Official Journal C 374 E Volume 43 of the European Communities 28 December 2000

ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C 374 E Volume 43 of the European Communities 28 December 2000

English edition Information and Notices

Notice No Contents Page

I (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2000/C 374 E/001) E-2031/99 by Lennart Sacrédeus to the Commission Subject: Reprimanding of Paul van Buitenen ...... 1

(2000/C 374 E/002) P-2280/99 by Bartho Pronk to the Commission Subject: Promise of financial aid to Kosovo ...... 2

(2000/C 374 E/003) E-2404/99 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Uptake of funds for the RETEX Community Initiative (Supplementary Answer) ...... 3

(2000/C 374 E/004) E-2485/99 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the Commission Subject: Aid in connection with the permanent link across the Øresund Strait ...... 4

(2000/C 374 E/005) E-2502/99 by Rolf Linkohr to the Council Subject: Europe Agreements with Eastern European countries ...... 5

(2000/C 374 E/006) E-2642/99 by Andrew Duff to the Commission Subject: Allocation of rural development funds to Member States ...... 6

(2000/C 374 E/007) E-2655/99 by Guido Podestà to the Commission Subject: Flight delays ...... 7

(2000/C 374 E/008) E-2661/99 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Developing countries and world trade ...... 8

(2000/C 374 E/009) E-2662/99 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Impact of procurement liberalisation on developing countries ...... 8

(2000/C 374 E/010) E-2663/99 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Public procurement liberalisation ...... 8

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2661/99, E-2662/99 and E-2663/99 ...... 8 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 374 E/011) E-2673/99 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: Import of donkeys from CEECs to the EU for slaughter ...... 10 (2000/C 374 E/012) E-2702/99 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Approval procedures for projects seeking ERDF support ...... 10 (2000/C 374 E/013) E-2703/99 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Cotton production in Asia ...... 11 (2000/C 374 E/014) E-2743/99 by Emilia Müller to the Commission Subject: Special aid for France ...... 12 (2000/C 374 E/015) E-2762/99 by Lucio Manisco to the Commission Subject: The Russian Federation’s ultimatum to the city of Grozny ...... 12 (2000/C 374 E/016) E-2766/99 by Jas Gawronski to the Council Subject: Measures to resolve the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea ...... 13 (2000/C 374 E/017) E-2784/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Compensation for relatives of victims following air crash ...... 14 (2000/C 374 E/018) E-2785/99 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Destruction of a Natura 2000 protected area by an EU-funded project ...... 15 (2000/C 374 E/019) E-2796/99 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: The food canning industry and the contribution there of the EU food aid policy ...... 16 (2000/C 374 E/020) E-2806/99 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Innovation and technology at ministry level ...... 17 (2000/C 374 E/021) E-0021/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: The outermost regions and the allocation of structural funds ...... 18 (2000/C 374 E/022) E-0040/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Commission Subject: Cuts in the Poseima budget ...... 19 (2000/C 374 E/023) E-0059/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: The relationship between the Structural Funds and the non-implementation of EU environmental legislation by a Member State ...... 19 (2000/C 374 E/024) E-0073/00 by Phillip Whitehead to the Commission Subject: Sewage sludge in animal feedstuffs ...... 20 (2000/C 374 E/025) E-0074/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann to the Commission Subject: Risks linked to BSE ...... 21 (2000/C 374 E/026) E-0087/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Adoption of a regional development plan for Galicia and Northern Portugal within the 2000-2006 Community Support Frameworks ...... 22 (2000/C 374 E/027) E-0096/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Comprehensive plan to clean up the Vigo ria ...... 22 (2000/C 374 E/028) E-0098/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Application of the partnership principle in the drawing-up of the 2000-2006 Regional Development Plan for Spain’s Objective 1 Autonomous Communities ...... 23 (2000/C 374 E/029) E-0103/00 by Jo Leinen to the Commission Subject: Compatibility with Community law of a Danish law on the levying of capital gains tax in the event of transfer to another Member State ...... 24 (2000/C 374 E/030) E-0106/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz to the Commission Subject: Financial support for infrastructure in the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe quality of projects ...... 25 (2000/C 374 E/031) E-0119/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Turnover tax on passenger transport EU Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 ...... 25 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 374 E/032) E-0121/00 by Ioannis Souladakis to the Commission Subject: Breach of the EU-South African Trade Agreement ...... 27 (2000/C 374 E/033) E-0122/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Protection of the designation ‘ouzo’ in the EU-South Africa agreement ...... 28 (2000/C 374 E/034) E-0126/00 by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero to the Commission Subject: Delays at Madrid Barajas airport ...... 29 (2000/C 374 E/035) E-0151/00 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: State aid and the coal industry ...... 30 (2000/C 374 E/036) E-0174/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Request that the ECB change the system of weekly auctions ...... 30 (2000/C 374 E/037) E-0181/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Reintroduction of wolves, bears and lynx ...... 31 (2000/C 374 E/038) P-0195/00 by Elisabeth Schroedter to the Commission Subject: Interreg Project in Schwedt, Brandenburg (Germany) use of tropical wood in a project receiving maximum EU funding ...... 32 (2000/C 374 E/039) P-0199/00 by Mogens Camre to the Commission Subject: Unfair competition in prices on Danish export markets due to EU subsidy for feta cheese products .... 33 (2000/C 374 E/040) P-0200/00 by Reinhard Rack to the Commission Subject: Posts at the European Commission reserved for Austrian nationals Grade A2 (to be specified as such) .33 (2000/C 374 E/041) E-0204/00 by Freddy Blak to the Commission Subject: Travelling with guide dogs ...... 34 (2000/C 374 E/042) E-0210/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: The ‘Erika’ disaster and the fisheries sector ...... 35 (2000/C 374 E/043) E-0216/00 by Enrico Ferri to the Commission Subject: Internal competitions COM/TA/99, COM/TB/99 and COM/TC/99 ...... 37 (2000/C 374 E/044) E-0219/00 by Dorette Corbey to the Commission Subject: EU aid to France for the ‘Route Forestière du Port des Moines’ in Morvan, Burgundy ...... 38 (2000/C 374 E/045) E-0230/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: Publication of answers to questions to the Commission ...... 39 (2000/C 374 E/046) E-0234/00 by Luigi Vinci to the Commission Subject: Environmental impact assessment of the Malpensa project ...... 40 (2000/C 374 E/047) E-0236/00 by Charles Tannock to the Commission Subject: The future of wood-burning ovens ...... 41 (2000/C 374 E/048) E-0238/00 by Jillian Evans to the Commission Subject: Structural fund additionality ...... 42 (2000/C 374 E/049) E-0239/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Territorial employment pacts ...... 42 (2000/C 374 E/050) P-0242/00 by Michiel van Hulten to the Commission Subject: Appointment of a new Commission Director-General for Agriculture ...... 43 (2000/C 374 E/051) E-0245/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Refund of resources lost owing to a shortfall in tobacco deliveries ...... 44 (2000/C 374 E/052) E-0248/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Impact on Greek agricultural produce of the trade agreement between the EU and South Africa ...... 45 (2000/C 374 E/053) E-0252/00 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Secondary employment ...... 46 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 374 E/054) E-0254/00 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Commissioners’ cabinets ...... 46 (2000/C 374 E/055) E-0260/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Combating alcohol consumption by pilots in civil aviation ...... 47 (2000/C 374 E/056) P-0262/00 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: OLAF ...... 48 (2000/C 374 E/057) E-0264/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the Commission Subject: Light pollution ...... 49 (2000/C 374 E/058) E-0265/00 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Commission Subject: Observatory for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation ...... 50 (2000/C 374 E/059) P-0280/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the Commission Subject: Directive on renewable energy ...... 50 (2000/C 374 E/060) E-0289/00 by Arie Oostlander to the Council Subject: Kosovar prisoners in Serbia ...... 51 (2000/C 374 E/061) E-0292/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Zimbabwean defence of asbestos industry ...... 52 (2000/C 374 E/062) P-0304/00 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Delays in completing Cohesion Fund projects in Greece: biological sewage treatment and reorganisation of landfill sites in Thessaloniki (Supplementary Answer) ...... 53 (2000/C 374 E/063) P-0308/00 by Jean-Claude Fruteau to the Commission Subject: Enlargement and the Structural Funds ...... 54 (2000/C 374 E/064) E-0311/00 by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou to the Commission Subject: Legislation on the abuse of women ...... 55 (2000/C 374 E/065) E-0313/00 by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou to the Commission Subject: Safeguarding the social rights of gypsies ...... 56 (2000/C 374 E/066) E-0346/00 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the Commission Subject: Competence in connection with the economic agreement drawn up by the Spanish government’s representatives in the Basque Country ...... 57 (2000/C 374 E/067) E-0355/00 by Ward Beysen to the Commission Subject: Copyright directive ...... 57 (2000/C 374 E/068) P-0359/00 by Robert Evans to the Commission Subject: Bonded labour ...... 58 (2000/C 374 E/069) E-0365/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Support for Member State company interests overseas ...... 59 (2000/C 374 E/070) E-0369/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Socio-economic impact of the initiative on employment ...... 60 (2000/C 374 E/071) E-0373/00 by Andre Brie to the Commission Subject: Release of EU Structural Fund monies on the basis of the designation of FFH areas (Directive 92/43/EEC) in East German Länder ...... 61 (2000/C 374 E/072) E-0378/00 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Review of EU sheepmeat regime ...... 62 (2000/C 374 E/073) E-0380/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz to the Commission Subject: Improvement of road infrastructures in the central and eastern European states ...... 62 (2000/C 374 E/074) E-0387/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Seizure of Galician boats by Irish naval vessels ...... 64 (2000/C 374 E/075) P-0392/00 by Inger Schörling to the Commission Subject: Public access to information and protection of source ...... 64 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 374 E/076) E-0399/00 by Ioannis Averoff and Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Implementation of Community legislation and Community funding for Greece for the protection of forestry ...... 65 (2000/C 374 E/077) E-0400/00 by William Newton Dunn to the Commission Subject: Melton Mowbray pork pies ...... 66 (2000/C 374 E/078) E-0402/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Arrest of the skipper of a fishing vessel on Réunion ...... 67 (2000/C 374 E/079) E-0407/00 by Gerhard Schmid to the Commission Subject: Compensation for German shipping and transport firm operating on the Danube following the closing of the Yugoslav section of the Danube ...... 68 (2000/C 374 E/080) E-0410/00 by Glenys Kinnock to the Commission Subject: Cambodia ...... 68 (2000/C 374 E/081) E-0416/00 by Caroline Jackson to the Commission Subject: Lower rate of VAT on recombinant products ...... 69 (2000/C 374 E/082) E-0418/00 by Erik Meijer to the Commission Subject: Curtailing beam-trawl fishing owing to damage to the sea-bed environment ...... 70 (2000/C 374 E/083) E-0421/00 by Ulrich Stockmann to the Commission Subject: Equipping of motor vehicles with warning triangles ...... 71 (2000/C 374 E/084) E-0422/00 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Installation of Greek Electricity Board (DEI) pylons in the Cyclades ...... 71 (2000/C 374 E/085) E-0429/00 by Ioannis Averoff, Antonios Trakatellis and Christos Folias to the Commission Subject: Funding of agricultural development in Greece ...... 73 (2000/C 374 E/086) E-0430/00 by Pat Gallagher to the Commission Subject: Development, validation and legal acceptance of alternative methods to animal testing experiments .... 74 (2000/C 374 E/087) E-0431/00 by Patricia McKenna to the Commission Subject: Environmental impact of afforestation, land reclamation and peat extraction ...... 74 (2000/C 374 E/088) P-0439/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the Commission Subject: European invitation to tender for EU contract for supply of gabion matting to Bolivia ...... 76 (2000/C 374 E/089) E-0446/00 by Christos Folias to the Commission Subject: Official languages and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market ...... 76 (2000/C 374 E/090) P-0450/00 by Francesco Musotto to the Commission Subject: Regional policy and the structural funds operational plan for the region of Sicily ...... 77 (2000/C 374 E/091) P-0451/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the Council Subject: Distortion of competition resulting from different tax arrangements within the EU ...... 78 (2000/C 374 E/092) P-0452/00 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Turkish ‘free zones’ and textile exports ...... 79 (2000/C 374 E/093) E-0453/00 by Karin Jöns to the Council Subject: Regulation (EC) temporarily suspending some or all of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain fishery products ...... 79 (2000/C 374 E/094) E-0463/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Legal challenges to the extension of An Post’s contract to issue social welfare payments in Ireland .... 81 (2000/C 374 E/095) E-0465/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Commission policy on implementation of the EU budget for 2000 in respect of the promotion and safeguard of regional and minority languages ...... 81 (2000/C 374 E/096) E-0478/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Preparation by the European Commission of the proposed legal basis for the Archipelago action programme on the minority and regional languages of the EU ...... 82 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0465/00 and E-0478/00 ...... 82 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 374 E/097) E-0468/00 by Isabelle Caullery to the Commission Subject: European Union employment policy ...... 83 (2000/C 374 E/098) E-0471/00 by Mathieu Grosch to the Commission Subject: JOP Programme ...... 85 (2000/C 374 E/099) E-0474/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the Commission Subject: Aid for Sicilian fishermen ...... 85 (2000/C 374 E/100) E-0481/00 by Alejandro Cercas to the Commission Subject: Funding under the URBAN Community initiative ...... 86 (2000/C 374 E/101) E-0484/00 by Alejandro Cercas to the Commission Subject: Funding under the Leader+ Community initiative ...... 86 (2000/C 374 E/102) E-0491/00 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Agricultural subsidies paid to US farmers ...... 87 (2000/C 374 E/103) E-0495/00 by Mauro Nobilia, Cristiana Muscardini, Sergio Berlato and Francesco Turchi to the Commission Subject: Specific character of foodstuffs ...... 88 (2000/C 374 E/104) E-0496/00 by Mauro Nobilia, Cristiana Muscardini, Sergio Berlato and Francesco Turchi to the Commission Subject: Consumer protection ...... 89 (2000/C 374 E/105) E-0501/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Council Subject: Council staff working hours ...... 91 (2000/C 374 E/106) E-0502/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Commission staff working hours ...... 91 (2000/C 374 E/107) E-0508/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Real per capita gross regional product figures ...... 92 (2000/C 374 E/108) E-0510/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Studies of inflation differentials ...... 93 (2000/C 374 E/109) E-0511/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Disrespect for EU law by Member States ...... 94 (2000/C 374 E/110) E-0516/00 by Michael Gahler to the Commission Subject: Nationality in relation to double taxation ...... 94 (2000/C 374 E/111) E-0518/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Environmental impact assessment and the protection of species ...... 95 (2000/C 374 E/112) E-0528/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Reduced VAT rate for electronic news media products ...... 97 (2000/C 374 E/113) E-0532/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Conditions imposed by certain Italian credit institutions on its own current account-holders ...... 97 (2000/C 374 E/114) E-0533/00 by Raffaele Costa to the Commission Subject: Falcone programme (1997-2001) ...... 99 (2000/C 374 E/115) P-0540/00 by Marialiese Flemming to the Commission Subject: WTO agriculture, environment ...... 100 (2000/C 374 E/116) E-0543/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Council Subject: Draft new Community framework on State aid for environmental protection ...... 101 (2000/C 374 E/117) E-0547/00 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission Subject: Corpus Juris and staff ...... 102 (2000/C 374 E/118) E-0549/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Current situation in the European milk sector ...... 102 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 374 E/119) E-0551/00 by Guido Podestà to the Commission Subject: Ground services and air traffic control ...... 103 (2000/C 374 E/120) P-0556/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs to the Commission Subject: Protocol on cooperation between the Aquitaine region, the Autonomous Community of the Basque Coun- try and the Autonomous Community of Navarre ...... 104 (2000/C 374 E/121) E-0557/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Procedures for dismissals ...... 105 (2000/C 374 E/122) E-0558/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Reassignment of Commission staff ...... 106 (2000/C 374 E/123) E-0559/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Direct foreign investment ...... 107 (2000/C 374 E/124) E-0560/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: EU fraud ...... 108 (2000/C 374 E/125) E-0565/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Confidential documents ...... 108 (2000/C 374 E/126) E-0567/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: EU budgetary contribution ...... 109 (2000/C 374 E/127) P-0575/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya to the Commission Subject: Structural Funds ...... 110 (2000/C 374 E/128) P-0576/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: Community promotion of the cider industry within the European Union ...... 110 (2000/C 374 E/129) E-0580/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: European sustainable transport policy ...... 111 (2000/C 374 E/130) E-0581/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: European sustainable transport policy ...... 111 (2000/C 374 E/131) E-0582/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: European sustainable tansport policy ...... 112 (2000/C 374 E/132) E-0583/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: European sustainable transport policy ...... 112 (2000/C 374 E/133) E-0587/00 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: European sustainable transport policy ...... 113 (2000/C 374 E/134) E-0591/00 by Reinhold Messner to the Commission Subject: Quarry in val Coalba ...... 114 (2000/C 374 E/135) P-0593/00 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the Commission Subject: Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region Structural Funds, 2000-2006 ...... 115 (2000/C 374 E/136) P-0594/00 by Esko Seppänen to the Commission Subject: Communications directives ...... 116 (2000/C 374 E/137) E-0599/00 by Hugues Martin to the Commission Subject: Exchanging banknotes in national currencies for euro ...... 117 (2000/C 374 E/138) E-0610/00 by Roger Helmer to the Commission Subject: The EU ban on phtalates in toys ...... 118 (2000/C 374 E/139) E-0615/00 by Joaquim Miranda to the Commission Subject: EU Delegation in Havana, Cuba ...... 118 (2000/C 374 E/140) P-0618/00 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Property speculation at Is Arenas ...... 119 (2000/C 374 E/141) E-0619/00 by Paul Rübig to the Commission Subject: Rates of reduction for products originating in China ...... 119 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 374 E/142) E-0622/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Ireland’s implementation of EU environmental legislation ...... 121 (2000/C 374 E/143) E-0623/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Leader+ funding for Ireland ...... 121 (2000/C 374 E/144) E-0624/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Asylum levels and moves towards a common asylum and immigration policy ...... 122 (2000/C 374 E/145) E-0626/00 by Erik Meijer to the Council Subject: Kosovo: the right of the Serb minority to move to safe areas with a Serb majority ...... 122 (2000/C 374 E/146) E-0627/00 by Erik Meijer to the Council Subject: Kosovo: privatisation of State enterprises before determination of the competent State authority ...... 124 (2000/C 374 E/147) E-0629/00 by María Ayuso González to the Commission Subject: The EAGGF Guarantee Section in the various EU Member States in the period 1997-1999 ...... 125 (2000/C 374 E/148) E-0651/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya to the Commission Subject: Environment tax ...... 125 (2000/C 374 E/149) E-0653/00 by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez to the Commission Subject: Use of Community funds for irrigation infrastructures on the river Guaro ...... 126 (2000/C 374 E/150) E-0656/00 by Monica Frassoni to the Commission Subject: Road tunnel in the port of Olbia, Sardinia ...... 127 (2000/C 374 E/151) E-0661/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Galicia and the Transeuropean Rail Networks ...... 128 (2000/C 374 E/152) P-0665/00 by Roberto Bigliardo to the Commission Subject: ‘Echelon’ telecommunications monitoring system. Involvement of the United Kingdom ...... 128 (2000/C 374 E/153) P-0668/00 by Isidoro Sánchez García to the Commission Subject: Legislation to implement Article 299(2) in the framework of the common agricultural policy ...... 129 (2000/C 374 E/154) E-0671/00 by Antonio Tajani, Stefano Zappalà, Giorgio Lisi, Francesco Fiori, Raffaele Fitto, Raffaele Costa, Raffaele Lombardo and Francesco Musotto to the Commission Subject: Violation of EU legislation on the cloning of human beings ...... 129 (2000/C 374 E/155) E-0673/00 by Cristiana Muscardini and Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Transfer of personal data and respect for privacy ...... 130 (2000/C 374 E/156) E-0677/00 by Antonios Trakatellis, Ioannis Marínos and Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission Subject: Structural changes in the Greek economy social security and financing of the insurance funds ..... 132 (2000/C 374 E/157) E-0683/00 by Dana Scallon to the Commission Subject: Copyright directive ...... 133 (2000/C 374 E/158) E-0687/00 by Michel Hansenne to the Commission Subject: Origin of goods tariff preferences ...... 134 (2000/C 374 E/159) E-0688/00 by Robert Goebbels to the Council Subject: Possible amendment of Article 105(6) of the EC Treaty ...... 134 (2000/C 374 E/160) E-0690/00 by Antonio Di Pietro to the Commission Subject: Establishment of a safe-driving centre in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg ...... 135 (2000/C 374 E/161) P-0694/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Nuclear Safety, the Convention on Nuclear Safety and Sellafield ...... 136 (2000/C 374 E/162) P-0695/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann to the Commission Subject: Discrimination against parents of mentally handicapped children by certain insurance companies ..... 137 (2000/C 374 E/163) E-0702/00 by Bartho Pronk to the Commission Subject: Non-exportability of the Netherlands ‘Wajong’ benefit ...... 138 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 374 E/164) P-0704/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Council Subject: High-Level Group on the withholding tax ...... 139 (2000/C 374 E/165) E-0713/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Ethnic entrepreneurship ...... 140 (2000/C 374 E/166) E-0714/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: National bankers and ethnic entrepreneurs ...... 141 (2000/C 374 E/167) E-0723/00 by Roberto Bigliardo to the Commission Subject: Violation of directives by insurance companies in Italy ...... 141 (2000/C 374 E/168) E-0724/00 by Joaquim Miranda to the Council Subject: Support of the peace process in Djibouti ...... 142 (2000/C 374 E/169) E-0725/00 by Inger Schörling to the Council Subject: Homeopathic medicines in stock farming ...... 143 (2000/C 374 E/170) P-0733/00 by Umberto Bossi to the Commission Subject: Italian decree concerning the dairy sector ...... 144 (2000/C 374 E/171) P-0740/00 by Karla Peijs to the Commission Subject: De Zaak Havana Club/WTO, Bacardi-Martini versus Pernod Ricard ...... 145 (2000/C 374 E/172) E-0742/00 by Marialiese Flemming to the Commission Subject: Waste water disposal in Athens, Brussels and Milan ...... 146 (2000/C 374 E/173) E-0748/00 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Fire safety code for television sets ...... 147 (2000/C 374 E/174) E-0750/00 by John McCartin to the Council Subject: Dutch legislation on termination of pregnancy ...... 148 (2000/C 374 E/175) E-0752/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Rome Convention ...... 149 (2000/C 374 E/176) E-0763/00 by Bart Staes to the Council Subject: Production of Agent Orange by the European chemicals industry ...... 149 (2000/C 374 E/177) P-0772/00 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Lesser Developed Countries in the WTO ...... 150 (2000/C 374 E/178) E-0778/00 by Nicholas Clegg to the Commission Subject: Less Developed Countries in the WTO ...... 150

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0772/00 and E-0778/00 ...... 150 (2000/C 374 E/179) E-0776/00 by Christoph Konrad to the Commission Subject: Subsidised filling station prices in the Dutch border region ...... 151 (2000/C 374 E/180) E-0781/00 by Roger Helmer to the Commission Subject: Food Authority ...... 152 (2000/C 374 E/181) E-0786/00 by Paulo Casaca to the Council Subject: Judicial cooperation on paedophilia ...... 152 (2000/C 374 E/182) P-0790/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the Commission Subject: Construction of port facilities on the river Arousa (Spain) without an environmental impact assessment . 153 (2000/C 374 E/183) E-0804/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Installation of storage tanks for fuel and chemicals in the port of Vilagarcia de Arousa in Galicia without an environmental impact assessment ...... 154

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0790/00 and E-0804/00 ...... 155 (2000/C 374 E/184) P-0791/00 by Christos Folias to the Commission Subject: Early Retirement from Farming Programme ...... 155 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 374 E/185) E-0793/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Electricity generation from peat public service obligations ...... 156 (2000/C 374 E/186) E-0794/00 by Mary Banotti to the Commission Subject: Vehicle registration tax ...... 157 (2000/C 374 E/187) E-0800/00 by Thierry Cornillet to the Commission Subject: Call for proposals for the integrated return programme to Bosnia and Herzegovina ...... 158 (2000/C 374 E/188) E-0801/00 by Michel Hansenne to the Commission Subject: Services provided to French public hospitals ...... 159 (2000/C 374 E/189) E-0802/00 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the Commission Subject: Compatibility of Italian Law No 454/97 (and the implementing decrees) with Community law on state aids 160 (2000/C 374 E/190) P-0806/00 by Gerardo Galeote Quecedo to the Commission Subject: Role of the Commission representative during official European Parliament visits ...... 161 (2000/C 374 E/191) P-0808/00 by Hans Modrow to the Commission Subject: Sanctions against Yugoslavia ...... 161 (2000/C 374 E/192) E-0811/00 by Michl Ebner to the Council Subject: Minister Christian Sautter’s behaviour ...... 162 (2000/C 374 E/193) E-0812/00 by Michl Ebner to the Council Subject: Remarks by the Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel on the Austrian Government ...... 163 (2000/C 374 E/194) E-0816/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar, Carlos Carnero González and Salvador Jové Peres to the Commission Subject: Compatibility of Member States’ social policies with Community law, particularly with the directives on the award of public works contracts ...... 164 (2000/C 374 E/195) E-0817/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar, Carlos Carnero González and Salvador Jové Peres to the Commission Subject: Compatibility of Member States’ social policies with Community law, particularly with the directives on the award of public works contracts ...... 164

