took the view that proportionality meant that the ban should be
restricted in time (i.e. not the entire day), should be restricted in space (i.e. probably not the entire French
territory) and should distinguish between categories of roads (i.e. secondary roads as opposed to motorways). The Commission wrote to the French authorities accordingly, but has not yet received a response.

C 27 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/126) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1509/99**

**by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Inadequate transposition of the amendment of the EU’s EIA directive in the Brandenburg Highways
Act

1. Has the amendment of the Brandenburg Highways Act, which was meant to transpose the
amendment of the EU’s EIA directive (97/11/EC) ( [1] ) and which takes advantage, in particular, of Article
1(6) amending Article 4(2) and (3), been submitted to the Commission for its consideration?

2. If so, what does the Commission think of the transposition of the criteria listed in Annex III to the
EIA directive, according to which an EIA may not be forgone?

3. If not, when will the Commission require this act to be submitted, given in particular that the
amendment of the EIA directive had to be incorporated by the Member States in their legislation by
14 March 1999 and the Commission had to be notified of the arrangements regarding EIA derogations?

4. Does the Commission consider the criteria in Annex III to have been satisfied when in its new
Highways Act the Government of the Land of Brandenburg classifies an area as protected only if the
highway adjoins it over a distance of at least 2,5 km, even though the average size of nature conservation
areas and comparable protected areas in the Land of Brandenburg is less than 2 x 2 km?

5. Does the Commission consider the criteria in Annex III to have been satisfied when no mention is
made in Brandenburg’s Highways Act of damage to wetlands (which are very common in the region as
high-grade biotopes) as a criterion for an EIA?

6. What will the Commission do to ensure that the amended EIA directive is fully transposed by the
Brandenburg Government?

( [1] ) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

**Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 October 1999)_

1. and 2. The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that Germany has by letter of
16 September 1999 sent to the Commission the Act concerning the construction of roads in Brandenburg.
The legislation is currently under assessment.

3. and 6. Member States were obliged to implement Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997
amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on
the environment, by 14 March 1999 at the latest and to inform the Commission thereof. Germany has not
yet informed the Commission.

4. and 5. As regards the possible impact of the project on wetlands, as highlighted by the Honourable
Member, for projects listed in Annex II of Directive 97/11/EC it must be determined whether such projects
are likely to have environmental impacts, and consequently whether an environmental impact assessment
must be carried out in accordance with the Directive. When determining this need, Member States have to
take into account the selection criteria listed in Annex III of the Directive. Annex III No 2(a) states that the
environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected by projects must be considered, in
particular with regard to the absorption capacity of the natural environment, paying particular attention to
wetlands. It follows that legislation implementing the Directive has to take into account this specific type
of area.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/103

(2000/C 27 E/127) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1512/99**

**by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Report on use of uranium bombs by USA in Yugoslavia

The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe, whose headquarters are in Budapest,
has drawn up a report for the Commission �as yet unpublished �on the environmental impact of the
bombing of Yugoslavia. The report notes that each of the special uranium-tipped bombs used by the US
lightning-strike force against Serb armoured vehicles contained 275 grammes of depleted uranium, which
is ‘possibly the most dangerous of the carcinogenic and toxic substances’ released into the environment in
Yugoslavia. Moreover, ‘many of the substances released can cause deformities and genetic complications,
while others are linked to fatal diseases of the nervous system and liver in humans’. The most alarming
aspect of the report is its observation that this radioactive substance can become a ‘moving aerosol’ with a
wider geographical range. The report also notes that US military regulations require personnel to wear
gloves and protective masks when handling this type of material. It is also stressed that the use of depleted
uranium weapons in the Gulf War caused serious illness in American and British veterans and congenital
malformations among the Iraqi population.

Please indicate:

1. Why does the Commission not publish the report of the Regional Environment Centre for Central and
Eastern Europe, which it commissioned itself?

2. Why does it not issue warnings, information and practical proposals for the protection of the
population in the regions affected by the bombing?

3. Will it, as a matter of urgency, examine the climatological conditions under which radioactive
pollution can turn into a ‘moving aerosol’ and will it propose practical measures for the populations
of other regions in the Balkans?

4. Will it call for the ‘polluter-pays’ principle to be applied, which would mean the USA footing the
entire bill for the clean-up operation?

**Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 October 1999)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his oral question H-429/99
during question time at Parliament’s September 1999 part-session ( [1] ).

( [1] ) Debates of the Parliament (September 1999).

(2000/C 27 E/128) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1514/99**

**by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Lifting of the ban on exports of British beef

The Commission has announced that exports of British meat could recommence at the beginning
of August, but can it guarantee that the meat exported will be accompanied by certificates recognised by
the European Union?

Can the Commission also certify that the cattle traceability system is effective so that all measures can be
taken to give the necessary guarantees for public health, given that mad cow disease has still not been
eradicated in Great Britain and that the number of cases of CJD is increasing in that country?

C 27 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

**Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

On 14 July 1999, the Commission decided to set at 1 August 1999 the date on which the dispatch of beef
and beef products of British origin under the date based export scheme (DBES) may commence. The DBES
was adopted in principle on 25 November 1998 by Commission Decision 98/692/EC amending Decision
98/256/EC as regards certain emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) ( [1] ). A preliminary mission on the draft DBES had been carried out in July 1998 before Commission
Decision 98/692/EC was adopted. The Decision included a condition that the date on which dispatch of
the products may commence shall only be set following a satisfactory Community inspection of the
implementation of the scheme. The inspection took place in April this year and the result was generally
considered satisfactory. Certain recommendations were made in the inspection report to further improve
the reliability of the scheme, to which the British authorities replied in a positive manner.

According to Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intraCommunity trade in fresh meat ( [2] ), meat from a slaughterhouse situated in a restricted region or area
must be accompanied by a health certificate. Decision 98/692/EC lays down that the United Kingdom
must have detailed protocols in place covering all labelling and certification requirements after slaughter to
the point of sale. The Community inspection in April 1999 checked the proposed protocols on labelling
and certification as well as the model certificates and found them satisfactory.

The cattle traceability system has been checked in Community inspections in September-October
1996, June 1997, July 1998 and, most recently, April 1999. The system has been found to be satisfactory
in general. Moreover, the United Kingdom has responded in a positive manner to the recommendations
made by the Commission to improve the system further.

( [1] ) OJ L 328, 4.12.1998.
( [2] ) OJ 121, 29.7.1964.

(2000/C 27 E/129) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1515/99**

**by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Siting of a SERT [treatment centre for drug addicts] within the fruit and vegetable market in Prato

A SERT, which would be responsible for the controlled supply of methadone to drug addicts, is due to be
set up within the Prato municipal fruit and vegetable market, which is the town’s only wholesale and retail
market. Owing to the layout of the market the users of the SERT would be required to enter the market
premises by a single entrance in order to be able to reach the treatment centre.

The one hundred or so people employed at the market would suffer greatly if they had to work alongside
such an unusual health care facility, which would be frequented by the poorest sections of society.
However, neither the businesses operating within the market nor the people working there have been
consulted regarding the project or involved in it.

The fruit and vegetable market is already in a precarious position from the point of view of the health and
welfare of its workers �so much so that the requirements laid down in Law 626 (which sets protection
standards in such matters) are no longer being met. The necessary remedial work cannot be started
because the municipal authorities long ago announced their intention to move the market to new
premises, although they have never offered an alternative site.

1. Should the Commission not intervene in order to prevent the SERT from being located within the
Prato fruit and vegetable fruit market and thus protect the activities of market workers and their health
and safety?

2. Can it also make a general comment on the matter?

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/105

**Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

The Commission has no legal powers to intervene in relation to the location of a treatment centre for drug
addicts. This is a matter for the sole responsibility of national, regional or local authorities, acting in
accordance with their laws and regulations.

The Commission’s role is to take any useful initiative to encourage co-operation between the Member
States, to support their action and to promote co-ordination of Member States’ policies and programmes in
the prevention field. In this context, a Community action programme on the prevention of drug
dependence for the years 1996-2000 ( [1] ) is being implemented by the Commission, in close co-operation
with the Member States.

In relation to substitution and maintenance programmes, according to the 1998 annual report on the state
of the drugs problem in the Union produced by the European monitoring centre for drugs and drug
addiction, methadone treatment is increasing throughout Europe. The same report considers that substitution treatment is the best evaluated field of demand reduction with generally positive results (increases in
employment, improvement in emotional status, physical appearance, health, family and social relations,
finances and vocational skills, and reductions in criminality, in pending trials, debts and heroin use).

( [1] ) COM(96) 201 final.

(2000/C 27 E/130) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1518/99**

**by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Further information concerning Cartiere Milani and the privatisation procedure

With reference to my previous question (E-0742/1999 ( [1] )) concerning redundancies at Cartiere Milani in
Fabriano and the reply to that question which I received on 20 April 1999:

1. Is the Italian Government due to inform the Commission regarding the restructuring plan relating to
Cartiere Milani (which belongs to the State Printing Works)? Do the collective redundancies envisaged
in that plan not fall within the scope of Council Directive 98/59/EC ( [2] ) of 20 July 1998, especially in
view of the failure to involve and inform the workers, and also Directive 77/187/EC ( [3] )?

2. Has it definitely been established that state aid was made available to the State Printing Works or to
Cartiere Milani and, if so, is the infringement procedure to be opened pursuant to Article 93(2)?

3. Should the Commission not make representations to the relevant Italian authorities with a view to
securing the suspension of the restructuring plan and the privatisation procedure pending proper
clarification of the above matters from the Italian Government and in order to protect the jobs of
430 workers?

( [1] ) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999, p. 126.
( [2] ) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.
( [3] ) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977, p. 26.

C 27 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 October 1999)_

As anticipated in the previous reply to the Honourable Member’s previous question E-742/99, the
Commission decided, on 28 October 1998, to initiate the procedure provided in Article 88 (ex Article
93), paragraph 2 of the EC Treaty, with respect to the aid granted by Italy to Poligrafico and its controlled
companies.

The Italian government submitted its observations on 1 February 1999 and, upon request of the
Commission, provided additional information on 26 March and 27 May 1999. At the present stage,
however, the Commission has not received any restructuring plan concerning Poligrafico or, in particular,
Cartiere Milani. As indicated in the previous reply, should the restructuring plan of the undertaking involve
collective redundancies falling under the scope of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, the related national
implementing measures will be applicable to them.

On the basis of the information in its hands, the Commission is of the opinion that Poligrafico and some
of its subsidiaries received state aid in the sense of Article 87 (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty. Therefore, it
will assess the compatibility of such aid within the current investigation procedure, under Article 87,
paragraphs 2 and 3 of the EC Treaty.

The Italian decision to restructure and privatise Cartiere Milani (of which, however, the Commission has
no evidence) is within the competence of industrial policy of the Member State, for which the Commission
is not competent. The Commission will perform, if necessary, the assessment of the restructuring plan
within the current investigation procedure in order to examine the compatibility of the aid granted to
Poligrafico and its subsidiaries, in the light of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.

(2000/C 27 E/131) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1520/99**

**by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Siting of a waste dump in Aspio (Ancona)

The Ancona municipal authorities are intending to establish a site near Aspio for the dumping of solid
urban waste. In Italy, Directives 91/159/EEC ( [1] ) and 91/689/EEC ( [2] ) were incorporated into national law by
means of the ‘Ronchi Decree’, under which the adoption of further implementing laws applicable in
specific instances is delegated to the regions.

However, the Marche region (within which Ancona lies) has not yet adopted any such implementing law,
which means that the Ronchi Decree has no effect. The waste dump at Aspio would be sited in the
immediate vicinity of the Rocca di Belignano (a major historical monument under the protection of the
Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali [=department responsible for heritage protection] and the Terme

[=public baths]. It is clear, therefore, that such a dump would blatantly contravene the provisions of the
abovementioned directives and the Ronchi Decree, which requires an environmental impact assessment to
be carried out, and that only delays and inaction on the part of the Marche region and the indifference and
carelessness of the Ancona municipal authorities have enabled the project to go ahead.

Please indicate:

1. Does the failure to adopt an implementing law in the Marche region not constitute a contravention of
the above directives?

2. For such a project to be implemented, should the local people living in the area not be involved and
be asked for their approval?

3. Should the siting of a waste dump in an area containing major cultural assets not be condemned since
it may seriously damage these assets and detract from the enjoyment thereof?

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/107

4. Should the Commission not call on the Marche region to adopt the implementing law as a matter of
urgency and on the Ancona municipal authorities to abandon a project which would detract from the
common heritage?

5. Can the Commission make a general comment on the matter?

( [1] ) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
( [2] ) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.

**Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 October 1999)_

The implementation of Decreto Ronchi (the national law transposing the Community directives on waste)
is not delegated to the regions, and Regione Marche is not required to implement it in order to comply
with Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as modified by Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, and
Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste. The Commission has recently decided to
bring before the Court of justice the matter of Italy’s failure to meet its obligations concerning the
adoption of waste management plans under Directives 75/442/EEC on waste as modified by 91/156/EEC,
91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 ( [1] ) on packaging and packaging waste.
The Commission is, in addition, always ready to consider any further specific and detailed complaint
concerning the obligation to adopt waste management plans provided by the Community legislation on
waste.

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member appears to be of the classes listed in Annex II of
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment ( [2] ), both before and after the amendments of Council Directive 97/11/
EC ( [3] ). According to Directive 85/337/EEC projects of Annex II are made subject to an environmental
impact assessment (EIA) where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. Provisions of
Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments continue to apply to the projects when requests for
development consent were submitted before 14 March 1999. Pursuant to Directive 97/11/EC, for projects
listed in Annex II, Member States determine, either through case-by-case examination, or through thresholds or criteria set by the Member State, whether a project is to be made subject to an assessment in
accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Article 6(2) of the modified Directive reads: Member States shall ensure
that any request for development consent and any information gathered pursuant to Article 5 are made
available to the public within a reasonable time in order to give the public concerned the opportunity to
express an opinion before the development consent is granted.

Article 8 reads: The results of consultations and the information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7
must be taken into consideration in the development consent procedure. Annex III of the Directive lists
landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance as one of the criteria to determine, through
a case-by-case examination or thresholds or criteria set by the Member State, whether a project is to be
made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

Not being aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member, the Commission will take steps to
gather detailed information about it and to ensure the observance of Community law.

( [1] ) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
( [2] ) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
( [3] ) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2000/C 27 E/132) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1521/99**

**by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Misuse of EU aid for apprentices

In connection with the initiative on apprentices in Austria, EU aid from the European Social Fund has been
channelled to the ‘Euroteam Group’, which has acquired a bad name as a result of mismanagement and
preferential treatment.

C 27 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

I have the following questions for the Commission in this connection:

1. How much aid has been disbursed from the European Social Fund to the ‘Euroteam Group’?

2. Has this process been subject to monitoring by the Commission?

**Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

The Commission has no information concerning the allocation of European Social Fund (ESF) resources to
individual promoters. Selection of the promoters and project funding are a matter for the national
authorities. In this case the responsible authority is the Austrian Federal Ministry for Employment, Health
and Social Affairs and the Arbeitsmarktservice.

The Commission has not received any communication from the Austrian authorities on this subject on the
basis of Commission Regulation (EC) 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery
of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an
information system in this field ( [1] ).

However, in the spirit of partnership the Commission has contacted the Austrian authorities and asked to
be kept abreast of developments.

( [1] ) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.

(2000/C 27 E/133) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1524/99**

**by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ State aid paid by the Spanish Government to electricity undertakings

Under the Sixth Transitional Provision of Spanish Law 54/1997 on the electricity sector, in conjunction
with Article 107 of Law 50/1998 on fiscal, administrative and social measures, Spanish undertakings are
to be paid Ptas 1 300 000 million to offset the costs of the transition to competition. In principle, the
Commission has considered this provision to represent unlawful state aid and has therefore opened
infringement proceedings against the Kingdom of Spain.

Under the terms of Article 88(3) of the Treaty, no such aid can be granted, but Spanish consumers have
nevertheless seen their electricity bills rise by 4,5 % in order to cover the costs of transition to competition,
with the result that Spanish electricity undertakings have already received more than Ptas 45 000 million,
which they will be required to return if the Commission decides against the position taken by the Spanish
Government.

Regulation 659/1999 ( [1] ) lays down that, where it has received information on the granting of alleged
unlawful aid, the Commission shall examine that information and may, pursuant to Article 11, adopt a
decision on the suspension of that aid.

Will the Commission adopt a decision on the suspension of state aid granted by the Spanish Government
to electricity undertakings?

( [1] ) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

The Commission is examining the information which the Spanish authorities have provided on the scheme
introduced by Law 54/1997 to offset the costs of the transition to competition in the electricity sector.

The Spanish authorities maintain that the scheme in question does not include any arrangements which
might be regarded as state aid within the meaning of Article 87 (former Article 92) of the EC Treaty.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/109

Although, for administrative reasons, the scheme has been entered in the register of non-notified aid
measures, the Spanish authorities have been informed that such entry does not necessarily mean that the
scheme will be classified as state aid or deemed incompatible with the EC Treaty.

Given the lack of an existing framework for the scrutiny of state aid in this field and bearing in mind that
this is a complex issue and that talks are still in progress with the Spanish authorities, the Commission
does not plan at this stage to order the suspension of the scheme under Article 11(1) of Council
Regulation (EC) 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93
of the EC Treaty.

(2000/C 27 E/134) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1525/99**

**by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Possible difficulties hindering the entry of new undertakings to the Spanish generating market

The Spanish Parliament’s decision to amend the substance of the Sixth Transitional Provision of Law
54/1997 on the Electricity Sector (adopted by Law 50/1998) and to quantify the costs of transition to
competition (CTCs) arising for Spanish electricity undertakings by assessing the rate to be paid by
consumers at 4,5 % represents additional income in excess of a billion pesetas for the undertakings
currently present on the market.

This step, which bears no relation to market trends nor to the actual costs, may provide electricity
companies with advantages over the competition �to the detriment of Spanish consumers �and increase
the obstacles hindering the entry of new undertakings to the generating market.

Does the Commission consider that this quantification of CTCs for Spanish undertakings may hinder the
entry of new undertakings onto the Spanish generating market?

**Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 October 1999)_

The issue of the charge of 4,5 %, which has been included in the Spanish electricity tariffs in order to
recover the payments under the title ‘costs of transition to competition (CTC)’, has to be seen in the
context of the Commission’s overall examination of the Spanish stranded cost regime pursuant to state aid
rules.

In particular, the question whether the introduction of the 4,5 % charge constitutes an additional income in
the context of the overall CTC payments, and the question whether this quantification of CTCs for Spanish
undertakings may hinder the entry of new undertakings onto the Spanish generating market, are issues
being considered in this examination under state aid rules.

The Commission’s examination of the scheme is continuing, but until a final decision is adopted it is not
possible to comment on specific details of the CTC regime.

(2000/C 27 E/135) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1526/99**

**by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Ecological disaster in the Pego-Oliva marsh

Throughout the previous parliamentary term we have complained about the environmental damage being
done to the Pego-Oliva marsh and park in Valencia, one of the most important wetlands in Spain, which is

C 27 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

currently being drained for agricultural purposes. In a series of parliamentary questions (E-0349/1999 ( [1] ),
E-3006/98 ( [2] ), E-3831/97 ( [3] ), E-2834/97 ( [4] ) and E-1387/96 ( [5] )) we brought the Commission’s attention to
the deterioration of the zone, where the environmental damage has already been put at 1 500 million
pesetas. It is particularly alarming that half of all the species of birds nesting in the marsh have
disappeared, fish have been killed by water extraction turbines, agricultural pesticides have been dumped,
cattle have died as a result of drinking contaminated water, waste has accumulated in improvised
agricultural settlements, the level of the water table has fallen with the consequent desertification of
wetlands and the landscape has been disrupted by crops which have nothing in common with native
crops. The Pego-Oliva marshland is included in the wetlands to be protected drawn up by the Consellería
de Medi Ambient de la Generalitat Valenciana and is also designated a special protection zone for birds
(Directive 79/409/EEC). Moreover, it also receives funding from the Life programme.

In response to the many complaints received, the Commission investigated the situation on the spot and
assessed the situation of the wetlands as worrying. Nevertheless, it left action to solve the problem and
restore the environment in the area in the hands of the Spanish authorities. Four years on, the situation
remains unchanged and attacks continue without any action being taken by the authorities, which have
not punished this serious breach of environmental legislation and have allowed draining work to continue.

Two recent events have led to a further serious deterioration in the environment. Firstly, irrigators have
closed the Enmig canal, leaving the Els Lluents section, an area to which access was possible only by boat
and which has now been turned into a vast stretch of mud, without water. Secondly, the irrigators have
opened a drainage channel around 200 metres long in the heart of the natural park and have built a
retaining wall in order to drain the entire section belonging to the village of Pego.

In view of the above and bearing in mind that in February 1998 the Commission raised the possibility of
suspending Life-Nature co-financing in the area and opening infringement proceedings against Spain, does
the Commission not consider it necessary to suspend the allocation of Life assistance until the competent
authorities act to stop this ecological disaster?

Would the Commission be prepared to take action against Spain before the Court of Justice on the
grounds that it has breached Community environmental legislation?

Can the Commission state its views on a point which remained unanswered in the previous parliamentary
term and which concerned the creation of a rapid environmental intervention body at European level
which could bypass the slow legal and bureaucratic processes and act swiftly to halt the deterioration of
endangered natural sites?

( [1] ) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999.
( [2] ) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999, p. 68.
( [3] ) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 64.
( [4] ) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 23.
( [5] ) OJ C 356, 25.11.1996, p. 33.

**Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 October 1999)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her written questions E-349/99 ( [1] )
and E-3006/98 ( [2] ).

The Commission does not consider that a suspension of LIFE funding would help settle the problem, but
on the contrary it could hamper the efforts of the authorities in the protection of the site since the
problem arises from the private property of the land concerned and the funding through LIFE envisages
the public acquisition of land to ensure its full protection.

However, it is true, as the Honourable Member explains in her written question, that actions taken by the
Spanish authorities do not seem to be sufficient to ensure an adequate protection of the site. The
Commission has therefore started a new investigation covering all questions raised by the Honourable
Member, including the deterioration and pollution of the site. If an infringement is identified, proceedings
pursuant to Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty will be launched. The Commission will keep the
Honourable Member informed of the outcome of this investigation.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/111

The Commission has not considered until now the creation of a rapid environmental intervention body.
However, in the Commission communication on implementing Community environmental law of October
1996 ( [3] ), several mechanisms to improve effective implementation were envisaged such as guidelines on
minimum criteria for environmental inspections (the Parliament gave its opinion on 16 September 1999
to a proposal for a Parliament and Council recommendation providing for minimum criteria for
environmental inspections in the Member States ( [4] )) and the setting up of complaints mechanisms at
Member States’ level, together with improved access to justice in environmental matters. This latter issue is
being considered in the broader context of the ratification of the Aarhus Convention.

( [1] ) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999.
( [2] ) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999.
( [3] ) COM(96) 500 final.
( [4] ) COM(98) 772.

(2000/C 27 E/136) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1527/99**

**by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Position of the Somalia people in Somalia

What steps is the Commission taking to promote creative solutions to the problem which will:

a) allow for nominal inclusion of Somalia within the ACP group of countries, with a provision for formal
accession should a recognised government emerge? and

b) allow European Development Funds to be channelled to the Somali people in the absence of a
recognised government?

**Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 September 1999)_

In order to ensure nominal inclusion of Somalia within the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of
countries, a special article (364a) for Somalia was included in the last Lomé convention, allowing it to
accede to the convention at the request of a new government (should this emerge) and after a decision of
the Council of Ministers.

In the absence of a recognized government, the balance remaining (47 million €) on the European
development fund (EDF) 5 and 6 was combined for Somalia’s second rehabilitation programme. As these
funds have all been committed now, a 15 % ceiling increase has been requested (7 million €) for further
funding. All projects are being implemented by non-governmental organisations and United Nations
organisations. The Commission also manages Italian cofinancing and administers humanitarian aid.

(2000/C 27 E/137) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1528/99**

**by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Waste tip in Dos Aguas, Valencia (Spain)

In September 1998 a large-scale waste tip was opened in Dos Aguas, a village in Valencia near the river
Júcar. The waste tip is situated in a natural ravine on a 35 % gradient, only 400 metres from the river and

C 27 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

without a wall to contain the waste. There are areas of permeable soil nearby and tons of uncompacted
and occasionally fresh waste are dumped unlawfully, even though it was laid down in the management
contract that only compacted and baled waste would be deposited. According to two reports by the
Polytechnic University of Valencia, there is a high risk of contamination of the water in a catchment area
which also supplies Valencia with drinking water owing to the inappropriateness of the site chosen by the
operators and approved by the local authorities and the autonomous community. Furthermore, the Júcar
Hydrographic Federation requires leachates to be stored within the site, in contravention of the environmental impact statement of 26 September 1997 and adding to the risk of pollution. In response to a
European Parliament written question on the tip ( [1] ), the Commission asked the Spanish authorities for
information to ensure that Directive 91/156/EEC on waste ( [2] ) and Directive 85/337/EEC on environmental
impact assessment ( [3] ) were being properly applied in this instance. The Riu Xúquer Civic Platform has
alleged that the environmental impact statement was drawn up in bad faith, since no mention was made of
the existence and proximity of the river Júcar and the Muela de Cortes National Hunting Reserve, nor of at
least eight significant sources nearby. Furthermore, reference was made to a report by the Spanish Mining
and Geological Institute which did not exist in that form, most of the mandatory reports by the regional
services of the Environment Ministry were lacking and the statement was based on surveys made by an
undertaking which was not specialised in the matter and which were carried out in the wrong places. The
new Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste ( [4] ) lays down that existing landfill sites must be brought
into line with the new conditions.

In view of the serious threat of pollution of water used for both agricultural irrigation and human
consumption, will the Commission investigate the matter? What action has the Commission taken vis-à-vis
the Spanish authorities to ensure compliance with Directives 91/156/EEC and 97/11/EC ( [5] )? Will the
Commission investigate the environmental impact assessment procedure in this instance? What measures
will the Commission take to ensure that the waste tip is brought into line with the requirements laid down
in Article 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC?

( [1] ) Question by Mrs González Álvarez and Mr Marset Campos (E-1261/98), OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 103.
( [2] ) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
( [3] ) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
( [4] ) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.
( [5] ) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

**Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

The Commission was unaware of the facts presented by the Honourable Member with respect to the waste
tip at Dos Aguas in Valencia.

The Commission will take the necessary steps to obtain all relevant details and make sure that the
Directives concerned are correctly applied.

(2000/C 27 E/138) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1529/99**

**by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Development of the ecologically valuable Manises golf course (Valencia)

The recent report on the fauna and flora on and around the Manises golf course, drawn up by the
Valencian Ornithological Society, describes the golf course, which passes through woodland, as a living
example of a natural area worthy of being preserved. Almost 7 000 trees, bushy vegetation and the high
moisture level of the soil generated by the watering of the greens help to provide cover and food for a
large number of species of both birds and animals.

The Spanish Government has decided to close Manises golf course and all the facilities belonging to the
surrounding air base on 31 July 1999. The land has been transferred to the AENA company, which

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/113

intends to develop it and extend the airport cargo terminal. In order to do so, AENA has already cut down
many pine trees more than 50 years old. It would, however, be possible for the Manises airport operating
company to preserve the environment around the golf course and extend its terminal using land sited next
to the A3 trunk road on the other side of the runways.

The environment surrounding the Manises golf course is an area of high ecological value and a green lung
from which more than 500 families benefit. It is a natural park of 500 000 square metres containing
luxuriant woodland with one-hundred-year-old pine trees, carobs, almonds, figs, cypresses, casuarinas and
many other kinds of tree, the numbers of which have been put at 7 000. More than 84 species of birds
can also be found in the area (cattle egret, sparrowhawk, nightjar, robin, etc.), as well as a large number of
squirrels, hares and a range of fauna and insects protected by law and classed as being of special interest.

Could the Commission intervene with the Spanish authorities with a view to protecting the environment
in and around the Manises golf course and its bird life?

Is the Commission aware of the annex to the above-mentioned report by the Valencian ornithological
society listing the species under threat?

Can the Commission clarify with the Spanish authorities whether Community legislation on the protection
of birds is being contravened, specifically with regard to the annex to the Directive on the conservation of
wild birds (79/409/EC), which contains a list of protected species, and taking account of the provisions of
the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora?

**Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

The Commission was not aware of the facts presented by the Honourable Member. It will take the
necessary steps to obtain all the details and make sure that the relevant Directives are correctly applied.

The Commission was not aware of the report on the fauna and flora of the Manises golf course. It would
like to receive a copy.

The Commission has noted that the area in question has not been classified as a special protection area for
birds under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds ( [1] ). Neither has it been listed as an important area for birds in the inventory of important areas for
birds in Europe. The Spanish authorities have not proposed the area under Article 4 of Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ( [2] ) as a site
of Community interest to be included in the Natura 2000 network. On the basis of the information
available, the Commission cannot conclude that the said Directives have been infringed in this case.

( [1] ) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
( [2] ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2000/C 27 E/139) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1530/99**

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

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Action to promote Community slate exports

In reply to my earlier questions E-4009/97 and E-4011/97 ( [1] ), the Commission announced that it had
launched a new initiative �market access strategy �to identify and eliminate obstacles to Community
exports. Like all economic sectors, the Commission was inviting and encouraging the slate sector to
participate actively in identifying barriers to international trade. The Commission added that it, in

C 27 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

conjunction with the Member States, would adopt any measures that could provide solutions to these
problems.

Can the Commission say in what way it has encouraged the slate sector to take part in this market access
strategy initiative and whether the slate industry has indeed taken part?

Can the Commission say what market access problems are encountered by the slate industry and what
measures it has adopted to solve these problems?

( [1] ) OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 56.

**Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

The market access strategy aims to identify and eliminate obstacles to Community exports. European
industry and the Member State governments are invited to point out any obstacles which would restrict or
hinder exports to countries outside the EU. The Commission automatically examines each obstacle brought
to the European authorities’ attention. When a case is made out, details are entered into the market access
database which can be consulted on the internet at http://mkaccdb.eu.int. In cooperation with the Member
States, the situation is then carefully monitored; this may include formulation of an appropriate strategy
aimed at getting the offending trading partner to eliminate the obstacle.

The slate industry has not informed the Commission of any specific market access problems which would
warrant entry in the database. As a result, no specific measure has been envisaged for the industry over
and above Community action to eliminate barriers to trade generally, the impact of which is not limited to
a specific industry.

(2000/C 27 E/140) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1531/99**

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

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Funding of preparatory activities by the European Cities of Culture for the year 2000

In recognition of the symbolic significance of the year 2000, the EU has decided to undertake a project
which for the first time will be shared amongst nine European cities of culture: Avignon, Cracow,
Reykjavik, Santiago de Compostela, Helsinki, Bergen, Bologna, Brussels and Prague. Five cities from EU
Member States and four from European countries outside the Union will thus join together in a cultural
cooperation project without precedent in Europe, insofar as it brings together three cities from northern
Europe, three from central Europe and three from southern Europe. Evidently, such an important and
ambitious project requires special support and adequate funding to ensure that it enjoys success by giving
prominence to a European cultural project which embraces the entire continent and forging the ties which
the project can and must make possible.

In reply to my earlier question E-0420/1999 ( [1] ), the Commission said that ‘experimental projects for the
framework programme will also be supported in 1999 from Item B3-2005 under the Interinstitutional
Agreement of 13 October 1998 on legal bases and implementation of the budget’.

Can the Commission say what type of experimental measures and specific projects have been financed to
date and what projects will be financed in the future under Item B3-2004 and the Interinstitutional
Agreement?

Can the Commission provide information on the amounts of the Community contribution in each case?

( [1] ) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999, p. 67.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/115

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

On 10 June 1999 ( [1] ), the Commission issued a call for applications ‘for experimental measures under the
framework programme in support of culture’, which will offer support under budget line B3-2005. The
deadline for applications was 30 July 1999, and the Commission is currently in the process of analysing
those applications received.

Those applications which meet the formal criteria contained in the call for applications will then be shown
to a group of independent cultural experts. These experts are chosen on the basis of lists presented by each
Member State, and are asked to provide an assessment of the cultural quality of the eligible projects. The
meetings of these independent experts are due to take place during mid-October 1999, and the
Commission will, taking into account the experts’ advice, announce in a press release shortly after those
projects to be supported.

( [1] ) OJ C 163, 10.6.1999.

(2000/C 27 E/141) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1532/99**

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

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Funding of preparatory activities by the European Cities of Culture for the year 2000

In recognition of the symbolic significance of the year 2000, the EU has decided to undertake a project
which for the first time will be shared amongst nine European cities of culture: Avignon, Cracow,
Reykjavik, Santiago de Compostela, Helsinki, Bergen, Bologna, Brussels and Prague. Five cities from EU
Member States and four from European countries outside the Union will thus join together in a cultural
cooperation project without precedent in Europe, insofar as it brings together three cities from northern
Europe, three from central Europe and three from southern Europe. Evidently, such an important and
ambitious project requires special support and adequate funding to ensure that it enjoys success by giving
prominence to a European cultural project which embraces the entire continent and forging the ties which
the project can and must make possible.

In reply to my earlier question E-0420/1999 ( [1] ), the Commission said that, under the Kaleidoscope
Programme and by way of a contribution to the preparatory actions carried out jointly by the nine
European Cities of Culture for 2000, on the basis of specific projects presented by the cities, the
Commission granted support amounting to ECU 200 000 in 1997 and ECU 250 000 in 1998 and
announced that ‘the Kaleidoscope Programme has been extended for another year in order to cover 1999’
and that it would ‘endeavour, if possible, to make a bigger contribution than in 1998 but it must bear in
mind the limits set to the budget for culture and other ongoing cultural projects’.

Given the ambiguity of the Commission’s answer to my question E-0420/1999, can the Commission
specify the exact amount of the support which it intends to make available in 1999 as a contribution to
the extensive, high-cost preparatory work which such an ambitious European project will entail in the year
leading up to the major event in the budgets for the year 2000?

Can the Commission also provide information on the total budget and the various plans for funding such
an important project under the budgets for the year 2000?

( [1] ) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999, p. 67.

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

In addition to the 200 000 € and 250 000 € of support granted to the nine European cities of culture for
the year 2000, during 1997 and 1998 respectively, the Commission will allocate 350 000 € of support to
the nine cities for 1999. This is in spite of the fact that the overall 1999 budget for the Kaleidoscope
programme is identical to the 1998 budget. The above-mentioned support, which will be granted from

C 27 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

within the framework of the Kaleidoscope programme, is to contribute to the preparatory work which the
nine cities are undertaking, in advance of jointly hosting the European city of culture event next year.

As regards the level of support to be granted to the nine European cities of culture during the year 2000,
it is envisaged that such support will be granted in the framework of the forthcoming first framework
programme in support of culture. The Commission proposal for such a framework programme has not yet
received the approval of all of the Community institutions, but it is hoped that such approval will be
obtained in time for support to be offered during 2000. As an indication, the Commission proposal refers
to support of 2,5 million € for the nine European cities of culture during the year 2000.

(2000/C 27 E/142) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1533/99**

**by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Unequal treatment of religious communities by a national government (Jehovah’s Witnesses in
France)

1. Does the Commission subscribe to the view that all religious communities should have full equality
of rights and obligations, regardless of whether they have been in existence for centuries or have only
arisen in the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and that no distinction can be made
between them in respect of church buildings, making their views known, organising meetings, organising
believers, collecting contributions from their members and the obligation to pay tax to the government?

2. Is the Commission aware of the complaints by the Christian Community of Jehovah’s Witnesses that
their community in France (which has been active since 1906 and has 250 000 members) has fewer rights
than in other Member States of the European Union and that in recent years it has been placed at a
disadvantage compared with the Roman Catholic church, which has been present in France for almost two
millennia, and that this is particularly apparent in respect of taxation, because possessing church buildings,
disseminating publications and receiving contributions from members are deemed to be the profits of a
commercial organisation subject to tax at 60 %, although the community has published full details of its
finances and its organisation in the belief that this proves the contrary?

3. Is the Commission aware of other examples in the Member States of the European Union of
relatively recent church communities and minority churches being discriminated against compared with
old established churches?

4. What is the Commission intending to do to ensure that in future there is complete equality of
religious organisations in all the countries of the European Union?

**Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission**

_(26 October 1999)_

1. The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious
associations or communities in the Member States. Declaration 11 annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam
confirms that.

The issues raised by the Honourable Member concerning buildings, making views known, and organisation
of meetings of religious communities fall entirely within the scope of national laws.

All the Member States are parties to the European Convention for the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950. Article 9 of the Convention foresees that
‘everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to
change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.’ There are some
restrictions, but apart from these, states must not take any action which would interfere with these rights.
However, it does not seem possible to infer that the provision obliges states to treat all religious
communities in the same way.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/117

2. As to the fiscal treatment of donations, Member States, in the absence of legislation at Community
level and while respecting the fundamental principles of the Treaty, are free to determine the relevant fiscal
treatment.

3. The Commission does not have the information requested.

4. Apart from the above-mentioned provision in the European Convention, there is no legal standard
that would set out Union-wide requirements for the treatment of religious organisations in the Member
States. Without prejudice to the above, Article 13 (ex-Article 6a) EC Treaty states that the Council may
take appropriate action to combat discrimination within the limits of the powers conferred by the Treaty,
in full respect of national regulations in these matters.

(2000/C 27 E/143) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1535/99**

**by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Renewal of motorway concessions in Italy and the Tyrrhenian-Brenner motorway link

The Italian government intends to renew the concession to the Autocisa and Autobrennero companies for
the management of the motorways concerned, without putting them out to tender.

The scheme for building the Tyrrhenian-Brenner motorway, to link up the existing Autocisa and
Autobrennero motorways, depends on these concessions. The two companies have said they are willing
to finance the link in exchange for the renewal of the concessions. The scheme is expected to cost some
ITL 1 600 billion, of which 800 billion are to be supplied by Autocisa, 600 billion by Autobrennero and
200 billion by the Serenissima company (responsible for the Milan-Venice motorway).

The regional and local authorities affected by the Tyrrhenian-Brenner link are divided between those who
defend the motorway link and those who favour the rail option. This is despite the phased shift of freight
to rail on the Brenner route which has been going on for several years now.

1. What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the Italian government complies
with the Community directives on public contracts (92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 ( [1] ); 93/36/EEC of 14 June
1993 ( [2] ); 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 ( [3] )) in the matter of the management of motorway concessions, given
that the aim of these directives is to ensure that all EU companies have the opportunity of participating in
the calls for tender for renewal of these concessions?

2. What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that priority is given to rail over road for
the Tyrrhenian-Brenner link, in order to comply with Community policy on sustainable mobility and the
transfer of freight traffic from road to rail?

( [1] ) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
( [2] ) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1.
( [3] ) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 September 1999)_

1. The Commission intends to ask the Italian authorities for all the information necessary for assessing
the compatibility with Community law on public procurement of the award of the contract referred to by
the Honourable Member for the construction of a section of motorway. If it is found that the procedures
applied are incompatible with the above-mentioned Community law, the Commission may initiate the
procedure in connection with failure to fulfil obligations provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty
(formerly Article 169).

C 27 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

2. Improving the quality of the transport system by taking account of environmental concerns is a
constant feature in all areas of transport policy, including the development of infrastructure, opening of
the market and greater convergence in charging for infrastructure and social costs.

In the framework of the trans-European transport network the Commission has supported, through a
specific budget line, infrastructure improvements on the Brenner railway line (new galleries, command and
control system), on the Tyrrhenian railway line (command and control system) and the doubling of the
Bologna-Florence railway line. These actions will address the capacity problems that exist on these lines,
notably for freight traffic. Current information suggests that the specific rail link between the Tyrrhenian
line and North-East Italy (La Spezia- Parma/Fidenza) does not suffer major capacity problems.

However the quality of a transport system does not depend on the quality of the infrastructure alone. The
rail sector continues to deliver poor service performances, particularly for freight. The opening of the
market is years behind other sectors. The Commission has proposed further legislative measures to
accelerate the limited progress with liberalization. These measures will also have a positive impact on the
promotion of combined transport.

Last but not least, approaches to charging for infrastructure use differ widely across the Community and
also across the different modes of transport. These differences can alter the modal balance. In particular,
current transport charges fail to give the right incentives for the sustainable use of transport because they
do not reflect the social costs (pollution, congestion, and accidents) which are the main concerns in the
transport sector today. Confronted with this situation the Commission prepared a white paper, ‘Fair
payment for infrastructure use’ ( [1] ), published in July 1998. This envisages a Community-wide framework
for the gradual reform of taxation and charging in the whole of the transport sector, whereby newer more
efficient cost-related charges should replace existing inefficient charges and taxes. Charges should be based
on ‘social marginal cost pricing’ including the internalisation of external costs.

( [1] ) COM(98) 466 final.

(2000/C 27 E/144) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1536/99**

**by Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ RAXEN database

In April 1997 the European Parliament gave its endorsement to the creation of a European Monitoring
Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and a European racism and xenophobia information network (RAXEN)
(A4-0110/97 ( [1] )), the aim being that both the monitoring centre and the network should be fed with
information provided by the Member States, research centres, the Community institutions, etc.

In the wake of a recent spate of racist incidents in Spain, can the Commission state whether it has received
any information on the matter? Can some indication be supplied on how far the Member States are
informed and are cooperating? Are there any new proposals for putting an end to this phenomenon?

( [1] ) OJ C 132, 28.4.1997, p. 94.

**Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 October 1999)_

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia was set up by Council Regulation (EC)
1035/97 of 2 June 1997 ( [1] ).

The Monitoring Centre has been progressively put in place. The Parliament, the Member States and the
Council of Europe appointed the members of its Management Board at the end of 1997 and it convened
for the first time on 20 and 21 January 1998.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/119

The Centre’s Director was appointed in May 1998 and currently ten persons are working at the Centre.

The Centre has begun to set up the RAXEN information network.

The Centre is aware of the serious incidents which occurred in Spain in July 1999 and is endeavouring to
assemble information on the phenomenon.

As regards ways of combating racist violence, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the
replies to written questions E-1411/1999 from Mr Carnero González ( [2] ) and E-1473/1999 from
Mrs Cerdeira Morterero ( [3] ).

( [1] ) OJ L 151, 10.6.1997.
( [2] ) See page 54.
( [3] ) See page 54.

(2000/C 27 E/145) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1538/99**

**by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Disbursement of resources from the Leonardi da Vinci programme

I am told that participants in the Leonardi da Vinci programme in Baden-Württemberg have waited in vain
for months for the disbursement of resources pledged by the Commission.

How does the Commission explain the delays in the disbursement of resources from the Leonardi da Vinci
programme?

Are these isolated cases, or is the problem due to the implementation of the Leonardi da Vinci
programme?

When does the Commission intend to disburse the outstanding resources to the persons concerned?

**Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 September 1999)_

Following the non-renewal of the technical assistance contract for the implementation of the Leonardo da
Vinci programme the Commission decided to resume direct management of the activities and tasks carried
out by the former Technical Assistance Office (TAO), with the aim of honouring the 1995, 1996 and
1997 projects concluded with promoters, preparing contracts for the projects approved in 1998 and
seeing through to completion the 1999 call for proposals.

The taking over of the ex-TAO’s activities led to delays in the processing of dossiers: recruitment of outside
personnel (temporary and auxiliary staff), relocation and operational reorganisation of the services.

The teams of evaluators have resumed the task of evaluating the interim and final reports for the 1995,
1996 and 1997 projects, giving priority to mobility projects in order not to delay payment of the grants
too long. The task of preparing contracts for the 1998 projects has almost been completed, 600 out of
772 having been signed and sent out to the promoters for signature. The 150 contracts received back
from promoters duly signed have been paid.

As regards the 1999 call for proposals, 2172 proposals were submitted and evaluated in May 1999
and June 1999. In the week of 19-23 July 1999 the Commission finalised the stages preceding the
preparation of the selection list of projects to be proposed to the participating Member States. The
country-by-country list was sent out to the Member States on 30 July 1999 and will be discussed in the
bilateral meetings due to take place between 6 and 23 September 1999.