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0816/00 and E-0817/00 ...... 165 (2000/C 374 E/196) E-0827/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: EUR 2 million reduction in the Poseima programme ...... 166 (2000/C 374 E/197) E-0836/00 by Anna Karamanou to the Commission Subject: Environmental damage inflicted on the Danube and neighbouring regions by NATO bombing ...... 167 (2000/C 374 E/198) E-0841/00 by Ioannis Marínos to the Commission Subject: Community legislation on the internal market and its transposition into national legislation ...... 167 (2000/C 374 E/199) E-0846/00 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti to the Commission Subject: Action of the European Union against anti-personnel landmines ...... 169 (2000/C 374 E/200) E-0847/00 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti to the Commission Subject: Installation of a delegation to Havana and cooperation with Cuba ...... 170 (2000/C 374 E/201) E-0849/00 by Antonio Tajani, Pier Casini, Giorgio Lisi, Amalia Sartori, Renato Brunetta and Vittorio Sgarbi to the Commission Subject: Protection of the ethnic minority in Slovenia and Croatia ...... 171 (2000/C 374 E/202) E-0856/00 by Lord Inglewood to the Commission Subject: Eurostar socio-economic data ...... 172 (2000/C 374 E/203) E-0857/00 by Roger Helmer to the Commission Subject: Construction products directive ...... 172 (2000/C 374 E/204) E-0864/00 by Marianne Thyssen to the Commission Subject: VAT on mandates ...... 174 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 374 E/205) E-0868/00 by Michl Ebner to the Commission Subject: Boycott of Austrian travellers by taxi drivers in Brussels ...... 174 (2000/C 374 E/206) E-0870/00 by Alejandro Agag Longo to the Commission Subject: Austria’s Stability Programme ...... 175 (2000/C 374 E/207) E-0871/00 by Alejandro Agag Longo to the Commission Subject: Setting up businesses ...... 176 (2000/C 374 E/208) P-0877/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the Commission Subject: Unlawful State subsidy to the DSB ...... 176 (2000/C 374 E/209) E-0881/00 by Harlem Désir to the Commission Subject: Redundancy plan in the wake of the ABB-Alstom group merger ...... 177 (2000/C 374 E/210) E-0883/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Relocation of Commercial Hydraulics from England to Germany ...... 178 (2000/C 374 E/211) E-0891/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium ...... 179 (2000/C 374 E/212) E-0895/00 by Bart Staes to the Commission Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium ...... 180 (2000/C 374 E/213) P-0898/00 by Umberto Bossi to the Commission Subject: Suppliers of services to Community institutions ...... 181 (2000/C 374 E/214) P-0901/00 by Robert Evans to the Commission Subject: Tour Managers and Tour Guides ...... 181 (2000/C 374 E/215) P-0902/00 by Efstratios Korakas to the Council Subject: Reform of the system of aid for cotton ...... 183 (2000/C 374 E/216) E-0906/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Alteration of the cultural heritage in FYROM ...... 184 (2000/C 374 E/217) E-0914/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Volume of EU legislative proposals ...... 184 (2000/C 374 E/218) E-0916/00 by Christopher Huhne to the Commission Subject: Stock of EU legislation ...... 185 (2000/C 374 E/219) E-0922/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Promotion of the euro to children ...... 186 (2000/C 374 E/220) E-0928/00 by Malcolm Harbour to the Commission Subject: Publication of business accounts ...... 187 (2000/C 374 E/221) P-0931/00 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the Commission Subject: Participation of research partners from developing countries in environmental research programmes funded by the EU ...... 188 (2000/C 374 E/222) E-0939/00 by Antonio Di Pietro to the Commission Subject: Belgian legislation on clinical biology laboratories ...... 189 (2000/C 374 E/223) E-0946/00 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Restitution of stolen or illegally exported cultural artefacts ...... 190 (2000/C 374 E/224) E-0950/00 by Per Stenmarck to the Commission Subject: Trans-European networks ...... 191 (2000/C 374 E/225) P-0952/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Schloen shooting range ...... 192 (2000/C 374 E/226) E-0961/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the Commission Subject: A favourable climate for EU inventors ...... 193 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 374 E/227) E-0972/00 by Ilda Figueiredo to the Commission Subject: Aid from Community funds ...... 194

(2000/C 374 E/228) P-0976/00 by Ursula Schleicher to the Commission Subject: Continuation of the building projects in the Sintra-Cascais natural park in Portugal ...... 194

(2000/C 374 E/229) P-0977/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz to the Commission Subject: Situation of the European shipbuilding industry ...... 195

(2000/C 374 E/230) E-0978/00 by Niels Busk to the Commission Subject: T5 forms ...... 196

(2000/C 374 E/231) E-0984/00 by Bill Miller to the Commission Subject: Loi Evin Case ...... 197

(2000/C 374 E/232) E-0985/00 by Bill Miller to the Commission Subject: Loi Evin Case ...... 197

(2000/C 374 E/233) E-0986/00 by Bill Miller to the Commission Subject: Loi Evin Case ...... 197

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0984/00, E-0985/00 and E-0986/00 ...... 197

(2000/C 374 E/234) E-0990/00 by Markus Ferber to the Commission Subject: MEDIA II: share-out of appropriations to participating countries ...... 198

(2000/C 374 E/235) E-0995/00 by Chris Davies to the Commission Subject: White Paper on Food Safety ...... 198

(2000/C 374 E/236) E-1004/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the Commission Subject: Unlawful restriction of free movement of labour ...... 199

(2000/C 374 E/237) E-1021/00 by Dirk Sterckx to the Commission Subject: Infringement of European legislation by the German and Belgian trotting federations ...... 200

(2000/C 374 E/238) P-1022/00 by Mogens Camre to the Commission Subject: Authority of the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia ...... 201

(2000/C 374 E/239) E-1033/00 by Theresa Villiers to the Commission Subject: Clause 19 of the UK Financial Services and Markets Bill ...... 202

(2000/C 374 E/240) E-1061/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the Commission Subject: Discrimination by a Member State between its own citizens ...... 203

(2000/C 374 E/241) E-1063/00 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: The Id al-Kabir festival violation of EU directives and French legislation ...... 204

(2000/C 374 E/242) E-1066/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Microcredit ...... 205

(2000/C 374 E/243) E-1068/00 by Avril Doyle to the Commission Subject: Tuberculosis testing in bovine animals ...... 206

(2000/C 374 E/244) E-1079/00 by Francesco Turchi to the Commission Subject: Professional recognition of dental technicians ...... 207

(2000/C 374 E/245) E-1106/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: The Spanish Government’s failure to comply with Law No 31 of 8 November 1995 on the prevention of hazards at work ...... 207

(2000/C 374 E/246) E-1176/00 by Richard Corbett to the Commission Subject: Nationality of key officials dealing with postal service liberalisation ...... 208

(2000/C 374 E/247) P-1190/00 by Timothy Kirkhope to the Commission Subject: European Social Funds ...... 209 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (2000/C 374 E/248) P-1221/00 by Robert Evans to the Commission Subject: Transport of live animals use of approved staging points in Italy ...... 210 (2000/C 374 E/249) E-1223/00 by Jannis Sakellariou to the Commission Subject: Recognition of French teachers in Bavarian schools ...... 210 (2000/C 374 E/250) P-1234/00 by Karin Scheele to the Commission Subject: The softener diethylhexyladepate in PVC ...... 211 (2000/C 374 E/251) P-1235/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Bristol Austria Dipl. Ing K. J. Madden v. Pfeifer Ges.m.b.H...... 213 (2000/C 374 E/252) E-1255/00 by Armando Cossutta to the Commission Subject: Italian girl held in Kuwait City ...... 213 (2000/C 374 E/253) E-1268/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the Commission Subject: Euro-Arab Management School ...... 214 (2000/C 374 E/254) E-1291/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the Commission Subject: Project for construction of a water purifying plant in Gondomar in the context of the integrated improvement project for the Ria de Vigo financed by the Cohesion Fund ...... 215 (2000/C 374 E/255) P-1302/00 by Andrew Duff to the Commission Subject: Statement by the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council ...... 215 (2000/C 374 E/256) P-1323/00 by Alexandre Varaut to the Commission Subject: Restrictions on televising in France of sporting events staged abroad ...... 216 (2000/C 374 E/257) E-1339/00 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Employee consultation legislation ...... 217 (2000/C 374 E/258) P-1372/00 by Marianne Thyssen to the Commission Subject: Proposal for a directive on food supplements ...... 217 (2000/C 374 E/259) P-1378/00 by Reinhold Messner to the Commission Subject: Asti-Cuneo motorway ...... 218 (2000/C 374 E/260) P-1415/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann to the Commission Subject: Investigation regarding state aids to the ‘Crédit Mutuel’ ...... 219

EN 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/1

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2000/C 374 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2031/99 by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Reprimanding of Paul van Buitenen

The case of Mr van Buitenen has been the subject of debate all over Europe ever since he released the documents that revealed irregularities in the Commission. He has been honoured for his courage by organisations such as the Taxpayers’ Association, yet reprimanded by the Commission’s disciplinary committee. Commissioner Kinnock has himself, like the committee that issued the reprimand, acknowledged that the rules were unclear and inadequate at the time.

In view of the help Mr van Buitenen’s actions have been in making possible changes to the rules as well as serious action to tackle the problems of fraud, is the reprimand really justified? Does the Commission consider that the changes now being made to the rules governing Commission staff go far enough, or is it thinking of exploring further the possibilities for introducing a right to disclose information such as already exists for instance in Sweden?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member of the fact that the disciplinary board provided for in the Staff Regulation may be requested to give an opinion to the appointing authority concerning an eventual disciplinary measure to be adopted. However, the appointing authority has the right to issue a written warning or a reprimand without consulting the disciplinary board. In the case to which the Honourable Member refers, the disciplinary board was not consulted.

Mr Paul van Buitenen was given a formal reprimand because, without authorisation, he broke the rules for officials of the European Communities by divulging documents outside the Commission which related to cases that were under examination by the judicial authorities and also the subject of disciplinary proceedings, thus compromising the principle of the presumption of innocence. In coming to its decision, the employing authority took account of the fact that the information had been communicated to a member of the European Parliament and recognised that a strict application of the relevant rules might not be in accordance with the appropriate standard of openness. It was in the light of these circumstances that the Commission imposed a formal reprimand which is the second most moderate penalty for infringements of the Staff Regulations.

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that, in accordance with the Commission Decision concerning investigations carried out by the Task Force Co-ordination of the fight against fraud of 14 July 1998, officials having knowledge of the existence of presumed irregularities were obliged to inform their Directors-general or Heads of service or, if they considered it useful, the Task Force directly. Since the entry into force of Commission Decision 1999/396 concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal C 374 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

activity detrimental to the Communities’ interests (1), they shall inform their Heads of service or Directors- general or, if they consider it useful, the Secretary-general of the Commission or OLAF directly. Officials who provided or provide such information through those means had and have the guarantee that they shall in no way suffer inequitable or discriminatory treatment as a result of providing it. In the context of its administrative reforms, the Commission is in the process of developing an improved system which will ensure that, in addition to present provisions, officials who fulfil their duty to report evidence of alleged wrongdoing have further equitable and effective means for reporting, and obtaining thorough and active response to, their concerns and evidence.

(1) OJ L 149, 16.6.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/002) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2280/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Promise of financial aid to Kosovo

On Tuesday, 9 November 1999 Mrs Schleyer, speaking at a meeting of the Committee on Budgets that was open to the public, said by way of elucidation of the Commission’s proposal to make 500 million available to Kosovo that a number of representatives of the Union had promised at various conferences to come up with approximately half of the money needed for Kosovo.

1. Which representatives have made such promises?

2. On what occasion?

3. What sums have been promised?

4. Were the representatives authorised to make such promises?

5. Were the promises made subject to Parliament’s approval having to be obtained for the sums involved?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The European Council of Cologne (June 1999) confirmed ‘the European Union’s commitment to take a leading role in the reconstruction efforts in Kosovo’ and called on other donors to participate generously in the reconstruction effort. In this statement, the Union recognised the importance of assisting in the recovery of Kosovo and the responsibility the Union has in supporting the province in this process.

In its proposal for the creation of the agency (1), submitted in the context of a proposal for the modification of the Obnova Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 851/98 of 20 April 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 relating to aid for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (2)), the Commission indicated for the first time its estimates of the needs for the reconstruction effort in Kosovo. The first phase of reconstruction efforts have been estimated between € 500 million and € 700 million per year over the three years 2000-2002. Overall financial assistance of USD 2 300 million, on highly concessional terms, has been estimated to support a four to five year reconstruction and recovery programme.

Based on a comprehensive assessment report: ‘Towards stability and prosperity: a programme for reconstruction and recovery in Kosovo’ jointly prepared by the World Bank and the Commission, an external financing requirement of USD 1 100 million has been estimated for 2000, with housing, energy and private sector development as being priority areas. The Commission expressed its willingness to support this programme. During the second donors’ conference in November 1999, an indicative figure of € 500 million for Community assistance was pledged, in the light also of the first reading of the draft 2000 budget. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/3

The 2000 budget for Kosovo is targeted to immediate needs for reconstruction. The global amount finally agreed by the budgetary authorities for 2000 is € 360 million. It breaks down into € 270 million for the budget line B7-546 for the reconstruction of Kosovo (including € 30 million carried over from 1999), € 50 million for the budget line B7-210 for humanitariam emergency aid (including € 30 million committed in 1999 as reserve which has to be allocated in 2000) and € 40 million for redemployment.

(1) COM(1999) 312 final. (2) OJ L 122, 24.4.1998.

(2000/C 374 E/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2404/99 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Uptake of funds for the RETEX Community Initiative

Under the most recent Community support framework (1993-1999) Portugal was to benefit from the RETEX Community Initiative for diversifying regions heavily dependent on the textile and clothing industry.

What were the amounts allocated to Portugal and the other Member States and what are the figures for funds actually paid out, broken down by Member State, under the RETEX initiative in 1993-1999?

What projects were funded in Portugal during this period under RETEX? What was their duration and what funding did they receive?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

In respect of the 1994-1999 programming period, the amounts allocated and paid out to each Member State under the RETEX Community Initiative are as follows:

(in million euro)

Member State Community Financing Payments carried out Belgium 6 2 Denmark Germany 76 37 Greece 79 53 Spain 107 36 France 28 10 Ireland 9 6 Italy 59 29 Luxembourg Netherlands 1 1 Portugal 176 107 United Kingdom 41 4 Austria 3 2 Finland Sweden C 374 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

In the case of Portugal, an additional amount of EUR 30 million was granted under RETEX in 1993, a sum already paid out in its entirety.

A list of projects part-financed in Portugal under RETEX is being sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s General Secretariat.

(2000/C 374 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2485/99 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Aid in connection with the permanent link across the Øresund Strait

In connection with the opening of the permanent link across the Øresund Strait, will the Commission say whether the Danish and/or Swedish authorities have notified it of any government aid granted to their respective rail administrations designed to reduce the price of train fares to the level of the current bridge toll, i.e. a form of operational aid?

Will the Commission also say whether, in its view, national aid to cover a bridge toll for national rail authorities distorts competition for shipping lines carrying passengers across the Øresund Strait? Does the Commission believe that the above arrangements are consistent with the Treaty’s provisions on the granting of government aid?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2000)

On 30 September 1998 the Danish authorities notified to the Commission a state aid scheme concerning an environmental subsidy for the transport of goods by rail. The legal basis of the scheme is Danish Law 289 of 18 May 1998 laying down a legal framework for railway operations in Denmark and contains inter alia provisions on payment of infrastructure charges for the use of the railway infrastructure and on the provision of subsidies to railway undertakings for environmental reasons.

On 21 April 1999 the Commission found the notified aid scheme to be compatible with the common market. In its decision the Commission took into account that the subsidy is significantly smaller than the estimated unpaid external costs of road transport, that the aid scheme is open to any undertaking transporting goods by rail and that it excludes transit traffic to safeguard the interests of maritime transport, another environmentally friendly transport mode.

Any national measure relieving transport companies from charges in any form whatsoever can in principle distort competition between transport modes and may fall under the state aid rules of the EC Treaty in so far as it affects trade between Member States. More specifically, state support in favour of railways may distort competition with ships or vice versa, when such support is granted on a market segment (on a route) where rail and shipping are competing with each other.

In order to be able to evaluate the compatibility of such subsidy with the EC Treaty, the Commission must be duly notified of such measures in accordance with Article 88(3) (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty. It is however not possible to provide an appropriate answer to this point without previous provision of all the information necessary for such an assessment. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/5

(2000/C 374 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2502/99 by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Council

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Europe Agreements with Eastern European countries

Each of the ‘Europe Agreements’ which the EU has concluded with Eastern European countries includes an ‘equal treatment requirement’ relating to the establishment of companies and nationals of the contracting countries (subject to certain provisos for special occupations).

1. Does the Council consider that this equal treatment requirement includes a prohibition of discrimination?

2. Does the Council consider that an EU Member State is barred from submitting nationals of the contracting countries to ‘needs tests’ if their own self-employed nationals are not required to undergo such tests?

3. Does the Council agree that, where a Member State does not require its own self-employed nationals to produce evidence of prior knowledge, etc., such evidence may not be required of the nationals of the contracting partner countries?

4. Does the Council agree that, where a Member State does not require its self-employed nationals to produce evidence of capital, this may not be required of the nationals of the contracting partner countries?

(16/17 May 2000)

As the Honourable Member has pointed out, the Europe Agreements concluded between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and each of the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia), of the other part, contain provisions concerning the right of establishment. This right forms the subject of Chapter II of Title IV of each of the Agreements.

Although different for each Agreement, the provisions stipulate in general that:

as from entry into force of the Agreement, the Member States must ensure national treatment in the right of establishment, with the exception of certain areas or matters;

contrary to the above, the Associated State is only required to introduce national treatment progressively, depending on the sector;

each Party may regulate the establishment and activities of companies and nationals on its territory, insofar as these regulations do not discriminate between its own nationals and the other Party’s nationals.

However, it should be noted that the above provisions concerning the right of establishment do not prevent the Parties from applying their own laws and regulations concerning admission and residence.

The Honourable Member’s questions may therefore be answered as follows, with the exception of certain specific provisions in each Europe Agreement.

1. The application of national treatment to the right of establishment means that any discrimination is prohibited between own nationals and the other Party’s nationals with respect to the establishment and pursuit of economic activities.

2. Under national treatment, a Member State of the European Union may not restrict the right of nationals of the other Party to become established and to pursue activities for reasons concerning the appropriateness thereof, if it does not restrict this right for its own nationals, subject to the provisions of C 374 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Article 58 of the Association Agreements and of Article 59 of the Europe Agreements. Application of this principle is subject to the provisions of Article 55 of the Europe Agreement with Estonia, Article 56 of the Europe Agreement with Latvia and Lithuania, Article 57 of the Europe Agreement with Slovenia, Article 58 of the Europe Agreements with Hungary and Poland and Article 59 of the Europe Agreements with Romania, Bulgaria, the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic.

3. Likewise, conditions relating to specific knowledge may not be imposed only on the other Party’s nationals. It should, however, be pointed out that to date the provision in the Agreements allowing for measures to be taken for the mutual recognition of qualifications has not produced any effects.

4. Likewise, with respect to the establishment and pursuit of economic activities, conditions of a financial nature may not be imposed only on the other Party’s nationals. Some Member States, however, have similar provisions concerning the admission and residence of third-country nationals in their territory.

(2000/C 374 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2642/99 by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Allocation of rural development funds to Member States

What criteria were used in determining the recent allocation of rural development funds to Member States, and what weighting was given to each of these?

Why were these criteria chosen? In particular, did the previous allocation of funds under Regulations now superseded constitute one factor used in the determination and, if so, why?

How was the rural population in each Member State defined?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

In accordance with Article 46(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 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), the Commission fixed the initial appropriations allocated to Member States for rural development measures part-financed by the EAGGF (Guarantee Section) ‘using objective criteria which take into account particular situations and needs, and efforts to be undertaken especially for the environment, job creation and maintenance of the landscape’.

Member States’ particular situations and needs were examined on the basis of the 1994-1999 financial allocations, taking as a reference point the average allocation by Member State during that period. Total funding for the new period was increased by nearly 20 %, whereby the appropriations over and above the previous total amount were divided among Member States according to their specific needs.

This was done inter alia using statistical criteria relating to the importance of rural areas (total size of the Member State, size of rural areas, rural population) and to agricultural activity (usable agricultural area, number of holdings, agricultural employment). The ‘rural character’ criterion (size of rural areas and rural population) was set taking into account a population density threshold of 100 inhabitants/km2 at NUTS 5 level.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/7

(2000/C 374 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2655/99

by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Flight delays

This year flight delays in Europe have reached unacceptable levels. Suffice it to say that from July to September over 30 % of flights on European routes were delayed by over 15 minutes. According to some estimates these delays may cost over EUR 5 billion per year, and they cause considerable inconvenience and loss to passengers.

Thus it is clear that urgent measures need to be taken to protect air transport users, for instance by adopting Community legislation similar to the law on overbooking, and redefining the concept of ‘delay’ in the Warsaw Convention.

1. Can the Commission provide information on the specific measures it intends to adopt to protect passengers and the timescale involved, particularly as regards their right to be informed of the reasons for delays and to obtain adequate compensation in the event of unjustified delays?

2. Can the Commission also say if it intends to adopt ‘ad hoc’ measures to protect consumers in other public transport sectors?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

With regard to delays to air traffic, on 1 December 1999, the Commission adopted a communication to review the current situation and propose new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management system it needs to ensure the proper functioning of its internal market (1).

The question raised by the Honourable Member, regarding information to passengers on air traffic delays, is answered in this document which has been communicated to the Council and the Parliament. During this year, the Commission will propose a system of publication of punctuality indicators to give passengers the means of forming their own opinions as to the situation and its causes.

The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport (2). That Regulation already provides for compensation in the case of overbooking.

As to the broader question of the protection of passengers, the Commission has just released a consultation document on air passenger rights with the aim of collecting views to help develop future policy. This activity so far covers air transport only, but consideration will also be given to similar work on other modes of transport. While problems vary between the modes, it will still be important to ensure that all passengers generally enjoy similar rights.

(1) COM(1999) 614 final. (2) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991. C 374 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2661/99 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Developing countries and world trade

Given that most developing countries do not have the human resources and technical capacity to manage the existing WTO agenda and are not participating in the voluntary GPA Working Group, is the Commission providing any kind of support that would enable developing countries to participate in this debate?

(2000/C 374 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2662/99 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Impact of procurement liberalisation on developing countries

Has the Commission produced any studies that illustrate the impact of procurement liberalisation on developing countries? If not, does it intend to do so?

(2000/C 374 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2663/99 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Public procurement liberalisation

Is it a correct understanding of the EU negotiating mandate that the EU intends to introduce public procurement liberalisation into the next WTO round?

If so, how does the Commission intend to square this objective with its commitment to developing countries, particularly in Article 178 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which states that its external policies should be coherent and should not undermine efforts to assist developing countries. Given this legal obligation, how does the Commission believe that procurement liberalisation will benefit poor countries?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2661/99, E-2662/99 and E-2663/99 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Money spent on government procurement (not including defence purchasing) accounts for at least 10-15 % of gross domestic product (GDP) in most countries. The fact that there are no multilateral rules governing how this money is spent means that governments are able to maintain procurement policies and practices which are discriminatory and trade distortive.

Opaque and/or discriminatory procurement procedures adversely affect the longer term development objectives of countries because they are subsidising uncompetitive industries and creating an environment conducive to corruption and bribery. This is backed up by empirical research which has been carried out by other countries and organisations. In addition, the trade liberalising effect achieved by the World trade 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/9

organisation (WTO) and its predecessor, the General agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT), is reduced because a substantial proportion of potential trade falls outside the scope of WTO rules.

An open procurement market means achieving best value for taxpayers’ money. Significant cost savings occur as a result. This is money that can be used to pursue developmental and other objectives. For that reason, the Community supports efforts within the United Nations and other international organisations to persuade countries to use procurement best practices and to make purchases on a best value for money basis.

The Community’s long-standing goal for the WTO of achieving procurement liberalisation on a multilateral basis should be seen as complementary to these other initiatives, as well as the commitment contained in Article 178 (ex Article 130r) of the EC Treaty not to undermine efforts to assist developing countries. The Community fully recognises that building the necessary substantive framework of rules in the WTO will take time and require a pragmatic approach. If the objective is to be achieved, it must be done on a step-by-step basis.

Transparency is a basic building block of a stable and predictable procurement environment and the Community’s approach in the run-up to the Seattle ministerial conference was therefore to seek to complete the multilateral work already underway in this area, and subsequently and incrementally build on it.

The principal difficulty which the WTO faces is political. Countries and not just developing countries need to be persuaded to stop using procurement as a means to pursue other objectives. Doing this requires the existence of credible alternative means to pursue those objectives. This is one of the big challenges currently facing the advocates of open procurement policies.

Several specific country studies have been carried out in the context of bilateral work, and as indicated above work is also underway in other international organisations such as the UN and the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD). Up to now, the Commission does not see the benefit of carrying out additional studies on the benefits of procurement liberalisation for developing countries either individually or in general, but it is willing to reconsider whether some additional efforts would be appropriate in order to persuade developing countries of their interest in opening up their procurement markets.

The difficulties facing developing, particularly least developed countries, in participating in the Geneva process go beyond the procurement issue. In the specific procurement context, the Community proposed an initiative, which is currently under consideration by government procurement agreement (GPA) members, to grant GPA benefits to least developed countries. On a more technical level, the GPA foresees technical assistance to developing countries and similar provisions have been proposed in the transparency work mentioned to above. Indeed, the Community has participated in and co-organised a number of seminars and conferences, both for individual and groups of countries. A number of Member States are also active in this area. However, whilst this technical work is of importance, it does not address the fundamental political difficulties referred to above.

Looking at the issue more widely, the Commission has set up an integrated programme aimed at supporting the integration of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states into the world trading system under the WTO. This programme foresees financial support for technical assistance, training, negotiating skills and capacity building. As a first step, the Commission is supporting increased co-ordination in Geneva between ACP countries through the ACP general secretariat. The Commission has also co-operated in the past with the WTO Secretariat in funding and providing human resources for meetings and seminars aimed at a better knowledge and understanding of WTO rules and opportunities under the multilateral trading system. The Commission is now exploring together with the WTO and ACP secretariats other actions in which it may co-operate for the benefit of developing countries. C 374 E/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2673/99 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Import of donkeys from CEECs to the EU for slaughter

How many live donkeys were imported from central and eastern European countries for slaughter in the EU in (a) 1997 and (b) 1998?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Customs statistics do not differentiate between the different purposes for which donkeys are imported into the Community. The total number of those animals which in 1997 and 1998 were imported from Central and Eastern European countries are respectively 4 715 and 7 467. More than 90 % of them were of Romanian origin and imported into Italy.

(2000/C 374 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2702/99 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Approval procedures for projects seeking ERDF support

Applicants seeking ERDF funds to support the construction of an industrial estate will frequently argue that the project will provide new employment opportunities.

What steps does the Commission take to ensure that such claims are justified and, in particular, to verify that such employment as may be created will represent additional jobs rather than jobs transferred from other industrial locations?

In the case of industrial parks being built on greenfield sites, what steps does the Commission take to ensure that the development complies with EU requirements promote environmental sustainability by, for example, (a) protecting habitats, (b) giving priority to the development of brownfield sites, (c) discouraging the additional use of motor transport?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Commission has developed a systematic approach to assessing job creation targets. This is summarised in the booklet ‘Counting the Jobs’ published in the series ‘Evaluation Documents’, which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament. The specific concern raised, that claimed jobs will actually consist of transfers from other locations, is a type of displacement and this issue is addressed specifically as part of the calculation of net jobs created. It is true that most ex-ante predictions of employment effects are based on gross job creation, but the net effect is examined in intermediate evaluation and particularly in ex-post evaluation.

Concerning sustainable development, the Commission stressed in its indicative guidelines for programmes in the period 2000-2006 (1) that priority should be given to the rehabilitation of brownfield industrial sites over the development of greenfield sites. Moreover, the Commission has emphasised that transport interventions to be assisted should be integrated into strategies for sustainable transport systems. Whilst the guidelines are not legally binding, compliance with Community legislation such as Council Directive 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/11

92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2), and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (3) is a condition for any assistance from the structural funds.

(1) OJ C 267, 22.9.1999, p. 2. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2000/C 374 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2703/99 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Cotton production in Asia

According to a ‘News Summary’ item published by the UN Information Centre earlier this year, ‘The FAO has plans for a major project on environmentally friendly cotton production in Asia financed by the EU, for Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan, the Philippines and Vietnam, designed to reduce insecticide use by farmers by more than 50 % while increasing production.’

Will the Commission provide details of this scheme and confirm that it will neither involve the use of genetically modified organisms nor threaten biodiversity?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The objective of this regional project is the sustainable, profitable and environmentally sound production of cotton in six participating countries (India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and the Philippines). This is being achieved through the development, promotion and practice of integrated pest management (IPM) by farmers and extension staff. Integrated pest management (Agenda 21), which combines biological control, host plant resistance and appropriate farming practices and minimises the use of pesticides, guarantees yields, reduces costs, is environmentally friendly and contributes to the sustainability of agriculture. IPM therefore entails a strong concern for biodiversity, and a substantial reduction in pesticide use which is achievable without the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The strategy of the project, which has just commenced (November 1999), will follow the policies outlined in ‘Control of Pesticides and IPM’, which will be one of progressive pest management based on three main principles: establishing control over pesticide use, reducing reliance on pesticide use and actions for the promotion of integrated pest management.

The Commission is aware that the Chinese public sector organisations have, since 1988, made major investments in plant biotechnology, and genetically modified cotton has been grown commercially in China in certain areas since 1998. The Commission has supported a mission of biosafety experts to China to investigate the safety of their work and the Chinese authorities have established biosafety regulations which are in accordance with international standards.

The adoption of transgenic plants in agriculture has proceeded at a rapid rate but the evaluation of the impact and integration of transgenic crops into IPM systems is an entirely new area. How these crops can be incorporated as safe and effective components of sustainable IPM systems remains to be determined. All this will be taken into account when the China component for this Community regional project is being decided with the Chinese authorities, together with the relevant social, cultural and environmental factors which are pertinent to China. Those discussions will provide an opportunity to examine the various viewpoints and to agree on project sites and cotton varieties that will not prejudice either the Chinese or the Community positions on the use of genetically modified plants. C 374 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2743/99 by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Special aid for France

On the accession of Spain and Portugal, France received special regional development aid for the area adjacent to Spain by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2615/80 (1).

What was the total amount of the aid, in respect of what period was it granted, and for which areas was it intended?

(1) OJ L 271, 15.10.1980, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2000)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2615/80 of 7 October 1980 instituting a specific Community regional development measure contributing to the development of certain French and Italian regions in the context of Community enlargement (1) provides for a special programme to be presented to the Commission by each of the Member States concerned. To implement this Community measure, the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 2088/85 of 23 July 1985 concerning the integrated Mediterranean programmes (IMPs) (2). This contains provisions on the programming period, the financial assistance from the Community budget and the geographical scope of the IMPs among others.

The financial assistance from the Community budget for the implementation of the IMPs from 1986 to 1992 was fixed at an overall total of EUR 4 100 million, including EUR 844 million for France.

As regards geographical scope, in France the IMPs programme relates to the regions of Languedoc- Roussillon, Corsica, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, Aquitaine and Midi-Pyrénées, and the departments of Drôme and Ardèche, with the exception of the conurbations of Marseille, Bordeaux and Toulouse and the built-up coastal strip with all-year-round tourist activity.

(1) OJ L 271, 15.10.1980, p. 1. (2) OJ L 197, 27.7.1985, p. 1.

(2000/C 374 E/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2762/99 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: The Russian Federation’s ultimatum to the city of Grozny

The whole world has condemned the ruthless ultimatum given by the Russian Federation’s political and military authorities to the 50 000 inhabitants and the resistance groups in the city of Grozny. However, the only reactions to this ultimatum on the part of the Presidency, the High Representative for the CFSP and the Commission have been verbal condemnations and expressions of concern, warnings and the ‘studying’ of possible counter-measures.

The changes to the terms of the ultimatum made on 7 December by the Russian authorities do not affect the threat of extermination faced by tens of thousands of civilians because it is virtually impossible to evacuate them under the bombardments.

Does not the Commission believe that actions speak louder than words and that it should suspend, temporarily but immediately, the partnership and cooperation agreements entered into with Moscow as well as any form of direct or indirect aid to the Russian Federation? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/13

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (25 February 2000)

Against the background of the situation in Chechnya and the declaration by the European Council at Helsinki last December, the General Affairs Council of 24/25 January 2000 adopted conclusions on concrete follow up measures.

These include strict application of trade provisions in cases where Russia has violated the partnership and cooperation agreement or related sectoral agreements. In this context on 26 January 2000, the Com- mission submitted a proposal to the Council for a 20 % reduction in the import quota for certain Russian steel products.

In addition, preparation of the Tacis indicative programme for Russia for 2000-2003 has been suspended. Meanwhile, work is going ahead to identify possible components of a core programme covering promotion of democratic values, and the rule of law as the Council requested. The Commission will keep the situation under review over the coming months in order to assess whether programming of Tacis 2000 should go beyond this core programme.

On humanitarian assistance, the Commission in 1999 already committed € 2,4 million for actions in the North Caucasus region. This is being delivered through international relief organisations on the spot. In January 2000, the Commission has earmarked a further € 5 million for the Northern Caucasus, of which € 1,32 million have already been allocated to further aid projects. For the remaining funds to be disbursed quickly and effectively, we need to work with the Russian authorities to improve security conditions on the ground to enable relief agencies adequately to distribute and monitor humanitarian aid. In this regard, the recent visit to the region by the Member of the Commission in charge of humanitarian aid was a valuable opportunity to raise the needs expressed by international relief agencies directly with the competent authorities.

(2000/C 374 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2766/99 by Jas Gawronski (PPE-DE) to the Council (13 January 2000)

Subject: Measures to resolve the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea

Can the Council indicate what measures it intends to take with regard to the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia?

At the Joint Assembly with representatives of the ACP countries last October in Nassau the Members of the European Parliament requested the Council to take all the necessary measures to ensure that Ethiopia accepts and implements the peace plan proposed by the OAU. Up to now, Ethiopia has still not committed itself to the agreement and is still violating the fundamental rights of the Eritrean citizens resident on its territory.

Article 5 of the Lomé Convention provides for the suspension of cooperation between the European Union and the ACP States in cases of violation of human rights. Can the Council indicate the reasons why it continues to cooperate with Ethiopia?

Reply (16/17 May 2000)

Since fighting between Eritrea and Ethiopia first broke out in May 1998, the European Union has repeatedly urged both countries to cease hostilities immediately on all fronts, to refrain from any further use of violence and to cooperate with the OAU’s efforts to mediate a peaceful negotiated solution to the conflict. The EU therefore welcomed on 21 July 1999 the decision by the Assembly of the Heads of State and Government of the OAU, meeting in Algiers from 12 to 14 July, to approve the arrangements for the implementation of the OAU framework agreement concerning the settlement of this conflict. In addition, technical arrangements were worked out in August which represent the third instrument of the OAU peacemaking effort with regard to this conflict. C 374 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Ethiopia requested that this instrument be modified, pointing out that it differed from its predecessors in a number of aspects. The Algerian OAU Presidency is in contact with both parties with a view to reaching an agreement. The European Union expects that the OAU peace package will be accepted unconditionally and implemented as soon as possible jointly by both Ethiopia and Eritrea, which has already accepted a first version of the technical provisions.

Last December, Italy’s State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Senator Rino Serri, was appointed as the EU Presidency Special Representative for the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict. His mandate is focused on support for the OAU peacemaking effort. Senator Serri is continuously in contact with the mediating Algerian OAU Presidency, and he has already visited the two countries’ capitals to help in settling the conflict.

With respect to the Honourable Member’s question regarding the application of the Lomé Convention to Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Council proceeds on the assumption that the two countries concerned are aware of the provisions of Article 5 of the revised Lomé Convention. The Council reserves the right to review cooperation with these two countries as the situation develops, especially in relation to respect for human rights.

(2000/C 374 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2784/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Compensation for relatives of victims following air crash

Following the crash in northern Greece on 17 December 1997 of a Ukrainian Yakovlev belonging to Aerosweet Airlines, which caused huge loss of life, the committee of inquiry into air accidents concluded that responsibility lay with the airline, a fact that was not contested. To date no compensation or advance on compensation has been paid to the victims’ relatives since the victims were identified, as required under Council Regulation 2027/97 (1).

Not only does the airline appear reluctant to compensate them, it is even holding them in contempt in various ways. In a letter to the Minister for Transport dated 23 April 1999, the Director-General of the airline and a Ukrainian Government spokesman stated that unless Aerosweet flights to Greece continued, its insurance company (Sedgewick Aviation Limited) would not pay out compensation to the victims’ relatives.

In the light of this crude blackmailing of the victims’ relatives, will the Commission say:

1. Whether Aerosweet runs scheduled flights or charter flights to other Member States of the Union?

2. What Aerosweet’s obligations are under Council Regulation 2027?

3. In what way it may intervene, pursuant to Council Regulation 2027, to persuade the airline to compensate the victims’ relatives, given that they are unable to meet the cost of a lengthy and expensive legal battle?

(1) OJ L 285, 17.10.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

1. According to available information, Aerosweet Airlines currently operates scheduled services from Ukraine to Athens several times each week using Boeing 737 aircraft. The Commission has no information about charter flights performed by Aerosweet Airlines. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/15

2. Regulation (EC) 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents was published in the Official Journal on 17 October 1997, but did not enter into force until 17 October 1998. Moreover, the main provisions of the Regulation, including the requirements for advance payment of compensation and the application of unlimited liability for death and injury, are not obligatory for carriers from outside the Community. In this particular accident, therefore, the Regulation is not applicable and the Warsaw Convention of 1929 is likely to govern and will probably limit the amount of compensation for which the carrier is liable.

3. The Commission is not in a position to intervene in this case. Faced with a clear conclusion in the investigation of the accident, it would be usual for the airline to reach a settlement with the families of the victims, however, if it proves impossible to reach such a settlement, there may be no option other than to bring the matter before a court. It is understood that the families of some victims have taken this step.

(2000/C 374 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2785/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Destruction of a Natura 2000 protected area by an EU-funded project

It is claimed that the Aliakmon Gorge area, which is protected under the Habitat’s Directive, 92/43 (1) (Natura 2000) as a priority habitat, is being devastated by a series of works being carried out in the course of the construction of the Veria-Polymylos section of the Egnatia highway. More specifically, the contractor for this project is, in breach of environmental regulations, extensively dumping spoil on the hillsides above the river, although it is required to deposit the spoil at specially designated points.

As this is destroying an area of exceptional beauty by virtue of the wealth of its flora and fauna, what action does the Commission intend to take to halt the destruction of the environment by this contractor? What action will it take against those responsible to oblige them to restore the site to its original state?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The Greek authorities have informed the Commission that human error caused a landslide during the construction of a small access road to the works site for the Veria-Lefkopetra section of the Egnatia motorway.

Under the terms of the contract in force, the contractor (the Aktor Mechaniki Olympiaki Techniki Korontzis construction consortium) is required to apply the environmental impact statement approved by the Greek authorities for the project in question and to dump spoil away from the banks of the Aliakmon river.

The Commission has reminded the company responsible for the Egnatia project, Egnatia Odos ITS, of the need to comply with all the terms of the contract. C 374 E/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2796/99 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: The food canning industry and the contribution there of the EU food aid policy

At its June 1998 part-session the European Parliament discussed and adopted an own-initiative report on the fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union (A4-0137/98) (1), in the conclusions to which it requested the Commission to promote the inclusion of Community canned goods in its policy of humanitarian food aid to needy countries, in view of the fact that canning preserves a food’s nutritional properties and facilitates the storage and transport thereof.

1. Can the Commission provide information on the action it has taken since the above report was adopted in order to comply with the European Parliament’s request?

2. Can the Commission provide information on the total amount allocated under the EU’s humanitarian policy in general over the last five years and, in particular, the amount allocated to food aid? What quantities and what percentage of the total amount of food aid are accounted for by EU canned goods? What types of product are involved and which Member States do they come from?

3. Can the Commission provide information on the types of product included in the range of EU food aid, the percentage which each type represents and the distribution thereof by third countries?

(1) OJ C 210, 7.6.1998, p. 295.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

Under Council Regulation No EC 1292/96 of 27 June 1996 on food-aid policy and food-aid management and special operations in support of food security (1) and the code of conduct on food aid agreed with the Member States, food aid is granted on the basis of a specific analysis of needs and is essentially consistent with the food security strategies defined by the beneficiary countries. Account is also taken of local dietary habits and national production systems.

Within this framework, the Commission gives priority to local and triangular purchases (purchases in developing countries other than the beneficiary country) and these purchases represent on average 40 % of total purchases, and are made up principally of cereals (rice, maize, millet) and pulses.

A paper setting out the total value of allocations of food products from 1993 to 1999 has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat-General.

The Commission takes every possible account of the possibility of sending fish-based canned food products as food aid. However, demand from the beneficiaries is primarily for fresh products.

Another paper setting out the quantities of canned mackerel and sardines allocated over the last few years along with their countries of origin has also been sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat-General.

The European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) is responsible principally for supplying emergency aid. Over the last five years the Commission has allocated the following sums to Community humanitarian policy: 1995: € 692,1 million, 1996: € 656,7 million, 1997: € 441,6 million, 1998: € 517,7 million and 1999: € 812,9 million. TOTAL 1995-1999: € 3 121 million.

The beneficiary countries are listed in the paper sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat-General. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/17

ECHO operates through the intermediary of non-governmental and international organisations. As regards purchases, Article 16.4 of the framework partnership contract requires humanitarian organisations to give preference to the country of the operation or countries in that region when placing their orders. This way of doing things allows food aid to be supplied at lower prices and also allows better correspondence between the products provided and the dietary habits of the beneficiaries. Article 16.2 of the framework contract also specifies that the humanitarian organisation must take all the necessary steps to ensure that the products are those which best meet local needs and habits.

The food products supplied are often cereals (wheat, maize), oil, rice and pulses. Canned fish is entirely marginal to the food aid supplied by ECHO.

(1) OJ L 166, 5.7.1996.

(2000/C 374 E/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2806/99 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Innovation and technology at ministry level

One of the great challenges for the European Union is to succeed in combining its development with technological innovation, which is essential in view of the advances being made in the sector by world powers such as the United States, Japan and south-east Asia.

More than ever, public opinion in general and businessmen in particular need to be made aware that innovation and technology are the most demanding issues to be tackled by society at national and regional level in the spheres of industry and research.

In view of this, does the Commission consider that it should encourage the Member States of the European Union to raise to ministerial level the various agencies dealing with innovation and technology, in order to emphasise publicly and officially the important role they have to play in all Member States’ governmental activities?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2000)

The Commission agrees the innovation perspective deserves a more central role in public policies promoted at national and regional level. Since enterprises’ ability to innovate is the first step towards competitiveness in advanced economies, the promotion of innovation is a challenge to public action. The complexity of the innovation process means that strategies and policies affecting innovation are often handled by several different government departments, some of which may have conflicting objectives. It is therefore essential to encourage dialogue and to organise the co-ordination of the policies which depend on it.

The policy debate on innovation launched by the Commission, (starting with the ‘Green paper on innovation’ (1) and subsequently the ‘Action plan on innovation’ (2)) already recommends that Member States take the necessary steps for effective co-ordination of the measures deriving from various policies to ensure their coherence in boosting innovation in our societies. These questions, naturally, are primarily matters for Member States. However, it is desirable to identify and promote good practices in this field.

The Commission intends to facilitate the design and implementation of initiatives in this area setting up a joint reference framework on innovation. That will help Member States in the exchange and adoption of good practices, including appropriate internal co-ordination mechanisms of innovation-oriented enterprise policies. C 374 E/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

To this end the Commission has launched a benchmarking initiative of innovation performances and policies in the Community. Innovation will also be discussed at the informal meeting of industry ministers on 10 March 2000 in Nordwijk in the Netherlands. The Commission hopes the discussions will give a significant input into the Lisbon European Council of 23-24 March 2000.

(1) COM(95) 688 final. (2) COM(96) 589 final.

(2000/C 374 E/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0021/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: The outermost regions and the allocation of structural funds

The programming of structural funds in the Autonomous Region of the Azores for the period 1994 to 1999 envisaged structural support worth PTE 149 200 075 million or EUR 744,207 million, equivalent to EUR 124,034 million per year, according to the latest rescheduling in 1999.

Although it already reflects the upward adjustment resulting from the relevant deflator, the amount is still quoted at current prices, since it is difficult to update it to 1999 prices.

In a letter to the Portuguese authorities dated 1 July 1999 the Commission proposed an indicative allocation of EUR 757 million for the Autonomous Region of the Azores for the period 2000 to 2006, equivalent to EUR 108 million per year.

This represents a substantial reduction, much more than the apparent reduction of EUR 16 million, in that the value for 1994-1999 has not been updated for 1999 and does not take account of the rise in revenue in both the Azores and the Community.

This Commission proposal blatantly contradicts all the promises and statements made by the Commission with regard to the outermost regions, in particular:

1. that the resources would be concentrated in the poorest regions;

2. that these regions would receive more amounts per year;

3. that the outermost regions in particular would benefit.

Apparently insensitive to the reality of numbers, the Commission continues to claim that the reform of the structural funds has brought more resources to all the outermost regions.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to carry out a thorough review of the impact of the reform of Community policies in the poorest and most isolated regions, such as the Autonomous Region of the Azores, in particular in the context of the application of Article 299(2) of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

The Commission’s letter to the Portuguese Government of 1 July 1999 to which the Honourable Member refers did no more than set out the consequence of the mathematical application of the general criteria that it had laid down for distributing structural aid to the various regions. Accordingly, this letter contained a purely hypothetical allocation of these amounts and did not seek to replace an analysis based on other considerations that might be taken into account when preparing the Community Support Framework. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/19

Thus the Regional Development Plan presented by the Portuguese authorities on 13 October 1999 proposed allocating to the autonomous region of the Azores, under the regional operational programme to be applied, a total of EUR 848 million from the Structural Funds, plus a sum still to be determined for aid from Cohesion Fund. The Commission has no objection to the Portuguese proposal.

As requested by the Cologne European Council, the Commission will submit to the Council a report on measures to implement the new Article 299(2) (ex Article 227) of the EC Treaty concerning the outermost regions. This report should be submitted to the Council during the Portuguese Presidency and will also be forwarded to Parliament.

(2000/C 374 E/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0040/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Cuts in the Poseima budget

In its letter of amendment No 4 to the PDB for 2000, the Commission increases the appropriations for other programmes to the detriment of Poseima, claiming that budgetary requirements for the latter are declining. However, according to the report on the outermost regions which it adopted on 22 December 1999, spending on Poseima in 1999 exceeded the initial budget. What are the Commission’s grounds for cutting this budget?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission’s answers to his Written Question E-0038/00 (1) and to Written Question E-2403/99 by Mrs Fiqueiredo (2).

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000. (2) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 125.

(2000/C 374 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0059/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: The relationship between the Structural Funds and the non-implementation of EU environmental legislation by a Member State

Given that, on 23 June 1999, Mrs Wulf-Mathies and Mrs Bjerregaard, then Commissioners, wrote to Member State governments warning them of possible delays in approval of programmes and projects if, in particular, notifications of protected sites under the Habitats and Wild Bird Directives had not been received, that Court proceedings had been started against Ireland in February 1999 because of unsatisfac- tory notification and delays in Ireland’s designation of protected sites under the Habitats Directive and that the Commission was also considering infringement proceedings against Ireland under the Wild Birds Directive, what is the likelihood that the Commission will not proceed with the approval of plans and operational programmes from Ireland, and/or what is the likelihood that EU funding will be suspended, in part or in whole, as a result of Ireland’s perceived non-compliance on these issues? C 374 E/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2000)

The letter mentioned by the Honourable Member has been followed up or is currently being followed up in the assessment by the Commission of the admissibility of the plans submitted by the Member States for the programming period 2000-2006 and in the negotiations with the regions on the programmes.

The Commission assesses each plan or programme as to its individual content, including from the point of view of the requirements of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2), the Habitats and Birds Directives. If certain elements of information are missing, the authority concerned (often through the Member State) must give a firm commitment that any possible negative impact on sites protected or to be protected under Natura 2000 will be properly assessed and appropriate measures will be taken. If needed, a time path for this commitment has to be established in the programme. Subsequently, the progress of the programme becomes conditional on the time path being followed.

The Commission regrets the lack of compliance of some Member States, including Ireland, with the Habitats and Birds Directives. Appropriate action is being taken as is evidenced by the Court proceedings that have already been initiated.

The negotiations with the Irish authorities on the plan for structural funding 2000-2006 are progressing according to the time schedule laid out in the general structural funds Regulation and the Commission is confident that the issues concerning the Habitats and the Birds Directives will find a satisfactory solution.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2000/C 374 E/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0073/00 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Sewage sludge in animal feedstuffs

Can the Commission allay EU consumers’ fears that there is absolutely no risk to human health following alleged reports of animal feedingstuffs being contaminated by sewage sludge? Is the Commission also certain that diseases which threaten human health cannot be passed from any contaminated feed back into the human food chain?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The animal nutrition sector is undoubtedly an important factor in obtaining healthy food products from animal origin.

The use of sewage sludge as feed material is not acceptable. Even after processing under a high-pressure, high-temperature treatment, due to the presence of heavy metals, sewage sludge might present a risk for public and animal health if used as feedingstuff. Therefore, in order to deliver a high level of public health and consumer protection, Commission Decision 91/516/EEC of 9 September 1991, establishing a list of ingredients whose use is prohibited in compound feedingstuffs (1), specifically prohibits the use of sludge from sewage plants treating wastewaters. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/21

In order to avoid any doubts as to the scope of existing prohibition, the Commission has already drafted a decision making clear that all materials obtained from the various phases of the waste water treatment process are prohibited in compound feedingstuffs, irrespective of any further processing of these materials and irrespective also of the origin of the waste waters. The standing committee for feedingstuffs is currently examining this draft decision.

Unfortunately, feedingstuffs can be vehicles of diseases, which are transmissible from animal to man, (i.e., ‘zoonoses’). For example: compound feedingstuffs contaminated with species of Salmonella might be the source of a contamination with these dangerous bacteria. Consequently, to reduce possible hazards to public health, Community law requires that only materials, which do not pose any risk, shall be used for feeding purposes. Furthermore, the importance of implementing good manufacturing practices has to be emphasised.

(1) OJ L 281, 9.10.1991.

(2000/C 374 E/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0074/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Risks linked to BSE

When does the Commission intend to propose the complete removal of infectious high-risk beef tissues and organs throughout the Member States of the European Union, as called for by the chairman of the European Scientific Committee?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

The Commission has already presented a proposal (1) in January 1999 to the Council and the Parliament for a regulation laying down the rules for the prevention and control of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). This proposal, which includes comprehensive provisions on the removal of specified risk materials (SRMs), is currently under discussion in the Parliament and the Council. The Commission urges both institutions to accelerate their consideration of this very important proposal which is essential to the creation of a comprehensive framework to protect the public from the dangers associated with TSEs.

In addition, the Commission has already proposed, on a number of occasions, safeguard measures providing for the removal of specified risk materials (SRMs) throughout the Community. The most recent effort, in December 1999, to introduce a safeguard measure failed to secure the necessary support of the Member States. Discussions are continuing with the Member States with a view to presenting a further proposal before end June 2000 which is capable of securing this support. The Commission has stressed repeatedly the need for such a safeguard measure pending the adoption of the proposed regulation outlined in the proceeding paragraph.

Finally, the Commission repeats the necessity for Member States to introduce and maintain national measures on the removal of SRMs until Community-wide measures are in place.

(1) Draft Commission Decision regulating the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Decision 94/474/EC, document SEC(1999) 1944. C 374 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0087/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Adoption of a regional development plan for Galicia and Northern Portugal within the 2000-2006 Community Support Frameworks

Does the Commission think that a Galicia and Northern Portugal development plan for the 2000-2006 period could and should be implemented, given that both regions qualify for Objective 1 status and fall within the scope of the Interreg II programme and the Community Support Frameworks for Spain and Portugal? The plan could be negotiated and approved by the Commission and the Member States in the first quarter of this year and would cover the full geographical extent of the Euro-region in question, embrace all aspects of the Union’s regional policy, including job creation and the development of agriculture, fisheries, tourism and industry, and devote particular attention to the modernisation of ports and airports and the establishment of links to the trans-European road and rail networks.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) stipulates that plans submitted under Objective 1 must be drawn up at the geographical level deemed by the Member State concerned to be most appropriate but must, as a general rule, cover a single region at NUTS level II. However, this does not prevent the priorities established for Galicia and for the North of Portugal from taking into account the problems faced by both regions and identified through ex ante evaluation.

The draft Interreg guidelines (2) (which the Commission adopted on 13 October 1999 and which Parliament is currently examining) specifically provide for establishing joint structures entrusted with the tasks of programme development, promotion, operation selection, overall management, coordination and monitoring of programming implementation. The Commission is due to adopt the guidelines at the end of February 2000.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. (2) COM(1999) 479 final.

(2000/C 374 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0096/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Comprehensive plan to clean up the Vigo ria

A comprehensive plan to clean up the Vigo ria, which is being financed jointly by the Cohesion Fund (80 %) and the Galicia Regional government (20 %), is currently under way. However, poor implementation of the plan, leading to a deterioration of the facilities provided, is causing a number of problems such as the leakage of household waste water and the presence of highly toxic and hazardous industrial waste which is affecting beaches of significant value from both the wildlife and the recreational points of view, according to the residents of Alcabre (a district of Vigo).

Those residents have already brought this state of affairs to the attention of the Commission and the European Ombudsman and have asked for an inspection to be carried out of the section of the ria between rua Corunha and the mouth of the river Lagares (also in Vigo).

In view of the situation, is the Commission going to inspect the installations of the drainage facility on the bank of the ria and those of the EDAR company along the river Lagares, as requested by the residents? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/23

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (7 March 2000)

The Commission recently became aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member and asked the Spanish authorities for information in order to verify that the Community provisions applicable to the project in question were being complied with. Moreover, at the next meeting of the monitoring committee planned for April 2000, the Commission will ask for a more precise description of the project content. It will keep the Honourable Member informed of developments.