Information regarding the progress of the contracts, of their evaluation and of the payments is available on
the Internet, with information for promoters and the national coordination units being provided regularly
by an Information Service for Promoters (ISP) launched on 15 July 1999. The ISP enables individual

C 27 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

projects to be monitored and can be consulted by promoters on the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int/en/
comm/dg22/leonardo.html). The same site also contains a chart giving complete and up-to-date information on the position of the projects. In addition, a table summarising the position of the BadenWürttemberg projects has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and the European Parliament’s
Secretariat.

To sum up, the delays in paying promoters are due to quite exceptional circumstances. The Commission,
since February 1999, has done everything possible to guarantee the smooth completion of the 1999 call
for proposals, has prepared contracts and effected payments for the 1998 projects, and has evaluated the
interim and final reports and paid out the second advances and final balances on the 1995, 1996 and
1997 projects. The situation should have returned to normal by October 1999, and certainly by the end of
1999, thanks to the cooperation of the promoters, the national coordination units and the Commission.

(2000/C 27 E/146) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1539/99**

**by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE) to the Council**

_(8 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Promoting the ‘Königsbrücker Heide’ and ‘Am Spitzberg’ nature conservation areas (in Saxony,
Germany) in the context of the Community’s Konver initiative

As part of the Konver initiative the Community has given financial aid to the ‘Königsbrücker Heide’ and
‘Am Spitzberg’ nature conservation areas in Saxony:

Can the Council answer the following:

1. What is the amount of subsidies and loans, what are they for and what specific measures have they
been used to support?

2. Have the measures resulted in the protected status of the areas being impaired (e.g. as a result of
destruction of biotopes, afforestation of open areas or provision of firebreaks in woodland areas)?

3. Have the measures jeopardised the areas’ suitability as natural habitats (Directive 92/43/EEC ( [1] ) on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora)?

4. To what extent do the measures supported contradict environmental or nature conservation legislation
in force or violate the provision in the Community initiative Konver that measures supported must be
such as to improve the environment?

5. Is the Council aware that for the purpose of applying for more money from Konver an application has
been made to remove the protected status of the ‘Am Spitzberg’ conservation area?

( [1] ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

**Reply**

_(8 November 1999)_

The Council is not in a position to respond to the questions put by the Honourable Parliamentarian on the
situation of the ‘Köningsbrücker Heide’ and ‘Am Spitzberg’ nature conservation areas in the context of the
Konver Community’s initiative, since the implementation, management and follow-up of this Community
initiative in the Free State of Saxony is not within the competence of the Council, but the responsibility of
Germany, the Free State of Saxony and the Commission.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/121

(2000/C 27 E/147) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1540/99**

**by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Laying hens kept in the Czech Republic

Three units for laying hens, each with 600 000 birds, are to be established in the Czech Republic near the
border with Bavaria. A building permit has apparently already been granted for the unit at Vseruby
(Domazlice district). The Czech Republic is one of the countries preparing for accession to the European
Union.

1. Can the Commission indicate which companies from the European Union are participating in this
project in the Czech Republic?

2. Can the Commission give assurances that this project has received no direct or indirect funding (e.g.
under PHARE or from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) from the EU and that it
will not receive such funding in the future? If not, can the Commission indicate in what way, from which
fund and what amount (including the amounts per annum) this project has received or is to receive in
funding from the EU?

3. How does the Commission think it can reduce or prevent any environmental pollution, e.g. ground
water pollution, ammonia and dust emissions or smell, for the neighbouring countries as a result of this
project? Has the Commission any plans for action in this area? If so, what are they?

**Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 October 1999)_

The Commission has no information regarding which Community companies are involved in setting up
the poultry farms, other than it is a German company.

No assistance has been provided by the Phare programme in this area; nor are there any plans to do so in
the future. To the Commission’s knowledge, the European bank for reconstruction and development
(EBRD) does not finance projects in this area.

In the context of their preparations for accession, the Czech authorities are steadily aligning their
legislation and building up administrative structures in order to apply and implement the ‘acquis
communautaire’, including in the area of the environment. This process is monitored by the Commission’s
annual regular reports, which assess progress achieved by the candidate countries towards accession. In
this context, it should be pointed out that the Commission attaches great importance to the reduction of
trans-border pollution in candidate countries. This is the reason why in the Czech Republic, the Phare
cross-border programme with Germany and Austria provides for considerable investment in the area of
pollution reduction.

(2000/C 27 E/148) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1542/99**

**by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ COM in milk and situation of Galicia

In the final negotiations concerning the Agenda 2000 agreements concluded in spring 1999 on the COM
in milk, a standard 1,5 % quota was set for ‘other territories or Member States in special situations’,
including Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Increases in the quota are to be allocated using criteria fixed by the Commission and the Member States.

Galicia is in a special situation within the Spanish state, producing more than 33 % of Spanish milk while
not being eligible for any significant EU aid in support of a sector which has more dairy farms than the
Netherlands.

C 27 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

In view of this, has the Commission taken due account of the circumstances of family dairy farms in
Galicia when determining the allocation criteria for the 350 000 tonnes for 2000 and the 200 000 tonnes
for 2001 corresponding to the Spanish state?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 September 1999)_

The reform of the market organisation for milk introduced by Council Regulation (EC) 1255/1999 of
17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products ( [1] ) to which the
Honourable Member refers includes substantial changes to the quota system provided for by Council
Regulation (EEC) 3950/92 ( [2] ) of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk
products sector, as amended by Regulation (EC) 1256/1999 ( [1] ) as a result of the same Council agreements.

In particular, it is planned to make a differentiated increase in the overall quantities allotted to the Member
States: either a linear increase of 1,5 % (in the general case), or a specific increase to take account of
individual situations. The latter case applies to Spain, which will be granted successive increases of 350 000
tonnes in 2000 and 200 000 tonnes in 2001 (i.e. a total increase of 10 %). These increases are set out in
Annex 2 (tables A and B) to Regulation (EEC) 3950/92.

It is up to the Member States to distribute the individual reference quantities among the producers in
accordance with Regulation (EEC) 3950/92. The Commission will therefore be examining the criteria that
each Member State intends to apply as soon as it is informed of them.

( [1] ) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
( [2] ) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992.

(2000/C 27 E/149) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1543/99**

**by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ The COM in milk and tying milk quotas to the land factor

The final Agenda 2000 agreements relating to the COM in milk favour sales of milk quotas on a basis not
related to the land factor, and thus encourage speculation.

This kind of policy runs counter to the interests of family-type farms whose production is closely tied to
the land, as is the case with virtually all Galician dairy farms. The policy is also skewed towards intensive
farming models, which are increasingly generating forms of production that are harmful to human health,
creating major farming crises such as the alarming cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the
UK and dioxin in poultry feed in Belgium.

In view of the above, does the Commission intend to correct this criterion to ensure that the transfer of
milk quotas is in future free of charge and tied to the land factor, in the interests of compliance with the
CAP’s own principles concerning environment-friendly farming?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 September 1999)_

The Agenda 2000 agreement on the reform of the common organisation of market in milk to which the
Honourable Member refers is implemented by Council Regulation (EC) 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
common organisation of the market in milk and milk products ( [1] ). The reform includes substantial changes
to the milk quota arrangements provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) 3950/92 of 28 December 1992
establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector ( [2] ), as amended by Council Regulation
1256/1999, also adopted as a result of that agreement.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/123

Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) 3950/92 stipulates that ‘reference quantities available on a holding shall be
transferred with the holding in the case of sale, lease or transfer by inheritance to the producers taking it
over in accordance with detailed rules to be determined by the Member States taking account of the areas
used for dairy production or other objective criteria ...’. This provision confirms the principle that the
quota is tied to the land.

Moreover, the purpose of the new Article 8a inserted in Regulation (EEC) 3590/92 as amended is to
prevent speculation on quotas. It allows the Member States to take quotas not held by milk producers back
into a national reserve with a view to redistributing them.

The Commission does not therefore consider that the reform of the dairy sector encourages the sale of
quotas on a basis not related to the land and encourages speculation.

The Commission does not think that the criteria laid down in the above Regulation need re-examining.
Furthermore, responsibility for the day-to-day management of the quotas lies with the Member States, and
it is therefore up to them to take account of specific regional or local situations.

( [1] ) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
( [2] ) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992.

(2000/C 27 E/150) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1544/99**

**by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Discrimination concerning beef premiums

Production costs for quality beef are currently largely in excess of prices; the latter are in free fall, a
circumstance which favours the production of lower-quality meat.

The problem is not resolved by compensating for lower prices with premiums for suckler cows or, indeed,
for male calves; the majority of such animals are not included in the herd counts, and actual circumstances
are thus not reflected.

In Galicia, some 240 000 male calves are born each year, but no more than 8000 premiums are granted;
over half of the suckler cows receive no premiums, as they do not figure in the herd counts.

The local beef sector suffers from considerable discrimination as regards aid, in respect of both the criteria
for awarding the premiums and the shortcomings of the herd counts practised.

In view of this, does the Commission intend to review, at sufficient intervals, the criteria for allocating the
beef premiums and the dairy herd counts?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

The Agenda 2000 agreement at the Berlin European Council in March 1999 included a decision to reform
the common market organisation for beef and veal. The new provisions are in Council Regulation (EC)
1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 ( [1] ). To boost the competitiveness of Community beef its support price is to be
reduced by 20 % in three annual steps beginning in 2000. There will be offsetting financial compensation
in three forms: an increase in three annual steps of the existing premiums (special premium on male
animals and suckler cow premium), introduction of a slaughter premium, and additional payments, usually
referred to using the term ‘national envelopes’.

The categories of animal mentioned by the Honourable Member, i.e. dairy cows and calves, are covered by
the compensation arrangement. Dairy cows are eligible for the slaughter premium and, if the Member
State so decides, for the additional payment. Calves are eligible for the slaughter premium only. To obtain
the slaughter premium the producer, who will have to have kept each animal for a minimum period to be
determined, will submit an application accompanied by proof of slaughter or export and accordingly

C 27 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

obtain premium on the exact number of his animals slaughtered or exported. A national ceiling will be set
for each Member State and the premium reduced in proportion to any overrun. These ceilings (one for
adult animals and one for calves) will be the number of animals slaughtered in the Member State in 1995
plus exports from the Community, as shown by Eurostat data or any other published official statistical
information for 1995 that the Commission accepts, irrespective of actual herd size. The global maximum
amount of each Member State’s additional payments is also based on slaughter figures.

In the Commission’s opinion the compensation provided under the reform does not discriminate against
the beef sector. The mode of calculation indicated above shows that compensation for dairy cows and
calves is unaffected by animal counts.

In the specific case of Galicia, where many male animals are slaughtered too young to quality for the
special premium, two of the reform provisions are of importance: (a) reduction of the age of eligiblity for
the special premium from ten to nine months and (b) an age threshold for the slaughter premium (males
and females) of eight months. As a result a large number of animals qualifying for the description ‘Ternera
Gallega’ will in future be eligible for Community support.

( [1] ) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 27 E/151) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1545/99**

**by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Adoption and publication of the rural development aid regulation

The Union’s new rural development policy states that agriculture should be recognised as a means of
preserving the rural heritage, and endorses the creation of alternative investment sources to ensure
continued production in the countryside. However, the necessary political investment is still at the
drawing-board stage: we still await the new rural development aid regulation, whose purpose is to
determine the form in which the Member States and their various political territories are to decide the
priorities for action, through the regional development plans.

Can the Commission supply a timetable for the adoption and publication of the rural development aid
regulation?

Is the Commission aware of the preliminary draft or draft regional development plans that have been
submitted recently by the Regional Government of Galicia?

Does the Commission take the view that these plans could include support measures for extensive
stockbreeding of cattle, sheep or goats, with a view to the improved use of less-productive mountainous
land?

Could account also be taken of the need to undertake the ethnographic and archaeological restoration of
depopulated rural settlements?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

Council Regulation (EC) 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 concerning support for rural development by the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending certain Regulations ( [1] ) will
apply to Community support from 1 January 2000.

This regulation has been followed by an implementing regulation: Commission Regulation (EC) 1750/1999
of 23 July 1999 ( [2] ).

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/125

No plan has yet been submitted to the Commission by the Spanish Government, either for Galicia or for
any other autonomous community. It should, however, be pointed out that the period in which Member
States are to submit plans has just started.

The rural development plans are drawn up at the relevant geographical level by the authorities designated
by the Member States and submitted by the Member States to the Commission, after consultation with the
relevant authorities and organisations at the appropriate territorial level. This will enable each region to
draw up a rural development plan adapted to its needs. In areas with low productivity it is thus possible to
provide for measures intended to encourage the extensive rearing of cattle, sheep and goats. This can be
done in particular through the compensatory allowances to make up for natural handicaps and the agroenvironmental measures.

Several measures in the new regulation can be used to encourage population maintenance and heritage
preservation in depopulated areas. They include setting-up aid for young farmers, compensatory allowances for the less-favoured areas, agro-environmental measures aimed at the maintenance of the landscape
and of the traditional features of arable land, and measures to renovate and develop villages and protect
and conserve the rural heritage.

( [1] ) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
( [2] ) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999.

(2000/C 27 E/152) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1546/99**

**by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Arrest by Chinese police of thousands of members of the Fa Lun Gong Buddhist religious
organisation

As reported by various sources, the Chinese Communist authorities have in the last few weeks arrested
several thousand persons belonging to the Fa Lun Gong Buddhist religious organisation. The Peking
authorities announced on Tuesday 27 July 1999 that those arrested had been charged with antigovernment activities. This huge police operation amounts to a clear violation of international conventions
signed by the Peking regime and heralds a new round of escalation by the Communist authorities in their
policy of repression against all those in China who look forward to exercising their fundamental rights.

What information is available to the Council concerning the number of persons belonging to the Fa Lun
Gong organisation who have been arrested and the conditions in which they are being detained?

What action has the Council taken or will it take to induce the Chinese Communist authorities to end their
repressive policy against the Fa Lun Gong organisation and release the thousands of its members now in
detention?

More generally, in the light of these events and of the appalling human-rights situation in Tibet, Inner
Mongolia and Eastern Turkestan, as well as in China as a whole, does the Council not now consider it
urgently necessary to review its so-called ‘constructive dialogue’ policy with the People’s Republic of China?

**Reply**

_(22 October 1999)_

The Presidency has sought more information from the Chinese authorities on the measures taken against
the Falun Gong movement and will continue to follow developments closely. More generally, the Council,
while welcoming China’s developing cooperation with UN human rights mechanisms, is concerned that

C 27 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

such cooperation has not been matched by improvements on the ground. It was dismayed by the
December 1998 crackdown on dissidents and in August 1999 expressed its concern at the harsh sentences
handed down to members of the China Democratic Party.

The Council continues to see the EU-human rights dialogue, the next meeting of which should take place
in the week beginning 18 October in Beijing, as well as the cooperation programme in the field of human
rights, as important instruments for fostering respect for human rights in China. But, as the Council has
stressed, the dialogue is not an end in itself. There must be concrete results on the ground. The Council is
therefore seeking to make the dialogue more focused on issues of priority, more regular and more oriented
towards securing concrete improvements.

(2000/C 27 E/153) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1549/99**

**by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Presidential elections in Togo

Is the Council aware that a number of members of Amnesty International have been detained by the
Togolese authorities following the publication of a report by AI which reveals compelling evidence that
intimidation, torture and extrajudicial executions were commonplace during and after the 1998 presidential election campaign?

What pressure will the Council bring to bear the Togolese authorities given the demands for upholding
democratic rights and principles placed on signatory nationals of the Fourth Lomé Convention in Article 5?

**Reply**

_(8 November 1999)_

1. The Council has been apprised of the fact that Mr Pierre Sané, Secretary-General of Amnesty
International, recently received a summons to appear before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Lomé on
15 November 1999 for a possible indictment for contempt, incitement to revolt, dissemination of false
news and conspiracy against the external security of the State.

The Union has reiterated on a number of occasions its commitment to the protection of human rights in
Togo and will continue to insist that perpetrators of human rights abuses be brought to justice.

2. In its response to the question the Honourable Member put to the Council last year regarding the
Presidential elections in Togo in June 1998, the Council referred to different reactions in which
disappointment was expressed at the way these elections had been conducted, namely the declaration of
26 June 1998 and the consultations that were held with the Togolese Government on the basis of Article
366a of the revised Lomé IV Convention.

Since then, an inter-Togolese dialogue between the government and the opposition political parties was
prepared and was held between 19 and 29 July 1999 in Lomé. This dialogue was accompanied by
facilitators of the international organisation for the French-speaking world and the European Union. At the
end of that meeting a ‘Framework Agreement of Lomé’ was signed by all participants. That Agreement
provides, inter alia, for the following: legislative election after dissolution of the National Assembly
in March 2000 to be organised by an independent Commission, access of all political groups to the public
media and the return and safety of refugees.

The Council is currently following closely this new situation and reiterates its willingness to assist in a
process which encourages the development of democracy in Togo and secures the absence of human
rights violations to which the Honourable Member refers in his question.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/127

(2000/C 27 E/154) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1550/99**

**by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Presidential elections in Togo

Is the Commission aware that a number of members of Amnesty International have been detained by the
Togolese authorities following the publication of a report by AI which reveals compelling evidence that
intimidation, torture and extrajudicial executions were commonplace during and after the 1998 presidential election campaign?

What pressure will the Commission bring to bear the Togolese authorities given the demands for
upholding democratic rights and principles placed on signatory nationals of the Fourth Lomé Convention
in Article 5?

**Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 October 1999)_

The Commission is aware of the report entitled Togo: Rule of Terror published by Amnesty International
on 5 May 1999. However, being unable to confirm or deny the extremely serious occurrences denounced
in the report, it would support an international inquiry, possibly under the auspices of the United Nations.

The Commission has taken a consistent stand since 1992, when it suspended financial and technical
cooperation because of grave human rights violations.

Following serious irregularities reported in the course of the presidential election in June 1998, it held
consultations with Togo. The EU informed the Togolese authorities that cooperation would not resume as
long as there continued to be blatant violations of human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law,
the key principles set out in Article 5 of the Lomé Convention that underpin relations between the EU and
the ACP countries.

Since then, the only projects implemented have been decentralised cooperation projects directly benefiting
the people of Togo, and projects to uphold human rights.

At the same time, the Commission intends to continue to support the mission of the European facilitators
which has brought about dialogue between the authorities and the Togolese opposition with a view to
organising direct elections in a democratic and transparent manner.

(2000/C 27 E/155) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1551/99**

**by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Subsidies for organic farmers

Given food scandals in Britain and, more recently, on the continent does the Commission believe that
measures which disadvantage organic farming practices are becoming increasingly untenable?

Does the Commission agree that tiering subsidies, thus enabling the farmer to have more capital to
expand, might be one approach in encouraging alternative forms of farming from conventional, intensive
practices?

C 27 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

The Commission agrees that more sustainable forms of agriculture, such as organic farming, should be
promoted. In the Baden/Vienna organic conference of May 1999, the Commission made a commitment to
continue and where necessary increase its efforts to stimulate the development of the organic sector.

The reform of the common agricultural policy in Agenda 2000 in many ways provides important building
blocks for further development of this sector. In particular, several measures of Council Regulation (EC)
1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European agricultural guidance
and guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations ( [1] ), (e.g. investment, agrienvironment and processing and marketing) can be targeted to promote organic farming. Already in the
past, all Member States have used the possibility to promote organic farming through payments for
environmental services within their agri-environment programmes. The new requirement for the Member
States to produce integrated rural development programmes, will further facilitate the introduction of
marketing measures and other measures which will contribute to a balanced and sustainable organic
sector.

The Commission has introduced a legal framework for organic production by which definition of the
production method and inspection are harmonised for the Member States. Recently this legal framework
was expanded to include animal production and soon a Community logo for organic products will be
introduced.

A tiered approach to environmental programmes, as suggested by the Honourable Member, is already
pursued in the United Kingdom under the current programme period and may continue in the future.

( [1] ) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 27 E/156) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1552/99**

**by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ European Commission Task Force on Vitamins and Minerals

The European Commission has asked its Scientific Committee for Foods to set up a new Task Force to
look at the safety of vitamins and minerals. Will the Commission publish the membership list of the Task
Force and its detailed terms of reference?

(2000/C 27 E/157) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1593/99**

**by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Task force on vitamins and minerals

Can the Commission indicate whether it has asked the Scientific Committee for Foods to set up a task
force to look into the safety of vitamins and minerals and with what remit?

If such a task force has already been established, who are its members? If no members have yet been
named, on what basis is recruitment planned?

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/129

**Joint answer**
**to Written Questions E-1552/99 and E-1593/99**
**given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(25 October 1999)_

The Honourable Members have requested information concerning the scope and composition of a
scientific committee working group which has been established to examine the upper safety limits of
vitamins and minerals.

The Honourable Members will be aware that the Commission is developing proposals to harmonise
legislation for food supplements containing vitamins and minerals and for the addition of vitamins and
minerals to foods. Such proposals may need to take account of both nutritional recommendations and
upper safety limits for vitamins and minerals. The scientific committee on food (SCF) has already made
recommendations on the nutritional requirements for these nutrients. This committee has recently set up a
working group in response to a request from the Commission for advice on upper safety limits for some
29 individual vitamins and minerals.

The terms of reference for this question are as follows:

In accordance with the 1998 working programme of the Commission, active consideration is being
given to the subject of harmonising legislation for food supplements containing vitamins and minerals
and to the addition of vitamins and minerals to foods.

Nutritional recommendations and upper safety limits for vitamins and minerals will be essential
scientific elements for the Commission to base the technical part of its proposals. The SCF has already
made recommendations on the nutritional requirements for these nutrients.

The committee is therefore asked to advise the Commission in accordance with the following terms of
reference.

Terms of reference

(a) To review the upper levels of daily intakes of individual vitamins and minerals that are unlikely to
pose a risk of adverse health effects.

(b) To provide the basis for the establishment of safety factors, where necessary, for individual
vitamins and minerals which would ensure the safety of fortified foods and food supplements
containing these nutrients.

The working group was established in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of Commission Decision
97/579/EC of 23 July 1997 setting up scientific committees in the field of consumer health and food
safety ( [1] ) which provides for the establishment of such working groups including external experts and their
mandates by the scientific committees. This article requires that working groups are chaired by a member
of the committee and report to the scientific committee to which they are attached. The selection of
external experts is made on the basis of advice from the scientific committees as a function of need and
expertise for the subject in question. External experts are subject to the same requirements as members to
declare any potentially prejudicial interest before each meeting in accordance with Article 6(3) of the
Decision.