(2000/C 374 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0098/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (26 January 2000)

Subject: Application of the partnership principle in the drawing-up of the 2000-2006 Regional Develop- ment Plan for Spain’s Objective 1 Autonomous Communities

In October 1999 I tabled a written question to the Commission (P-1798/99) on application of the partnership principle in the drawing-up of the 2000-2006 Regional Development Plan for Spain’s Objective 1 Autonomous Communities (1), bearing in mind that the plan, a key document covering the main investments to promote development, job creation, and transport networks, had not been considered by the Galician Parliament.

The Member of the Commission who replied to the question, Mr Michel Barnier, indicated that a final answer would not be given until the text of the plan had been sent to Brussels but stated in any case that, under Articles 15 and 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 on the Structural Funds (2), Member States were indeed required to submit their plans to the Commission ‘after consultation with the partners’, since the Regulation stipulates that each plan must include ‘an account of arrangements made to consult partners’.

Given that the text of the Regional Development Plan is already in the Commission’s possession, what steps will the Commission take to ensure compliance with the partnership principle and uphold the powers of the Autonomous Communities, specifically Galicia, bearing in mind that the Spanish central government authorities ignored the Galician Parliament when they drew up the plan, even though it has a decisive bearing on the Autonomous Community’s powers and its role as an entity responsible for Spain’s economic and social development?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 51. (2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (10 March 2000)

Article 8 of Council Regulation No (EC) 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) states that Community operations are to be drawn up in close consultation (the ‘partnership’) ‘between the Commission and the Member State, together with the authorities and bodies designated by the Member State within the framework of its national and current practices, namely: the regional and local authorities and the other competent public authorities, the economic and social partners, any other relevant competent bodies within this framework.’ The authorities and bodies designated by the Member State are called ‘partners.’

With regard to national regional development plans (RDPs), Articles 15 and 16 of this Regulation stipulate respectively that ‘plans shall be submitted by the Member State to the Commission after consultation with the partners’ and that the plans shall include ‘an account of arrangements made to consult partners.’

The RDP for the Objective 1 regions submitted by the Spanish Government on 29 October 1999 includes a chapter on the application of this principle of partnership, which states in particular that the Autonomous Communities were associated from the beginning in the design, development and drafting of the plan and that they had several opportunities of expressing their points of view and making changes to the final draft. C 374 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Since, under Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, it is up to the Member State to designate these partners, the Commission considers that the Spanish Government has satisfied its obligations with regard to compliance with the principle of partnership in preparation of this RDP.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0103/00 by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Compatibility with Community law of a Danish law on the levying of capital gains tax in the event of transfer to another Member State

A Danish law dating back to 1987 stipulates that the earnings from shares belonging to Danish citizens who move to another Member State are to be taxed. This means that people who are obliged to live and work in another EU country for professional or other reasons are subject to discrimination.

1. Is paragraph 13a of the law on capital gains from shares (Lovbekendtgorelse 1987-11-05 No 698, Karnovs Lovsamling 6 (1988), p. 5880) compatible with Articles 43, 56, 18 and 12 of the EC Treaty?

2. If it is not, what steps will the Commission take to make Denmark comply with Community law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the Danish tax rules according to which non-realised capital gains resulting from shares are taxed, if a person leaves the country. Similar rules exist in Germany, France and Austria.

The Danish law subjects capital gains on shares realised in Denmark to tax. In order to treat the taxpayer who leaves the Member State for a Member State where capital gains are not taxed, at equal footing, his latent tax liability with regard to capital gains is assessed when he leaves Denmark. However, this tax is not immediately due, but becomes payable only once the capital gains are realised, which means that the shares in question are effectively disposed of. The tax is assessed on the base of the capital gains calculated at the moment of leaving Denmark, but if the value of the shares goes down later, Denmark allows a new calculation of the tax so that only the effective capital gains are taxed. Moreover, tax on capital gains levied in the new Member State of residence are fully credited against the Danish tax liability.

It is true that the tax assessed must be guaranteed by the taxpayer on exit from Danmark, but the Danish authorities accept (part of) the shares as security.

There appears to be no material difference in the tax treatment of Danish residents and others who leave Denmark.

At any rate, the Commission will further examine the compatibility of the Danish rules with Community law, because a complaint on the same matter has been lodged with it and is currently under consideration. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/25

(2000/C 374 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0106/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Financial support for infrastructure in the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe quality of projects

Given that the European Union provides considerable economic support to the applicant countries in Central and Eastern Europe in order to improve the level and quality of their infrastructure in preparation for an enlarged single market (Phare programme, Ispa instrument), will the Commission draw up technical recommendations to be taken into account in infrastructure projects for which funding is provided so as to ensure a level of quality which will guarantee interoperability between those networks and Union networks?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

Assistance under the Instrument for structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA) is available for transport infrastructure projects that also promote sustainable mobility, as well as for environment measures. Energy and telecommunications projects can be financed through PHARE.

Transport projects eligible for support from ISPA will enable beneficiary countries to comply with the acquis that exists in this sector. ISPA will also contribute to achieving the objectives of the accession partnerships as well as to the interconnection and interoperability of national transport networks and the construction of the Trans-European transport networks together with access to these networks.

The Commission has drawn up a reference framework for the funding of transport infrastructure under ISPA. This document, which was examined by the ISPA management committee in December 1999, sets out conditions determining the eligibility of projects for funding under ISPA. All modes of transport are eligible for assistance, although railway transport will be favoured on the grounds of encouraging sustainable mobility. Priority will be given to projects to improve interconnection and interoperability. Assistance for the technical preparation of projects for assistance is available in an effort to improve quality.

In the telecommunications sector, candidate countries are required to adopt the acquis which includes the relevant European and international standards. The Phare multi-country programmes have provided training in this area. Community policy in this field is to encourage private capital participation in the development of the sector such as the international financial institutions and commercial banks. The risks to investors are reduced by the insistence on the adoption of the stable regulatory framework defined in the acquis. Interoperability with and between candidate countries has largely been achieved.

(2000/C 374 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0119/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Turnover tax on passenger transport EU Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977

Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 refers to turnover tax on passenger transport. At present only three of the fifteen Member States (Austria, Germany and Belgium) have transposed this directive and levy turnover tax on passenger transport through their territory. This imposes extra red tape and cost on passenger transport operators offering passenger transport through these three countries. This state of affairs is hardly compatible with the principles of freedom of movement and the promotion of cross- border activities. C 374 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

The aim of the European Community is harmonisation and the creation of equal conditions for all Member States. Is this being achieved with the transposition of Directive 77/388 of 17 May 1977?

Is it conducive to European integration for only three of the fifteen Member States to have transposed Directive 77/388/EEC?

Transport operators from Austria, Germany and Belgium are able to cut costs as they do not have to pay turnover tax on passenger transport through other EU countries. Does the implementation of this EU directive therefore constitute a distortion of free competition?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2000)

The basic rule for the taxation of passenger transport is Article 9.2(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) which states that ‘The place where transport services are supplied shall be the place where transport takes place, having regard to the distance travelled’. Under this rule Member States can apply a positive rate of VAT to domestic passenger transport and to domestic legs of intra-Community and international passenger transport.

However, there are a certain number of derogations from this basic rule, including those negotiated by Member States when joining the Community. The main causes of variation are that the Sixth Directive permits Member States to apply one or two reduced rates of VAT (of not less than 5 %) to supplies of specific goods and services (passenger transport services are included in this category Article 12, 3, (a) and Annex H, 5) and that Member States applying reduced rates lower than the minimum fixed by the Directive are permitted to continue to do so provided those rates were in force on 1 January 1991 (this enables Member States to retain zero rates or super-reduced rates for passenger transport Article 28, 2) and finally that a Member State may continue to exempt passenger transport services, under the conditions existing in that Member State (Article 28, 3, (b) and Annex F, 17).

All Member States have transposed the Sixth VAT Directive into their national legislation, but there may still be different rules of application in the Community.

Because of this disparity of treatment of passenger transport, the Commission presented a proposal for a Council directive (2) in 1992, which aimed to establish detailed rules for the common application of VAT to passenger transport services on the roads and internal waterways of the Community. The proposal was to maintain existing VAT rates and exemptions but to determine the place of taxation as the place from where the passenger transport started. Unfortunately, the proposal was not adopted by the Council, and the Commission withdrew its proposal by Decision 97/C 2/02.

In view of the difficulties encountered when trying to create a uniform taxation scheme for all kind of passenger transport, the Commission decided to launch a study to gain a better understanding of the economic data and practical consequences of taxation in the whole field of passenger transport. The study was to aid the Commission in preparing a report for Parliament and Council on the overall situation regarding VAT and passenger transport, taking into account the developments in the transport sector and having regard for the proper functioning of the single market. The report by the consultant in charge of this study was presented in 1998 and has been made public by the Commission.

In the framework of reviewing the overall VAT strategy in order to improve the functioning of the VAT system, the Commission will take this question into account when preparing this new programme and determining its future priorities in the field of VAT.

(1) The Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. (2) COM(92) 416 final. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/27

(2000/C 374 E/032) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0121/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Breach of the EU-South African Trade Agreement

South Africa’s insistence on using the protected designations ‘ouzo’ and ‘grappa’ on its spirits products, although they belong to the protected drinks of Greece and Italy respectively, casts doubt on the free trade agreement recently signed between the EU and South Africa. This behaviour on South Africa’s conduct in this respect is causing problems in attempts at rapprochement between the two sides, especially following the abolition of apartheid and the end of the country’s decades-long international isolation.

It is advisable to avoid the infringement of EU agreements with third countries at the expense of the specific interests of producer groups in Member States before the relevant agreements are concluded. Since there are many similar agreements with third countries, the responsible EU bodies should in each case take the preventive measures necessary to avoid the risk of large numbers of protected products being counterfeited.

Does the Commission take the safeguarding of protected designations for EU products into account during the conclusion of free trade agreements and what measures is it taking in this particular case to protect ouzo and grappa producers from the counterfeiting of these designations in South Africa?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

The negotiation of free trade agreements between the Community and third countries aims principally at eliminating trade barriers between the parties for substantially all their trade. However the agreements also deal with trade-related areas, such as protection of intellectual property. This has been the case with the Community-South Africa agreement.

The negotiations which led to the Trade, development and co-operation agreement (TDCA) were closely monitored all along by the Council, in compliance with the negotiating mandate adopted by Council, in March 1996. Their outcome received unanimous support from Member States at the European Council of Berlin in March 1999, and again in July 1999 when Council decided on the provisional application of the TDCA. In October 1999, Parliament gave its assent to the TDCA.

As regards the protection of denominations for spirits, the denominations ‘ouzo’ and ‘grappa’ are fully protected on the territory of the Community for the respective Greek or Italian products (1). No third country product can therefore be imported and marketed within the Community under these denominations. At a multilateral level, these two denominations are not currently protected under trade-related intellectual property measures (TRIPs) rules. However it is the Community’s strategy to negotiate bilateral and multilateral agreements to secure the protection of these designations on third country markets. A number of third countries, including South Africa, remain opposed to such protection. However, the bilateral agreements concluded by the Community with Mexico and Switzerland do contain the necessary provisions for protection. Similar agreements are currently under negotiation with accession candidates and neighbouring countries as well as Canada.

With respect to South Africa, the TDCA signed in October 1999 contains a specific reference to protection of the geographical indications ‘port’ and ‘sherry’ which are recognised under the multilateral TRIPs rules (2). But the TDCA confirmed that protection of traditional spirits denominations such as ‘grappa’ and ‘ouzo’, remain to be obtained in the separate wines and spirits agreement that has been under negotiation with South Africa for the last three years. This separate agreement was originally foreseen in the negotiating mandate on the main agreement which was given to the Commission in 1996. The Commission negotiating team has been consistently pursuing the established Community position in the matter. C 374 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

In February 2000, the South African government accepted a Community proposal to protect the denomination ‘ouzo’ and the other traditional spirits denominations (3) for the corresponding Community products at the end of a five year period of transition. Furthermore it was agreed with South Africa that formal negotiations of the wines and spirits agreement will be resumed in March 2000 with a view to conclusion by 1 June 2000 and entry into force on 1 September 2000.

(1) See Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks (OJ L 160, 12.6.1989). (2) See Annex X to the Council Decision 1999/753/EC, 29.7.1999 concerning the provisional application of the agreement on trade, development and cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part (OJ L 311, 4.12.1999). (3) Grappa, Korn, Kornbrand, Pacharan, Jägertee.

(2000/C 374 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0122/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Protection of the designation ‘ouzo’ in the EU-South Africa agreement

The new EU-South Africa agreement for easier access to the Community market for South African products, including wines and spirits, came into force on 1 January 2000. The agreement on drinks provides for the protection of the designations ‘port’ and ‘sherry’, whereas there is no provision for similar protection for the production and distribution of Greek ‘ouzo’, a product with a designation of origin that is produced in Greece and is entirely and exclusively associated with Greece, nor for Italian ‘grappa’.

Why did the Commission make no provision for the protection of the designations of the traditional Greek drink ‘ouzo’ and the Italian ‘grappa’? Does it intend to do so now?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks (1) sets protective restrictions on the use of certain geographical and traditional designations applied to spirit drinks marketed within the Community. Among these are ouzo and grappa. Ouzo can be used only for aniseed-flavoured spirit drinks produced in Greece to defined specifications.

Annex X to the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the Community and South Africa, signed on 11 October 1999 (2), makes specific protective provision only for the designations of origin port and sherry and mentions no others. It does however make clear that a separate agreement would be negotiated on wines and spirits, inter alia defining in more detail the commitments made on port and sherry. In these negotiations, held in parallel with those on the global agreement, the Commission has never left any doubt as to its determination to have the Greek name ouzo and the other traditional names such as grappa included in the agreement. For some time the South African delegation was unwilling on grounds of principle to accept such restrictive protection for traditional names and this prevented the ‘wines’ and ‘spirits’ agreements from being concluded to the timetable originally planned. It was only in mid-February that the South African Government accepted a proposal from the Community whereby it will protect ouzo and the other traditional Community spirit names (3) after a five-year transitional period. The spirits agreement, to be concluded before 1 June and enter into force together with the wine agreement on 1 September, will set out the commitment in detail. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/29

The Honourable Member is also asked to refer to the reply to Written Question E-121/00 by Mr Souladakis (4) on the same topic.

(1) OJ L 160, 12.6.1989. (2) OJ L 311, 4.12.1999. (3) Grappa, Korn, Kornbrand, Pacharan, Jägertee. (4) See page 27.

(2000/C 374 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0126/00 by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Delays at Madrid Barajas airport

The Association of European Airlines (AEA) recently published figures on the operation of the main European airports in the third quarter of 1999. The results for Madrid airport are abysmal, the only airports to record worse figures being Barcelona and Milan Malpensa. According to the AEA figures, more than half of flights leaving Barajas were late (51,9 %), with take-off being delayed by an average of 43 minutes. The figures for arrivals were no better, with 47,7 % of flights arriving late and an average delay of 45 minutes.

The study also lists the causes of the delays, which clearly show that it is Barajas which is responsible for the problems, given that only 16 % of cases were linked to delays at other airports, while air-traffic control at Madrid Barajas and loading and handling operations on the ground were responsible in 31,5 % of cases. In short, the figures show that the situation at Barajas airport is poor and that it is the airport itself which is at the root of the problems.

In view of these figures, and given the Commission’s wish to establish a single European air space, as stated by Commissioner de Palacio herself:

what measures can the Commission adopt to improve the situation at European airports?

Has the Commission adopted any initiative in this connection?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The Commission agrees that the situation of air traffic delays and airspace congestion has reached limits which are no longer acceptable, and requires urgent and drastic action.

The Commission does not collect statistics for delays at airports. However the Association of European Airlines’ punctuality report for the third quarter of 1999, does indicate the excessive delay being experienced at many European airports.

As regards delays attributed to Air Traffic Control, the Eurocontrol Organisation’s Central Flow Manage- ment Unit, has indicated that there were problems during the month of December when the delay for all flights in Spain was higher than that of other States such as for example Netherlands, France and Switzerland. The reasons for these delays at the time were staff shortages and bad weather (mainly fog). The situation has subsequently improved considerably and the delays in Madrid in January have decreased by over a half on the December figures. Thus Barajas is no longer the most penalising area in Europe.

As regards the measures that the Commission could take to improve the situation at European airports, the Commission adopted on the 1st December a communication entitled ‘the creation of the single European sky’, which analyses the causes for that situation and recommends a number of actions to be undertaken both at Member State and Community level. C 374 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Furthermore, a high level group has been created, under the chairmanship of the Vice-President responsible for transport and energy to review the issues associated with delays in air traffic management. The HLG will complete its review in June 2000 and the Commission will report progress to the Council and the Parliament.

(2000/C 374 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0151/00 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: State aid and the coal industry

Can the Commission confirm that its examination of the merger between Ruhrkohle AG Saarbergewerke AG and Preussag Anthrazit GmbH in 1998 has revealed that state aid was granted by the German Government? What steps is the Commission taking to secure repayment of this state aid?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2000)

The Commission can confirm that it has been examining the possibility that non-notified state aid may have been involved in the purchase of the publicly-owned Saarbergwerke AG by the private sector company RAG Aktiengesellschaft (RAG AG).

As a result of these investigations, the Commission decided, on 18 January 2000, to send a letter of formal notice to the German government requesting it to provide in the month following receipt of the letter: a detailed and quantified economic evaluation of the risks involved for RAG AG in acquiring Saarbergwerke AG; a detailed commercial and financial evaluation of each of the subsidiary companies in the Saarberg- werke AG group at the time of the merger together with the expected future cash flows; a detailed commercial and financial evaluation of the synergies available to Deutsche Steinkohle AG in acquiring the coal producing activities of Saarbergwerke AG; a detailed commercial and financial evaluation of the synergies available to RAG AG in acquiring the non-coal producing activities of Saarbergwerke AG; and an explanation as to why the price of DEM 1, paid by RAG AG for Saarbergwerke AG, was not notified as state aid to the coal sector as defined under Article 1 paragraphs 2 and 4 of Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry (1) if Germany considered this to be risk insurance for RAG AG.

The letter will also be published in the Official journal with an invitation to third parties to submit their comments within a month of the date of publication. Any observations received will then be forwarded to the German government for their reaction.

On the basis of these replies, the Commission will then take a final decision on whether or not non- notified state aid was involved in the acquisition.

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.

(2000/C 374 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0174/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Request that the ECB change the system of weekly auctions

Some Spanish banks have called for changes to be made to the mechanisms of the ECB’s monetary policy, such as the weekly repo auctions, because they penalise Spanish financial institutions. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/31

The banks would also like to see the weekly fixed-rate auctions replaced by variable-rate auctions, so as to eliminate the incentive for over-bidding.

Does the Commission feel it should propose that account be taken of the request of the Spanish banking institutions by satisfying their wish for official announcements to be made concerning bids submitted previously?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2000)

The question of the Honourable Member concerns the way in which the European system of central banks (ESCB) implements the monetary policy of the euro zone. This is one of the basic tasks of the ESCB listed in Article 105 of the EC Treaty. The Commission is not competent in the matter.

(2000/C 374 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0181/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Reintroduction of wolves, bears and lynx

Further to Written Question E-2432/99 (1) can the Commission provide more precise information on the projects to reintroduce wolves, bears and lynx referred to in its answer? What was the main goal of these projects, how much did each project cost and through what bodies were they funded? Can the Commission provide as detailed as possible an answer?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 161.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

The Commission, in its reply to Written Question E-2432/99 (1) by the Honourable Member, answered that under the financial instrument LIFE-Nature and its predecessors many projects had been financed aiming either directly or indirectly at the conservation of the wolf (21 projects), the lynx (14 projects) and the brown bear (17 projects).

In the light of the Honourable Member’s new question the Commission would point out that only two of these LIFE-Nature projects include specific actions for the re-stocking of the brown bear, while no project has ever been financed for the re-stocking or re-introduction of the wolf and the lynx.

Full details of these two projects are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament.

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 161. C 374 E/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0195/00 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Interreg Project in Schwedt, Brandenburg (Germany) use of tropical wood in a project receiving maximum EU funding

A foot and cycle bridge over a lock in Schwedt (Euroregion of Pomerania), has been granted the maximum EU subsidy of 75 % (DEM 1,45 million). This bridge is to be built of bongossi, a tropical hardwood which is not recognised as a product of sustainable forestry.

1. Does the Commission feel that it is permissible for the use of tropical woods which may not derive from sustainable forestry to be subsidised by European funds, and that such funding is compatible with the horizontal Community policy on protecting and improving the environment?

If so, how does the Commission justify this, particularly in the light of the Community’s promises to protect the global climate?

If not, what does the Commission propose to do to prohibit the granting of this subsidy?

2. Does the Commission consider it essential for a project subsidised by the EU to use tropical wood when other alternatives are available?

3. Does the Commission consider that it is necessary in the interest of the European environment, and of consistency with its promises to protect the global climate, that the payment of funds from the Community’s Interreg initiative should be halted rapidly with a view, if possible, to preventing this wood from even being delivered?

If so, what measures will the Commission take in this case?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the need to promote environmentally friendly forestry in developing countries. For example, more than € 50 million per year is allocated from the Community budget for the conservation and sustainable cultivation of forests in developing countries. The Commission has also intervened in the global discussions on this matter, for example, in international forestry committees, in order to promote the ecological dimension of forestry management. It has also supported the voluntary certification of forestry products aimed at raising awareness.

Under the regulations governing the structural funds, the selection of individual projects is a responsibility of the Member States, once the strategic programme priorities have been agreed with the Commission. The national authorities are, at the same time, obliged to apply Community law, for example, in relation to the environment.

On the basis of information supplied to the Commission by the German authorities, the implementation in its particular form of the specific project cited by the Honourable Member does not constitute a breach of Community law nor is it an infringement of German national law. The Commission is not therefore in a position to impose restrictions on the project and there is no basis to withdraw financial support under the structural funds.

However, the Commission intends to examine the possibilities on how to take the environmental dimension better into account in the context of the rules governing European public procurement. The result of this examination will take the form of an interpretative communication on European public procurement and the environment.

The Commission following an invitation from the Council is considering the possibility for further action on the certification of sustainably managed forests and on the labelling of products from such forests. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/33

(2000/C 374 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0199/00 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Unfair competition in prices on Danish export markets due to EU subsidy for feta cheese products

Is the Commission aware that its subsidy policy towards feta cheese is giving an unfair price advantage to producers of ultra-filtrated feta at the expense of equal and competing products, thereby seriously distorting competition? Does it not accept that the subsidy rate for ‘Combi White’ which corresponds to the quantity of skim milk used should be reconsidered, a development which would also reward innovative companies? Finally, will the Commissions state what has become of the proposal put forward about three years ago aimed at introducing minimum prices as a condition for obtaining restitution, a requirement which would ensure that the subsidy would not distort competition?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Export refunds are fixed at the same amount for Feta cheese made from cow’s milk irrespectively of the production process used.

Refunds are fixed for each cheese according to the fat and the moisture content and the Commission takes into account the market situation for each individual product and the respect of the ceilings fixed by the World trade organisation (WTO) agreement.

The Commission is not acquainted with a product called ‘Combi White’. Some information indicates that it would be a brand name of a product made with vegetable fat and protein. Such a product is not a dairy product and is to be treated, for export refunds purposes, as a product outside Annex I competing with cow’s milk Feta. The amount of the refunds for the non Annex I products are calculated on basis of the recipe for each product. The export refunds for the dairy products, when used as components of non Annex I products, skimmed milk powder and butter, are currently 4,5 % lower than for the same dairy products exported in natural state. This difference is necessary at the moment for budgetary reasons.

There is a minimum free-at-frontier price, € 230/100 kg, to be respected for cheeses falling under combined nomenclature (CN) code 0406 in order to benefit from a refund. This minimum price was set at this level in 1996 to limit the export of cheeses from the Community applying the WTO restrictions on export of cheeses with subsidies.

Within the framework of traditional trade practices Feta made from cow’s milk, falling under CN-code heading 0406 9033 9919, is currently exempted from the requirement to meet the minimum price.

(2000/C 374 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0200/00 by Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Posts at the European Commission reserved for Austrian nationals Grade A2 (to be specified as such)

Late in 1999, the European Commission organised a competition with a view to the filling of three posts of director reserved for Austrian nationals. At the end of the subsequent selection procedure, only one of the three posts was actually filled. In the procedure for the filling of the post of director in the Directorate for Citizenship and Youth in the Directorate-General for Education and Culture, the Advisory Committee on Appointments put forward to the appointing authority the names of two candidates who duly fulfilled all the requirements for the relevant posts. Nevertheless, the Commission subsequently decided not to take the procedure for the filling of the post any further. In the third selection procedure, the Advisory Committee on Appointments failed to come up with any proposal whatsoever. C 374 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Why did the Commission decide not to take any further the procedure for the filling of the post of director in the Directorate for Citizenship and Youth, even though the names of two duly qualified candidates were put forward?

What was the cost to the European taxpayer in terms of material costs, competition costs, allowances and the like and infrastructure costs of the selection procedure, which was abandoned half way through in the circumstances described above?

Why did the selection procedure for the filling of the post of director in the Directorate for Audit and Control not result in any proposals for appointment being made? What was the cost of the procedure?

Are the two unfilled posts of director still reserved for Austrian nationals? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The Commission notes the concern expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the fact that two posts of Director (in the Directorate general for Education and culture and the Directorate General for Financial Control) were not filled by Austrian nationals.

The Commission would confirm that, under the exceptional arrangements introduced in accordance with the Council decision reserving posts for the three new Member States (Austria, Finland and Sweden), the posts in question had been intended for Austrian nationals. The procedure for filling these posts was carried out transparently, and in compliance with the new provisions on appointments to posts in grades A1 and A2, which the Commission approved in its decision of 18 September 1999.

In the case of the A2 post in the Directorate General for Education and Culture the procedure under which all applications received following the publication of a vacancy notice are examined resulted in an opinion issued by the Consultative Committee on Appointments for the attention of the Appointing Authority which meant that two candidates were shortlisted. The Consultative Committee on Appointments shortlisted none of the candidates for the A2 post in the Directorate General for Financial Control having found that none of the career profiles matched the qualifications stipulated in the vacancy notice.

The Commission would point out that, in its capacity as the Appointing Authority, it is responsible for the final selection of candidates to fill vacant A1 and A2 posts. It confirms that, in the cases raised by the Honourable Member, it was regrettably unable to find a satisfactory match between the candidates’ career profiles and the qualifications required for the two posts of Director. The Commission accordingly decided to relaunch the two selection procedures, which will be advertised again. The Commission can confirm that these two posts will no longer be reserved for Austrian nationals, since the exceptional arrangements relating to recruitment from the new Member States ended on 31 December 1999.

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the costs of organising these two selection procedures were € 4 117. The interviewing of 10 candidates for the post of Director in the Directorate General for Education and Culture cost € 2 482 (hire of a videoconferencing studio in Vienna for five candidates, € 1 591, and travel expenses for interviewing five candidates in Brussels € 891) while the interviewing of six candidates in Brussels for the post of Director in the Directorate General for Financial Control cost € 1 635 in travel expenses.

(2000/C 374 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0204/00 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Travelling with guide dogs

Travelling with their guide dogs is a problem for the blind as every European country has a different set of rules for the veterinary checks and vaccinations required. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/35

In general the rules vary substantially between the countries of Europe. The United Kingdom requires import permits to be obtained in advance while Sweden requires the dog to be identified by either a tattoo or a microchip and Spain will not accept rabies vaccinations more than twelve months old.

This need to prepare everything in detail and in advance prevents the blind from travelling on impulse, so what kind of freedom of movement are the blind left with?

Does the Commission have comprehensive information on the varying rules for the entry of guide dogs into the countries of Europe?

Has it considered harmonising these rules so that the blind are also able to use the principle of free movement between European countries?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the problems caused by the existence of differing national rules governing the movement of pets, more specifically guide dogs, between Member States. Unfortunately, previous attempts by the Commission to harmonise veterinary requirements in this area proved unsuccessful.

After consulting a panel of independent scientists, the British Government recently abolished quarantine in favour of an alternative, less restrictive, system allowing owners to take their pets with them when travelling between Member States, subject to certain conditions.

Visually impaired persons travelling with their dogs have been the first to benefit from these new rules. Indeed, before the implementation of the new provision, the first animal to enter the United Kingdom without having been quarantined was a guide dog.

In this new context, the Commission will shortly submit to the Council and Parliament a proposal for a Regulation to harmonise veterinary requirements for the movement of pets. In particular, the Regulation will offer a solution to the problems which are still facing visually impaired persons travelling within the Community with their dogs.

(2000/C 374 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0210/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: The ‘Erika’ disaster and the fisheries sector

The recent disaster involving the ‘Erika’ oil tanker, flying a Maltese flag off the coast of Brittany, has brought in its wake enormous and, in many cases, irreparable damage to the environment in general and to the marine ecosystem and fisheries resources in particular.

One of the areas of the economy most severely affected, with major social repercussions, is the fisheries and aquaculture sector.

Has the Commission evaluated the damage occasioned by the ‘Erika’ disaster in the fisheries and aquaculture sector?

Can it provide information on any such evaluation?

Should this information not yet be available, will the Commission undertake to submit it to Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries as soon as it is in possession of it? C 374 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Can the Commission state what economic measures it intends to adopt to ensure financial compensation for those affected in the fisheries and aquaculture sector?

Will extraordinary aid measures be adopted to alleviate the damage caused?

Can the Commission state what measures have been taken or will be taken with a view to effective action to prevent maritime accidents in the transport of dangerous goods, and, in particular, to combat the risks of oil slicks and to further research into means of containing them when they do occur?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The French authorities are in the process of assessing the damage particularly to fisheries and aquaculture caused by the accident involving the tanker ‘Erika’. As soon as the assessment findings are available, the Commission will pass them on to Parliament’s fisheries committee.

Based on those findings and at France’s request, the Commission will of course take the most appropriate steps possible under current legislation to make good the damage to the fisheries sector resulting from this oil disaster. Community part-financing will be available under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) and could be included in France’s forthcoming single programming document (SPD) for 2000-2006 under Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (1). An FIFG budget of € 225 million has been allocated to this programme, under which the Commission and the French authorities will shortly be deciding on specific measures. Current Community legislation covering fisheries and aquaculture does not provide for special aid measures, however.

Measures have also been taken (or are planned) with a view to dealing more effectively with accidents at sea. Immediately on being informed of the accident involving the ‘Erika’, the Commission mobilised the Community’s marine pollution task force. In the days which followed, a liaison officer was placed at the French authorities’ disposal in order to facilitate coordination with European pollution-control vessels. At the French authorities’ request, specific data were then gathered on the availability of bird-cleaning equipment and floating barriers. As a result, 10 Member States and Norway provided France with over 26 km of floating barriers. Three experts from the Community task force were dispatched to the site to help evaluate the numerous offers of services and equipment made to France for cleaning and restoration. With a view to learning lessons for the future, in January the Commission coordinated a visit by specialist European observers. Throughout the operation, the Commission regularly drew up news bulletins based on documentation supplied by the French authorities and distributed these to the other Member States’ authorities directly involved.

A Commission proposal for a Decision (2) will make it possible to cooperate more closely in the fight against accidental marine pollution. Its final adoption by Parliament and the Council will create the optimum conditions for managing crises such as that resulting from the shipwreck of the ‘Erika’. With specific regard to the ‘Erika’, adopting the Decision should provide scope for a financial contribution to help meet the cost of assessing and monitoring the oil slick’s environmental impact.

As a result of the accident involving the ‘Erika’, the Commission has decided to produce a communication on tanker safety with a view to enhancing prevention. Legislative measures will be proposed with the aim of making vessel inspections in ports more effective, tightening controls on classification companies and increasing the use in Community waters of tankers which are more environment-friendly. The Commission hopes that the communication, which it plans to present to Parliament and the Council in April 2000, will provide the opportunity for this issue to be discussed in depth.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999. (2) COM(1998) 769. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/37

(2000/C 374 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0216/00 by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Internal competitions COM/TA/99, COM/TB/99 and COM/TC/99

On 2 December 1999 the Commission’s Directorate-General for Administration and Personnel decided to re-set the deadlines for the three above-mentioned internal competitions to 22 December (whereas the closing date for applications specified in the relevant notices was 4 p.m. on 30 July 1999) and not to hold the tests on 6 and 7 December as planned but to postpone them to a later date. Commission staff were notified of this decision by e-mail.

1. Will the Commission say:

(a) why exactly it took the decision to change the date specified in the competition notices, a date it had chosen itself? Clarification of this matter is needed particularly in the light of the fact that the decision to extend the closing date for applications was taken partly in order to admit candidates who, according to the letter of the above-mentioned decision of 2 December 1999, had failed to comply with the provisions of point XII of the notices of competition by the date laid down (4 p.m. on 30 July 1999);

(b) why the decision was taken only two working days before the tests were scheduled to take place on 6 and 7 December, with effects only to easy to imagine on the candidates concerned, of whom only those working at the Commission were informed in time (i.e. before the scheduled date for the tests)?

(c) how it intends to resolve the problems created by this delay, the length of which remains uncertain, as regards the holding of tests for those candidates who are approaching the end of their contracts or whose contracts have already expired?

(d) how it intends to provide sufficient guarantees that the competitions in questions will be organised in a proper and transparent manner with due regard for the rules which having established them itself the Commission has breached?

2. In the light of the above and bearing in mind that the likely consequence of the Commission’s decision of 2 December 1999 will be an increase in the number of candidates to the competitions concerned, does the Commission not consider that it would be right and proper to increase the number of posts available? This would make it possible to avoid penalising further the candidates for the internal competitions which, unlike previous years, are open to all categories of staff with less stringent conditions of eligibility, with the result that the number of candidates in proportion to the number of posts available is decidedly less favourable than in previous internal competitions?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

1. (a) On 2 December 1999 the Commission’s Director General for Personnel and Administration decided to extend the deadline for submission of applications from 30 July at 16.00 hours until 22 December 1999 at 16.00 hours, and not to hold the tests on 6 and 7 December 1999 as planned. The Director General took this decision in his capacity as appointing authority and in conformity with the Staff Regulations. The decision was fully supported by the Vice-President responsible for personnel. The Director general for personnel and administration sent a message to all staff on 2 December 1999, explaining that he had taken this decision because a large number of candidates had drawn his attention to procedural problems which meant they had been refused admission to the competitions because they had not submitted the necessary documentary evidence (as required by point XII of the notices of competition). Since the requirements for the submission of necessary documentary evidence had been more rigorous than in earlier competitions, the Director General came to the conclusion that this change could have given rise to a lack of clarity for a high number of applicants. In short, after taking account of all relevant factors, the Director General acted on the basis that candidates who were entitled in all other respects to sit the competition should not be denied an opportunity because of inadvertent errors on their part or deficiencies in the submission of formal documents. C 374 E/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(b) The Director General wanted to ensure that all possible solutions had been considered. Therefore he took his decision only after the three selection boards had finished their work concerning the admission of candidates, after consultation with various services in the Directorate General concerned, and after a meeting with the members of the three Selection Boards, which took place on 1 December 1999. Thereafter, the information was communicated to candidates as quickly as possible. On 2 December 1999 an e-mail was sent to all staff and each delegation was informed by fax. On 6 and 7 December 1999, representatives of the recruitment unit were present in the three exam centres (Brussels, Luxembourg and Ispra), in case candidates who had not received the information in time, arrived to take the test. Only four candidates (out of a total of 538) did so and the Commission therefore considers that the measures taken to inform the candidates of the decision were, in the circumstances, adequate.

(c) The message to all staff of 2 December 1999 clearly stated that candidates who had already been admitted to the three competitions would not need to reapply. Candidates who had been admitted before 2 December 1999 and whose contract has expired in the meantime, still have the right to take part in the competition. The written tests of the internal competitions took place in mid-March 2000, as announced in a message to all staff of 12 January 1999. The specific date subsequently notified to all was 15 March for COM/TA/99 and COM/TC/99 and 15 March for COM/TB/99.

(d) As mentioned above, the decision was taken by the Director General in his capacity as appointing authority, and in conformity with the Staff Regulations. The Commission consequently considers that no rules have been breached.

2. During a meeting with the Joint Committee (Commission Paritaire) on 17 December 1999 the Director General for Personnel and Administration agreed to re-examine the number of successful candidates for each competition in the light of the number of additional candidates who would now be eligible for the competition, following the reopening of the deadline, in order not to disadvantage those candidates who had been accepted initially, despite the admission of further candidates. All staff were informed of this in a message of the Director General for Personnel and Administration of 12 January 2000.

(2000/C 374 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0219/00 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: EU aid to France for the ‘Route Forestière du Port des Moines’ in Morvan, Burgundy

On 18 November 1998, Maartje van Putten, MEP, tabled Written Question E-3743/98 (1) to the Commission. In its reply of 2 February 1999, the Commission said that it needed more information before it could answer the question. The required supplementary information was subsequently supplied to the relevant directorate of the Commission. However, the Commission has still not answered the question.

The text of the written question (including the supplementary information requested by the Commission) was as follows:

1. Is the Commission aware of the deforestation taking place in various parts of the ‘Route Forestière du Port des Moines’ regional natural park and particularly the ‘forêt domanial de Saint Prix’ in the commune of Saint Prix, which forms part of the Morvan natural park, and that any reforestation which is taking place is being carried out using tree species (conifers) which damage water resources in the area, with the result that natural assets in the area are being impaired and a drought is occurring?

2. What are the Commission’s views of the impact on natural assets in the regional natural park in the light of the fact that the region received European financing via the Structural Funds for the period 1994-1999 (SPD Burgundy, Objective 5b regions, EAGGF money)?

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 121. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/39

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

Following the clarifications that Mrs Van Putten provided by telephone to the Commission, supplementary information to the answer given to her Written Question E-3743/98 was sent to her on 9 June 1999.

In its letter, the Commission stated that it had contacted the French authorities concerning the deforestation to which she referred. The French authorities had replied that the Saint-Prix national forest where the ‘Route Forestière du Port des Moines’ is located formed part of the state’s private property and was managed by the national forestry office according to a plan approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, which ensured its on-going management. More specifically, the stands located on each side of the forest road are mature softwoods (spruces) which are at the stage of natural regeneration. There is therefore neither deforestation nor reafforestation involving softwoods. In any case, this is one of the highest points in Burgundy (903 metres) with an annual rainfall of at least 1 000 to 1 200 mm, which excludes any risk of drought.

(2000/C 374 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0230/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Publication of answers to questions to the Commission

Will the Commission detail the steps it currently takes to enable all MEPs and the public to read the answers it has provided to parliamentary questions tabled by all MEPs?

In the interests of transparency, and in common with the practice of governments in many Member States, will the Commission arrange for answers to parliamentary questions to be published in the language originally used on the internet or intranet immediately after responses have been sent to the MEPs who tabled them?

And if not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

Written questions and answers are published by the Parliament in 11 languages in the Official journal of the European Communities in line with Parliament’s rules of procedure. As from OJ C 27 this year the Official journal is published electronically, see e.g. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex.

The Parliament also makes written questions and answers of the last two legislatures available on http:// www.europarl.eu.int/questions/fr/default.htm which offers various search possibilities.

In addition the written questions and answers are published in Celex which offers advanced search features. The management board of the Publications office, of which all institutions are members, recently requested that Celex, EUDOR and EUR-Lex be integrated into a coherent on-line service for accessing all the Community official documents.

Finally the Commission understands that the Parliament makes available to Honourable Members the answers to written questions on an internal Parliament website immediately after receiving them from the Commission in one or two languages. C 374 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0234/00 by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Environmental impact assessment of the Malpensa project

Article 8 of Decision No 1692/96/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 stipulates that: ‘When projects are developed and carried out, environmental protection must be taken into account by the Member States through execution of environmental impact assessments of projects of common interest which are to be implemented, pursuant to Directive 85/337/EEC (2) and through the application of Directive 92/43/EEC (3)’. The Malpensa 2000 airport project is No 10 in a list of 14 projects of common interest.

It should be borne in mind that the Malpensa 2000 project predates the above-mentioned directive and it was only later that it was extended on a scale that would make compliance with the directive compulsory. However, the directive, which requires the Member States to undertake environmental impact assessment of the 14 TEN projects, has not been respected by the Italian Government, despite repeated calls by local bodies and residents living close to Malpensa airport and, above all, despite the fact that this is a condition for securing funding from the European Union.

Nevertheless, the Malpensa 2000 project has received funding of 400 billion lire from the European Investment Bank (EIB).

Does the Commission consider that the Italian Government has breached the Community rules on environmental protection as laid down in Article 8 of Decision No 1692/96/EEC of 23 July 1996?

Accordingly, in line with its powers in the field and in order to safeguard the living conditions and health of those living close to the airport, will the Commission refuse to authorise increases in air traffic at Malpensa above and beyond those provided for in the general airport plan that was approved?

Lastly, is the Commission aware of any infringements or irregularities committed by the Italian Govern- ment and the EIB through failure to comply with the binding conditions laid down in Article 8(1) of the above-mentioned decision?

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

The development consent for the ‘Malpensa 2000’ project (extension of the existing Malpensa airport) was granted on 13 February 1987 (Ministry of Transport, Decree No 903), before the expiration of the deadline for Member States to transpose Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (3 July 1988). The specific legal requirements regarding an environmental impact assessment (EIA) did not therefore apply.

On the basis of the information available to the Commission, no major changes had been made to the project (1) (airport infrastructure) since its approval in 1987. According to Directive 85/337/EEC, an EIA could only be required prior to certain developments of the airport infrastructure (2).

Directive 85/337/EEC cannot be applied retroactively. The fact that the Malpensa project belongs to the trans-European networks (TEN) cannot be considered sufficient to introduce a derogation to such general rule, which is a general principle of Community law, confirmed also, with reference to Directive 85/337/ EEC, by the Court of justice on 11 August 1995 in case C-431/92 Commission v. Germany (Grosskrot- zenburg). 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/41

Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European network does not add any legal obligation in respect to the application of the EIA Directive. Article 8 states that ‘TEN projects’ are ruled by and subject to Directive 85/337/EEC. Since such Directive covers all the projects for which the development consent had been granted after 3 July 1988, there is no legal obligation for Member States to submit projects approved before 3 July 1988 to the EIA procedure as set out in Directive 85/337/EEC, even if the project concerns the trans-European networks.

The Commission has no intention to prohibit an increase of traffic at Malpensa airport for environmental reasons. This issue remains within the competence of the Member States which may adopt specific operational rules or limit the exercise of traffic rights at Community airports for environmental reasons on the basis of Article 8.2 or 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (3).

(1) For the purposes of Directive 85/337/EEC, ‘project’ means ‘the execution of construction works or of other installation or schemes; other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources’ (Article 1). (2) Article 2.1 of Directive 85/337/EEC. (3) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2000/C 374 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0236/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: The future of wood-burning ovens

Can the Commission confirm that there are no plans to ban the use of wood-burning ovens such as those used to cook traditional pizzas?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

The Commission has no plans to introduce legislation or other measures which may potentially lead to a ban on wood burning pizza ovens.

Although there have been reports in certain newspapers and other media that new hygiene legislation may be introduced to this end there is no truth in these reports. Food businesses that are involved in preparing and cooking pizzas are covered by Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (1) that was adopted unanimously in June 1993, and which Member States have to implement by 15 December 1995. It requires food equipment in contact with food to be in good condition, clean and properly maintained. There are no specific measures for pizza ovens.

The Honourable Member is also referred to the Commission’s answer to Written Question P-2771/99 (2)by Mr Mastella.

(1) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993. (2) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 49. C 374 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0238/00 by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Structural fund additionality

The legal definition of additionality requires that the appropriations of the Funds may not replace public or other equivalent structural expenditure. However, in the UK, this only needs to be demonstrated on a UK basis.

The European component of structural funds for Wales is paid from the EU into the UK Treasury. The annual budget allocation awarded to the National Assembly for Wales is calculated by the Treasury using a mechanism which has not been adjusted to take into account the additional sums which will be available to West Wales and the Valleys under the Objective 1 programme from January 2000. What this means in effect is that EU schemes in Wales have been paid for out of the Wales budget for education, health, social services and so on.

Given the stated intention of the Commission to target the Structural Funds in a more effective and concentrated way between 2000 and 2006, would the Commission consider introducing a mechanism that would reveal to what extent additionality was implemented on a regional basis within the Member States and therefore to what extent the funds were being used to maximum benefit in the targeted areas?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

There is no requirement under the regulation for Member States to apply the principle of additionality on a regional basis.

The rules are set out in the general regulation on the structural funds (1) that was agreed by the Council in June of last year and which establishes the frame of reference for the Commission and the Member States for the implementation of the programmes for the period up until the end of 2006.

Apart from the provisions with regard to additionality, the regulations also required the Member States, firstly, to ensure that Community resources are spent only in the eligible regions to which they have been allocated and, secondly, that these resources are cofinanced by national resources within the limits provided. The programming document adopted by the Commission contains the necessary confirmation on both of these aspects.

(1) Regulation EC No 1260/1999 of 21.6.1999 OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0239/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Territorial employment pacts

Following the adoption of the territorial employment pacts, can the Commission say:

1. Exactly how many pacts have been established in the cohesion countries?

2. Give an assessment of their progress hitherto in each of the cohesion countries?

3. Set out the underlying principles of the new pacts for the period 2000-2006? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/43

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (23 March 2000)

A detailed list and an initial assessment of the 89 territorial employment pacts launched in 1997 on the initiative of the Commission was published in the ‘Second interim progress report on the Territorial Employment Pacts’ (1).

The basic approach which the Commission intends to follow during the next programming period is to encourage the consolidation of the territorial pacts and their dissemination through the operational programmes of the Structural Funds. Detailed guidelines to that end may be found in the Commission’s ‘Guide to Territorial Employment Pacts 2000-2006’ (2).

(1) SEC(1999) 1932. (2) SEC(1999) 1933.

(2000/C 374 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0242/00 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission (31 January 2000)

Subject: Appointment of a new Commission Director-General for Agriculture

In an article headlined ‘Cynics flag up doubts over farm job’ in its issue of 13-19 January 2000, the European Voice suggests that political pressure may have been applied to secure the appointment of Mr José Domingos Silva to the post of Commission Director-General for Agriculture.

1. Can the Commission confirm that Mr Silva was appointed on the basis of individual merit and that no political pressure was applied?

2. Did Members of the Commission or their services have any formal or informal contacts, written or otherwise, with any Member State government in relation to the appointment of a new Director-General for Agriculture? If so, what were the nature and contact of these contacts? When did these contacts take place?

3. Can the Commission confirm the assertion made by the European Voice that, upon his appointment, Mr Silva circulated a letter to the staff of the Directorate-General for Agriculture thanking the Vice- President of the Commission, Mrs Palacio, for her support in securing his appointment? If so, will the Commission communicate the contents of this letter to Parliament and indicate what the nature of this support was?

4. Can the Commission indicate whether the post of Director-General for Agriculture was externally advertised? Can it indicate how many applications for the post it received from internal and external applicants, and how many applicants were invited for interview?

5. Since taking office, has the Commission adhered fully to the set of rules governing the appointment of high officials?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (10 March 2000)

1. The procedure for filling the post of Director-General for Agriculture was in accordance with the provisions of the Staff Regulations and the Commission decision of 18 September 1999 on appointments to grades A1 and A2 at the Commission.

The Commission can consequently confirm that the appointment of Mr Silva Rodriguez to the post of Director-General for Agriculture was due entirely to the fact that the applicant’s merit, qualifications, agricultural training and experience of work in the Directorate-General for Agriculture since 1987 completely matched the requirements of the post. C 374 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

2. Vacancies at Director General level naturally attract broad political interest and it would be surprising if opinions were not informally offered.

It is, however, the Commission which clearly takes the final decision once the interview process has been completed, and does so on an objective basis following the Commission rules on nominations which require a double examination of the candidatures.

3. Following his appointment, Mr José Manuel Silva Rodriguez did indeed send a letter to the staff of the Agriculture DG. However, the letter does not express any thanks to Commission Vice-President Mrs Loyola de Palacio. In his message, Mr Silva Rodriguez refers to the confidence that Mrs de Palacio has placed in him since their first meeting. He also mentions the six other Commissioners whom he has had the opportunity of meeting during the course of his Community career.

4. The vacant post of Director-General for Agriculture was advertised inside the Commission and the other European institutions as provided for under Article 29(1)(a) and (c) of the Staff Regulations.

5. The Commission has at all times complied with all the rules governing the appointment of senior officials and with its own decision of 18 September 1999, and will continue to do so.

(2000/C 374 E/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0245/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Refund of resources lost owing to a shortfall in tobacco deliveries

The rules governing the common organisation of the market in tobacco provide that, if after the deliveries of all varieties of tobacco, the overall amount delivered is found to be less than the overall quota allocated to the country concerned, supplementary deliveries entitled to premiums up to the size of the overall quota are not permitted.

Given that frequently, mainly owing to unfavourable weather conditions, production falls below the quota level and that this measure applicable to deliveries merely means a loss of aid and a reduction in the incomes of tobacco producers.

Will the Commission say:

1. Does it intend to consider whether the resources lost owing to a shortfall in tobacco deliveries might be refunded to the tobacco sector?

2. Will it allow additional deliveries with premium entitlements?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

Current Community legislation on tobacco does not provide for reacquisition of appropriations lost following a shortfall in tobacco deliveries.

Where tobacco deliveries are entitled to a premium, Article 16(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2848/ 98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the premium scheme, production quotas and the specific aid to be granted to producer groups in the raw tobacco sector (1) stipulates that, except in cases of force majeure, producers must deliver their entire production to the first processor by 30 April of the year following the year of harvest for the groups of varieties VI, VII and VIII and by 15 April of the year following the year of harvest for the other groups of varieties, failing which they will lose their entitlement to the premium. However, Article 27(4) of the same Regulation provides that producers who had an abnormally low harvest during the reference period because of bad weather do not lose the right to their quota. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/45

On the other hand, so that production quotas can be fully utilised, where deliveries are made under cultivation contracts concluded with producer groups, if a producer member’s harvest falls below the maximum quantity to be delivered, quantities from another producer member of the same group whose production exceeds his individual quota can be included in the deliveries entitled to premiums provided that the quantity entered on the quota statement of the producer group in question is not exceeded and that Regulation (EC) No 2848/98, in particular Articles 11, 22 and 24 thereof, is complied with.

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.1998.

(2000/C 374 E/052) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0248/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Impact on Greek agricultural produce of the trade agreement between the EU and South Africa

The trade cooperation agreement concluded between the European Union and South Africa has caused considerable concern, notably in Italy and Greece, about the possible consequences for fresh and processed fruit and vegetables in the southern countries of the Union. As regards Greece in particular, the products affected are tinned peaches and apricots, fruit salads and fruit juices and Greek Valencia oranges, whose marketing period coincides in part with that of South African produce.

In signing the EU-South Africa agreement did the Commission consider the consequences for fresh and processed Greek and Italian produce? Does it intend to provide for measures (derogations, restrictions on tariff concessions, etc.) in order to avoid any adverse consequences due to the implementation of this agreement?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

In setting out the negotiating mandate of the Commission prior to commencement of negotiations towards the Community/South Africa Agreement on trade, development and co-operation, the Council was very much aware of the sensitivity of the fruit and vegetables sector.

Accordingly, in general the Council excluded the most sensitive products in the sector from liberalisation and only accepted in some very specific cases tariff quotas where the quantities were based on current trade flows.

For less sensitive products where the Council accepted liberalisation the Commission negotiated such liberalisation to be implemented as late as possible in order to give the sector a reasonable delay to prepare for the new situation.

The Honourable Member should also be aware that a joint declaration on agricultural quota annexed to the Agreement (paragraph 2) states that ‘Concerning in particular prepared fruits (peaches, pears and apricots) South Africa agrees to manage its exports to the European Union in a balanced way’.

Finally, the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to Article 15 of the Agreement, which contains a general safeguard clause for agriculture products. Either party to the Agreement may initiate the safeguard procedures under this clause, if imports cause or threaten to cause a serious disturbance on their market. C 374 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0252/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Secondary employment

How many Commission staff are engaged in secondary employment that required approval according to the Staff Regulations and how many were instructed to cease or refrain from specified employment of this kind?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

Article 12 of the Staff Regulations provides that officials must abstain from any outside activities which may reflect on their position. Furthermore an official wishing to engage in an outside activity whether gainful or not, or to carry out any assignment outside the Communities must obtain permission from the appointing authority. Permission shall be refused if the activity or assignment is such as to impair the official’s independence or to be detrimental to the work of the Communities.

The number of outside activities for which permission has been required in the last five years is 677. They related mainly to teaching engagements in universities, appearances at conferences and seminars, participation in different kind of Boards of academic, administration or artistic foundations, societies and other organisations whose activities are not in conflict with the interests of the Commission or the Communities. There have been four occasions on which permission to engage in outside activities was sought and authorisation has been refused.

(2000/C 374 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0254/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Commissioners’ cabinets

Will the Commissioners list the members of their cabinet?