The organisation of this particular working group (‘the task force’) is complicated by the fact there are a
large number of individual vitamins and minerals to be evaluated requiring a wide range of scientific
expertise. This may necessitate the involvement of additional experts in the future. So far the participants
to the meetings of this task force have been members of the SCF (Dr. A. Flynn (Chairman), Dr. A. Carere,
Dr. I. Elmadfa, Dr. A. Ferro-Luzzi, Dr. I. Knudsen, Dr. W. Grunow, Dr. R.Walker) and external experts
(Dr. Azaïs-Braesco, Dr. J. Alexander, Dr. P. Elias, Dr. A. Renwick, Dr. Schumann, Dr. A. Van den Berg).
Other experts may be added in the future according to scientific needs. The names of these participants are
given in order to ensure transparency in this area, but the Commission insists on the need to safeguard the
independence of the work organised under the authority of the scientific committee.

General information concerning the scientific committee on food (and the other scientific committees)
including opinions, minutes, agendas and membership, is available on Internet at http://www.europa.eu.int/
comm/dg24/health/sc/scf/index_en.html.

( [1] ) OJ L 237, 28.8.1997.

C 27 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/158) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1556/99**

**by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ The 3 000 Kosovar prisoners still held in Serbia

In the last days of the international policing operations in Kosovo, some three thousand Kosovar prisoners
were abducted and forcibly transferred to Serbian prisons by Serbian military and paramilitary forces. The
prisoners include Prof. Ukshin Hoti, a prominent member of the opposition, whose prison sentence
expired in May 1999 and who has been nominated for the EP’s 1999 Sakharov Prize, and Mr Albin Kurti,
former leader of the Pristina students’ movement.

Can the Council provide detailed information about the whereabouts and conditions of detention of
Prof. Hoti, Mr Kurti and the three thousand Kosovar prisoners still being held in Serbia?

What steps does the Council intend to take to ensure that the Belgrade authorities immediately and
unconditionally release these 3 000 people and allow them to be reunited with their families in Kosovo?

Will the Council provide all the necessary assurances that neither the sanctions nor the embargo on Serbia
and Yugoslavia will be lifted until the Belgrade authorities release all the Kosovar prisoners currently held
in Yugoslav prisons?

**Reply**

_(22 October 1999)_

Regarding detailed information about the whereabouts and conditions of detention of these prisoners, the
Council wishes to inform the Honourable Parliamentarian that the ICRC has been allowed access to
Serbian jails by the Belgrade authorities and that it has identified 2 000 Kosovo Albanian prisoners so far.
On the issue of sanctions relief, the Council wishes to reassure the Honourable Parliamentarian that
progress in democratic freedoms and respect for the rights of minorities will be key elements in deciding
the lifting of sanctions targeting the Belgrade regime.

(2000/C 27 E/159) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1557/99**

**by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Questions on the EU complaints procedure �Directive 65/65/EEC

1. Has the Commission ascertained to what extent other EU States have fulfilled these requirements, and
what steps is it taking in this regard in the other EU States which are affected?

2. Can these scientific publications, as the only evidence that the products are effective and harmless, be
considered to be a list of published references within the meaning of Article 4.8(a) of Directive 65/65/
EEC ( [1] )?

3. What, in the Commission’s view, are the prospects for the applicant achieving mutual European
recognition for complementary medicinal products, for example through setting up a committee for
alternative medicinal products?

( [1] ) OJ L 22, 9.2.1965, p. 369.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/131

**Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 September 1999)_

1. According to Article 1 of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products,
any substance or combination of substances presented for treating or preventing disease in human beings
or animals shall be regarded as a medicinal product. Likewise, any substance or combination of substances
which may be administered to humans or animals with a view to making a medicinal diagnosis or to
restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in humans or animals, has to be considered a
medicinal product. As a matter of general principle, ready-prepared medicinal products may only be placed
on the market of a Member State if their quality, safety and efficacy has been proven in a marketing
authorisation procedure.

These basic provisions should have been applied by Member States for many years. In the context of
certain complaint cases, the Commission was, however, made aware that national legislation in some
Member States did not consistently implement the above rules with regard to all products on the market.
The Commission, in its function as a guardian of Community law, was therefore obliged to ask certain
Member States to align their national legislation fully with the provisions of Community law.

2. According to Article 4 paragraph 8 lit.a (ii)of Directive 65/65/EEC an applicant for a marketing
authorisation for a medicinal product shall not be required to provide the results of pharmacological and
toxicological tests or the results of clinical trials if he can demonstrate ‘by detailed references to published
scientific literature presented in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 1 of Directive 75/318/
EEC that the constituent or constituents of the medicinal product have a well established medicinal use,
with recognized efficacy and an acceptable level of safety.’ A Commission directive, amending the annex of
Council Directive 75/318/EECof 20 May 1975 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating
to analytical, pharmaco-toxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing of
proprietary medicinal products ( [1] ) will specify in detail the practical application of this provision. This
Commission directive has already been approved by the standing committee for medicinal products for
human use and will probably be adopted by the Commission and published in autumn 1999.

3. So-called ‘complementary’ medicinal products which fulfil the requirements of quality, safety and
efficacy may be authorised as medicinal products and subsequently be subject of mutual recognition
among Member States according to the terms of Council Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC of 20 May
1975 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to
proprietary medicinal products. Medicinal products which do not fulfill the requirement of quality, safety
and efficacy must not be authorised in the Community, the only exception being homeopathic medicinal
products which may be authorised or registered under the specific terms of Directive 92/73/EEC of
22 September 1992 widening the scope of Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the approximation
of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products and
laying down additional provision on homeopathic medicinal products ( [2] ).

Changes to the current system of Community pharmaceutical legislation will be considered in the course
of a review which will take place in 2000/2001. The creation of a committee for alternative medicine may
be one of the issues which will be considered on the occasion of that review.

( [1] ) OJ L 147, 9.6.1975.
( [2] ) OJ L 297, 13.10.1992.

(2000/C 27 E/160) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1559/99**

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

_(8 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union

At its June 1998 part-session the European Parliament debated and adopted the own-initiative report on
the fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union (A4-0137/98 ( [1] )), in the

C 27 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

conclusions to which, inter alia, it urged the Council ‘to carry out a detailed analysis of Community tariff
law affecting fish product preserves and aquaculture, with the aim of abolishing any advantages in access
to the Community market that are no longer justified’.

Can the Council say what measures it has taken to comply with Parliament’s request and what results have
been obtained thus far?

( [1] ) OJ C 210, 6.7.1998, p. 295.

**Reply**

_(8 November 1999)_

1. Community tariff law is closely linked with its trade policy, especially the granting of preferential
arrangements on an autonomous (GSP) basis or on the basis of an agreement (Lomé Convention). It is
regularly adjusted in the light of market trends, amendments to the GSP arrangements (new arrangements
for the period from 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001) and of the negotiations under way for the new
Lomé Convention. When those adjustments and renegotiations take place, those trade advantages which
are no longer justified are abolished.

2. Tariff law also takes into account development cooperation policy. It should also be stressed that the
mere fact of securing a tariff reduction on products imported from countries benefiting from easier access
to the Community market does not constitute unfair competition provided that such products are subject
to the same regulatory requirements as Community products.

3. The Community processing industry sometimes has to obtain its supplies of certain products,
Community production of which is insufficient or non-existent, on external markets. In such circumstances
the Community has to take the tariff measures required to make it competitive with third-country
industries.

4. The Council has adopted a Regulation opening and providing for the administration of autonomous
Community tariff quotas for certain fisheries products. In view of the particularly sensitive nature of the
issue, the Council agreed on a compromise solution on the basis of a Commission proposal.

5. When it adopted the above Regulation, the Council asked the Commission to draw up by the end of
1999 a short and medium-term market supply balance for loins of tuna.

6. The detailed examination of tariff law requested by the Honourable Member can be carried out only
on the basis of such a balance and of the statistics resulting from the collection of data for the production
of fisheries and aquaculture products and of economic data relating to the processing industry. The
collection of such data is envisaged in the Commission’s work programme for 1999.

(2000/C 27 E/161) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1560/99**

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

_(8 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union

At its June 1998 part-session the European Parliament debated and adopted the own-initiative report on
the fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union (A4-0137/98 ( [1] ), in the
conclusions to which, inter alia, it called on the Council, ‘in view of the fact that canning preserves a
food’s nutritional properties and facilitates its storage and transport under optimum conditions, to promote
the inclusion of Community canned goods in its policy of humanitarian food aid to needy countries’.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/133

Can the Council say what measures have been taken to comply with Parliament’s request?

( [1] ) OJ C 210, 6.7.1998, p. 295.

**Reply**

_(12 November 1999)_

The Council laid down the framework for food aid policy in Council Regulation (EC) 1292/96 of 27 June
1996 on Food Aid Policy and Food Aid Management and Special Operations in Support of Food
Security ( [1] ). Article 2, first paragraph, second sub paragraph, of this Regulation says that:

When products are selected, consideration shall be given to how to maximise the quantity of food
with a view to reaching the maximum number of people, taking into account the quality of products
in order to ensure adequate levels of nutrition.

As the implementation of the Community’s food aid policy falls under the responsibilities of the
Commission, it is suggested that the Honourable Parliamentarian address the question concerning the use
of canned products directly to the Commission.

( [1] ) OJ L 166, 5.7.1996.

(2000/C 27 E/162) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1566/99**

**by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Statistics on PPP’s

In 1996, through its specialised agency Eurostat, the Commission published, on page 1 of a publication
entitled ‘Comparison in Real Terms of the Aggregates of ESA’, a list of publications devoted to that subject.

1. Can the Commission supply this set of publications in English (for preference) or French?

2. Apart from these publications, are there any others in which the Commission presents the
theoretical, methodological or empirical basis for the instrument referred to as ‘purchasing power parities’?

3. What is the relationship between the PPP’s calculated by Eurostat and those calculated by the OECD?

4. Can the Commission supply a list of the relevant OECD publications concerning the theoretical,
methodological and empirical basis of this indicator?

**Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 October 1999)_

1. The publications referred to in Eurostat’s publication ‘Comparison in real terms of the aggregates of
ESA’ are available through data shops in all Member States. Reference may be made to the most recent
Eurostat publication ‘Purchasing power parities and related indicators �results for 1995-1996’ published
in 1999.

2. The methodological approach of the Commission is explained in the publications mentioned above.

3. The Commission and the Organization for economic co-operation and development (OECD) both
participate in the worldwide International comparison programme to compare gross domestic product
(GDP) in real terms. The Commission coordinates this work for the 15 Member States, 3 European free

C 27 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

trade association countries (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) and 12 Accession countries (Bulgaria,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic,
Slovenia). OECD does the same for the remaining OECD countries. Both Commission and OECD apply
similar methods.

4. The most relevant OECD publications on purchasing power parities methodology, practice and
results are: Purchasing power parities and real expenditures in the OECD (1980), Michael Ward, OECD,
Paris, 1985; Purchasing power parities and real expenditures, 1985, OECD, Paris, 1987; Purchasing power
parities and real expenditures, 1990, Volume 1, EKS results, OECD, Paris, 1992; Purchasing power parities
and real expenditures, 1990, volume 2, GK results, OECD, Paris, 1993; Purchasing power parities and real
expenditures, 1993, volume 1, EKS results, OECD, Paris, 1995; Purchasing power parities and real
expenditures, 1993, volume 2, GK results, OECD, Paris, 1996. The publication for the 1996 results will
be released in October 1999.

(2000/C 27 E/163) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1567/99**

**by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Legal status of statistics on PPP’s

For various purposes, some of which have a significant impact on the budget, the European institutions
have been using an indicator which they call ‘purchasing power parity’ (PPP).

However, Council Regulation (EC) 2223/96 ( [1] ) does not refer to this indicator.

1. Can the Commission say whether there is a legal basis for the PPP and, if so, say what it is?

2. If there is no legal basis, can the Commission say whether any steps are being taken to create one?

3. Does the Commission consider the situation with regard to the legal basis of the PPP to be
appropriate, bearing in mind in particular the rules observed in statistical areas of comparable significance
or importance?

( [1] ) OJ L 310, 30.11.1996, p. 1.

**Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission**

_(20 October 1999)_

1. For the time being, there is no legal act covering solely the purchasing power parities (PPPs).
However, PPPs are mentioned in Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down
general provisions on the Structural Funds, Article 3 ( [1] ); and Council Regulation (EC) 1267/1999 of 21 June
1999 establishing an instrument for structural policies for pre-accession, Article 41. Furthermore, based on
Article 64 of the Staff Regulations and rules for implementing it the price data collected for PPP purposes
are used to calculate correction coefficients to establish the equivalence of purchasing power of the salaries
of European officials serving in the capitals of the Member with reference to Brussels.

2. The Commission has recognized the lack of specific legal act on PPPs and an initial discussion was
held at the meeting of the statistical programme committee on 25 May 1999 in The Hague.

3. For the time being the PPP work is based on annual contracts concluded with the Member States’
statistical offices, and on voluntary contributions of two participating European economic area countries
(Iceland and Norway). So far the lack of a specific legal act has not created any major problems. However,
the Commission believes that the foundation of PPP work might be further strengthened by adopting a
specific legal act which would cover both the methodological basis and procedures applied.

( [1] ) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/135

(2000/C 27 E/164) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1569/99**

**by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Council**

_(8 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Dioxin measurements in foodstuffs

A letter issued in June 1999 by the German food industry body, BLL, states that the Belgian authorities are
declaring end products to be dioxin-free, although the proof is based only on extrapolations relating to
seven PCBs. This extrapolation method may possibly be used in the used oil and lubricant field, but not in
relation to foodstuffs.

1. Has the Council been informed about this reprehensible extrapolation method being used by the
Belgian authorities?

2. Does the Council agree that no arbitrary extrapolations should be carried out, owing to the serious
potential risks posed by PCBs?

3. Does the Council share my view that tolerance levels of 1-4 pg/kg are totally absurd and arbitrary,
and cannot guarantee that risks to health will be excluded?

4. When will the Council ask the Commission to set limit values for dioxins in foodstuffs and thereby
put an end to the scandalous situation in which no limits are calculated and there is irresponsible ‘selfregulation’ by the food industry?

5. Is the Council aware that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recent studies which
show that many more PCBs (in addition to the mere seven named over here) are classed as toxic? Has the
Council seen these studies? What conclusions will it draw therefrom?

(2000/C 27 E/165) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1572/99**

**by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Council**

_(8 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Lack of limit values for dioxins and PCBs

In view of the dioxin scandal in Belgium and the fact that recital 5 of the Commission decision of 3 June
1999 noted that no maximum levels for dioxin contamination are set for individual basic ingredients and
foodstuffs and that there are no maximum levels for dioxins at international, Community or national level:

1. Why has the Council failed to request the Commission to set a limit value for PCBs, dioxins or other
chlorine compounds?

2. When will the Council correct this omission?

3. When exactly can a directive or regulation containing such limit values be expected?

4. Is the Council taking steps to set up an independent, neutral foodstuffs monitoring centre at EU level?

5. Is it correct that there are no EU legal provisions for either animal or plant products that provide for
maximum levels of PCBs?

**Joint answer**
**to Written Questions E-1569/99 and E-1572/99**

_(29 October 1999)_

The Council discussed the issue of the dioxin contamination in Belgium at the earliest opportunity, as a
result of which the Council, at its session of 14 and 15 June 1999, agreed a number of conclusions. The
issue has been kept under review by the Council at every subsequent meeting.

On these occasions, the Council heard detailed presentations by the Belgium Minister on measures being
taken in his country, and this presentation included reference to the extrapolation method.

C 27 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

At its session of 14 and 15 June 1999, the Council requested that the Commission monitor the uniform
and effective implementation of EU early-warning systems and, where appropriate, make proposals for
improving them as well as considering the extent to which existing monitoring systems should be
extended to cover residues and stepped up.

In addition, the Commission was requested to report back to the Council during the Finnish Presidency on
the progress of installation of the Community’s Food and Veterinary Office and the extent to which it is
fully operational. That report must also look at the question of the need for a general improvement in
foodstuffs control including an establishment for foodstuffs controls.

The Council also requested that the Commission make rapid progress with work already begun by the
Committee for Feedingstuffs on reviewing feedingstuffs law and, where appropriate, submit proposals for
amendments in the context of further strict harmonisation, with particular reference to:

�
effectiveness and adequacy of the current control system,

�
need to authorise/register compound feedingstuffs producers other than those provided for in
Directive 95/69/EC,

�
improvement in the traceability of feed raw materials and additives used in this sector,

�
need to extend the list of prohibited ingredients,

�
need to extend the list of undesirable substances.

At its session of 19 July 1999, the Council welcomed in principle the thorough legislative programme
presented by the Commission intended to adapt animal nutrition legislation and to propose measures on
animal waste.

The Council notes that as part of this legislative programme, and within the competence of the
Commission, measures are planned on the fixing of maximum limits of dioxins for oils and fats, the
fixing of maximum limits of dioxins for other or all feed materials, and the collection of information on
background contamination of PCB and dioxin-like PCB in order to be in a position to set maximum
authorised thresholds for these contaminants.

As far as limits for end products are concerned, no proposal from the Commission has been put so far
before the Council.

Other aspects raised by the Honourable Member fall within the competence of the Commission.

(2000/C 27 E/166) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1570/99**

**by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Council**

_(8 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Illegal marketing of genetically modified maize by the Pioneer seed company

At the beginning of May 1999 it became known that the Pioneer Hi-Bred seed company in southern
Germany had purchased genetically modified maize that had not received approval.

1. Was the Council informed of this infringement of EU regulations and of the infringement of the
German law on genetic engineering?

2. On what date was the Council informed about the infringement?

3. What measures will the Council take and what conclusions will it draw from this infringement?

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/137

**Reply**

_(12 November 1999)_

According to the Treaty, it is for the Commission and national governments to ensure that European
legislation is complied with in the Member States. The Honourable Member is therefore invited to address
this question to the Commission.

(2000/C 27 E/167) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1577/99**

**by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba I Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ System for the distribution of tickets for the European Cup final held in Barcelona on 26 May
1999

The chaos which surrounded the public sale of tickets to the European Cup final held in Barcelona on
26 May, in which, it appears, UEFA reduced the original quota of tickets allocated to FC Barcelona from
10 000 to 7 500 and the club itself sold only 2 100 tickets through the ticket office, these being reserved
exclusively for its members, led to the formation of long queues and to unacceptable waiting times.
According to UEFA, after the sale of tickets through the ticket office, FC Barcelona was left with
5 250 tickets. Of these, 3 100 were distributed among its foundation, sport institutions, club staff, the
media and public bodies, leaving 2 150 with regard to which no information was given. Nine days before
the match, the Chairman of FC Barcelona responded to press criticism by offering 4 900 tickets for sale
and admitted that the club had organised the sale of tickets badly.

In view of the Cassis de Dijon case and given the symbolic fine imposed on the French Football World
Cup Committee as a legal precedent, does the Commission not consider that the proposed system for the
allocation of tickets constitutes a clear violation of single market regulations?

Does the Commission intend to launch an inquiry into the management and lack of transparency of the
ticket sales?

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 October 1999)_

The Honourable Member asks the Commission whether the system for the allocation of tickets for the
1999 European cup final constitutes a violation of single market regulations in the light of the findings in
the Cassis de Dijon case and the symbolic fine imposed by the Commission on the local organisers of the
1998 football world cup in France.

The judgement of the Court of justice in the Cassis de Dijon case related specifically to the application of
EC Treaty provisions concerning the free movement of goods, and in particular Articles 28 (ex-Article 30)
to 30 (ex- Article 36) of the EC Treaty. Insofar as the sale of tickets to football matches is concerned, the
Commission doubts very much that a ticket could be classified as a good within the meaning of those
provisions given that it serves only to allow the holder the right to enjoy a service. Previous case law of
the Court of justice (Case C-275/92, Schindler, [1994] ECR I-1039) would seem to confirm this view. In
addition, the sales arrangements to which the Honourable Member refers do not appear to be the result of
measures attributable to a Member State. As such the Commission does not consider it appropriate to
challenge the sales arrangements in question under EC Treaty provisions relating to the free movement of
goods.

In relation to the Commission’s decision of 20 July 1999 against the local organising committee of last
year’s football world cup and the symbolic fine which was imposed as a result, the grounds for that
decision concerned exclusively the effect of the organiser’s decision to limit ticket sales to consumers able
to provide an address in France, which was to discriminate against European consumers outside France on
grounds of nationality. The Commission concluded that this constituted an abuse of the organiser’s
dominant position on the market for ticket sales contrary to Article 82 (ex-Article 86) of the EC Treaty,
imposing a symbolic fine of €1,000. While the Commission will not hesitate to challenge similar practices

C 27 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

in the future, the Honourable Member will appreciate that the issues raised in relation to the sale of tickets
for this year’s European cup final are very different from those addressed by the afore-mentioned decision.
It would, therefore, be inappropriate for the Commission to base any legal action against those responsible
for the sale of tickets for this year’s European cup final on the conclusions drawn in relation to the sale of
tickets for last year’s football world cup in France.

On the basis of a general assessment of the information provided, it seems that the practices to which the
Honourable Member refers, regrettable as they may appear to be, do not constitute an infringement of EC
Treaty provisions. As such the Commission does not propose to launch an inquiry into the manner in
which tickets were allocated and sold for the match in question.

(2000/C 27 E/168) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1578/99**

**by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Health and consumer protection

On 26 July 1999, the Commission presented a general outline of its future plan of action to overcome the
‘dioxin crisis’ following last week’s discovery of fully operational pig farms which had been subject to
dioxin contamination. The Commission estimated that it would take approximately 6 months for the plan
to begin to be implemented.

In view of the seriousness of the matter and of the harm which may be caused by the consumption of
such substances, what precautionary measures will be adopted in the meantime until the plan begins to be
implemented?

**Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 October 1999)_

Bearing in mind the developments following the ‘dioxin crisis’ at the end of July 1999 in Belgium, the
Commission has had to amend the measures in force since the crisis broke. Commission Decision of
6 August 1999 amending Decision 1999/449/EC on protective measures with regard to contamination by
dioxins of certain products of animal origin intended for human or animal consumption ( [1] ) ruled out
traceability as grounds for certifying meat, eggs and derived products of Belgian origin placed on the
market, exchanged between Member States or exported to third countries. Hence this decision required the
Belgian authorities to issue certifications for consignments of these foodstuffs on the basis of the results of
polychlorobiphenyl (PCB) or dioxin analyses demonstrating that these foodstuffs have not been contaminated by dioxin. The measure was renewed by Commission Decision 199/601/EC of 1 September 1999
amending Decision 1999/551/EC as regards the protective measures with regard to contamination by
dioxins ( [2] ).

Besides, the Commission has been deliberating about the longer-term lessons to be drawn from this crisis.
These deliberations mainly concern animal feed manufacturing procedures, control of the raw materials
used in manufacturing this feed, and verification of food contamination levels in the Member States.

( [1] ) OJ L 209, 7.8.1999.
( [2] ) OJ L 232, 2.9.1999.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/139

(2000/C 27 E/169) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1579/99**

**by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Repeal of the thirteenth transitory provision of the Italian Constitution

The thirteenth transitory provision of the Italian Constitution strictly prohibits male descendants of the
House of Savoy from returning to Italy. This provision, which is defined as being transitory, has been in
force since 1948, in breach of the basic principles of civilization, which hold that exile is an abhorrent
measure undermining the dignity of the person.

This provision, which affects the heirs of the former ruling family, who were at the forefront of Italian
unity and fulfilled their duties in compliance with the will of the people as expressed in the institutional
referendum of 2 June 1946, has now been rendered obsolete by history and is unacceptable to the people
of Italy, as well as being a clear breach of the International Bill of Human Rights.

Does the Commission not consider that it should intervene to call for the repeal of this transitory
provision of the Italian Constitution, since this would not threaten national sovereignty but would be in
line with a basic principle of civilization, which holds that exile is a barbaric instrument of perpetual
torture, in this case affecting the representatives of a dynasty which helped to mould Italy, a country
where, under the liberal provisions of the Schengen agreements, everyone is able to enjoy freedom of
movement, with the exception of members of the House of Savoy?

**Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 October 1999)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question P-2703/97 by
Mr Florio ( [1] ).

( [1] ) OJ C 60, 25.2.1998.

(2000/C 27 E/170) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1580/99**

**by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council**

_(8 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Exclusion ofsportsmen and women of Yugoslav nationality from sporting events

1. Is the Council aware that when the world table-tennis championships were held in Eindhoven, the
Netherlands, on 3 and 4 August 1999, with participants from 90 countries, those registered participants
residing in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were refused visas for the Netherlands and that the
Netherlands Government also brought pressure to bear on the national umbrella body for the sport,
NOC/NSF, to bar from the competition a participant of Yugoslav nationality residing in Germany, who had
access to the Netherlands under the Schengen rules?

2. Which Member States other than the Netherlands have likewise excluded sportsmen and women of
Yugoslav nationality from sports competitions since the end of the recent war in Yugoslavia? Which
Member States allow them to take part?

3. Are there any agreements within the European Union on preventing sporting links with residents of
Yugoslavia as a means of bringing pressure to bear on and isolating and/or removing from power the
present Government of Yugoslavia? Is this effective?

4. Does the Council agree that a distinction should be made between states and their individual
residents, and that before any decision is taken on such an exceptional measure as exclusion and isolation
of sports associations and individual sportsmen and women from their counterparts in other countries,
there should be a call to this effect from the United Nations or the European Parliament?

C 27 E/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

5. What will the Council do to restore the customary sporting links between Member States and
Yugoslavia as soon as possible?

**Reply**

_(22 October 1999)_

1. The Council would like to recall that on 26 April 1999, the General Affairs Council meeting in
Luxembourg agreed to ‘encourage member States and sporting organisations not to organise international
sporting events with the participation of the FRY’.

2. Acting in conformity with the fore-mentioned recommendation, The Netherlands have informed
member States of their intention not to issue visas to sportsmen and women from the FRY wanting to
participate in international sporting events being organised in The Netherlands.

3. In spite of efforts by all member States, the General Affairs Council meeting of 31 May 1999
‘expressed its disappointment that some major sporting events are still taking place. It calls on international
sporting organisations in Europe, notably UEFA, to reconsider decisions which would permit such sporting
fixtures.’

4. The Council wishes to underline its continued intention to reach out to the Serbian people, who have
suffered as a result of the detrimental policies of its leadership. This distinction between the Belgrade
regime and the population in the FRY was taken into account when the General Affairs Council of
13 September 1999 agreed to rescind its decision concerning the discouragement of the sporting links.

(2000/C 27 E/171) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1583/99**

**by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission**

_(1 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ ‘Green’ fishmeal

Is the Commission willing to allow a distinction to be made between fishmeal produced from fish waste
and that produced by ‘industrial fishing’ which threatens to destroy habitats?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

Fish meal is produced from fish that for various reasons cannot be used directly for human consumption.
The sources are fish trimmings, non-marketable fish and fish species for which consumption is currently
very limited or non-existent. As in the case of other fisheries, the Commission attaches great importance to
ensuring that fishing for industrial purposes is conducted in a responsible and sustainable manner.
Directed fishing for industrial purposes is therefore carefully regulated and monitored and the Commission
is not aware of habitat threats caused by these fisheries.

The Commission is concerned about the practical and legal feasibility of implementing separate labelling of
fishmeal, as most fish meal processing plants use trimmings and industrial fish indistinguishably. What is
more important is to be sure that the products are derived from sustainable fishing.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/141

(2000/C 27 E/172) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1597/99**

**by Marco Pannella (NI) to the Council**

_(8 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ International Criminal Court

On 18 July 1998 the Conference of Plenipotentiaries in Rome adopted the Statute of the permanent
International Criminal Court for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Ratification by at least
60 countries is required in order for the International Criminal Court to be established. To date, while
84 countries have already signed the Statute, only four countries, Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, San
Maríno and Italy have also ratified it. In other words, whilst all the Member States of the Union have
signed the Statute, only Italy has already ratified it.

What information is available to Finnish Presidency on the state of affairs regarding the process of
ratification of the Statute by the Member States?

What steps has the Finnish Presidency taken, or does it intend to take, to encourage swift ratification of the
Statute by the Member States in order to enable the Court to become operational by the end of the year
2000?

Further, what steps has the Finnish Presidency taken, or does it intend to take, to encourage the signing
and/or ratification of the Statute by third countries, in particular those with which the Union is linked
through association agreements or cooperation and partnership agreements?

**Reply**

_(8 November 1999)_

1. The Council shares the view that the establishment of a permanent international criminal court (ICC)
will represent a decisive step forward to ensure that those who commit the most serious crimes of
international concern are no longer able to do so with impunity. Accordingly, the European Union
strongly supports the early establishment of the Court. All EU Member States have signed the Rome
Statute adopted on 17 July 1998 and are determined to ensure that the Court will be operational as soon
as possible.

2. The EU has welcomed the first ratifications of the Statute, including that of Italy on 26 July 1999.
The other Member States are committed to ratifying the Statute as speedily as possible. The ratification of a
major convention of international law, particularly one whose implementation involves national criminal
law authorities, is a substantial task. For some States, ratification of the Statute requires constitutional
amendments. Member States regularly inform one another of progress in their ratification process. In
tentative estimates, most Member States foresee that, subject to the various legislative and/or constitutional
steps proceeding according to schedule, they could have ratified the Rome Statute by the end of next year.
Member States closely co-ordinate their positions in the framework of the current Preparatory Commission
for the Establishment of the ICC.

3. The EU is also acting to promote the signature and the ratification of the ICC Statute world-wide. In
her address to the UN General Assembly on 21 September, the President of the Council reaffirmed the
Union’s commitment to the early entry into force of the Rome Statute and urged all States to sign and
ratify it. Similarly, at the opening of the latest session of the ICC PrepCom (July-August 1999), the
Presidency has issued a statement to that effect. In the margins of this PrepCom session, the Presidency
also organized a meeting bringing together legal experts from Member States and from the associated
States as well as the EFTA countries. The purpose was to express the will and the readiness of EU Member
States to provide those States which would need it with legal assistance for questions relating to ICC
ratification, as some of them had mentioned internal difficulties in this regard. Some EU Member States
gave presentations of their national approaches, and some specific legal problems were discussed. The EU
intends to pursue such cooperation. EU Member States also regularly promote accession to the ICC Statute
in their bilateral contacts with third countries.

C 27 E/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/173) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1598/99**

**by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Transparency of EU Scientific Committee Working Groups

The EU Scientific Committees were reconstituted in 1997 on the basis of three principles: that they would
display the highest standards of professionalism; that they would be independent, and that their activities
would be transparent. The new committees’ professionalism and independence are not in question but
their deliberations are not transparent. The membership of the main committees is in the public domain,
and committee agendas and minutes are regularly published on the Internet. But the deliberations,
memberships and procedure of innumerable Working Groups, where the bulk of the scientific work is
done, remain inaccessible to the public. These Working Groups comprise scientists who, in the main, do
not sit on the main committees, and this represents serious back-tracking on the commitment made by the
Commission at the time.

1. What is the Commission going to do to meet its obligations fully to make the EU’s scientific
evaluation process truly transparent (particularly in those cases which are non-controversial)?

2. For example, how is the Commission going to ensure that the deliberations of the great many
working groups set up in the non-controversial area of reviewing the safety of vitamins and minerals are
made fully transparent?

**Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 November 1999)_

The Commission welcomes this opportunity to set out its general approach to ensuring public transparency of scietific committee working groups which also takes account of independence and confidentiality
considerations.

It is evident that the process of delivering scientific opinions often requires substantial preparatory work in
order to collect, collate and evaluate scientific data, tasks which are frequently undertaken by the scientific
committee working groups. The operation of working groups is determined by the internal procedures of
the corresponding scientific committee which ensure that it retains full responsibility for the preparatory
activities of such groups. Article 7 of Commission Decision 97/579/EC of 23 July 1997 setting up
scientific committees in the field of consumer health and food safety ( [1] ), which provides for the
establishment of working groups including external experts and their mandates by the scientific committees, also requires that such groups are chaired by a member of the committee and report to the scientific
committee to which they are attached.

The selection of external experts is made on the basis of advice from the scientific committees as a
function of need and expertise for the subject in question. External experts are subject to the same
requirements as members to declare potentially prejudicial interests before each meeting in accordance
with Article 6(3) of the Decision. In the event of such declaration, the chairman decides on the action to
be taken.

The Commission recognises that knowledge of the membership of scientific committee working groups is
a matter of legitimate public interest. It will therefore ask the scientific committees to generalise the
practice of publishing the names of participants in working groups in the minutes of the meetings where
the working groups were set up. It must however be recognised that the complexity of some questions
may mean that these groups are not fixed and that additional experts may need to be invited at a later
stage.

As for the deliberations of the working groups, the Commission reminds the Honourable Member that it is
the scientific committees alone that are responsible for the advice that they deliver and not their working
groups. Preparatory documents drafted by a working group have no intrinsic authority and are always
subject to amendment, rejection or adoption by the scientific committee to which they report.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/143

The Commission considers that the preparatory deliberations of the working groups are part of the
internal process of the scientific committees. It is the responsibility of the scientific committees to decide in
full independence which parts of the preparatory work of a working group will be included in the
scientific opinions that are finally adopted and published.

The Commission believes that this approach ensures that the members of the scientific committees always
retain ultimate and independent responsibility for the scientific opinions that they deliver. The Commission
will continue to review the practical implementation of the principles of independence and transparency
which are fundamental to public confidence in the work of its scientific committees in the light of new
developments. These include for example, the report of the three experts on the future of the scientific
advice which is expected later this year.

( [1] ) OJ L 237, 28.8.1997.

(2000/C 27 E/174) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1599/99**

**by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council**

_(8 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Increasingly threatening attitude of the People’s Republic of China to Taiwan

For some time now, the People’s Republic of China has been adopting an increasingly threatening policy
towards the Republic of China (Taiwan), the only obvious result of which has been an alarming rise in
tension in South East Asia. Beijing has now progressed from threatening Taiwan with the prospect of
technological warfare to full-scale escalation of military and militaristic activities, which could ultimately
push the People’s Republic beyond the point of no return.

Against this background, the European Union is pressing on with its policy of so-called ‘critical dialogue’
with Beijing, which consists in practice of giving the Chinese Communist authorities ‘carte blanche’ in their
aggressive policy towards Taiwan, their infringement of human rights inside their own territory and their
brutal oppression of the Tibetan, Mongol and Uygur peoples who live, against their will, inside the
confines of the People’s Republic.

Does the Council agree that the so-called policy of critical dialogue pursued hitherto by the EU in relation
to the People’s Republic in effect encourages the aggressive, militaristic and oppressive tendencies of the
Chinese Communist regime? Does the Council not regard as legitimate the Republic of China’s present
wish to refuse to be incorporated in a state based on the negation of the rule of law and democracy?
Consequently, does the Council agree that it should support Taiwan’s request to be reintegrated into the
United Nations and recognised in law as a sovereign state?

**Reply**

_(22 October 1999)_

The Honorable Member will be aware that the EU made a statement on 20 July which noted with concern
developments in July across the Taiwan Straits. The statement also recalled EU support for the principle of
‘one China’ while underlining the necessity of resolving the question of Taiwan peacefully through
constructive dialogue. The EU continues to hope that both sides will make every effort to clarify
misunderstandings and to maintain constructive dialogue. Both sides should avoid taking steps or making
statements which increase tension. Approach is shared by the international community in general.

The EU’s aims remain: to intensify relations with China and to support its integration into the world
economy, thereby enabling it also to support economic and social reform and to promote a more open
society, the rule of law and respect for internationally recognized human rights.

The political dialogue, including the human rights dialogue which was resumed in October 1997, is
intended to promote these objectives.

C 27 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

Instant results cannot be expected, but persistent and patient effort exercised by the EU, as well as others
through dialogue and by other means, are steadily spreading also in China recognition of the universal
values which we espouse. That is why the EU has insisted that the the EU dialogue should be kept
comprehensive and substantial with no subjects excluded a priori. Moreover, the EU has made it clear that
we expect our dialogue on human rights to lead, not just to Chinese acknowledgement of international
commitments, but also to concrete improvements in the human rights situation in China.

(2000/C 27 E/175) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1602/99**

**by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission**

_(7 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Airlines and the rules relating to overbooking

Particularly during the summer, and to the ever-greater inconvenience of users/consumers/travellers,
airlines (including ones based in the European Union) resort with ever-increasing frequency to the practice
of overbooking (the selling of more seats than are actually available on a given flight), which requires
airline staff to decide, on the basis of highly obscure criteria, that certain passengers will not be allowed to
board the aircraft, even though they hold a proper ticket. Such passengers/consumers consequently face
unforeseen and often lengthy delays in their travel arrangements, unexpected additional expenditure which
is frequently not reimbursed by the airline, and problems stemming from their inability to secure a return
flight at a preselected time. Such occurrences are considerably more serious if they relate to intercontinental flights to or from the European Union.

The various provisions stemming from the current rules drawn up by the Commission (Council Regulation
(EEC) 295/91 of 4 February 1991 ( [1] )) are totally inadequate in relation to the degree of inconvenience
suffered when overbooking occurs. In particular they do not apply to flights from a third country to a EU
destination, they do not exclude the requirement for passengers to provide additional departure confirmation, they do not define the minimum check-in time as a strict deadline [no comment here], and they do
not specify the percentage of seats which the airlines are allowed to overbook, whilst the penalties
prescribed do not appear to be a sufficient inducement to the airlines to pay the required compensation to
passengers who have been denied boarding.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? Does it not consider the legal nature of the measures adopted
so far to be the cause of their inadequacy? Does it intend to adopt further measures of a different nature in
order to ensure that the rights of travellers/consumers are upheld?

( [1] ) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991, p. 5.

(2000/C 27 E/176) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1663/99**

**by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission**

_(22 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Citizens’ rights and airlines

In August an enormous number of European citizens at every airport in the European Union were
subjected to cavalier treatment and bullying by airlines in connection with flight delays, transport
conditions and delays in the delivery of luggage. The passenger, as a legal person who draws up a contract
with an airline, has become a passive object and a helpless victim of these arbitrary practices.

Does the Commission not consider that Regulation 295/91 ( [1] ) should be amended as a matter of urgency
to include flight delays in the context of fines to be charged to the airline for the benefit of passengers?

( [1] ) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991, p. 5.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/145

**Joint answer**
**to Written Questions P-1602/99 and E-1663/99**
**given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 October 1999)_

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Members that urgent action is needed to improve the
conditions for passengers in the event of overbooking. It has therefore already proposed ( [1] ) amendments to
Council Regulation (EEC) 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding
compensation system in scheduled air transport ( [2] ). In its amended proposal ( [3] ) the Commission also agreed
to suggestions made by the Parliament. However, adoption of this proposal is still pending in Council.

Nearly all of the points specifically mentioned by the Honourable Member are covered by this proposal.
Only the issue of a defined percentage of allowed overbooking has not been included since the airlines
themselves define this percentage according to their own statistics of no-shows. These numbers vary from
airline to airline and route to route, and it would not be possible to define a percentage suitable for all
situations in Europe.

The issue of compensation for delays is not covered by the proposal. However, the issue will be discussed
in connection with a consultation paper on passengers’ rights in air transport that will be launched shortly.
This consultation paper will also raise the question of the acceptability of the present conditions of
carriage used by the air carriers.

Finally, the recent Montreal Convention of 28 May 1999 includes updated provisions on damage and delay
to baggage. The Commission is proposing that the Community adheres to this Convention and is
specifically considering whether an initiative should be taken in this context in respect of baggage.

( [1] ) OJ C 120, 18.4.1998.
( [2] ) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991.
( [3] ) OJ C 351, 18.11.1998.

(2000/C 27 E/177) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1604/99**

**by John Purvis (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(7 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Results of Research on Risks for Plutonium and Nuclear Accidents

It was reported (The Times of London 9.8.1999) that the EU Radiation Protection Unit was sponsoring
research at the UKAEA research laboratories at Harwell, which included the injection and inhaling by
human volunteers of radioactive plutonium in order to simulate the effects of a nuclear accident on the
body. Can the Commission advise what (if any) effects have been observed in the people concerned and
what are the broader implications regarding the risks from plutonium and nuclear accidents?

**Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 October 1999)_

The Commission has provided financial support for two projects within the Third (1990-94) and Fourth
(1994-98) Framework Programmes, which included studies requiring the inhalation and injection by
human volunteers of specific plutonium isotopes.

These projects were part of a broadly based research involving up to 12 institutions in the Member States,
the purpose of which was to improve the quantitative understanding of the behaviour of radionuclides
incorporated into the human body (biokinetics), and to contribute towards more reliable dose and risk
assessments for occupational and accidental exposures.

The studies were carried out after appropriate approval by an ethical committee, based on an assessment
of the possible health risks. The total committed doses to the volunteers does not exceed 0,1 milliSieverts

C 27 E/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(mSv), which is small in comparison to natural background radiation (approximately 3 % of average annual
exposure). These low doses are due to the choice of the plutonium isotopes 237Pu and 244Pu, which have
a low radiation toxicity but which behave chemically and have the same biokinetics as other more toxic
plutonium isotopes. At these dose levels, no radiation induced effects are expected and none have been
observed in the people concerned.

Some results of the studies have been published in open literature and further publications are in
preparation. The preliminary conclusion of the studies is that the current understanding of the risks from
intake of plutonium remains valid.

(2000/C 27 E/178) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1606/99**

**by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council**

_(13 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Internet and the Italian Government’s draft law on equal access to the media in election campaigns
(‘par condicio’)

The Italian Government has recently brought forward a draft law prohibiting advertising spots on national
and local public and independent television channels during election campaigns; the bill also seeks to
prohibit election advertising on the Internet. This is clearly a violation of citizens’ rights to freedom of
information in that it will ban any kind of election publicity on the Internet just when its use is becoming
increasingly widespread among the general public.

Does the Council not agree that this is a flagrant violation of the citizen’s right to freedom of information?

How does the Council intend to safeguard the public’s right to freedom of information and what measures
will it take to protect European citizens against prohibition of this kind?

**Reply**

_(22 October 1999)_

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that the question which he has put is not within its
sphere of competence.

(2000/C 27 E/179) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1608/99**

**by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(7 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Internet and the Italian Government’s draft law on equal access to the media in election campaigns
(‘par condicio’)

The Italian Government has recently brought forward a draft law prohibiting advertising spots on national
and local public and independent television channels during election campaigns; the bill also seeks to
prohibit election advertising on the Internet. This is clearly a violation of citizens’ rights to freedom of
information in that it will ban any kind of election publicity on the Internet just when its use is becoming
increasingly widespread among the general public.

Does the Commission not agree that this is a flagrant violation of the citizen’s right to freedom of
information?

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/147

How does the Commission intend to safeguard the public’s right to freedom of information and what
measures will it take to protect European citizens against prohibition of this kind?

**Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 October 1999)_

The Commission is aware of the existence of a draft law recently drawn up by the Italian Government on
provisions for equal access to communication media during election campaigns and referendums and for
political information.

It should first of all be pointed out that before draft legislation of this kind �inasmuch as it contains
(which the information available to the Commission would suggest) provisions designed to govern political
and campaign information and advertising that are disseminated not only on broadcast media but also via
on-line services �can be adopted at national level, it should be subject to formal notification in
accordance with Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998
amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of
technical standards and regulations ( [1] ).

This directive requires each Member State, from 5 August 1999, to inform the Commission at the drafting
stage of any new regulations affecting Information Society services (that is to say, any service normally
provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of
services). The aim is to prevent the emergence of obstacles to the free circulation of cross-border on-line
services, such as those provided by the Internet.

Any passing of draft legislation at national level without prior notification to the Commission in
accordance with Directive 98/48/EC would be an infringement of Community law by the Member State
in question, regardless of the content of the national legislation. In addition, such a text would be
inapplicable and unenforceable ( [2] ).

Apart from the procedure laid down in Directive 98/48/CE, the Commission is not supposed to comment
on the substance of any provisions of national law which, as in this instance, are still at a preliminary
stage, unless incompatibility with the principle of free movement of services within the internal market has
in fact occurred.

( [1] ) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998.
( [2] ) See the Court of Justice judgment of 30.4.1996, Case C-194/94 (CIA Security).