What are the total salaries for each cabinet?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

The list of all members of the Commission’s cabinets is being transmitted directly to the Honourable Member and the General secretariat of the Parliament. It is available in published documents. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/47

The total monthly salaries for each cabinet are as follows:

(in euros)

President Prodi 153 788 Vice President Kinnock 84 227 Vice President de Palacio 79 279 Commissioner Monti 65 331 Commissioner Fischler 83 968 Commissioner Liikanen 69 545 Commissioner Bolkestein 76 567 Commissioner Busquin 73 153 Commissioner Solbes Mira 80 744 Commissioner Nielson 79 906 Commissioner Verheugen 78 027 Commissioner Patten 75 578 Commissioner Lamy 72 674 Commissioner Byrne 77 868 Commissioner Barnier 91 579 Commissioner Reding 73 895 Commissioner Schreyer 85 659 Commissioner Wallström 74 982 Commissioner Vitorino 85 047 Commissioner Diamantopoulou 79 741

These amounts represent the net salary of officials of grades A, B, C and D and other agents who are assigned to cabinets. The net salary is composed of the basic salary payable at the various grades and seniority, any education and family allowance payable to those officials who qualify by having dependent family, expatriation allowance where applicable, and the fixed cabinet allowance for the C-grade officials. The net salary also takes into account deductions such as the contributions to the social security scheme, the Community tax and the special crisis levy payable by officials.

(2000/C 374 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0260/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Combating alcohol consumption by pilots in civil aviation

1. Is the Commission aware of the incident which occurred at Schiphol airport, the Netherlands, on 15 January 2000, when a pilot with Royal Air Maroc, who was on the point of departing for Tangiers with 125 passengers on board, was intercepted at the last moment, whereupon tests indicated that he had a blood alcohol level of 0,22 %, whereas the penalties in force are a fine and a temporary ban from flying for 0,02 % (equivalent to less than a single glass) and withdrawal of a pilot’s licence for 0,06 %?

2. Is the Commission aware, furthermore, of the articles ‘Piloten geregeld controleren op alcoholgebruik’ (Regular checks on pilots’ alcohol consumption) and ‘Brevet dronken vlieger ten onrechte niet ingetrokken’ (Drunken pilot’s licence not withdrawn, due to error) which appeared in two Dutch newspapers, ‘De Volkskrant’ and ‘Trouw’ respectively, on 17 January 2000?

3. How often have such incidents occurred in the past five years when aircraft visited airports within the European Union?

4. Does the Commission agree that it is unacceptable that such incidents should still be possible at European airports?

5. Do adequate rules currently already exist within the European Union regarding checks on the alcohol consumption of flight staff? What effective measures exist to monitor compliance with them? C 374 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

6. What further measures ought to be taken to ensure that:

(a) In principle, flight staff are checked at all airports?

(b) These checks are carried out regularly and at random?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2000)

The Commission is aware of the incident which occurred at Schiphol airport in January 2000, though it obviously cannot be familiar with every publication relating to checks on alcohol consumption by pilots.

There is no Community legislation at present regarding checks on alcohol consumption by aircraft pilots. Permitted blood alcohol levels vary from one Member State to another, as do the consequences of exceeding those levels. As for checks on the blood alcohol level of pilots, the information available does not point to any national measures imposing systematic or statistical checks.

The Commission is therefore unable to provide details of the frequency of such incidents.

Like the Honourable Member, the Commission believes such incidents to be unacceptable, as they have a direct impact on air transport safety.

Accordingly, on 24 March 2000, the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation which encompasses this issue, introducing common rules for the issuing of air operator certificates and rules governing commercial carriage by plane. The proposal establishes the responsibilities of the crew i.e. pilots and other crew members and lays down rules including a ban on the consumption of alcohol less than eight hours before the flight duty period and a ban on commencing flight duty with a blood alcohol level greater than 0,2 per thousand. Operators will have full responsibility for the proper application of these requirements and will be subject to checks by the national authorities.

(2000/C 374 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0262/00 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(2 February 2000)

Subject: OLAF

Can the Commission say what criteria are observed when recruiting OLAF personnel and what guarantees the staff have to give as regards their independence and moral and professional qualities?

Should accusations made by internal informants ever prove to be slanderous, what action would the Commission take against those persons and to repair the harm done to the injured parties? Furthermore, does the Commission consider that officials would have to defend themselves in the face of an accusation, or would the Commission take full responsibility for organising the defence of a person who had been slandered and instituting the proper proceedings against the guilty party?

Finally, does the Commission believe that a person holding a post on the OLAF establishment plan would be permitted to seek trade-union office? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/49

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom, of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti- fraud Office (OLAF) (1) provides in Article 6 that the Director of the Office shall exercise, with regard to the staff of the Office, the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the Communities on the appointing authority and by the Conditions of Employment of the Other Servants of the Communities on the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment. The Director of OLAF is therefore responsible for the recruitment of the staff of the Office.

The Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of the other servants apply to OLAF officials. OLAF officials must comply with the obligations under these rules. These require in particular that officials of the Communities shall carry out their duties and conduct themselves solely with the interest of the Communities in mind.

The criteria for the recruitment of personnel, laid down in Article 28 of the Staff Regulations, in Article 12 (2) as well as in Article 55 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, fix the essential conditions officials or other servants must fulfil to be recruited. Furthermore Article 27 of the Staff Regulations stipulates that recruitment shall be directed to securing the service of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity. In this framework it is for the Office to further reflect on the way to ensure the recruitment of the best profiles having regard to the specificity of the tasks to be performed.

Article 24 of the Staff Regulations obliges the Communities to assist any official in particular in proceedings against any person perpetrating threats, insulting or defamatory acts or utterances to which an official is subject by reasons of his position or duty. Furthermore Article 24 provides for compensation for damage the official has suffered in such cases insofar that he/she did not intentionally or through grave negligence cause the damage and has been unable to obtain compensation from the person who caused it. The assistance under Article 24 may take different forms and it is for the Institution concerned to choose the adequate measures or means, once the facts have been established. These measures or means must be proportional to the facts.

In cases where there is evidence of a breach of the obligations under the Staff Regulations by an official or other servant, disciplinary action may be taken.

Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by OLAF1 and Article 14 of Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/ 1999 of 25 May 19991 provide that pending the amendment of the Staff Regulations any official or other servant of the Communities may submit to the Director of the Office a complaint against an act adversely affecting him committed by the Office as part of an internal investigation in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations.

According to Article 24a of the Staff Regulations officials are entitled to exercise the right of association. They may, in particular, be members of trade unions or staff associations of European officials. Article 24a applies also to other servants covered by the Staff Regulations. Since the Staff Regulations are applicable to the personnel of OLAF its personnel have the same rights as any other officials or servants of the Communities.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0264/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Light pollution

What is the Commission doing to combat ‘light pollution’ around large cities, an environmental problem that, as well as presenting a substantial obstacle to the work of astronomers, contributes to global warming due to the carbon dioxide emissions of high powered light bulbs? C 374 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

The Commission is currently not undertaking any work on so-called ‘light pollution’ around large cities in the Community. Insofar as ‘light pollution’ is a problem, solutions need to take into account other factors such as safety and security. This could best be done at the local level given differing circumstances in line with the principle of subsidiarity.

The Commission is very much aware that the wasteful and inefficient use of energy for lighting, including public lighting, and the associated greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the production and use of this energy from fossil fuels can contribute to global warming. In the framework of the SAVE programme the Commission has taken a number of initiatives to promote more energy efficient lighting technologies and reduced energy use for lighting in buildings. These initiatives range from minimum efficiency standards for ballasts for fluorescent lighting to voluntary programmes such as the Greenlight programme aimed at encouraging public and private companies to install energy efficient lighting technologies. In many of these initiatives the Commission is working closely with national energy agencies which can provide appropriate technical support. Technologies are also being developed by European industry for public lighting that can reduce considerably the amount of energy used by such installations. To stimulate the market for these technologies, the Commission has recently issued a mandate to the European standardisation bodies.

(2000/C 374 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0265/00 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Observatory for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation

In the Commission’s Communication to the European Parliament on guidelines for a Community Initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg), mention is made of an Observatory for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation.

On the basis of their socio-economic characteristics and their geo-strategic situation as a remote region in the Atlantic, what chances to the Canary Islands have of being selected as the site for the Observatory?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The Commission has not yet taken a decision regarding the location of the future Observatory for cross- border, transnational and interregional cooperation. However, it ought to be pointed out that this will not be a body of any significant size whose headquarters site would require discussion at all.

(2000/C 374 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0280/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2000)

Subject: Directive on renewable energy

The Commission has repeatedly failed to submit a proposal for a directive on access for producers of renewable energy to the internal market in electricity, since no dialogue has been entered into with the 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/51

renewable energy industry and its representatives. Moreover, SMEs in the sector and Member States with more generous support systems are strongly opposed to the idea. Does the Commission therefore intend to consult representatives from the renewable energy sector as well as energy producers in the Member States, in order to avoid a fresh confrontation between the advocates of state support and those who favour harmonisation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

In March 1999 the Commission presented a working paper ‘Electricity from renewable energy sources and the internal electricity market’ (1). The objective of this paper was to highlight the numerous options available to the Community in addressing the issue of renewable sources electricity generation in the internal electricity market. Prior to the publication of this paper, the Commission had undertaken extensive consultations involving all parties concerned, including representatives of all sectors of the renewable industry (wind, solar, hydro, biomass). Furthermore, the energy consultative committee, in which the renewable industry is represented, had been formally consulted on the issue and gave an opinion.

Following the publication of the above working document, the Commission has again received numerous comments on the issue from the renewable industry and other interested parties, further investigations were made and discussions held. Indeed, in the working paper the Commission made it clear that it would make a final decision on the issue only in the light of the reactions to the working paper. Furthermore, the energy consultative committee has again discussed the issue in depth and will give a formal opinion in the near future. Intensive discussion in the working group of the committee involving all sectors of the renewable industry have already taken place.

When taking a final decision on the issue, the Commission will take all views into account, including those expressed by the renewable industry, which are of particular relevance and importance in this respect.

(1) SEC(1999) 470.

(2000/C 374 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0289/00 by Arie Oostlander (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Kosovar prisoners in Serbia

In a statement by the Interparliamentary Delegation for Relations with South-East Europe, which referred to an EP resolution of 16 September 1999 (B5-0100/1999), the Serbian Government was called upon to release the approximately 1 900 Kosovar prisoners still being held under appalling conditions in Serbian gaols.

Is the Council aware that nearly two thousand Kosovars are still imprisoned in Serbia, as they have been since the end of the Kosovo crisis?

Will the Council take effective measures to enable these people to return to their families as soon as possible?

(16/17 May 2000)

The Council fully shares the Honourable Member’s concern over the fate of the Kosovar prisoners still held in Serbia. On the occasion of the 19 July 1999 General Affairs Council, Ministers called on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to guarantee the International Committee of the Red Cross full access to those C 374 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

prisoners. The Council also called for the immediate release of prisoners held without charge and for prisoners to be treated in accordance with applicable international standards. After the 19 July General Affairs Council, the ICRC has been allowed access to Serbian jails by the Belgrade authorities. It has identified nearly 2 000 Kosovar Albanian prisoners during its visits on the spot. Since June, the ICRC has helped approximately 326 persons to go back home in safety after their release in Serbia.

At its meeting on 13 September 1999, the Council expressed its deep concern that the issue of the disappearance of several thousand persons, predominately Kosovo Albanians, remains open.

The Honourable Member can be assured that the Council will continue to do everything within its power in this context and in particular will consider progress in democratic freedoms and respect for the rights of minorities as one of the key elements for eventual lifting of sanctions against the Belgrade regime.

(2000/C 374 E/061) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0292/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Zimbabwean defence of asbestos industry

In view of the fact that EU Member States have until 2005 to remove all white asbestos from the market, how does the Commission intend to deal with the claim made by the Zimbabwean government that their white asbestos mine is safe?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

In August 1999, the former Member responsible for development, Mr Pinheiro, on behalf of the President of the Commission, wrote to the Zimbabwean minister of industry and commerce, Mr Shamuyarira, regarding a request for assistance to restructure the asbestos industry and communities affected by the Community ban on asbestos.

The Commission maintained that the Community proposal to ban chrysolite asbestos was based on solid scientific evidence taking due regard of the independent scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment, which stated that no safe threshold for crysolite asbestos can be identified; of the absence of contrary evidence to dispute the fact that all types of asbestos may cause lung cancer and mesothelioma, a form of cancer of the lining of the lungs and of the fact that evidence indicates that the main substitutes for chrysolite asbestos are likely to be less dangerous and should therefore be used in all cases.

In respect of Zimbabwe’s request for assistance for transitional arrangements for the asbestos industry, the Commission suggested that the National authorising officer contact directly the Commission head of delegation in Harare to further discuss the possibilities and resources for assistance available under the national indicative programme or the System of stabilization of export earnings from mining products (SYSMIN) facility. To date, the Zimbabwean government has not replied to this offer. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/53

(2000/C 374 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0304/00 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Delays in completing Cohesion Fund projects in Greece: biological sewage treatment and reorganisation of landfill sites in Thessaloniki

Work on two projects of importance for environmental protection and improving the quality of life of the inhabitants of Thessaloniki ‘Extension and completion of the Thessaloniki biological sewage treatment plant Stage II’ and ‘Reorganisation of a landfill site and survey/construction of a transshipment centre for Thessaloniki’ has been inexcusably delayed, while the Cohesion Fund financial package for the previous programming period (1994-1999) has already expired.

The above projects were among those financed from the Cohesion Fund since 1995 and should have been completed and operational in 1998.

Will the Commission therefore say:

1. What stage has been reached in the work, what the delays are due to and when the projects are expected to be completed?

2. What amount the Community contributed from the 1994-1999 Cohesion Fund programming period and whether the funds committed were sufficient to complete the projects?

3. What measures it has taken, or proposes to take, to ensure that these projects are completed and properly operational?

As regards the Greek authorities’ commitments concerning the Thessaloniki biological sewage treatment plant, will the Commission say:

whether the quality of the water in the Thermaic Gulf is being monitored and, if so, by which body,

whether the relevant sewerage system has been extended, and

whether the industrial area has been connected to the sewerage system, whether there is quality control of the industrial waste,

and from what revenue the operating and maintenance costs will be covered?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

Phase II of the project to extend and complete the biological treatment facilities for Thessaloniki, part- financed by the Cohesion Fund, is currently making satisfactory progress. According to the information received from the Greek authorities, most of the infrastructure will be completed at the end of 2000 and the operational trials of the facilities will start gradually as from March 2000. Implementation was held up at the start of the project by both the tendering procedures and the need to finalise the studies and evaluations of the results of phase I. Resources worth approximately EUR 70 million have been allocated overall to this project, mainly for building and improving the facilities and building sewage systems. This amount is considered sufficient to complete the project.

The Commission is aware of how important this project is to improving the quality of life of the population and protecting the environment. This is why it laid down performance criteria in its decision to grant part-financing (1). Moreover, it accepted the proposals for improvements submitted by the Greek authorities and is monitoring the project’s progress month by month. The Greek authorities have undertaken to carry out permanent quality control of the coastal and central waters of the Thermaikos gulf by means of monitoring programmes (run by the University of Thessaloniki’s pilot environmental C 374 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

monitoring station) and research programmes (run by the Hellenic Centre for Maritime Research EKTHE); to extend the sewage systems, some of which has now been done (Sindos); to commission biological treatment plants before connecting up the industrial estate and to monitor industrial effluent by means of a research programme and the laboratory on the site of the treatment plant, once the latter is operational. Lastly, the competent authorities will cover the operating and maintenance costs. To this end the Greek authorities are planning to charge appropriate rates.

The project to restore landfill sites and design and build a waste transport centre for Thessaloniki was submitted for part-financing by the Cohesion Fund by the Greek authorities on 27 July 1994. Before approving the project, the Commission had an ex-ante evaluation carried out by its consultants, who visited the sites and submitted various technical reports. Several preparatory meetings were held with the Greek authorities, who incorporated the Commission’s technical remarks and improvements in their project proposal. The Commission finally approved the project on 9 December 1997 (2). It provides for the rehabilitation of three landfill sites (Tagarades, Thermi and Derveni) and construction of a loading station for waste.

The total cost of this project is EUR 19,1 million, with a Community contribution of EUR 15,3 million (80 %), which is amply sufficient for proper implementation. Under the Commission Decision, which provided for one year’s leeway, the project must be completed before 31 December 2000. The Commission has already paid a first advance of EUR 200 000. According to the information received from the Greek authorities, the contracts for the four subprojects have been signed. To date, the uptake of appropriations amounts to 28,8 % of the overall project (17 % in October 1999). The Greek authorities have assured the Commission that they are doing everything possible to speed up implementation:

Expected uptake Total cost Uptake to date Sub-project by the end of May 2000 (in euros) (%) (%) Thermi 2 420 000 52,38 80 Derveni 4 996 887 0,21 40 Tagarades 7 751 421 45,97 60 Loading station 3 973 509 2,17 30

During the Monitoring Committee meeting in October 1999, the Commission asked for progress reports on the implementation of the four subprojects. It will continue monitoring progress, particularly as regards Derveni and the loading station.

(1) Decision C(95) 2916F, 28.11.1995. (2) Decision C(97) 3946, 9.12.1997.

(2000/C 374 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0308/00 by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Enlargement and the Structural Funds

Economic convergence is not yet a reality in the European Union. People living in Objective 1 eligible regions, who form 25 % of the Union’s total population, have a gross domestic product (GDP) below two- thirds of the Community average.

So the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund are the main instruments for reducing these regional disparities, in order to permit a more balanced form of development throughout the Community. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/55

For this reason the four French Overseas Departments that are eligible under Objective 1 will see a considerable increase in their level of per capita aid between the periods 1994-1999 and 2000-2006. This is a remarkable and necessary step, but plans for enlargement to include the central and eastern European countries are already in hand and are likely to upset the present balance considerably.

What measures is the Commission proposing to ensure that the impact of enlargement on the allocation of the Structural Funds does not worsen the situation for the Union’s regions that are most disadvantaged, and particularly the outermost regions?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Sixth Periodic Report on the socio-economic situation and development of the regions of the European Union indicates that, in 1996, the average per capita GDP of the regions eligible during 1994- 1999 under Objective 1 of the Structural Funds was 68 % of the Community average.

In respect of the current programming period (2000-2006), the list of regions eligible under Objective 1 and the distribution among the Member States of the Structural Fund resources allocated to these regions were approved by the Commission on 1 July 1999. These decisions will not be modified as a result of enlargement. This means that the French overseas departments will remain eligible under Objective 1 throughout the period 2000 to 2006, while the resources allocated to them under Objective 1 will be EUR 254 million at 1999 prices.

As regards the future of cohesion policy, the Second Report on Cohesion which the Commission will be adopting at the end of 2000 will in particular analyse the situation of the regions in the context of a broader Union. Based on the conclusions to be drawn from enlargement, it will be looking at various options that will open up beyond 2006.

(2000/C 374 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0311/00 by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Legislation on the abuse of women

Recent research has shown that 98 % of the victims of violence in the European Union are women, and that one in five women has been physically abused by her husband. It is believed that the number of women who are the victims of physical, sexual or psychological violence both in the family environment and outside is far higher than usually publicly acknowledged, partly out of an understandable desire to shield society and partly because of intimidation. A firm response is needed in so far as existing legislation in this area either contains loopholes or, in some countries, actually fosters a tolerant attitude towards every kind of violence against women.

Does the Commission intend to submit proposals aimed at:

1. Strengthening legislation to protect women from physical, sexual and psychological abuse?

2. Supporting social care programmes by setting up special centres, increasing public awareness and generally providing more information, so as to make it easier to report such events to the authorities? C 374 E/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member concerning abuse of women.

In general the primary responsibility for legislating to protect women from all forms of abuse remains with the Member States. The Commission respects the principle of subsidiarity in this field. Nevertheless, the Commission has paid considerable attention to this problem at Community level. In particular, it has organised the Campaign against Violence against Women which will conclude with a conference in Lisbon in May 2000. This has involved many organisations in the fight against violence.

As regards trafficking in women and sexual exploitation of children, including child pornography on the Internet the Commission intends to present detailed proposals with a view to approximating the criminal laws of the Member States. The proposals will also include the issue of temporary permits of stay for victims who are ready to provide evidence in front of courts. One objective of the proposals is to strengthen legislation at European level to protect women from the abuse and violation of human rights that trafficking and sexual exploitation represents.

Furthermore, the Commission manages the Daphne Programme, which combats violence in all its forms against women and children, as well as the STOP Programme, which combats the trafficking of human beings and the sexual exploitation of children. The Commission seeks to set up, within these programmes, networks throughout the Community involving organisations, both public and private, active in the fight against violence. Its aim is to encourage the exchange of information and best practice in the field.

Although the Commission cannot itself support the physical costs of setting up special centres to protect women against abuse these costs are for the Member States the Daphne and STOP programmes also contribute to increasing public awareness and providing information. The Commission seeks in this way to encourage victims of abuse to make contact with the appropriate authorities.

(2000/C 374 E/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0313/00 by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Safeguarding the social rights of gypsies

It is a deplorable fact that a large number of travelling population groups, and notably gypsies, in the European Union and Europe in general live on the fringes of or even outside the existing social framework. There are abundant examples which support the view that gypsies usually suffer from social exclusion and enjoy only limited social rights to health, welfare and education. This is due to a combination of many different factors, such as social prejudice, the absence of any consistent state intervention and widespread attitudes which almost amount to breaking the law (i.e. in respect of gypsies’ rights), even though these attitudes are held unconsciously.

Will the Commission say whether it intends to promote or support uniform or special social aid programmes for gypsies, with a view to increasing social awareness of gypsies, maintaining their civil identity and respecting the separate ethnic identities of the specific population groups involved?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Combating exclusion has been specifically set as an objective of the Community and the Member States by the Amsterdam Treaty. Although the primary responsibility for preventing and combating social exclusion lies with the Member States, the Community can and must help where it can make a real additional 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/57

contribution. This is the framework within which the Community can contribute to combating the social exclusion of all vulnerable individuals and groups, including travelling people, and the Commission has outlined possible proposals in this area in its communication ‘Building an inclusive Europe’ (1).

In addition, the recent proposals on combating discrimination adopted by the Commission on 25 Novem- ber 1999 will forbid discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin in employment, education, social protection and social security, social advantages and access to goods and services (2). In combating both direct and indirect discrimination in these fields, the Community will contribute to eliminating some of the barriers to inclusion faced by the Roma and other travelling people. The Commission has called on the Council and the Parliament to make rapid progress on this package of proposals.

(1) COM(2000) 79 final. (2) COM(1999) 564, 565, 566 and 567 final.

(2000/C 374 E/066) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0346/00 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Competence in connection with the economic agreement drawn up by the Spanish government’s representatives in the Basque Country

On 18 January the Spanish Government reached an agreement with the authorities of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country on the economic and tax agreement drawn up by the central government representatives in that region. Furthermore, this agreement has the approval of the bordering autonomous communities.

Will the Commission continue with infringement proceedings against the central government’s representatives despite the fact that the supposedly adversely affected autonomous communities have approved the agreement?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The Commission opened proceedings under Article 88(2) (former Article 93) of the EC Treaty against tax measures in the form of ‘tax holidays’ and tax relief introduced by the Basque provinces, not on account of complaints brought by the neighbouring autonomous communities but of doubts regarding their compatibility with the common market in the light of Article 87 (former Article 92) of the EC Treaty. The fact that the neighbouring communities have approved the agreement does not affect the proceedings initiated in the interests of competitors of the firms in receipt of aid.

(2000/C 374 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0355/00 by Ward Beysen (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Copyright directive

The Commission’s proposal on revising the directive on copyright and associated rights is currently before the Council. The proposal affords enormous advantages in that it strikes a balance between copyright holders, on the one hand, and users and the technology sector, on the other; however, there may be an inherent risk of giving a complete technical monopoly to copyright holders. What action is the Commission intending to take to avoid requirements being imposed in respect of technical systems in exceptional cases, i.e. instances where copying is, in fact, permitted? C 374 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

The aim of the proposal for a Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) is to adapt the legal framework for copyright at Community level in order to meet the challenges of new technologies and new forms of production and exploitation of works. The proposal is in keeping with a globalised environment, and it aims to transpose the bulk of the international obligations arising from the treaties adopted in 1996 under the aegis of the World Intellectual Property Organisation; one of these relates to copyright and the other to interpretations, performances and phonograms.

Under one of these obligations, the contracting parties have agreed to adopt legislation guaranteeing legal protection of the technical measures used by copyright holders to protect their work against unauthorised acts. The proposal for a Directive transposes this obligation at Community level in order to ensure an equivalent level of protection in all Member States and to allow the single market to function properly.

The Honourable Member recognises the efforts made by the Commission in the proposal to strike a balance between the various rights and interests involved. The Commission is particularly aware of the need for balance when delimiting the level of protection of technical measures where a Member State has recourse to one of the exceptions provided for in Article 5 of the proposal. The Member States seeking a satisfactory solution within the Council working group share that concern.

(1) OJ C 180, 25.6.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0359/00 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Bonded labour

Bonded labour is a human rights violation which, according to the UN Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, affects around 20 million people in the world. A large proportion of these bonded labourers are in India and Pakistan.

In the light of this, can the Commission inform me as to what action it is taking to:

1. Work with the United Nations and the ILO to urge all States to sign the pertinent international instruments which outlaw bonded labour, particularly ILO Conventions 29 on forced labour and Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labour?

2. Support States in developing and implementing domestic legislation to outlaw bonded labour, including carrying out detailed regional surveys to identify and rehabilitate bonded labourers and to ensure that those responsible for keeping bonded labourers are prosecuted in accordance with national laws?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member with regard to bonded labour practices and, like the Member States, recognizes the importance of abolishing child labour, which deprives children of their right to childhood, their right to education, and their freedom from forced labour. The Community is actively supporting the work of the United Nations, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in this area. It welcomes the adoption of a new ILO Convention concerning the prohibition and immediate actions for the elimination of the worst forms of child labour. The Community will help ensure that the Convention makes a positive contribution to the elimination of the most intolerable forms of child labour, including bonded labour and the exploitation of children in 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/59

prostitution. The Community sees the adoption of the Convention as a major step forward and calls for its early ratification and effective implementation.

The International Labour Organisation has well-established mechanisms for supervising the application of international labour standards, including the ILO’s Conventions on forced labour (29) and on the worst forms of child labour (182). It is recalled that the 1999 International Labour Conference examined a very critical report on Myanmar and decided to suspend the benefits of ILO technical assistance for this country. It is, however, clear that there is no basis for trade measures preventing the import of goods produced using bonded or child labour in any international instrument at present.

The Community follows an approach based on the offer of positive incentives and other forms of assistance, as opposed to the use of sanctions, in order to promote or enhance the ability of poor countries to adhere in practice to accepted standards in the area of core labour standards. However, in extreme and well-specified cases, the Community’s generalized scheme of preferences (GSP) system allows the suspension of benefits accruing to countries where severe violations of human rights have been found. This provision has been applied to Myanmar and still is in force.