(2000/C 27 E/180) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1609/99**

**by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(7 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Community legal basis for national aid measures for non-agricultural enterprises

The Commission has told the Belgian Government that the dioxin crisis in Belgium should be described as
an exceptional occurrence within the meaning of Article 87 (2)(b) of the Treaty. As a result, the aid
measures for agricultural holdings drawn up by the Belgian Government can be regarded as compatible
with the common market.

Does the Commission agree that, should the Belgian Government also notify aid measures for nonagricultural enterprises by analogy with the aid measures for agricultural holdings, such measures should
also be described as being compatible with the common market on the basis of Article 87(2)(b)?

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 October 1999)_

Article 87(2) sub-paragraph (b) (ex-article 92) of the EC Treaty allows state aid to make good the damage
caused by exceptional occurrences. The Commission has recognised, in its decisions concerning the aid

C 27 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

measures proposed by the Belgian government in the context of the dioxin crisis concerning food products
and animal feed produced in Belgium, that the nature and extent of restrictions which it was necessary to
impose in order to protect public health constituted an exceptional occurrence within the meaning of the
sub-paragraph concerned. Certain of these measures, notably those providing compensation for destroyed
stocks of produce, already extend beyond agricultural products as defined in Annex I (ex-annex II) to the
EC Treaty.

The question whether Article 87(2)(b) of the EC Treaty would also serve as a basis for authorising further
possible aid measures for the non-agricultural sector can only be properly examined in a Commission
decision on a notification giving complete information on the beneficiaries and the type of measures
envisaged. However, some elements for the assessment might be pointed out.

In principle, since the scope of the restrictions imposed extended beyond the agricultural sector, the
potential effect of the Commission’s recognition of them as an exceptional occurrence therefore also
includes non-agricultural enterprises. However, it is important to underline that there must be a causal link
between the exceptional occurrence (in this case, the restrictions imposed, rather than the leak of dioxin
itself or the public reaction to certain classes of food products) and the damage or losses which any aid
measures seek to compensate before they can be authorised under Article 87(2)(b) of the EC Treaty.

Many enterprises in the non-agricultural sector, depending on their precise activity, may have been able to
limit the effects of the restrictions through the use of alternative supplies of primary agricultural products.
In addition, and again depending on the precise field of activity, any losses or damage suffered may have
been due to other causes than the restrictions themselves.

The Commission would therefore need to be satisfied, as in the agricultural sector, that any aid did not
overcompensate for the losses actually caused by the exceptional occurrence. Given the great diversity of
the non-agricultural sector any mechanism designed to establish this would need to be examined very
carefully.

(2000/C 27 E/181) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1610/99**

**by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(7 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Unfavourable ruling by the Commission on compensation awarded by the Dutch Government to
filling station operators in the Dutch-German border region

The Commission recently issued an unfavourable ruling on a compensation scheme by the Dutch
authorities for filling station operators on the Dutch-German border.

Can it state when the Dutch Government first notified the scheme to the Commission?

Can it state whether a requirement exists to notify such matters to the Commission in Brussels?

When did it first respond to the Dutch scheme for the filling station operators in question and what was
the content of this initial response on its part?

Was there subsequently frequent contact over this scheme between the Dutch authorities and the
Commission and, if so, when did this contact take place and what was the content of these contacts?

In the Commission’s opinion, could the Dutch Government have known that the scheme in question was
unacceptable and, if so, since when could it have known that?

If in the Commission’s view the Dutch Government should have known better, does it still consider it fair
that the filling station operators in question, who cannot be expected to possess such legal knowledge,
must repay the compensation concerned? Is it not fairer that the Dutch Government should itself meet this
loss?

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/149

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 October 1999)_

On 18 August 1997, the Dutch authorities notified their intention to grant aid in favour of 633 Dutch
service stations located near the German border. Article 88(3) (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty requires that
the Commission be informed of planned aid measures before the plan is put into effect. Thus, Member
States are obliged to notify new aid measures to the Commission, such as the subsidies in favour of the
Dutch service stations.

On 22 September 1997, the Commission requested the Dutch authorities to provide further information
for the first time in order to examine: (a) to what extent the notified project was likely to distort
competition in other Member States, in particular in Germany and (b) whether the subsidy could have a
cumulative effect exceeding the de minimis threshold of 100 000 € per beneficiary. According to the de
minimis rule ( [1] ), Article 87(1) (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty can be said not to apply to measures below
this threshold and therefore they need no longer be notified in advance to the Commission.

During the almost two-year long investigation, the Commission has written eight letters to the Dutch
authorities and adopted three decisions (decision to initiate in-depth investigation, information injunction
decision and a final decision), besides holding a number of formal and informal meetings with the Dutch
authorities. The Dutch authorities have written 11 letters to the Commission.

The obligation to notify, referred to above, is backed up by a prohibition which prevents the Member State
from putting the aid project into effect before the Commission has authorised it. Consequently, the Dutch
government should not have granted the aid before the Commission had made its position known.

The Dutch service stations cannot avoid repayment of the aid by invoking the principle of the protection
of legitimate expectations. Indeed, the Court of justice has held that it is only in exceptional circumstances
that the Member State concerned or the recipient firm can invoke this principle. If, like the Dutch service
stations, firms do not check that the aid that they are receiving is lawful and compatible with the common
market, they cannot afterwards plead that they were entitled to believe that it complied with Community
law ( [2] ).

( [1] ) OJ C 68, 6.3.1996.
( [2] ) Judgements of the Court of justice in Case C-5/89 Commission v Germany (1990) ECR I-3437 and Case C-183/91
Commission v Greece (1993), ECR I-3131.

(2000/C 27 E/182) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1611/99**

**by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission**

_(7 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ The use of Nandrolone

Does current legislation require food manufacturers to list on labels any ‘precursors’ of nandrolone?

If so, is the Commission satisfied that the regulations are observed? If not, does the Commission agree this
is an area which requires speedy revision?

**Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

In general, food ingredients have to be labelled according to the provisions of Council Directive 79/112/
EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer ( [1] ).

C 27 E/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

The Commission is not aware of the use of precursors of nandrolone, an anabolic steroid, in processed
foodstuffs.

Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996, concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of
certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of β-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/
602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC ( [2] ) prohibits the administering to a farm or aquaculture animal, by
any means whatsoever, of substances having androgenic action, such as nandrolone. If residues of
nandrolone are found in foodstuffs, the foodstuffs must be removed immediately from the market and
destroyed.

( [1] ) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.
( [2] ) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(2000/C 27 E/183) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1612/99**

**by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Child labour

Can the Commission state which European countries have still not ratified the ILO Convention on
protection against extreme forms of child labour?

Can it state which ACP countries have still not done so?

What action will it take to speed up the ratification process?

**Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 October 1999)_

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention concerning the prohibition and immediate action
for the elimination of the worst forms of child labour (Convention 182) has to date been ratified by one
Member State of the ILO, namely the Republic of Seychelles. It should be noted that the Convention has
not come into force yet. This will occur only twelve months after the Director-General of the ILO has
registered the first two ratifications. The Commission, for its part, strongly supports the principles
underlying the Convention and hopes for widespread ratification.

The Commission is continuing to fund several projects throughout the world, particularly in developing
countries, that are aimed at improving children’s lot. These projects involve supporting measures geared to
providing legal protection, enabling children to go back to school or making society aware of children’s
rights. Since 1997, projects of this kind have been financed in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Togo,
Nepal and Ghana.

(2000/C 27 E/184) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1617/99**

**by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission**

_(7 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ The forthcoming Directive on Metrology

I understand that the Commission is currently preparing a new directive on metrology.

France is the only EU Member State that insists that all measuring instruments, such as distance measurers,
must be approved by a national authority, in this case the Directions régionales de l’industrie, de la
recherche et de l’environnement (DRIRE). To gain approval, companies need an office and warehouse in
France which DRIRE inspectors can visit in order to inspect each instrument individually.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/151

Does the Commission agree that this is a clear non-tariff barrier preventing the import of measuring
instruments from other EU Member States?

Will the forthcoming directive on metrology address this issue, thereby creating a true single market in
measuring instruments?

**Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 October 1999)_

Most measuring instruments intended for commercial transactions are subject to regulations in all of the
Member States. The scope of the national regulations differs, but these could be justified for reasons of
consumer protection and the maintenance of fair trading.

There have been Community regulations intended to ensure the free movement of certain measuring
instruments since the 1970s. However, as pointed out by the Honourable Member, the Commission is
currently drafting a proposal for a Council and Parliament Directive that is intended to ensure the free
movement of legal measuring instruments. That proposal is intended to amend Community law by taking
account of technical progress and by adopting a new regulatory technique in the shape of the new
approach to technical harmonisation and standardisation. Moreover, it is intended to harmonise the
national laws concerning instruments that are not covered by the Community regulations in force.

The Commission will contact the French authorities in order to obtain explanations concerning the office
and warehouse required in France mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(2000/C 27 E/185) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1619/99**

**by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Regional support areas in the Member States: compatibility with Community objectives

Recently there have been increasing reports to the effect that the regional support areas in the individual
Member States do not correspond with Community objectives.

Please indicate:

1. What requirements are there in Community rules concerning individual Member States’ plans for
support for certain regions?

2. Can the Commission provide details of the European ‘support map’?

3. On what basis are Member States’ details verified by the Union?

4. What does the current Austrian ‘support map’ look like, and are there any doubts as to whether it
conforms to EU directives on aid?

**Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 October 1999)_

The Commission takes it that the Honourable Member is referring to the ‘regional aid map’ in conjunction
with state aid rules. Reference is therefore made to point 5.1. of the guidelines on national regional aid ( [1] )
and the definition of the ‘regional aid map’.

The criteria that a national area needs to fulfil in detail are listed in points 3 and 4 of the guidelines.
Moreover, on the basis of the principle of the exceptional character of aid, the Commission informed all
Member States in February 1998 and December 1998 ( [2] ) that 42,7 % of the Community population may
live in regions eligible under Article 87(3)(a) and (c) (formerly Article 92) of the EC Treaty and calculated
for each Member State the percentage of its population allowed to live in assisted areas. Within this

C 27 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

percentage, Member States choose their eligible regions according to points 3 and 4 of the guidelines. The
statistics provided by the national authorities in this context are checked by the Commission on the basis
of Eurostat data.

It follows from the above that a ‘European map of eligible areas’ exists only in the sense that it is the sum
of all national maps reflecting the eligible areas of the Member States. The current ‘regional aid map’ can
be consulted by the Honourable Member on the home-page of the Directorate-General for Competition
(http://europea.euint/comm/dg04/regaid/regaid_en.htm). The current ‘regional aid map’ for Austria is valid
until 31 December 1999. The map which is going to replace it was notified to the Commission on
31 August 1999 and has received the state aid case number N 525/99. At the moment, the Commission is
examining whether the ‘regional aid map’ is compatible with the common market.

At the same time, Austria notified the Commission of a map showing the regions proposed for
development under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds. The Commission is currently assessing the
compatibility of this map with the Community rules, and in particular with Council Regulation (EC)
1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds ( [3] ). It endeavours to
ensure as much consistency as possible between the areas assisted by the Structural Funds and those
receiving state aid with a regional objective.

( [1] ) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.
( [2] ) OJ C 16, 21.1.1999.
( [3] ) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 27 E/186) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1621/99**

**by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Excessive commission on exchanging lire for francs at Brussels Airport

At 5.41 p.m. on 12 July 1999, an Italian citizen fresh from Italy went to the GOFFIN AIRPORT CHANGE
office at Brussels Airport to change a small sum of money into Belgian francs so that he could take a taxi
to go and visit a family living in Belgium.

After the transaction, the person in question read the receipt (which is in my possession) and realised that
he had been charged a commission of some 10 % (daylight robbery!).

At the request of my compatriot, I went to check in person whether the GOFFIN AIRPORT CHANGE
office displayed any notice of the commission charged. I found nothing �at least at that particular
moment �to indicate that there was a compulsory charge of precisely 9,8 % of the sum to be exchanged.

Whilst I understand and approve of the laws on the free market, I cannot condone the behaviour of an
agency which:

�
while inside an airport (public service) and therefore to a certain extent indispensable for people
arriving in Brussels, not only fails to display its charges, but sets them at a level which is well beyond
the market price, beyond all logic and

�
which loan-sharks themselves would consider exorbitant; this is in breach of the Commission’s
provisions.

I therefore ask the Commission what measures it has taken or what measures it intends to take in this
regard.

**Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 October 1999)_

The Honourable Member will no doubt be aware that on 23 April 1998 the Commission issued
Recommendation 98/286/EC concerning banking charges for conversion to the euro ( [1] ), which contains
some important provisions on transparency. Article 3 provides that, for banknote exchanges of currencies

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/153

in the euro zone, banks and other bodies whose business it is to exchange bank notes (and bureaux de
change as well) should provide to their customers clear and transparent information, namely written
information on the charges to be applied before a transaction. In addition, Recital 7 and Article 4
recommend that, where possible, banks should alter their method of showing charges for currency
exchanges before 1 January 1999, exactly in order to avoid misunderstandings about the level of charges
after this date. According to the verifications personally made by the Honourable Member, this practice
has not been followed by the bureau de change in question and the provisions of the Recommendation
have not been applied.

The Commission has contacted the Belgian ‘Commission bancaire et financière’ and the Belgian ministry of
Economic affairs. Having explained the details of this case, the Commission understands that the bureau de
change in question may be in breach of relevant national rules on display of charges. The case has
therefore been notified to the Belgian authorities.

As for the level of the charges applied, the Recommendation does not ask that banks cease to charge for
the services they provide. Banks shall perform exchange operations free of charge only from 1 January
2002 and subject to certain conditions (i.e. only for their customers, for household amounts and for
conversions from the national currency to the euro). Moreover, there is no legal obligation on banks (as
distinct from central banks which are subject to certain obligations in this area) to exchange national
banknotes of the euro zone currencies. The fact that the bureau de change is located at Brussels airport
does not alter the legal situation, since no public service obligation exists in this case.

In general, the business of currency exchange implies a certain, not negligible cost. The exchange risk,
which no longer exists between currencies of the euro zone, was never a main element of the charges
applied. According to the information available, the exchange risk accounted in the past for approximately
20 % of these charges. Charges still levied are mainly due to handling and overhead costs (transport costs
of large quantities of foreign currencies and the labour intensive nature of these operations).

The way in which banks (including bureaux de change) levy their charges differs widely from case to case.
Some charge on an ‘ad valorem’ basis, others are charging on a flat rate or on a combined basis. In the
latter cases, when a small amount of money is changed, the incidence of the charges can be quite high, as
in the case noted by the Honourable Member.

Nevertheless, the high level of charges for currency exchange within the Community remains a major
concern of the Commission. The Commission has collected information on the level of these charges
since January 1999 and in some cases this analysis has revealed a rather high level of charges, which has
understandably provoked strong reactions among the European public. Even if not unjustified, such
practices undermine consumers’ trust in the single currency and jeopardise public support for this project.
The Commission plans to address this issue in a new communication on payments, which should be
adopted in the near future. Moreover, the Commission is considering the launch of a study on Community
banks’ charging practices for the exchange of euro zone banknotes, as well as for other cross-border
operations (cheques, transfers and payment cards).

( [1] ) OJ L 130, 1.5.1998.

(2000/C 27 E/187) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1629/99**

**by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Package travel directive

Has the Commission studied the legislation implementing the Package Travel Directive (90/314/EEC) ( [1] ) in
Greece, Italy and Spain? Is the Commission satisfied that the implementation provides consumers with
enforceable rights as required by the Directive? If not, what action does the Commission propose to take?

( [1] ) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 59.

C 27 E/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

**Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 October 1999)_

The Commission has examined the national legislation implementing the package travel Directive (90/314/
EEC) in Greece, Italy and Spain, and in all other Member States. A report on the implementation of the
Directive will be released shortly.

As a result of this examination, infringement procedures are pending against Italy (relating to the nonimplementation of a system of travel guarantees, as foreseen by Article 7 of the Directive), and Greece
(where maritime passenger carriers are exempted from the obligation to furnish the security foreseen by
Article 7). In both cases, the Commission has decided to bring the matter before the Court of justice.

Concerning the implementation of the Directive in Italy, the Commission is at this time examining the
question whether the limited scope of application of the Italian legislative decree 111/95 is in line with the
Directive. While the Directive applies to all who, other than occasionally, organise or sell package travel,
the Italian regulation applies only to those holding an authorisation to organise or sell packages.

Finally, the complaints concerning the implementation of European directives by Member States may be
addressed by anyone at any time to the Commission. The Commission examines these complaints with
great attention. In the case of the package travel Directive and the three above-mentioned Member States,
no complaints have until now been received that would indicate a need to open other infringement
proceedings.

(2000/C 27 E/188) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1633/99**

**by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(13 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Threat to birdlife

Is the Commission aware that mechanised cockle harvesting in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland, poses
a threat to birds and their habitat and that this may be in breach of Directives 79/409/EEC ( [1] )and 92/43/
EEC ( [2] ) What action will the Commission take to rectify this?

( [1] ) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
( [2] ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

**Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 October 1999)_

The Commission is not aware that mechanical cockle harvesting in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland,
poses a threat to birds and their habitats.

Strangford Lough has been classified by the United Kingdom as a special protection area (SPA) pursuant to
Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. It has also
been proposed as a site of Community importance pursuant to Article 4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Member States must
take steps to avoid any disturbance of the birds, for which this site has been classified as a SPA, as well as
any deterioration of their habitats.

The Honourable Member is invited to submit further details on the nature and extent of the threat to the
birds and their habitats so that the Commission can investigate the matter with the United Kingdom
authorities.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/155

(2000/C 27 E/189) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1634/99**

**by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(15 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Lifeguards at swimming pools

Can the Commission say whether there is any legislation in the Community requiring lifeguards to be in
attendance at swimming pools in holiday resorts?

What rights do tourists buying holidays have to be informed about the supervision at holiday complexes
in the Community?

Is there any EU legislation on the provision of lifeguards at public bathing spots?

**Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

The question of attendance by lifeguards at swimming pools in holiday resorts as well as that of the
provision of lifeguards at public bathing spots are the competence of national legislation, and there are
therefore no Community rules on these issues.

Concerning the rights that tourists, buying holidays, have in relation to the disclosure of supervision
within the holiday complexes, Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package
holidays and package tours ( [1] ) stipulates only that a number of elements listed in the Annex to the
Directive should be contained in the contract. Among these elements the Annex includes the special
requirements which the consumer has communicated to the organiser or retailer when making the
booking, and which both have accepted.

Therefore, at Community level, only if the contract includes a term (obviously accepted by both parties)
requiring, on an individual basis, specific measures in relation to the disclosure of the supervision within
the holiday complex, has the tourist a right protected by Community law.

Nevertheless, given that Directive 90/314/EEC is a piece of minimum legislation, the national legislative
instruments governing this issue can go beyond the requirements of the Directive.

( [1] ) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2000/C 27 E/190) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1644/99**

**by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE),**
**Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) and Mario Mauro (PPE-DE)to the Commission**

_(22 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Freedom of access to education in Italy

In Italy there is still a serious violation of the right to freedom of education. People are not free to choose
between public and private schooling because of the high cost of private education and the lack of funds
available to it. The European Parliament has on various occasions ( [1] ) expressed its support for freedom of
education in the European Union, emphasising the need to guarantee student mobility with a view to
providing quality education, as advocated by the Treaty of Amsterdam (Article 149).

At the meeting of the Committee on Petitions of 25-26 May 1999, this matter was raised and the clear
discrimination suffered by European citizens was highlighted. At the meeting, the Commission undertook
to ask Eurydice to update the survey conducted in 1993 on private and public education systems in the
Member States to look into the existence of such discrimination.

C 27 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

Will the Commission approach Eurydice to ensure that it promptly collects the necessary data so that the
European Parliament can be informed as soon as possible.

What action does the Commission intend to take with respect to the continuing discrimination against
European citizens in order to guarantee genuine freedom of education within the Community?

( [1] ) EP Resolution 1-1456/83, OJ C 104, 16.4.1984, p. 69; Written Question to the Commission E-1960/98 by
A Tajani and C Assolini; OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 104; Petition 858/98 by A Tajani.

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 October 1999)_

As it pointed out in its reply to petition No 858/98, the Commission, in line with the wishes of the
European Parliament, requested the Eurydice education information network to update its 1992 study on
private and non-public education in the Member States of the European Community. It is planned to
complete the update and put it on the network’s Internet site before the end of 1999. The results of this
new survey will be transmitted to Parliament.

As regards the second point raised by the Honourable Members, the Commission would recall the
Community’s powers as set out in Article 149 (ex-Article 126) of the EC Treaty, which provides:

‘The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation
between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully
respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of
education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.’

The legal rules governing the organisation of the school system in Italy and the other Member States are a
matter for the Member States alone. If rules governing the organisation of the education system do not
discriminate between citizens of one Member State and other Community citizens and apply with equal
force to the two groups, there is no infringement of Community law.

(2000/C 27 E/191) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1646/99**

**by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission**

_(22 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Application of the new Regulation 1621/99 on dried grapes

The provisions of the new Regulation 1621/99 ( [1] ) on the payment of aid for areas set aside for the
production of dried grapes oblige dried grape producers to conclude contracts with processors in advance,
covering both quantity and price, and immediately to set up producer organisations, provide plastic crates,
find storage locations, etc. Certain provisions are causing major problems for producers, some of whom
are at risk of forfeiting the per hectare aid owing to excess production. Consequently the above provisions,
which are making producers the hostages of processors, not only fail to provide any prospects for their
produce but are also likely to lead to a decline in and the eventual abandonment of dried grape
production.

Given that dried grape production represents an important agricultural sector in certain areas of Greece,
will the Commission suspend application of the Regulation and reconsider fundamental changes in order
to avoid harming dried grape production?

( [1] ) OJ L 192, 24.7.1999, p. 21.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/157

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 October 1999)_

The aid per hectare for dried grape production is among the highest paid under the common agricultural
policy. It averages EUR 2 785 per hectare and is as much as EUR 3 200 per hectare for the sultana variety.
In addition replanting aid of EUR 3 917 per hectare is granted for areas affected by phylloxera. Moreover,
Greece has for some years benefited from special financial measures for dried grapes (approximately
EUR 12 million) covering in particular vocational training and improvement of the transport and storage
conditions of dried grapes (boxes, pallets, etc.).

After eight years (1990-98) of applying a flexible system for managing the per hectare aid it was clear that
in the case of the triple purpose (drying, vinification, table grape) sultana variety in particular some of the
fresh grapes from vineyards on which the aid was being paid were being deflected to other uses (as table
grapes or for vinification).

The Commission is responsible for managing the aid scheme in a way that ensures it is effective, i.e. that
dried grapes are produced in a volume and of a quality that justifies the granting of aid, and also that it is
monitored, i.e. that aid is paid only on areas the grape production of which is dried.

The Commission’s preparatory work for modification of the aid scheme’s rules, in which the authorities of
the producer Member States collaborated, lasted more than six months (December 1998-July 1999). The
outcome was adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) 1621/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down detailed
rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/96 as regards aid for the cultivation of grapes to
produce certain varieties of dried grape ( [1] ). To facilitate implementation, the new rules will be introduced
gradually over a 3-year transitional period.

The new system is designed to rally and reorganise the sector and increase its competitiveness by involving
producer organisations in the management of the aid and requiring processing contacts between producers
and processors.

Lastly, the Honourable Member is reminded that the Community suffers from a very big shortfall in dried
grape production. The aid paid to producers, coupled with the other measures mentioned in the first
paragraph, ought to allow Community production to be competitive with imports and consolidate its
position on the European market. The success of the Community’s financial provisions is however entirely
dependent on the will of producers to take advantage of the Community measures and participate actively
in the organisation and modernisation of their sector.

( [1] ) OJ L 192, 24.7.1999.

(2000/C 27 E/192) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1655/99**

**by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Commission**

_(22 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Community subsidies

In recent months various posters have been displayed by an ‘artist’ called Jota Castro near the European
Parliament in Brussels. These posters, of an uncommonly offensive vulgarity, show a naked coloured man,
apparently with an erection. His genitals are covered with the European flag and the poster bears the
slogan, in the eleven languages of the European Union, ‘Integratiebegeerte’ (‘desire for integration’).

It appears, from the Internet site http://www.icono.org/theflag/precisions.htm, that as part of the struggle
against racism the artist has sought to break one of the last taboos: the idea that ‘alien seed is a threat’ (sic).

Jota Castro claims that 50 000 copies of his poster will be displayed in 1999 in the 15 European capitals.
Everything points to this poster being financed by European subsidies as part of the fight against racism.

C 27 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

Was this poster sponsored by Commission subsidies?

If so, what sum was involved, and via what budget item?

When subsidies of this nature are granted, who decides on the quality of the work of art and whether it is
decent? Is it normal for subsidies to be granted to artistic projects which are clearly provocative and semipornographic in nature?

What is the total amount of subsidies paid for anti-racist activities in 1999?

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of these subsidies?

**Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission**

_(26 October 1999)_

The poster the Honourable Member refers to has not been subsidised by the Commission.

Generally, in implementing a budget line, a call for proposals is published, indicating the priorities and
selection criteria. The projects are selected by a selection committee. Projects are approved on the basis of
their quality and European dimension.

In 1999, 7 million € was allocated to budget line B3-2006 (for pilot projects concerning the multicultural
integration of ethnic minorities and measures to combat racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism).

The selection procedure for projects received in 1999 is still under way and so a list of subsidised projects
is not yet available.

(2000/C 27 E/193) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1656/99**

**by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(14 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Sale of wine with fascist labels in Italy

Is the Commission aware that bottles of wine carrying fascist labels are on sale in Italy? For example, in the
Bibione area bottles with labels carrying photographs of Hitler and Mussolini have been found on sale in
supermarkets (including the Spar) and in the centre of the town. The names on the labels include ‘Sieg
Heil’, ‘Führerwein’ and ‘Der Kamerad’. However, I understand from a number of sources that trade
involving fascist symbols is prohibited in Italy.

Does the Commission agree that the sale of products carrying such offensive images is pernicious?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that this situation in Italy is stopped, namely:

�
speak to the Italian government about the current situation;

�
take measures pursuant to Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which calls for appropriate action to
combat discrimination based inter alia on racial or ethnic origin and religion or belief;

�
take any other measures which may be applicable to the situation described?

**Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 October 1999)_

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member on the need to combat every form of
racism or xenophobic manifestation.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/159

A Joint Action was adopted on 15 July 1996 ( [1] ), which calls on Member States to ensure that a number of
behaviours such as public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material containing
expressions of racism and xenophobia are punishable as a criminal offence or failing that, to derogate from
the principle of double criminality for such behaviour. Each Member State should bring forward
appropriate proposals to implement the joint action for consideration by the competent authorities with
a view to their adoption. It seems from the information provided by the Honourable Member that the
Italian law prohibits the sale of fascist symbols. It would therefore be for the Italian authorities to take any
necessary measures to ensure an effective implementation of the legislation adopted in line with the
requirements of the joint action.

( [1] ) OJ L 185, 24.7.1996.

(2000/C 27 E/194) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1657/99**

**by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission**

_(14 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Catastrophic losses in northern Granada

On 4 September 1999 one of the least-favoured rural areas of the province of Granada suffered huge
losses in a violent downpour accompanied by whirlwinds. The damage caused has been estimated at more
than ESP 1 billion.

The olive, almond, maize and vegetable crops in the areas affected, namely the municipalities of Freila,
Zujar, Benamaurel, Cullar and Baza, were almost totally destroyed and major damage was caused to both
housing and infrastructure. These events have compounded the already difficult situation in an area in
which 80 % of the population is living in poverty and which, in economic terms, falls far below the
Community average.

Given the great confidence which those affected have in the Community and the fact that they are
European citizens and support the ‘macro-technological’ programmes administered by the Commission,
and in view of the wide range of possibilities for Structural Fund intervention in the agricultural and rural
development spheres, how does the Commission intend to bring assistance to the area affected?

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

The Commission wishes to manifest its full solidarity with the people of Andalusia who suffered serious
losses and damage in the storm that hit the province of Granada on 4 September 1999.

To help remedy the situation the Spanish authorities (Andalusian regional government and national
government) may under the partnership arrangements wish to decide with the Commission that some of
the Community funds assigned to Andalusia from the Structural Funds be used for restoration of the
damaged infrastructure.

(2000/C 27 E/195) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1658/99**

**by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(14 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Berlin statement on the specific nature of Portuguese agriculture

The Berlin European Council, held on 24-26 March 1999, issued a statement (point 25 of the presidency
conclusions) recognising ‘the need to improve the balance of the support granted to [Portuguese]
agriculture by means of rural development measures, financed by EAGGF Guarantee’.

Bearing in mind that the rural development programmes of each Member State are now being studied with
a view to their adoption, could the Commission give details of the Portuguese programme, especially as
regards the budget funds to be earmarked in the light of the above statement and the related implementing
measures?

C 27 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 October 1999)_

At its meeting on 8 September 1999 the Commission took a decision on the indicative allocation to
Member States of the funding for rural development measures from the Guarantee Section of the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) for the period 2000-06. Under this allocation,
Portugal receives 200 million € annually.

This annual sum is intended to fund only four schemes: early retirement, agro-environmental measures, the
afforestation of agricultural land and aid to the less-favoured areas. All other rural development measures
will be financed by the EAGGF Guidance Fund from Portugal’s overall allocation under the Structural
Funds. This also applies to the Lisboa e Vale do Tejo region which is a beneficiary under the ‘phasing out’
instrument.

In making this allocation the Commission took account as far as possible of the Berlin statement to which
the Honourable Member refers. The annual amount of 200 million € represents an increase of 46,5 %
compared with the average annual amount for the previous period (1994-99) for the same measures,
whereas the average increase for the 15 Member States is only 20,7 %.

The Portuguese national authorities have until 3 January 2000 to submit the draft rural development
programme to the Commission.

(2000/C 27 E/196) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1666/99**

**by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE)**
**and Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Council**

_(22 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Massacres in East Timor

The violence in East Timor is taking on alarming proportions following the call for independence on the
part of this Catholic region (80 % of the votes in the referendum were in favour). It is turning into a
terrible massacre carried out by paramilitary militias, and threatens to become a fully-fledged ethnic
cleansing operation. The government in Jakarta has reported that the situation is out of control �no-one
is being spared and voluntary workers and officials of international organisations are at considerable risk.
Bishop Carlo Felipe Belo, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996 and champion of the rights of East
Timor, is also in danger.

The Council of the European Union is strongly urged to intervene alongside the UN to safeguard the rights
of minorities and all the people under threat, including Bishop Belo, whose house was set on fire, to avoid
having to witness ethnic cleansing comparable with that carried out in the Balkans.

**Reply**

_(8 November 1999)_

The Council shares the concerns expressed by the honourable members over the atrocious acts of terror
which have been committed in East Timor following the announcement of the results of the popular
consultation. The Union has very much welcomed the deployment of Interfet and has praised the
contribution of those Member Sates contributing to it. The Council, in its conclusions of 13 September,
committed itself to seeing the people of East Timor enjoy the independence which they have freely chosen.
The Member States looked forward to recognising East Timor once the process towards independence was
complete. As the honourable members will no doubt be aware, the Council also agreed on that occasion to
an embargo on the export to Indonesia of arms, munition and military equipment, and a ban on the
supply of equipment which might be used for internal repression or terrorism, both for a period of four
months. It agreed to suspend bilateral military cooperation with Indonesia for the same four month period.
The Council furthermore supported the call for a Special Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights
and the Union subsequently took the lead in successfully pursuing a resolution at that session which

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/161

envisages the despatch of an international team to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian law of the type to which the honourable members rightly draw attention.

(2000/C 27 E/197) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1667/99**

**by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission**

_(22 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Unfair exclusion of a soprano from the National Academy of St Cecilia

Mrs Marína Mauro, a soprano who has worked for the National Academy of St Cecilia for many years, has
not had her contract renewed and has been given no justification. This eventuality is envisaged only if staff
have been the cause of artistic, professional or disciplinary disputes. The soprano’s right to be employed
derives from Article 1(3) of the CCNL (collective wage agreement) which states that artistes who have
taken part in the annual selection process in three consecutive years and proved themselves suitable �and
hence were given contracts for each season in those three years �take precedence in the subsequent
seasons, without having to take part in the annual selection process organised by the Academy. Mrs Mauro
has also ascertained that other sopranos have been taken on and been given a contract for the next three
years although they were lower down the list of suitable candidates.

Can the Commission say whether it does not consider that:

1. Mrs Mauro has been the victim of discrimination;

2. her unfair exclusion for the coming academic year infringes her acquired rights, thereby damaging her
personal and professional image as a singer;

3. there is an urgent need to reinstate Mrs Mauro in her role as member of the choir, without her having
to undergo further selection procedures for auxiliary staff who have not acquired any rights of
seniority?

**Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission**

_(26 October 1999)_

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that there is no Community rule governing
the conditions for the renewal of fixed-duration employment contracts.

Neither does the case in question come within the remit of Article 13 (ex Article 6(a)) of the EC Treaty
(anti-discrimination). In the absence of any link with Community law, the case falls within the exclusive
remit of any national legislation which may be applicable.

(2000/C 27 E/198) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1686/99**

**by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(20 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Infringement of Community insurance legislation and distortion of competition in Greece

The incorporation of Community insurance legislation into Greek national law was until recently totally
inadequate, producing distortion of competition and damaging several companies. Even now that the legal
vacuum has been filled, the supervisory authority, i.e. the Greek Government, is not implementing the
provisions and rules of the insurance directives, which has created distortion of competition and a risk that
the insurance market may collapse under enormous deficits since four public companies and another four
private companies alone have a total deficit of more than Drs 65 billion.

C 27 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

1. Is it true that up to the first quarter of 1999, the Greek Government was in breach of the provisions
of Community directives in that it removed, through Presidential Decree 252/96, Chapter 11 of Decree
400/70 and 17 articles seeking to ensure compliance with Directive 91/674/EEC ( [1] )?

2. Is Greece entitled to authorise insurance companies not to cover the necessary reserves by equivalent
and matching assets up to the end of each business year and, more specifically, up to the date of closure of
the accounts, thereby creating reserve coverage deficits?

3. Are the above insurance companies entitled to cover the required reserves for the previous year using
assets acquired the following year, including insurance premiums paid in that year, thereby creating a
further reserve deficit at the end of the next accounting period?

4. Is the Greek authorities’ financial supervision consistent with the provisions of Directive 92/49/
EEC ( [2] ) in allowing insurance companies with insufficient reserves to be listed on the stock exchange and to
spend enormous sums on advertising campaigns?

5. What stage has been reached in Greece with the transposition and implementation of Community
rules on roadside assistance? Is it lawful to link the provision of insurance policies with roadside assistance
contracts offered at knock-down prices, thereby undermining competition?

6. What immediate measures will the Commission take to ensure that Greece complies with Community legislation on insurance and what stage has been reached in investigations into successive allegations
and questions which were brought to the Commission’s attention by the parties concerned in 1997 and
1998?

( [1] ) OJ L 374, 31.12.1991, p. 7.
( [2] ) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 1.

**Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 October 1999)_

The Commission has recently checked the text ( [1] ) which are supposed to implement Council Directive
91/674/EEC of 19 December 1991 concerning the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of
insurance undertakings in Greece. It found that the transposition of Directive 91/674/EEC into Greek law
was almost complete and there was only one point in the national implementing text that needed further
clarification. However, following latest official information from Greece the transposition has been
completed with Presidential Decree 64/24 March 1999.

The Commission has also conducted a study regarding implementation of this Directive in the various
Member States. Previously, in February 1998 it had also got in touch with the Greek authorities asking
whether there was an erroneous reference in the text of the Greek legislation to a ‘Chapter 11’, to which
the Honourable Member refers, or if, effectively, the transposition was incomplete. In fact, there were
many references to this Directive in the text of the Presidential Decree 286 (i.e. Articles 10 of the Decree
implementing Articles 6, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 38, 39, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 of Directive
91/674/EEC; Article 11 of the Decree implementing Articles 6, 12, 15 and 18 of the Directive; Article 16
of the Decree implementing Articles 6, 15, 31, 34, 44, 46 of the Directive) which indicated that the
Directive had been �at least partially �implemented in Greece. Detailed information on the progress of
implementation as well as on supervisory questions (see below) was provided by the Greek authorities
in April 1998. This issue had also been discussed in a bilateral meeting regarding implementation of
Community directives which took place in Athens between the Commission and the Greek authorities
in March 1999. At this meeting the Greek authorities gave satisfactory explanations regarding progress of
implementation as well as Greek supervisory practices.

As regards the methods applied by Greek supervisory authorities to monitor the financial situation of
Greek insurance undertakings, insurance directives �particularly the third non-life insurance Council
Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending directives 73/239/EEC and
88/357/EEC and the third life insurance Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the
coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/163

amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC ( [2] ) �have laid down the supervisory regime for
insurance undertakings in the Community. Insurance undertakings have to establish adequate technical
provisions in respect of their entire business. The amount of such technical provisions must at all times be
sufficient for the insurance undertaking to meet any liabilities arising out of its insurance contracts. The
technical provisions must be represented by matching and equivalent assets. The insurance directives have
laid down the rules concerning the calculation of the technical provisions as well as the rules concerning
the investment of the assets representing these technical provisions by equivalent and matching assets. It is
for supervisory authorities of the Member State of the Greek insurance undertaking head office to verify
these requirements. As far as the Commission knows, the new Greek insurance legislation has implemented these rules.

As for the the Honourable Member’s reference to the listing of insurance companies on the stock
exchange, Directive 79/279/EEC of 5 March 1979 coordinating the conditions for the admission of
securities to official stock exchange listing ( [3] ) made no specific provision for a situation of this kind.
However, paragraph I.1 of Schedule A, which is annexed to the Directive and which sets out the
conditions for the admission of shares to official listing on a stock exchange, lays down a general
requirement to the effect that: ‘the legal position of the company must be in conformity with the laws
and regulations to which it is subject, as regards both its formation and its operation under its statutes’.

( [1] ) Presidential Decree 286; Legislative Decree 400/70 (consolidated version).
( [2] ) OJ L 360, 9.12.1992.
( [3] ) OJ L 66, 16.3.1979.

(2000/C 27 E/199) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1696/99**

**by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission**

_(20 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Euronews

The TV channel, Euronews, broadcasts special programmes providing information about the work of the
EU institutions. What financial support does this channel and its programmes receive from the various EU
institutions? Are there any requirements in regard to the content and focus of the programmes in
connection with such support?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 October 1999)_

Since 1998 the Commission, in agreement with the European Parliament, has been involved in coproducing programmes with the TV channel Euronews. The aim is to produce and broadcast programmes
with a European content, in a non-institutional form, and giving priority to subjects of specific concern to
citizens. The programmes are designed to illustrate a Europe which is close to its people, by showing real
situations taken from everyday life. The intention is also to provide Europeans with practical and useful
information, in particular concerning the possibility of access to opportunities opened up by Community
policies.

The channel’s geographical coverage, the European content of the information it produces and the direct
broadcasting of its programmes in five Community languages all combine to amplify the benefits of this
partnership. A memorandum of understanding with the channel was signed on 26 June 1998, establishing
the principle of a partnership for a period of three years (1998/1999 plan financed by the 1998 budget to
the amount of 3 250 000 €; 1999/2000 plan financed by the 1999 budget to the amount of 3 250 000 €;
2000/2001 plan to be negotiated and financed by the 2000 budget).

This partnership is linked to the development of an expansion programme by Euronews, the objective of
which is to increase its audience as well as the number of languages (currently five Community languages
�French, English, Spanish, German and Italian �plus an Arabic version).

C 27 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

The present agreement covers activities up to 30 April 2000. The programmes consist of 52 approximately 2-minute spots, 222 3,5-minute inserts for after news bulletins, 64 8-minute information features
on practical implications for citizens of the main European policies (including 22 about the euro), and nine
13-minute features on external relations issues. A provisional programme listing is being sent directly to
the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat.

The Commission is responsible for steering and coordinating activities, through an internal assessment
arrangement and regular monitoring meetings with Euronews, which are attended by Parliament representatives. The Community and Euronews each have full non-commercial retransmission and reproduction
rights for the productions. The Commission ensures that Euronews broadcasts accurate and balanced
information, particularly with regard to the positions and activities of the European Institutions. However,
this takes place with due respect for editorial freedom, which is fully guaranteed to Euronews as an
independent channel. As a result, in addition to broadcasting via the channel itself, the Community also
benefits from the production of audiovisual products which it can then put to further use to feed and
enrich the content of its other audiovisual initiatives.

All programmes are retransmitted via the satellite broadcasting system and are therefore directly available
to, and useable by, 900 TV stations in 47 countries, in addition to the 500 programme user institutions of
Europe by Satellite (EBS). The programmes constitute a thematic audiovisual resource which can be utilised
directly for Commission visit programmes, by speakers and representation offices, and by the 125 Commission delegations throughout the world.

(2000/C 27 E/200) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1702/99**

**by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(29 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Draft budget 2000 �expenditure relating to persons working with the Commission

In 1998, the budget heading ‘expenditure relating to persons working with the institution’ (i.e. the
Commission) was ECU 1 641 555 000 (ITL 3 100 billion).

Why is this expenditure set to increase from ITL 3 100 billion to ITL 3 500 billion in 2000 �a rise of
over EUR 202 million (approximately ITL 400 billion)?

In the light of the austerity heralded by Mr Prodi, whereby the Commission was supposed to keep
expenditure within 1998 levels, can the Commission explain the reasons for this increase?

(2000/C 27 E/201) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1703/99**

**by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(29 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Draft budget 2000 �expenditure resulting from special functions carried out by the Commission

In 1998 ECU 246 138 470 (ITL 477 billion) were spent on ‘special functions carried out by the institution’
(i.e. the Commission).

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/165

Can the Commission say why this expenditure is set to increase from EUR 246 million to over
EUR 277 million (i.e. from ITL 477 billion to over 530 billion) in 2000 �a rise of EUR 31 400 000
(approximately ITL 60 billion)?

(2000/C 27 E/202) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1706/99**

**by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(29 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Draft budget 2000 �Staff and administrative expenditure in European Community delegations
and decentralised expenditure on support staff and administration

In 1998, total expenditure on staff and administration in EC delegations and decentralised expenditure on
support staff and administration was ECU 394 million (equivalent to ITL 763 billion).

Can the Commission explain why expenditure of EUR 433 million is envisaged for 2000, representing an
increase of some EUR 40 million (ITL 77 billion)?

**Joint answer**
**to Written Questions E-1702/99, E-1703/99 and E-1706/99**
**given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission**

_(18 November 1999)_

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member
and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.

(2000/C 27 E/203) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1704/99**

**by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(29 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ LIFE programme

The LIFE programme, established by the European Union as an environmental protection measure, has
been divided into two stages: 1991-1995 and 1996-1999.

Can the Commission state:

1. how many and what specific LIFE (environment and nature) projects have been submitted for Italy;

2. how many and which of these projects have been promised funding and for how much;

3. how many and which of the latter have actually been funded as at 10 September 1999.

**Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 November 1999)_

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat a table
containing the information requested.

C 27 E/166 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/204) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1707/99**

**by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission**

_(20 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Commission’s plans regarding freedom of movement for workers in border regions

The expectations raised in regard to freedom of movement since the introduction of the internal market
have not been fulfilled. In border regions, particularly, differences in tax and social security rules between
the Member States seem to be hampering genuine freedom of movement for workers. With the
completion of the permanent link across Øresund, freedom of movement has now become an issue in
my own home region.

Will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to promote freedom of movement in border
regions and, in this context, will it state its position on the promotion of bilateral agreements between
individual Member States on matters such as tax and social security?

**Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 October 1999)_

The Commission made a proposal on 22 July 1997 on amendments to the existing Community law on
freedom of movement of workers ( [1] ). One of the aims of the proposal is to reinforce the application of
equal treatment for Community workers by taking account of the particular situation of frontier workers.

The proposal includes a new provision in Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968,
on freedom of movement for workers within the Community ( [2] ) with reference to the situation of frontier
workers. This provision would constitute a basis for reinforcing the frontier worker’s legal security. It is
important to determine the benefits to which a frontier worker is entitled under the legislation of the
Member State of employment, which is generally designed for workers who are resident. As a rule, it is
considered that a frontier worker should enjoy the same benefits as a resident worker.