Considering the case of Pakistan, its government has introduced legislation to outlaw bonded labour and child labour and keeps the Commission informed of the efforts of its authorities to implement this legislation (investigations, convictions, rehabilitation). The Commission uses all appropriate occasions to impress on Pakistan its concerns in this area. In addition, the Honourable Member will be aware of the considerable importance for India and Pakistan of the International programme for the elimination of child labour (IPEC) programme under the ILO aegis for the education of children which helps children to go to school and families to get a job or some money to survive. The Community is a major contributor to this innovative instrument to fight against poverty as well as bonded and child labour.

(2000/C 374 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0365/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Support for Member State company interests overseas

Does the Commission consider that companies with overseas interests supported by certain Member States have an unfair advantage over companies in those countries that do not offer such support? Is the Commission able to give detailed information on each Member States’ contribution to supporting the overseas interests of companies from their own country?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to possible support from certain Member States for the interests of their companies overseas. If these measures appear to provide the beneficiaries with an economic advantage and moreover if they are only available to certain enterprises or certain activities and if they potentially distort intra-Community trade, they may well fall under the discipline of the Treaty state aid rules.

The Commission, in a recent decision, has adopted a strict approach as far as aid to outward foreign direct investment of large enterprises is concerned (see Commission Decision of 14 October 1998 on a proposal by Austria to grant aid to Lift GmbH (1)).

The Commission is regrettably not able to provide the Honourable Member with detailed information on the amount of each Member State contribution to support overseas interests of companies.

(1) OJ L 142, 5.6.1999. C 374 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0369/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Socio-economic impact of the initiative on employment

The Luxembourg extraordinary summit of November 1997 launched an initiative on employment to be implemented over three years with a budget of c. EUR 450 million. It was incorporated into chapter B5.5 of the Community budget, in the shape of support measures for SMEs and innovatory labour market initiatives.

Can the Commission say:

What is the breakdown by Member States of the allocation of the amounts entered under each heading of chapter B5.5?

How many jobs did these measures create in the EU and in each Member State (bearing in mind that the Commission made a similar assessment of the ELISE programme)?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

Following the Luxembourg extraordinary European Council on employment, the budgetary authority created a new heading B5-5 ‘Labour markets and technological innovation’ for the financing of € 450 million over three years (1998-2000).

On the one hand, in 1998, three budget lines (B5-500, B5-5010 and B5-5020) earmarked € 30 million for funding different activities related to the implementation of the employment title of the EC Treaty and, in general, of the employment strategy. Such activities sought to identify and promote the exchange of good practices between Member States and to support underpinning innovative actions and projects and research related to Member States’ employment policies.

On the other hand, € 120 million was allocated to the growth and employment initiative, a programme of financial assistance for innovative and job creating small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). To this figure can be added an amount of € 5 million, corresponding to the Joint European Venture (JEV) pilot action (B5-512). For the years 1999 and 2000 an amount of € 300 million was allocated to the growth and employment initiative.

The growth and employment initiative includes three complementary facilities: a risk-capital scheme European technology facility ((ETF) start-up) managed by the European investment fund (EIF), a scheme for financial contributions supporting the creation of trans-national joint ventures by SMEs within the Community JEV managed by the Commission and a guarantee scheme (SME Guarantee Facility) managed by the EIF.

As far as the ETF start-up facility is concerned, the Commission has approved investment commitments to nine funds, selected by the EIF for a total of up to € 54 million. The breakdown by Member State is shown in Table 1 which is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Sercetariat.

As regards JEV, the Commission approved 65 projects: 53 joint venture projects and 12 promotion facilities. The 53 joint venture projects involved 115 SMEs. The breakdown by Member State of the SMEs involved in the projects and the foreseen location of the joint venture is shown in Table 2 which is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Sercetariat.

As regards the SME guarantee facility, the Commission has approved commitments to fifteen financial intermediaries selected by the EIF for a total of up to € 90 million. The breakdown by Member State is shown in Table 3 which is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Sercetariat. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/61

In relation to the ETF start-up facility, latest available figures show 49 Community SMEs have received an investment from the funds participating in the facility. Detailed information on the employment creation perspectives of the ETF start-up facility will become available in August 2000 when the EIF will have received the first completed annual questionnaires from SMEs.

As far as JEV is concerned, it is too early to predict figures for job creation. The first stage of JEV support is linked to a preparatory work phase and it is only thereafter that the SMEs will decide whether, and under what conditions, the joint venture will be undertaken. Nevertheless, even in this very first phase, SMEs have been asked to estimate the number of jobs that could be created. Based on this, for the 53 joint venture projects approved and according to the declarations made by the applicants, the total job creation could be 788 jobs (or an average of 15 jobs per project).

As regards the SME guarantee facility, latest available figures show 7 223 SMEs have benefited from the SME guarantee facility and have declared that they have 32 869 employees. Also for this facility the SMEs are required to estimate the number of jobs that should be created in the near future. Based on their declaration, the total expected number of jobs one year after the signing of the loan agreement is 34 319, i.e. an increase of 1 450 employees. This is expected to increase to 36 988 after another year, i.e. a further increase of 2 669 employees. This would mean an overall increase of 13 % over two years.

(2000/C 374 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0373/00 by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Release of EU Structural Fund monies on the basis of the designation of FFH areas (Directive 92/43/EEC) in East German Länder

Since Germany and some Länder have not yet transposed Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 March 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (FFH Directive), even those German Länder that have met with this obligation are threatened with having EU Structural Fund monies frozen. Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, for instance, has in the meantime designated 136 FFH areas, totalling 181 000 ha (7,9 % of its surface area). The Commission’s announced stance would mean that, in particular for the structurally weak East German Länder, the disbursement of funding for Objective 1 assistance and EAGGF funding would be at least delayed. In view of these regions’ serious economic and social problems, there would be extremely adverse consequences.

What action does the Commission propose to take to prevent those East German Länder which have met their obligation under the FFH Directive from being penalised for the failings of the Federal Government and of other Länder?

Does the Commission think it necessary or possible to consider releasing aid funding on a Land-specific or project-specific basis and to act accordingly?

Does the Commission realise that a negative decision not only would have a grave economic and social impact, but would also to lasting damage to the population’s commitment to environmental protection, whereas a positive decision would unquestioningly also be interpreted as recognition of an active environmental policy?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

As the Honourable Member is aware, completion of the Natura 2000 list of sites of Community importance, which also covers sites under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and Council Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and which was to be drawn up by June 1998, was delayed by the fact that several Member States, including Germany, failed to submit appropriate proposals. The deadline for proposals elapsed in June 1995. C 374 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

In view of the late designation of protected sites, as well as to ensure that the Commission is able to fulfil its duties under Article 6 EC Treaty, all Member States were formally reminded by the Commission on 23 June 1999 of their obligation to guarantee the consistency of programmes and projects with both directives.

In the meantime, the German Länder including Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania have announced some protected sites and are preparing further notifications.

In view of the legal requirements, programming documents can only be approved if they contain a clear commitment by the German authorities responsible for the relevant region that all possible negative consequences for sites protected or to be protected under Natura 2000 will be properly assessed and appropriate measures taken. In any case, the Commission will assess each plan or programme on its individual content.

The Commission’s objective is to promote the socio-economic development of the elegible areas in a way that is consistent with the basic principles of sustainable development.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2000/C 374 E/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0378/00 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Review of EU sheepmeat regime

Can the Commission confirm whether it is carrying out a review of the current EU sheepmeat regime and its effectiveness and indicate when it is likely to publish its conclusions on the subject?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

An evaluation study is presently being undertaken into the sheepmeat common market organisation. On the basis of the findings of the study, which will be completed by about Easter, the Commission will draw its own conclusions concerning any possible reform or modifications to the regime and, if appropriate, present proposals to this effect later in the year.

(2000/C 374 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0380/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Improvement of road infrastructures in the central and eastern European states

The considerable injections of funding provided to the so-called ‘applicant states’ to the Union via various European funding bodies (such as the EIB), and through the Union’s budget line (the PHARE programme and the ISPA instrument) should, together with the necessary investments each recipient government is obliged to make, be used to put in place a road network that complies with the principle of ‘interoperability’ that is necessary to the effective establishment of a ‘single market’. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/63

However, it would appear that the use to which this Community funding is being put locally is not producing the desired results. What measures has the Commission put in place to ensure that road projects and transport infrastructure improvement projects in these countries which are financed by Community funding are carried out in accordance with the quality standards considered the norm in the European Union?

Finally, does the Commission intend to make funding conditional upon a ‘road safety impact assessment’ for all projects deemed essential in the context of the enlarged Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

Since the early 1990s the PHARE programme has spent almost € 1 000 million on investments in the transport infrastructure of the beneficiary countries, thus contributing to the goals highlighted by the Honourable Member. In the last few years this pre-accession aid increasingly mobilised substantial funds and co-financing from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and international financial institutions (IFIs) as well as from the candidate countries’ national budgets.

From this year and onwards the new Instrument for structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA) will increase significantly the investment capacity under Community public funding. Until 2006 the annual budget of € 1 040 million will be spent on equal terms on transport infrastructure and environmental measures. As regards transport infrastructure, measures financed under ISPA should promote sustainable mobility, and, in particular, aim at interconnection and interoperability of the national networks of the acceding countries with the trans-European networks including the access to such networks.

In this context the process of selecting priority measures for developing a pan-European transport network has been facilitated by the Transport infrastructure needs assessment (TINA) initiated by the Council in 1995 and carried out with the objective to identify a multi-modal transport network on the territory of the acceding countries comprising road, rail, inland waterways, ports, terminals and airports. It consists of the backbone network, which on the territory of the acceding countries is identical with the links and nodes of the ten multi-modal pan-European transport corridors as endorsed at the third pan-European transport conference in June 1997 in Helsinki, and of additional network components.

According to the Council Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 of 21 June 1999 (1) establishing ISPA, measures related to transport infrastructure shall contribute to the achievement of Community policies in the field of transport and trans-European networks (Article 5 and Annex II). This requires transport projects of common interest to be based on the criteria of Council and Parliament Decision No 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996 (2) on guidelines for TEN-Transport and to comply with the relevant Community policies and standards. For example, in assessing a road infrastructure project proposal the Commission will inter alia examine to what extent the measure contributes to improving road safety, and whether it complies with the above criteria and standards. Investment in traffic management systems aiming at improving traffic safety will also qualify for ISPA funding.

In its annual report on Community assistance granted under ISPA the Commission will also provide information on the assessment of the compatibility of ISPA operations with Community policies, including those concerning transport.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. (2) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996. C 374 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0387/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (15 February 2000)

Subject: Seizure of Galician boats by Irish naval vessels

There have been various incidents in recent days in which Galician boats fishing in the Sole area have been seized by vessels belonging to the Irish navy, on the grounds that the Galician boats had committed technical irregularities. The boats were released following payment of a symbolic fine, but the halting of fishing activity during the seizures caused serious economic damage.

Is the Commission aware of these incidents, which have been recurring constantly, and is it aware of the pressure under which the Galician fleet is operating? Does it consider such behaviour on the part of the Irish authorities to be appropriate?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 March 2000)

The Commission was not aware of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to provide precise details so that it can carry out the investigations required.

(2000/C 374 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0392/00 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (8 February 2000)

Subject: Public access to information and protection of source

Commissioner Neil Kinnock has maintained in the Swedish press that the Swedish model of public access to information and protection of the source of information is not appropriate for the Commission. In Kinnock’s view, apparently, important decisions would be taken informally if public access were introduced and protection of the source of information would result in more secretiveness. Kinnock also claimed that Paul van Buitenen had changed from being a worthy informant exposing irregularities within the Commission into an unworthy informant aiming to blacken the name of the Commission as an institution.

Can Commissioner Kinnock elaborate on the reasons why he has concluded that public access to information and protection of the source of information would have the opposite effect from that intended if applied in the EU? Can the Commissioner describe in more detail what it is in Paul van Buitenen’s conduct which has transformed him from a worthy into an unworthy informant?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (24 March 2000)

The Commission recently published its proposal for a regulation concerning public access to documents of the European Institutions (1). It sets out the principles and rules, which are in the Commission’s opinion necessary in order to guarantee transparency for the European citizens with regard to information held by the Institutions. In drawing up its proposal the Commission has taken account of the positive experience it has acquired in connection with the code of conduct (2), Member States’ legislation on access to documents, in particular good practice in the Nordic countries, and the specific situation of the Communities.

The Parliament and Council will discuss this text and finally lay down the binding rules on this topic. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/65

In Parliament and elsewhere, the Vice-President responsible for Personnel and administrative reform has given particular recognition to the fact that Sweden has a long and positive tradition of public access to information and, consequently, standards which are worthy of aspiration but, realistically, not likely to be completely replicated in the European Institutions in the very near future.

In public statements, the Vice President also noted the fact that, in Sweden, the informal exchanges that take place before a document is given the status of being official are not accessible to the public. In the proposal put forward by the Commission, the definition of a document excludes ‘texts for internal use such as discussion documents, opinions of departments and informal messages’. If there was no such exclusion which in the view of the Committee of Independent Experts was necessary because ‘the Commission needs the space to think to formulate policy before it enters the public domain’ people might be reluctant to produce and exchange those documents and that could lead to greater secrecy whilst not adding to the effectiveness of work.

Meanwhile, the references in the question misquote the Vice President. He has repeated that the irregularities disclosed by a Commission official were all the subject of disciplinary or legal proceedings before that disclosure. He has also referred to allegations reported in the Swedish press that fraud was continuing among thousands of officials within the organisation. Patently this is not true and it is the sort of generalised allegation that unfairly defames the Commission and its staff and provokes unjustified distrust of citizens.

(1) COM(2000) 30 final. (2) Code of conduct concerning public access to Council and Commission documents, adopted by the Council on 20.12.1993 (OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 43), and by the Commission on 8 February 1994 (OJ L 46, 18.2.1994, p. 58). The European Parliament adopted a decision on public access to its documents on 10 July 1997 (OJ L 263, 25.9.1997, p. 27).

(2000/C 374 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0399/00 by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Implementation of Community legislation and Community funding for Greece for the protection of forestry

Community regulations 3528/86 (1) and 2158/92 (2) on the protection of forestry from atmospheric pollution and fires impose specific obligations on the Member States, such as the provision of fire prevention schemes. The regulations also enable Member States to finance actions falling with the scope of the provisions of these regulations.

Will the Commission say in respect of the implementation of the above regulations in Greece:

1. Have the Greek authorities forwarded to the Commission, in accordance with Article 10 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the information specially referred to in regulation 2158/92?

2. Can it give a breakdown of the amounts received by Greece under these two funding regulations since 1995 and say what percentage they represent compared with the other Mediterranean Member States?

3. Has Greece benefited from any other Community financial means for the protection of its forestry? If so, what sums are involved and what percentage do they represent compared with the other Mediterranean Member States?

(1) OJ L 326, 21.11.1986, p. 2. (2) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992, p. 3. C 374 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

1. In accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 of 23 July 1992 on protection of the Community’s forests against fire, on 2 February 1993 Greece sent to the Commission a list of areas classified by degree of forest-fire risk. The list, which accorded the whole country a duly substantiated classification as an ‘area of high risk’, was approved by Commission decision C(93)1619 of 24 June 1993.

Following that approval, and in accordance with Article 3 of the same Regulation, on 24 June 1993 Greece sent to the Commission a national forest-fire protection plan; on 7 March 1994 the Commission delivered an opinion stating that the plan complied with Article 3.

Lastly, on 8 October 1999 Greece sent to the Commission an update of the initial plan covering a 10-year period (1994-2003). On 10 January 2000 the Commission delivered a new opinion concluding that Greece’s updated plan continues to meet the objectives and guidelines referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92.

Each year since its entry into force in 1994, Greece has also been providing the Commission with the data required by Commission Regulation (EC) No 804/94 of 11 April 1994 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 as regards forest-fire information systems (1).

2. Under Council Regulation (EEC) No 3528/86 of 17 November 1986 on the protection of the Community’s forests against atmospheric pollution and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 (already referred to above), the Community granted € 71,48 million in aid for measures relating to all the Mediterranean Member States (Greece, Spain, France, Italy and Portugal) during the period 1995-1999. Of that amount, € 13,64 million (19 % of the total) was allocated in aid to Greek measures over the same period.

3. Greece also received other forms of Community part-financing in the sphere with which the Honourable Member is concerned. For the period 1994-1999, € 55,6 million was granted in Cohesion Fund assistance. The other Mediterranean Member State to have had recourse to the Fund is Spain (€ 565 million). Portugal did not allocate Cohesion Fund appropriations to forestry.

As regards the EAGGF (Guidance Section), under the second Community Support Framework for Greece (1994-1999) and the Community initiatives, € 224 million from the available appropriations was allocated to forestry. In Portugal, € 79,7 million was allocated to forestry under the CSF for 1994-1999, while in Spain € 510 million was allocated to forestry and to environmental protection under the CSF for the same period.

(1) OJ L 93, 12.4.1994.

(2000/C 374 E/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0400/00 by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Melton Mowbray pork pies

Will the Commission grant to Melton Mowbray, in Leicestershire, the same protection of its name and regional status as it has granted to the producers of Champagne and Stilton cheese with regard to the making of the traditional, world-famous pork pies? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/67

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 March 2000)

Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (1) introduced a Community registration and protection scheme for the geographical designations of agricultural products and certain foodstuffs. Wine sector products are not covered. Meat-based products such as pork pies are among the types of foodstuff to which the scheme applies.

Application for inclusion in the scheme is a voluntary matter. It would be up to a group of the relevant producers to launch the procedure for registration of the name Melton Mowbray Pork Pies under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.

Article 4 of the Regulation requires submission of a specification exactly defining the product and geographical area concerned and showing how the two are linked. Compliance with the criteria set for registering the name as a ‘geographical indication’ or those for registering it as a ‘designation of origin’ must be demonstrated.

A decision on conformity of the application with the Regulation’s requirements would not be possible unless all the necessary information had been transmitted to the Commission through the agency of the United Kingdom authorities.

A Community procedure for objection to the protection of any particular name is designed to protect the interests of other producers. This involves a notice in the Official Journal.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.

(2000/C 374 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0402/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (15 February 2000)

Subject: Arrest of the skipper of a fishing vessel on Réunion

The Galician citizen José Ramón Hombre Sobrido, skipper of the fishing vessel Camouco, was arrested more than two months ago on Réunion, where he is still being detained.

The Commission’s Director-General for Fisheries did not give a specific reply to my question on the subject in Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries.

Is the Commission aware of the situation, and does it know on what grounds this European citizen is being detained by the authorities of France, an EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 April 2000)

In September 1999 Mr Hombre Sobrido, the master of the fishing vessel Camouco, which flies a Panama flag and is owned by Merce Pesca sa, was arrested by a French frigate for alleged unlawful fishing of toothfish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Crozet Islands (Reunion). Mr Hombre Sobrido was later released from arrest, but is still confined to the island as the authorities took away his passport.

On 14 January 2000 Panama requested the release of the vessel and its master in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg. This is a tribunal which has been established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It delivered its judgement on 7th February 2000 ordering the prompt release on the deposit of a financial security of FRF 8 million. So far the French authorities did not follow the judgement and claim to be not satisfied with the conditions of the deposit. A trial date was scheduled at the Court of Appeals in Réunion for 24 March 2000 for the court to look into the matter of the return of Mr Sobridos passport. A trial on the merits has been convened for 4 April 2000. C 374 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0407/00 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Compensation for German shipping and transport firm operating on the Danube following the closing of the Yugoslav section of the Danube

A number of firms in Regensburg (Germany) are specialised in transport operations from Germany to destinations below Yugoslavia on the Danube. As a result of the war in Kosovo, the destruction of bridges over the Danube, and the subsequent closure of the Yugoslav section of the Danube the business operations of these firms have come to a halt. Since these firms specialise in very specific transport operations on the Danube, they have practically no possibility of branching out into other areas of activity.

Can the Commission therefore provide the following information:

1. Should these firms be regarded as victims of the Kosovo war in the same way as firms situated in Kosovo itself?

2. Are these firms eligible for financial restructuring aid to offset their losses?

3. Are these companies entitled to non-reimbursable aid for restructuring or consolidation to offset their ongoing losses and to publicly guaranteed investment aid?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the specific problems of companies involved, both directly and indirectly, in transport on the Danube as a result of the blockage of the Danube due to NATO’s destruction of the bridges at Novi Sad.

However, the question of any compensation for such losses cannot be addressed until the issue of liability, if any, for these losses has been determined in the appropriate legal fora.

As regards the restoration of navigation on the Danube, the European Commission is presently analysing a request by the Danube Commission for cofinancing of a project proposal for the clearance of a navigation channel by removing the debris of the bridges destroyed by NATO, as well as any unexploded ordnance, and also the repair of the riverbed and banks. The project and its context is complex, from the political, technical and legal points of view.

(2000/C 374 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0410/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Cambodia

Is the Commission aware that there are still allegations of a whole range of problems in Cambodia from desperate poverty, famine in some areas, high levels of corruption and abuses of human rights? Does the Commission consider it necessary to implement any conditionalities at this time? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/69

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

The Commission is well aware that Cambodia is among the least developed countries in the world and that it is still marred by poverty and other related problems. The country is facing major challenges in the forthcoming years and needs to implement wide-ranging reforms swiftly. Since the formation of the new Cambodian government, the Commission has had regular consultations with it to discuss these reforms.

At this time the Commission is not considering imposing any conditions on its development programmes, but it will continue to monitor the situation in Cambodia carefully.

Concerning the questions of human rights democratisation and corruption, the Commission intends to have thorough discussions with Cambodian authorities on these issues on the occasion of the first Community Cambodia joint committee, scheduled for the first half of year 2000.

Regarding the food situation for year 2000, international organisations are of the opinion that the overall food situation in Cambodia remains satisfactory. Nevertheless, a sizeable section of the population remains vulnerable to food shortages and the Commission continues to follow the situation in order to be prepared should an emergency occur.

(2000/C 374 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0416/00 by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Lower rate of VAT on recombinant products

Can the Commission state whether it is prepared to make a proposal for the lower rate of VAT to be applied to recombinant blood products and if not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

For VAT purposes a distinction is made between different types of products derived from blood.

Some products derived from blood or human plasma, such as albumin, coagulation factors and immunoglobulins, are considered medicinal products (in accordance with Council Directive 89/381/EEC of 14 june 1989) (1).

Under Article 12(3)(a) and Annex H, Category 3, of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC) (2), VAT may be applied to such products at a lower rate.

Recombinant blood products (obtained through genetic engineering, not extracted from human blood) are medicinal products because they fall under Part A of the Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/ 93 (3), which requires a marketing authorisation to be granted under the centralised Community procedure. As such, they are also charged at the lower rate of VAT.

Labile blood derivatives such as plasma and blood cells of human origin, on the other hand, are not considered medicinal products. They are thus taxed at the standard rate of VAT, while whole blood is exempt from VAT.

It might be appropriate to review this anomalous situation, where whole blood is exempt but labile blood derivatives are charged at the standard rate. The Commission is currently examining the matter to see what the practice is in the different Member States. C 374 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

The issue will be considered in the framework of a forthcoming review of the scope of the lower rates of VAT, and appropriate proposals made for a more uniform VAT regime for transactions involving blood products.

(1) OJ L 181, 28.6.1989. Council Directive 89/381/EEC of 14 June 1989 extending 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 proprietary medicinal products and laying down special provisions for medicinal products derived from human blood or human plasma. (2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, as last amended by Directive 1999/85/EC (OJ L 277, 28.10.1999). (3) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products.

(2000/C 374 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0418/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Curtailing beam-trawl fishing owing to damage to the sea-bed environment

1. Is the Commission familiar with the article headlined ‘Beam-trawl fishing damaging to North Sea environment’ published in de Volkskrant on 1 February 2000, in which the environmental impact of the beam-trawling method is described by Dr H. Lindeman, a researcher at the Institute for Maritime Research (NIOZ) commissioned by the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Fisheries (LNV)?

2. Is the Commission aware that this fisheries technique, which is used mainly to catch sea-bed dwelling species like sole and plaice, involves the use of heavy iron bars and chains to in effect plough up the sea bed to a depth of 6 to 10 centimetres as a means of forcing those species into the nets.

3. Can the Commission confirm that in the Netherlands area of the North Sea alone, a minimum of 400 fisheries vessels, equipped with fishing gear ranging from 4 to 12 metres in width, are already using the beam-trawling method, and that not only the North Sea, on which fisheries countries like the Netherlands, Britain and the Scandinavian countries are dependent, but other waters as well are being damaged by this process?

4. Does the Commission agree that this fisheries method has a highly destructive impact on the sea bed and its biodiversity, not least because every living sea-bed organism is uprooted, and that beam-trawl fishing is currently wreaking at least as much havoc on the environment as, say, oil or gas borings?

5. What action will the Commission take to curtail the beam-trawling fisheries method and to provide the fisheries crews concerned with the opportunity to convert to other catching techniques or to other employment altogether?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

1. The Commission is not familiar with the article published in de Volkskrant of 1 February 2000.

2. The Commission is fully aware of the nature of beam trawls, their target species, and the degree to which the seabed is penetrated by these fishing gears.

3. The Commission can confirm that a large number of beam trawlers work in the North Sea and elsewhere. It is doubtful, however, that all of these vessels work at any time simultaneously in the Netherlands area of the North Sea. A recent survey has indicated that, in the North Sea and even in the Netherlands area thereof, there are considerable areas which are not fished at all by beam trawlers. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/71

4. The Commission is aware of the work of Dr H. Lindeboom (referred to in the question as Dr Lindeman), the author of the article referred to. Dr Lindeboom is an eminent scientist who has published a number of texts, both scientific and popular, in which he claims that beam trawling is damaging to the environment. However, other equally eminent scientists do not agree, either completely or at all, with Dr Lindeboom’s conclusions.

5. The activities of beam trawlers are already curtailed by Community legislation. Large beam trawlers (greater than 221 Kilo Watt engine power) are not allowed to fish in the so-called plaice box which is an area of sea adjacent to the North Sea coasts of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, and Netherlands. Furthermore, large beam trawlers may not fish in the 12 mile zone around Ireland and United Kingdom. Beam trawling is prohibited in the Kattegat. At this stage, the Commission does not envisage any amendment to those restrictions. It will however continue to survey and evaluate biological impacts of fisheries, in order to propose further measures if and when appropriate.

(2000/C 374 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0421/00 by Ulrich Stockmann (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Equipping of motor vehicles with warning triangles

I am informed by a German industrial undertaking that since last summer the Kingdom of Spain has required motor vehicles to be equipped with two warning triangles. Are there any plans within the Commission to submit a proposal to make it compulsory for all motor vehicles throughout the EU to be equipped with two warning triangles?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of Spanish legislation requiring all vehicles to carry two warning triangles.

This is a requirement of the General Regulations of Vehicles, Article 19 and Annex XII published as a Royal Decree (Real Decreto 2822/98) on 23 December 1998.