The Parliament approved the proposals in first reading with a series of amendments (5 May 1999). The
Economic and social committee delivered a favourable opinion (plenary session of 27 April 1999). The
proposal is not yet on the agenda of the Council.

In its proposal to review and simplify the rules on co-ordination of social security schemes ( [3] ), at present
contained in Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community ( [4] ), the Commission has paid special attention to the situation of frontier workers. The improvements suggested are in
line with those sought by the Parliament in the past and include, for example, facilitating access for retired
frontier workers and their family members to health care. This proposal is at present on the agendas of the
Council and the Parliament.

In the absence of harmonisation at Community level, the apportionment of the taxation rights in bilateral
relations is, as recently confirmed by the Court of justice ( [5] ), the competence of Member States. Although
conventions for the avoidance of double taxation do not exist between all Member States, all those with a
common border have concluded conventions. Relations between Denmark and Sweden are governed by
the Convention of 23 September 1996 concluded between the Nordic countries, as modified by a protocol
of 6 October 1997. Consequently, there should not be any double taxation of cross-border workers and
the Commission does not see the necessity for Community action in this area.

( [1] ) OJ C 344, 12.11.1998.
( [2] ) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.
( [3] ) COM(98) 779 final.
( [4] ) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.
( [5] ) Judgement of 12 May 1998, Case C-336/96 Mr and Mrs Gilly, point No 30.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/167

(2000/C 27 E/205) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1724/99**

**by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission**

_(29 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Regularisation of the universal postal service in the Galician countryside

Directive 97/67/EC ( [1] ) on universal postal services in the European Community �and, consequently, Law
No 24/1998 of the Spanish state �stipulate the obligation at Member State level to operate a universal
postal service and to provide that public service ‘every working day and not less than five days a week’.

This obligation is not being fulfilled in the countryside of Galicia, in which almost 50 % of all the inhabited
localities of the Spanish state are situated, but where the Posts and Telegraphs administration systematically
delivers mail on alternate days only.

This arbitrary practice translates into a large number of lost jobs. It also results in a fictitious reduction in
costs which could, in the future, prevent the authorities concerned from obtaining complementary funding
under Commission rules.

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the Posts and Telegraphs administration of
the Spanish state operates a full postal service in the Galician countryside?

( [1] ) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 14.

**Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 November 1999)_

The postal Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on
common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the
improvement of quality of service does indeed oblige the Member States to take measures to ensure that
the universal service provider guarantees one collection and one delivery every working day and not less
than five days a week, save in circumstances or geographical conditions deemed exceptional by the
national regulatory authorities, which must then communicate these to the Commission. To date, however,
the Commission has received no notification of any exceptional cases of this kind.

Spanish Law No 24/1998 transposes this obligation, which must therefore be met by the postal operator
responsible for the universal service in Spain. It is up to the Spanish authorities to ensure the effective
application of this measure.

Having been notified of the situation in Galicia by the Honourable Member, the Commission will seek
information from the Spanish authorities and remind them of their obligations regarding the universal
postal service. On the basis of the information it receives, the Commission will look into the proper
implementation of this Directive in the case in question and determine what action needs to be taken.

(2000/C 27 E/206) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1726/99**

**by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(27 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Meat hygiene legislation in Rhineland-Palatinate

As already described in Written Question P-0010/1999 ( [1] ), the meat hygiene legislation in the German
Land of Rhineland-Palatinate provides for extremely high inspection costs for animals for slaughter. The
Rhineland-Palatinate meat hygiene implementing law infringes EU law as it does not provide for flat-rate
charges as set out in the 1985 EC Directive on fees. The Directive stipulates that any deviations from the
standard rates must be subject to compliance with efficiency criteria, which have to be laid down by law.
Slaughter volume is not considered an admissible criterion under EU law, but is recognised as such in

C 27 E/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

Rhineland-Palatinate’s meat hygiene implementing law. Consequently, as far as Europe-wide competition is
concerned, meat-producing firms in Rhineland-Palatinate are being forced to suffer severe disadvantages on
account of their location. In its answer of 10 February 1999 the Commission agreed to ask the German
Government to forward a copy of the new Rhineland-Palatinate law and to explain why Rhineland
Palatinate is charging amounts that diverge so widely from the EU flat-rate charges.

Please indicate:

1. Does the Commission yet know how the Rhineland-Palatinate Government explains and justifies this
infringement?

2. What steps does the Commission intend to take against this infringement?

( [1] ) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 134.

**Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 October 1999)_

As indicated on 10 February 1999 in its answer to written question No P-10/99 ( [1] ) from the Honourable
Member, the Commission has requested and received from the German authorities the Rhineland-Palatinate
legislation on fees for inspections and health controls on fresh meat.

The justification put forward by the German authorities for charging fees that are higher than the flat-rate
charges set out in Directive 85/73/EEC (as amended by Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 on
the financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and certain animal products and
amending Directives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC ( [2] )) is based on the derogation contained in Article 5(3)
of the Directive, which allows Member States to charge higher amounts.

Although the costs of inspections and controls applied in Rhineland-Palatinate are significantly higher than
the Community flat-rate charges, the Commission cannot take any action, as the Court of Justice, in its
judgment of 9 September 1999 (case C-374/97, Anton Feyrer v. Landkreis Rottal-Inn), has ruled that:

A Member State may exercise the option available under point 4(b) of Chapter I of the Annex to
Directive 85/73, as amended by Directive 93/118 ( [3] ), of collecting a special fee exceeding the level of
standard fees fixed in point 1 of Chapter I, provided only that the special fee does not exceed the
actual costs incurred, no further conditions being imposed.

In cases where a Member State has delegated to local authorities the collection of fees relating to
health inspections and controls of fresh meat, Article 2(3) of Directive 85/73, as amended by Directive
93/118, authorises it to collect an amount higher than Community fee levels so long as it does not
exceed the actual costs of inspection incurred by the competent local authority.

In the light of this judgment, disputes relating to consistency between the amounts charged for inspections
and controls of fresh meat and the actual costs incurred by local authorities should preferably be dealt with
by the national courts, which are in a position to verify these specific aspects on the spot.

( [1] ) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 134.
( [2] ) OJ L 162, 1.7.1996.
( [3] ) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/169

(2000/C 27 E/207) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1749/99**

**by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission**

_(30 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Position of the Commission on electoral systems

According to the Financial Times (8 August 1999), Mr Ramiro Cibrian, the Commission’s representative in
Prague, has expressed EU criticism of the proposal to reform the electoral system in the Czech Republic,
which seeks to replace the present system of proportional representation with the first-past-the-post
system.

When did the Commission decide that it was, as a matter of policy, in favour of proportional
representation and against the first-past-the-post system?

Will it explain why it has taken this stance in favour of proportional representation?

What steps has it taken or does it intend to take vis-à-vis those Member States which, despite the position
it has adopted, still use the first-past-the-post system?

What measures has the Commission taken or does it intend to take to block political initiatives and
referendum proposals in EU Member States aimed at replacing proportional representation with first-pastthe-post?

Is the Commission aware that virtually all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes which appeared in Europe
during the first half of this century were in countries with electoral systems based on proportional
representation and that the party-dominated regimes that emerged in Europe during the second half of the
century were also in countries with proportional or pseudo-proportional (mixed or two-ballot first-pastthe-post) systems?

**Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 October 1999)_

The Head of the Commission Delegation in Prague did not make the comments attributed to him in the
article to which the Honourable Member refers.

(2000/C 27 E/208) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1750/99**

**by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission**

_(30 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Conversion of the Apulia waterworks into a joint stock company

Over the last few days the Italian Ministry of Finance has collected a special dividend from ENEL (the
Italian national electricity board) of ITL 4 422 billion, taken directly from its reserves, as well as a
‘provisional’ payment of 3 100 billion for the purchase of three water supply management companies in
Apulia and Lucania.

This transaction has caused considerable disquiet even in government circles (it was notably criticised by
the State Secretary for Public Works, Mr Mattioli). It has also caused concern amongst the regional and
local authorities of Apulia and Lucania (which have been arbitrarily divested of some of their statutory
functions, as well as assets of 20 000 km of water pipes), consumer associations (i.e. ADUC) and members
of the Italian Parliament.

The proposed reform of the EAAP (regional authority for the Apulian water supply system) had already
been found by the former Commissioner for Competition, Karel Van Miert, to be in breach of Article 92 of
the Treaty.

Furthermore, in converting the EAAP into Apulia Waterworks plc., the Italian Government has acted in an
authoritarian manner, disregarding the provision of Law 36/1994 which confers upon the relevant
authority, in this case the local authorities acting jointly, the power to choose the appropriate form of
management �be it a so-called ‘special’ enterprise (ex-municipal enterprise), a joint enterprise or a private
franchise.

C 27 E/170 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

By directly handing over the water supply system to Apulia Waterworks plc, which is wholly owned by
the Ministry of Finance, the government has contravened EU guidelines, in particular those contained in
the Commission communication (DGXV/B) of 24 February 1999 which stated that any provisions which
reserve certain public contracts for prevalently or fully State-owned or public companies should be
considered contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and the principle of equal treatment.

Moreover, for the financial rehabilitation of Apulia Waterworks plc, the Italian Government will pay out
30 billion lire a year for 20 years.

In the light of the above, can the Commission say whether the Treaty has been infringed in the transfer of
the Apulian waterworks to ENEL and, if so, does it not consider that immediate intervention is needed in
order to bring the Italian Government back into line with Community rules?

**Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 October 1999)_

Following the comments made by the Honourable Member, the Commission intends to ask the Italian
authorities for all the information it needs in order to assess whether the handover of the water supply
service to Apulia Waterworks plc (Acquedotto pugliese S.p.A.) is compatible with the Community law on
public contracts. To this end, the Commission is currently drafting a letter to be sent to the Italian
authorities asking them to clarify all aspects of the transaction.

If it were to emerge from the examination of this information that the procedures followed were
incompatible with the aforementioned Community law, the Commission could initiate infringement
proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(2000/C 27 E/209) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1758/99**

**by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission**

_(30 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ EU economic and social cohesion policy

Cohesion Policy is one of the fundamental elements of European integration.

DG XVI used to be called the Directorate-General for Regional Policy and Cohesion. According to the
information presented to us about the reorganisation of the Commission, cohesion is no longer mentioned
in this DG’s name.

What is the political and administrative significance of this change? Does it mean that the new
Commission no longer sees cohesion as an essential goal?

What will happen to the former Division on Cohesion?

**Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 November 1999)_

The Commission’s departments were recently renamed following the wholesale reorganisation of the
institution initiated by me; a number of new departments have been created and others restructured.

In the case of the Directorate-General to which the Honourable Member refers, only its name has been
changed (to Regional Policy DG). For simplicity’s sake, the Commission has decided to give its Directorates-General short, clear names which anyone who has dealings with them can readily understand.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/171

It goes without saying that the Regional Policy DG’s terms of reference remain the same and that its
responsibilities still include management of the Cohesion Fund. More generally, as provided for in Article
158 (formerly Article 130a) of the EC Treaty and as confirmed by the Structural Fund regulations for the
next programming period, the overall objective of economic and social cohesion remains the primary aim
of regional policy.

(2000/C 27 E/210) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1766/99**

**by António Campos (PSE) to the Commission**

_(11 October 1999)_

_Subject:_ The common agricultural policy

In his investiture speech, the President of the Commission undertook to ensure full transparency
concerning the use of Union funds, as well as full cooperation with Parliament.

In the interests of the promised transparency and cooperation, can the Commission provide information
on the following:

1. the level of total annual expenditure under the EAGGF (Guarantee), together with a list of the hundred
biggest beneficiaries in each Member State;

2. the percentage of total EAGGF (Guarantee) payments to each Member State corresponding to those
hundred beneficiaries;

3. the number of farmers benefiting from EAGGF (Guarantee) support in each Member State;

4. the total number of farmers in each Member State.

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 November 1999)_

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

(2000/C 27 E/211) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1773/99**

**by Liam Hyland (UEN) to the Commission**

_(11 October 1999)_

_Subject:_ Commission’s work programme for 1999 and new Commission

The work programme for 1999 of the Santer Commission pays particular attention to putting Agenda
2000 into effect in 1999. Does the Commission, under its new President, Mr Prodi, intend to alter the
present work programme for 1999 and in view of the need to restore consumer confidence in a wide
variety of essential foods, will the Commission agree to putting a new policy in place in favour of the
family farm and rural society?

**Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission**

_(25 October 1999)_

The new Commission intends to give full effect to the 1999 work programme with regard to implementing Agenda 2000.

C 27 E/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

In particular concerning the Community’s policy in favour of family farm and rural society, the
Commission has tabled its policy proposition in the Agenda 2000 context. A new regulation on support
for rural development from the European agricultural guidances and guarantee fund has been adopted by
the Council on 17 May 1999 ( [1] ).

Regional and rural development programmes will explicitly address the development needs of the rural
society. With the Agenda 2000 reforms, rural development will be established as a second pillar of the
common agricultural policy made available for all rural areas. Establishing the programmes at the
appropriate territorial level will be the next important step before a successful implementation can start.
Within the budgetary framework fixed by the Berlin European Council, the Commission’s task will also be
to ensure that the money available is fully used for the benefit of European rural society.

The need to regain consumers’ confidence in the quality and safety of foodstuffs is fully recognised by the
new Commission. A white paper on food safety, proposing a comprehensive action plan, will be presented
before the end of 1999.

( [1] ) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 27 E/212) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1775/99**

**by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission**

_(11 October 1999)_

_Subject:_ Membership of Commissioners’ ‘cabinets’

The Commission President, Mr Prodi, has told Parliament that he has given instructions that the membership of the Commissioners’ ‘cabinets’ should be multinational and should respect the principle of parity
between men and women.

Can the Commission provide the necessary information on the membership of the twenty ‘cabinets’, to
enable the degree of fulfilment of these two objectives to be analysed?

**Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission**

_(18 October 1999)_

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2000/C 27 E/213) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1795/99**

**by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission**

_(30 September 1999)_

_Subject:_ Undercutting of a Member State’s domestic labour force

Will the Commission explain its position on the problems that arise when domestic and foreign workers
are paid at different rates in a Member State and say what steps it might take to deal with such problems?

Like labour markets in comparable countries, the Danish labour market is highly organised and pay and
working conditions are regulated by agreements between the two sides of industry.

The free movement of workers between EU Member States is creating major problems for Danish workers
and businesses with regard to their ability to compete in the internal market.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/173

The Ørestadsselskabet consortium is currently building a light rail system in Copenhagen. Following a
Europe-wide call for tenders, the entire civil engineering project was awarded to Ansaldo and the
subcontractor Carlo Gavazzi of Italy, and they are employing Portuguese electricians at much lower rates
of pay than the going rate for Danish electricians. A poorly organised, or non-organised, labour force is
thus undercutting the domestic labour force and hence inflicting significant damage on the Danish labour
market, which has harmful consequences for the Danish social system.

It goes without saying that it is highly unsatisfactory when the labour market of a stable society is
undermined in this way.

**Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 October 1999)_

The Commission would recall that Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of
16 December 1996 ( [1] ) concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services
aims to ensure fair competition in the context of the provision of transnational services while guaranteeing
respect for workers’ rights.

When undertakings established in a Member State, in the framework of the transnational provision of
services, post workers to the territory of another Member State, they must comply with certain imperative
rules and guarantee certain working conditions in force in the host Member State to these posted workers.
These terms and conditions are set out in Article 3 of the Directive, and mainly concern minimum rates of
pay and minimum paid annual holidays which are laid down by law, regulation or administrative
provisions and/or by collective agreements which have been declared universally applicable insofar as
they concern building work. However, Member States are authorised to impose on undertakings subject to
the Directive the working conditions laid down by collective agreements in respect of activities other than
building work, provided these agreements meet the criteria set out in the Directive.

Directive 96/71/EC has to be transposed into the legal orders of the Member States by 16 December 1999
at the latest.

( [1] ) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

(2000/C 27 E/214) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1819/99**

**by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(12 October 1999)_

_Subject:_ ‘Europe against Cancer’ programme

Can the Commission state to what extent funding or subsidies have been awarded (with payments already
disbursed, or not), and to what bodies (public or private), institutions, undertakings, cooperatives or
individuals, in connection with the ‘European against Cancer’ programme �Action plans 1987-89, 199094 and 1996-2000?

Have the actual deployment of the funds and the successful outcome of the initiatives been verified?

**Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(25 October 1999)_

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

C 27 E/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/215) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1827/99**

**by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission**

_(13 October 1999)_

_Subject:_ Structural aid for private firms’ marketing and staff training

What will the Commission do to prevent the distortion of competition and waste of EU resources which
are caused by the EU’s subsidising of private firms’ marketing, in-house training and rationalisation
measures?

This week, the Danish press has reported that EU structural fund aid has been granted to Danish firms for
the training of private-sector staff, company rationalisation and advertising campaigns.

It has caused astonishment that individual firms, with the aid of consultants versed in the formulations and
key words which persuade the EU’s administration to grant money, have obtained such subsidies. The
funds are allocated to firms entirely at random, thereby distorting competition. I have received a 16-page
pamphlet of advertising from the Landsforeningen af Danske Plantehandlere (the national Danish association of plant traders), 1 230 000 copies of which have been distributed, i.e. one to practically every
household in Denmark. Household-distributed printed matter is one form of squandering resources that
many members of the public wish to restrict. This pamphlet bears the EU’s logo and the caption
‘Campaign funded with the aid of the European Community’.

The structural aid allocated to Denmark is very limited and there are far more provocative examples of the
absurd use of structural fund aid in those countries which receive massive subsidies. If the EU granted aid
to improve basic education in Denmark or to expand facilities for training doctors at our universities, that
would undoubtedly make a positive impression on the Danish people but to hand out European taxpayers’
money at random to private firms is a provocation which highlights the fact that the Commission is not
complying with EU rules designed to avoid distortion of competition and is not interested in what it gets
for the money but merely aims to ensure that the funds are used up.

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 November 1999)_

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

(2000/C 27 E/216) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1835/99**

**by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission**

_(13 October 1999)_

_Subject:_ Community initiative on fisheries in Greece

The Community initiative on fisheries in Greece includes four subprogrammes, together with a fifth
concerning technical aid. Since each of the subprogrammes 1-4 has been given a timetable.

Will the Commission say:

1. What is the state of implementation of the subprogrammes so far and which actions have made
progress in each subprogramme?

2. Has there been any delay in take-up and, if so, what are the main reasons for this delay?

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/175

**Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 November 1999)_

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat a table
containing the information requested.

(2000/C 27 E/217) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-1890/99**

**by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR) to the Commission**

_(14 October 1999)_

_Subject:_ Facilities to be built close to Castel del Monte

The town Council of Andria in the province of Bari has approved a project which will involve the creation
of an area including facilities such as a ticket office, a book shop, a restaurant, various other services and a
car park in close proximity to the octagonal castle built for Frederic II of Swabia between 1240 and
1250 known as ‘Castel del Monte’.

Its very definition as an artistic monument indicates that the castle and the hill on which it stands
constitute a single cultural asset, which Unesco has included on its list of world heritage sites.

It is quite clear that if the project is executed in its present form it will alter and cause unacceptable
damage to the integrity of this historic site and the surrounding landscape.

The project has benefited from EU funding, as it is one of the projects financed to develop and exploit
tourism in Objective 1 regions (multi-regional operational plan for the Italian Mezzogiorno).

Can the Commission say whether the project has been the subject of the required opinions from the
competent authorities, in particular the Bari Environmental, Architectural and Artistic Heritage Office and
the Ministry for Cultural Assets and Activities;

Whether it intends to take steps to block the funding earmarked by the European Union, in order to
ensure that the execution of the project is suspended in accordance with the relevant Italian conservation
law and the European legislation designed to cover such cases?

Can it also say whether it intends to make European funding subject to an appropriate modification of the
project, whereby the envisaged facilities and car park would be moved downhill in order to preserve the
local landscape and the beauty of this artistic and historic monument?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 October 1999)_

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

(2000/C 27 E/218) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-1912/99**

**by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission**

_(29 October 1999)_

_Subject:_ Substandard road construction funded by the 2nd Community Support Framework for Greece

In reply to my previous question (P-3016/98) ( [1] ), the Commission acknowledged that there were widespread problems with substandard road-building in Greece funded by the 2nd Community Support
Framework and assured me that it would monitor the question closely and would not fail to apply the
relevant Community rules, if necessary.

C 27 E/176 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.1.2000

Will the Commission say whether it has any further information concerning the extent of substandard
workmanship in all the projects funded in Greece by the 2nd CSF? Does that information show that the
proportion of substandard work has fallen and that Greece has taken the necessary measures to remedy it?
If not, will the Commission say what steps it will take to ensure that this tremendously important issue is
now dealt with seriously and that those responsible are held to account?

( [1] ) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 42.

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 November 1999)_

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

(2000/C 27 E/219) **WRITTEN QUESTION E-2000/99**

**by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission**

_(9 November 1999)_

_Subject:_ Task Force on Vitamins and Minerals

What is the remit of the Commission’s Task Force on Vitamins and Minerals? Who are its members?

**Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 November 1999)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to Written Questions E-1552/
1999 and E-1593/1999 by Mr Graham Watson and others ( [1] ).

( [1] ) See page 128.

(2000/C 27 E/220) **WRITTEN QUESTION P-2017/99**

**by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission**

_(28 October 1999)_

_Subject:_ Report on quality control of 2nd CSF projects

On 13 October 1998, in reply to my question No E-2176/98 ( [1] ), the then Commissioner, Mrs WulfMathies, said that the first ESPEL quarterly report had found that quality problems did exist in various
projects and that ESPEL would proceed to carry out systematic and in-depth checks on 2nd CSF projects.

In the light of the large number of accidents on Greek motorways caused by substandard work and
inadequate checking systems, will the Commission say what the results of ESPEL’s checks are to date? In
which specific projects have substandard work or shortcomings been identified? Have those been rectified
by the contractors and at whose expense? What financial, disciplinary, penal or other administrative
consequences (e.g. blacklisting) will be imposed on those responsible for the failings and substandard
work?

( [1] ) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999, p. 51 and OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 16.

29.1.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 27 E/177

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(10 November 1999)_

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