The warning triangle does not form part of the construction standards of vehicles, and the requirement to carry it is an item of traffic rules.

Such rules are normally the competence of the Member States and the Commission has no plans to extend the Spanish system throughout the Community.

(2000/C 374 E/084) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0422/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Installation of Greek Electricity Board (DEI) pylons in the Cyclades

For a number of years the DEI has been endeavouring to link up the islands of Andros, Tinos, Syros and Mykonos with high-tension electrical current from Euvoia and to set up pylons on these islands for this purpose. There have already been furious protests from local inhabitants on these islands, and the Council of State has issued a decision invalidating such a move. C 374 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Given that:

the vulnerable natural environment of the islands which is characterised by an austere symmetry and unity cannot absorb interventions of this kind;

it is established that high-tension electrical cables have adverse effects on health;

energy projects require a long-term perspective and a comprehensive assessment and forecast of the environmental consequences;

in fragile and isolated ecosystems featuring a rich or unique biodiversity, such as the northern Cyclades, only environmentally-friendly technical projects and interventions may be deemed viable and permissible;

the obligation to protect fragile ecosystems is based directly on Articles 24 and 106 of the Greek Constitution and Article 174 of the EC Treaty;

the invalidating decision by the Council of State provides that ‘by its very nature the installation of a high-tension electricity network involving the erection of pylons constitutes a brutal assault on the environment of the Cyclades. This environment which is characterised by an austere symmetry and great natural beauty and is inextricably linked to the specific cultural assets of these islands should be protected in accordance with Article 24 of the Constitution’.

Will the Commission intervene with the appropriate Greek authorities and recommend that the DEI examine and implement an alternative solution (plans for underwater links, underground cables, environmentally-friendly forms of energy) even if it proves more expensive, so as to protect the cultural and architectural heritage of the Cyclades, and also the environment and public health, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Greek Constitution and the principles of viable development and the protection of human health enshrined in the Treaty (Articles 174 and 152, respectively)?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Generally speaking, the EU trans-European energy network policy encourages the connection of mainland and island electricity grids. This reduces the need for electricity production on the islands themselves, cuts production costs and creates the technical conditions to generate electricity on the islands from renewable sources, such as wind power.

In the framework of the Community guidelines for TEN-Energy, project ‘a9. Greece: connections between the islands, and the islands and mainland Greece’ has been identified as a project of common interest.

It is true that the Greek Council of State invalidated the authorisations granted to the Greek Electricity Board (DEI) to set up pylons on some islands in the Cyclades.

Nevertheless, the Greek Electricity Board re-examined the project and, under the aegis of the 1999 TEN- Energy programme, obtained co-financing to carry out feasibility, evaluation, technical and environmental studies for the ‘Connection of the Southern Cycladic Islands to the mainland electricity grid of Greece.’

The routes, technical aspects and authorisation procedures chosen to carry out the process of connection must comply with the commitments arising from Community directives, particularly the directives on environmental protection. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/73

(2000/C 374 E/085) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0429/00 by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE), Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) and Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Funding of agricultural development in Greece

Agricultural development now constitutes the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy and its legal basis is Regulation 1257/1999 of 17 May (1).

The Commission is currently negotiating the third Community Support Framework with the Member States.

In the case of Greece which has a particularly large agricultural population it accounts for some 20 % of the total population of the country agricultural development is a particularly important sector which requires special attention.

However, for the third Community Support Framework (CSF) the Greek authorities have proposed a mere 11,87 % which covers both agriculture and fisheries, compared to 36,7 % for transport. The amount allocated under the first CSF was 12,9 % and at the time there was no special regulation covering agricultural development and the amount under the second was 13,7 %. The amount proposed for the third CSF thus represents a significant reduction.

Will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to prevail upon the Greek authorities to attach due importance to the countryside and the Greek farming community?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

First, the Commission would like to assure the Honourable Members that rural development does indeed constitute the second pillar of the common agricultural policy (CAP). It must also be noted that its legal basis, Council Regulation (EC) No 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, sets out measures financed either by the Guidance Section or by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF.

As regards areas covered by Objective 1 (such as is the case in Greece), measures relating to the above Regulation are cofinanced from two sources EAGGF Guarantee and EAGGF Guidance.

As regards funding for those programmes dealing specifically with rural development (to be cofinanced by both EAGGF sections) which have already been submitted to the Commission, the Greek authorities have requested 2 600 million drachmas (at 1999 prices) for the period 2000-2006. This figure accounts for 16 % of the total allocated for all development programmes to be cofinanced by the Community, more specifically under the Community Support Framework (CSF), the Cohesion Fund and the EAGGF Guarantee Section.

Finally, it must be pointed out that, in addition to funds from the EAGGF, the Greek agricultural community will benefit from financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). These funds, which finance transregional, regional and local projects, have a direct and beneficial impact on the inhabitants of rural areas. C 374 E/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0430/00 by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Development, validation and legal acceptance of alternative methods to animal testing experiments

On 22 October 1997 the European Parliament approved a report by Mrs Roth-Behrendt (A4-0277/ 1997 (1)) in which the Commission was called upon, inter alia, to:

bring forward without delay a proposal to ban testing of finished cosmetic products,

take positive and urgent measures to give new momentum to the development of alternative methods.

Could the Commission state what action has been undertaken to date, or what action it proposes to take, to meet the calls made by Parliament in the report?

Could the Commission state whether it favours a complete ban on the use of animals to test finished products, and if so what timetable and strategy it envisages to achieve such a ban?

Could the Commission state what action it proposes to take in conjunction with the Directorate-General for Research through the Framework Programme or by other means to promote the development of alternatives?

(1) OJ C 339, 10.11.1997, p. 47.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

The Commission is presently working on a draft proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive amending for the seventh time Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1). The draft in its current form introduces a permanent and definitive prohibition on the performance of experiments on animals for finished cosmetic products in the territory of Member States. This proposal would be in compliance with the request of the Parliament quoted by the Honourable Member. The proposed time-table for the entry into force of this ban would be the date of entry into force of the Directive.

The Commission is taking measures to continue the promotion of research into the development and validation of alternative methods in the field of cosmetic products. The fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration (RDT) activities 1998-2002 (2) makes provisions for such research. In particular, within the third key action ‘The Cell Factory’ of the specific programme on quality of life and management of living resources, the Commission supports the development of novel in vitro testing and screening methods as alternatives to animal testing.

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. (2) OJ L 26, 1.2.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0431/00 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Environmental impact of afforestation, land reclamation and peat extraction

Has the Commission taken steps to ensure that Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment will be complied with in relation to the 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/75

use of forthcoming Community grant aid? In the case of Ireland, what steps has the Regional Development Commissioner taken to ensure that the forthcoming Community grant aid does lead to further infringements of this directive, as identified in the judgment of the European Court of Justice against Ireland of 21 September 1999 [C-392/96] on the environmental impact of afforestation, land reclamation and peat extraction.

Of particular concern are the small-scale forestry initiatives being promoted by the Irish authorities under the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme, which will fund the planting of commercial, monocultural plantations of non-native species by small farmers with the consequent fragmentation of native biodiversity, already under critical pressure through rapid economic development in the rural landscape. Specifically, the Court judgment noted that ‘even small-scale projects can have substantial effects on the environment … where, by reason of its nature, there is a risk that it will cause substantial or irreversible change in those environmental factors, irrespective of its size.’

Given that the Irish Minister for the Environment informed the Irish Parliament in a reply to written parliamentary questions on 9 November 1999 that he was unable to indicate what amendments to national procedures were necessary to comply with the Court of Justice judgment against Ireland, will the Commission ensure that the Irish decision-making process complies with this judgment and that appropriate procedures are in place before approval is given for further Community support for these activities?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

In relation to the use of Community funds in general, the Commission is conscious of the importance of respect for Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1).

In relation to Ireland, future Community funding is only likely to be of major relevance to one of the three categories of project mentioned by the Honourable Member, namely afforestation. For this category, the Irish authorities proposed in their National development plan and in the Rural development plan substantial Community grant-aid, principally pursuant to the rural development regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain regulations (2)) but also pursuant to the structural funds regulation (Regulation (EC)No1260 laying down general provisions on the structural funds (3)). However, Commission decisions on funding the relevant Irish plan and programmes have not yet been taken. Any Commission decisions will take account of the requirements of both regulations.

In this context, the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to Article 37(1) of the rural development regulation which provides that support for rural development shall be granted only for measures that comply with Community law. As regards the structural funds regulation, her attention is drawn to Article 12 which provides that operations financed by the funds shall be in conformity with Community rules on environmental protection, and its Article 41(b) which provides that an ex-ante environmental evaluation shall set out the arrangements for ensuring compliance with Community rules on the environment.

Finally, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, following the Court of justice judgement to which she refers, it wrote to the Irish authorities asking for information on how Ireland intends to comply in relation to the above-mentioned three categories of project. The Irish authorities have responded that it is their intention adopt new planning legislation. Unfortunately, this new legislation has not yet been adopted or forwarded to the Commission.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999. (3) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. C 374 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0439/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: European invitation to tender for EU contract for supply of gabion matting to Bolivia

On 22 November 1999 a European tendering procedure (SCR-E/11095/D/S/BO) was published on the TED Alert System concerning the supply of gabion matting and gabions to Bolivia for the project to protect the town of Montero against flooding by the Pirai river. The tendering procedure was closed on 20 January 2000.

1. Can the Commission inform me of the outcome of that invitation to tender? How many firms participated? How many firms met the conditions for submitting tenders? What firm was awarded the contract and at what price, and what is that firm’s nationality?

2. Can the Commission inform me why one of the conditions for the tender was that the materials supplied must bear a ‘certificate of origin’ from an EU country, a Mercosur or Andean Pact country, or Bolivia or Chile? Is that condition in accordance with European tendering rules?

3. Can the Commission provide me with a table showing the results of all tenders for the supply of gabion matting and gabions under EU development programmes in Bolivia and the rest of South America since 1992?

4. Can the Commission inform me of the budget entry under which the above project is being financed?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

1. It has to be noted that the contracting authority, Searpi, and not the Commission is the authority responsible for the receipt and evaluation of offers. The results of the tender are not available yet. The tender opening session took place on 20 January 2000 and to date the beneficiary has not submitted for the Commission’s approval the evaluation report with the results of the examination of the offers and the contract award proposal.

2. According to Community procurement rules related to external aid, all supplies must originate in the countries as defined in special conditions, Article I of the tender dossier (Member States, Bolivia, Pacto Andino, Mercosur and Chili). Under Article XIV.4 the tenderer must indicate the origin of supplies. The tenderer must present the certificate of origin to the contracting authority when the supplies arrive in the recipient country (Article 1.10 of Part C ‘Technical Annex’).

3. Detailed statistics, up to this level, are not available.

4. Budget line B7-310.

(2000/C 374 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0446/00 by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Official languages and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

An appeal has been lodged with the EU Court of the First Instance against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) in respect of the validity of the provisions of Regulation 40/94 (1) on the Community trade mark which provides that the languages of this Office are Spanish, English, French, German and Italian and excludes all the other official languages of the European Union. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/77

The Commission has intervened in favour of this provision.

The provision in question introduces a very serious derogation from the fundamental principle of the equality of the eleven official languages of the Union and constitutes a case of blatant discrimination against the other languages and the European citizens who speak them. The latter are thus deprived of the right to communicate, receive and impart information and claim their rights in their own languages in matters falling within the scope of the Alicante Office. One example will suffice: the official journal of the Office is published only in the five languages mentioned above.

Bearing in mind that the European Union has eleven official languages and that the Commission which is the guardian of the Treaties has an obligation to respect all eleven languages and to conduct its business in them, will the Commission say: 1. Why has it decided to intervene in a procedure in which the Council is also intervening in favour of the contentious provisions? 2. How is this intervention compatible with its obligation to respect the Treaties and thus the eleven official languages of the Community, especially since the Commission had not included this or any similar provision limiting the working languages of the Office to the five above languages in its proposal on this matter? 3. Does the Commission intend to apply the same language arrangements to its own work or is it planning to propose to the Council that the official languages of the Community be reduced to the above five languages?

(1) OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (10 April 2000)

The Honourable Member raises questions concerning a case which is pending before the Court of First Instance. The Commission will therefore limit itself to commenting briefly on the questions, without entering into the detail of the matters to be discussed before the Court.

It therefore replies as follows to the questions asked: 1. The Commission’s decision to intervene in support of the conclusions of the Council and the office for harmonization in the internal market (OHMI) was based on its view that the institutional importance of the questions raised in this case required it to take a position. 2. It is true that the language régime of the OHMI as decided by the Council did not figure in the Commission’s original proposal for a regulation setting up the Office. However, the Commission takes the view that the language régime finally adopted is lawful, bearing in mind the need to strike a balance between the principle of equal treatment on the one hand, and the efficiency of the Community trademark system, on the other. 3. The Commission has no plans to apply the language régime of the OHMI to its own work, or to reduce the number of official languages of the Community.

(2000/C 374 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0450/00 by Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission (14 February 2000)

Subject: Regional policy and the structural funds operational plan for the region of Sicily

As the Commission has pointed out, the regional operational plan submitted by the Region of Sicily does not seem to respect the guiding criteria for the new Structural Funds. In particular, it appears to envisage an excessive number of intervention measures and there are substantial shortcomings in the implementing projects to back up the requested funding. In other words, the Plan submitted is too general and fragmented, which arouses various concerns about the added value of the numerous microprojects drawn up and the possible loss of Community co-financing if its content and structure are not changed in agreement with the Commission. C 374 E/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. whether these fears are justified;

2. what conditions the Region of Sicily has failed to comply with;

3. what changes should be made to the above-mentioned Plan;

4. whether there is real collaboration between Palermo and Brussels on the content of the Plan;

5. whether there is any real possibility that the Region of Sicily may lose the co-financing in the event of the plan not fulfilling the criteria established by the Structural Funds?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

As part of the programming for 2000-2006, the Italian authorities included with the development plan for the Mezzogiorno a series of proposals for operational programmes, including those in Sicily. These documents are currently being studied by the Commission.

With particular regard to the regional operational programme for Sicily, which was declared admissible, the Commission made certain comments during the negotiations with the Italian authorities. These points are currently being discussed with those authorities in order to arrive at the final version of the document which will be the subject of a Commission Decision.

It should be stressed that assistance for 2000-2006 is prepared in full partnership with the national, central and regional authorities concerned. At this early stage in programming, it is not possible to talk of the under-utilisation of funds.

(2000/C 374 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0451/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Distortion of competition resulting from different tax arrangements within the EU

Can the Council confirm that a working party of Council officials has encountered in a number of Member States sixty sets of tax arrangements which are deemed to have the effect of distorting competition?

Is it true that the report identifies the Netherlands as the front runner in this respect, with nine schemes coming in for criticism?

What are the nine?

Is it true that no fiscal arrangements having the effect of distorting competition were found in Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom (the large Member States)?

What is the Council’s opinion of this official report and when will it present its own political appraisal?

(16/17 May 2000)

1. The report of the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) to which the Honourable Member refers and which was submitted to the Council (Ecofin) on 29 November 1999 can be consulted on the Council’s Internet site (ue.eu.int/newsroom, under ‘miscellaneous’, 4901/1999). 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/79

2. While deciding to make the text accessible to the public via the Internet, the Council has not as yet taken any position on its content, and is therefore unable at this stage to give a reply concerning the substance of the questions put.

3. The Council would also remind the Honourable Member that the European Council in Helsinki agreed that a High Level Working Party would be set up which will, in the framework of the overall report which it is to submit to the Council, put forward possibilities for solutions, particularly as regards the Code of Conduct, since the latter forms part of the tax package, in accordance with the conclusions of the Ecofin Council on 1 December 1997.

(2000/C 374 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0452/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Turkish ‘free zones’ and textile exports

On 8 July 1997 the Commissioner responsible for External Relations, Mr Hans van den Broek, notified the European Parliament (Answer to Question E-1965/97) (1) that ‘a Community team had gone to Turkey in October 1996 to ascertain that the functioning of Turkish free zones complies with that country’s obligations under the Customs Union.’ This statement came in the wake of international press reports voicing suspicions that textile exports from third countries were passing through the Turkish ‘free industrial zones’ of Istanbul and Mersin and appearing on EU markets as ‘Turkish’ products, thereby benefiting from the provisions of the EU-Turkey Customs Union Agreement and displacing similar Community products.

Mr Hans van den Broek also stated that ‘the Community and Turkey agreed as part of the recommendations adopted by the Community-Turkey Association Committee on 24 April 1997) to keep a constant watch on this matter in order to prevent any evasion of the rules of the Customs Union.’ Will the Commission say how many Community monitoring teams similar to that of October 1996 have been dispatched since then and what their findings have been?

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 131.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

Since the Commission’s inspection mission to Turkey of October 1996, no further missions took place. No evidence of actual fraud was found. Since the inspection mission there have been no indications of fraud, whether by complaints by Community industry or otherwise. The Commission therefore does not intend to make any periodic inspections, but will raise the matter immediately with the Turkish authorities if the need arrises. Any suspicion of fraud can be directly communicated to the Director of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF).

(2000/C 374 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0453/00 by Karin Jöns (PSE) to the Council

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Regulation (EC) temporarily suspending some or all of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain fishery products

In Council Regulation (EC) No 2822/98 (1) of 21 December 1998, customs duties on a range of fisheries products (sturgeon, lump fish, various crab species, etc) were fixed at zero per cent with effect from C 374 E/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

1 January 1999. On the other hand, customs duties on dogfish (squalus acanthias fresh, chilled or frozen) were fixed at six per cent, and on fillets and meat of Alaska pollack (theragra chalcogramma in the form of industrial block for processing) at four per cent.

1. What is the unreduced rate of customs duty on imports of other fishery products?

2. Why was the rate for Alaska pollack, which is caught almost exclusively off Pacific coastal states (USA, Canada, Russia, China, Korea, Japan), making the EU dependent on imports, not also fixed at zero per cent in common with the other fishery products covered by the regulation?

3. Why was the rate for Alaska pollack fixed at four per cent?

4. Why was the rate for dogfish not also fixed at zero per cent in common with the other fishery products covered by the regulation? It should be noted that dogfish has to be extensively imported into the EU from the USA and Canada because it is found only in small quantities in the waters between Ireland and Britain?

5. Why was the rate for dogfish fixed at six per cent?

(1) OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 9.

(18 May 2000)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2822/98 temporarily suspending some or all of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain fishery products was adopted on 21 December 1998 as the same time as the Regulation opening and providing for the administration of autonomous Community tariff quotas for certain fishery products.

The proposals for those Regulations were examined together with a view to developing a compromise solution acceptable both to those Member States that favour the interests of fishermen and to those that defend the interests of the processing industries.

1. The Common Customs Tariff lays down the rates applicable. In the case of fishery products, these are between 2 % for salmon and 25 % for sardines, mackerel, etc. They were published (1).

2. For certain products, Community production is non-existent, low or insufficient, so the processing industry has to find sources of supply on markets outside the Community. In that event the Community has to take the tariff measures necessary to ensure that its industry remains competitive with those of non- member countries.

The Community’s tariff rules are closely linked to its trade policy, and are regularly adapted in line with developments on the international market and the supply possibilities that arise out of, in this case, fisheries agreements.

3. The 18 % rates applicable to Alaska pollack and to dogfish have been suspended at 4 % and 6 % respectively in the light of those considerations.

4. As regards the year 2000, the rates applicable to fish, crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates were published (2).

5. On 17 December 1999 the Council adopted a new Regulation suspending some or all of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain fishery products. That Regulation was applicable from 1 January 2000 and was published (3). The rates adopted for fillets and meat of Alaska pollack and for meat of dogfish were suspended at 3,5 % and 6 % respectively.

(1) OJ L 292, 30.10.1998, pp. 47 and 62. (2) OJ L 278, 28.10.1999, pp. 47 to 66. (3) OJ L 336, 29.12.1999. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/81

(2000/C 374 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0463/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Legal challenges to the extension of An Post’s contract to issue social welfare payments in Ireland

Bearing in mind the legal challenges made by a firm of Dublin-based solicitors (1) to the extension of An Post’s contract to issue social welfare payments in Ireland, and the importance of such a service to the viability of rural post offices and rural communities, would the Commission outline the current status of the legal challenges, give an approximate date when the proceedings will be concluded, and make a statement on the matter?

(1) McCann Fitzgerald Solicitors, on behalf of Transaction Network Services, Dublin.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2000)

The Commission has received a complaint pursuant to Article 86 (ex-Article 90) in conjunction with Articles 43, 49 and 82 (ex-Articles 52, 59 and 86) of the EC Treaty. The complaint is directed against the decision of the Irish Government to extend the existing contract for the delivery of payment services for social welfare payments in Ireland held by An Post, the state owned monopoly provider of postal services, for a further three year period, starting as from 1 January 2000. The complaint raises both competition aspects and internal market aspects.

The Commission has not yet taken a position on the complaint. To that end further information is required and the Commission has therefore sent recently a request for information both to the complainant and to the Irish Government.

Depending on the information provided by the parties the outcome of the case may either be a letter of formal notice to the Irish Government or a rejection of the complaint. The Commission will take action without undue delay after receipt of the requested information.

(2000/C 374 E/095) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0465/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Commission policy on implementation of the EU budget for 2000 in respect of the promotion and safeguard of regional and minority languages

The two EU budgetary authorities, Parliament and the Council, have decided to set aside a number of headings under the Community budget for 2000 to promote and safeguard regional and minority languages.

To be more precise, it has been indicated that line B3-1000 (Cooperation in the fields of education and of youth policy), to which the sum of EUR 4,5 million has been earmarked, aims in particular to support actions to promote and safeguard minority languages in the Community.

Will the Commission say exactly how much of the sum of EUR 4,5 million is to be earmarked for the protection and safeguard of minority languages in the Community?

What procedure will it be pursuing with a view to implementing the aforementioned budget line?

When does it intend to begin accepting applications for specific projects which may be eligible for funding to promote and safeguard minority languages? C 374 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

What will be the guidelines and requirements governing the eligibility of projects for Community funding?

When can the selected projects hope to receive the Community funding allocated to them?

(2000/C 374 E/096) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0478/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Preparation by the European Commission of the proposed legal basis for the Archipelago action programme on the minority and regional languages of the EU

The European Commission is drawing up a legislative proposal to provide a legal basis (and, consequently, funding from the Community budget) for a Community action programme for the protection and promotion of the minority and regional languages of the European Community. The European Union has also set aside funding from the 2000 budget for a series of preparatory initiatives to promote minority and regional languages.

In the light of the above, and given the need to finalise as quickly as possible the legislative procedure for the adoption of the legal basis, both in order to ensure the continuity and stability of the projects that are part of the preparatory initiatives for 2000, and to guarantee and enhance the promotion and protection of the regional and minority languages of the EU over the coming years, will the Commission give details of the approximate timetable for this legislative procedure and, more specifically, when the proposal will reach the EP?

Will the Commission give details of the general principles of the proposal and, specifically, the total amount and duration of Community funding proposed?

On what Treaty provisions is the Commission basing this procedure?

Could the Commission define the concept of a minority or regional language as eligible for funding under the forthcoming action programme?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0465/00 and E-0478/00 given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

Budget heading B3-1000, entitled ‘Cooperation in the fields of education and of youth policy’ covers a total sum of € 4,5 million. This amount is intended, amongst other things, ‘to support measures to promote and safeguard the regional and minority languages and cultures of the Community’. The Commission has earmarked a total of € 2,5 million for this purpose, as was stated in the preliminary draft budget presented to the Council and the Parliament.

To this end, the Commission plans to publish a call for proposals as soon as possible, the text of which it is currently finalising. All the criteria for the presentation and selection of the proposals will be stated in the call. The Honourable Member will be notified directly as soon as the full picture becomes clear.

The Commission is also examining the case for a specific study on the needs of the Union’s linguistic minorities that would complement the information already available on this subject. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/83

The development of measures to promote and safeguard regional and minority languages over the coming years will take into account the implementation of these actions and the European Year of Languages in 2001. The exact content of these measures will be decided at the appropriate time.

The definition of regional and minority languages is based on Article 1 of the Council of Europe’s European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages ‘regional or minority languages’ means languages that are traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State’s population; and different from the official language(s) of that State; it does not include either dialects of the official language(s) of the State or the languages of migrants.

(2000/C 374 E/097) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0468/00 by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: European Union employment policy

Can the Commission give a comprehensive list of the instruments and resources at the disposal of the European Union to combat the veritable scourge of unemployment in its Member States?

Can it give initial statistical estimates for each of the Member States concerning the effectiveness of its measures since 1994 in creating and safeguarding jobs?

Can it also say what are the main decisions which have been taken following the Luxembourg Summit, which was largely devoted to the unemployment situation in the European Union, and what have been to date the initial effects on employment figures?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

In order to combat unemployment, it was necessary to adopt a comprehensive strategy for coordinating economic policies, structural reforms and the labour market, to follow on from the informal convergence strategy launched by the European Council in Essen in 1994 and the Commission’s White Paper on ‘Growth, Competitiveness and Employment’ of 1993 (1).

On the labour market, the main instrument used to combat unemployment is the implementation of the Title on employment provided for in the EC Treaty (Articles 125 to 130). It fixes a high level of employment as a target to be considered by Community policies (Article 127) and commits the Member States to coordinate their employment policies on the basis of common objectives, including quantified objectives (Article 128). It sets up the institutional mechanism for the monitoring and multilateral evaluation of the success or failure of the policies concerned.

The Structural Funds, in the new programming (2000-2006), are the Community’s key instrument for providing assistance in the implementation of the employment strategy. The European Social Fund (ESF), in particular, aims to modernise and ensure the balanced operation of the labour markets, thus indirectly to create jobs. The territorial dimension to employment policies, highlighted in the employment guidelines for the year 2000, is, moreover, becoming increasingly important to all the Structural Funds. This dimension is recognised in the Commission’s approach to preparing and implementing the Structural Funds’ programming for 2000-2006. Particular emphasis has been placed on spreading territorial employment pacts in the new operational programmes (2).

Estimates of the effects of the measures

The employment strategy cannot be properly evaluated until the end of the five-year period decided upon in 1997. The joint reports on employment for 1998 and 1999 already show examples of good practice in the implementation of the guidelines, in some cases with supporting figures on the impact in terms of the C 374 E/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

creation or preservation of jobs. A more comprehensive evaluation is being carried out as part of the ‘peer’ examination which was launched at the beginning of 1999 by the Commission and the Council meeting on social affairs, a summary report on which will be published during the course of the year 2000.

The evaluation is an integral part of the implementation of the Structural Funds. It consists of regular monitoring of programmes (using common indicators, including jobs created or preserved) and a final evaluation of each programme in all Member States. The ESF evaluation focuses mainly on the effects on the public beneficiaries (3). The Commission, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and academic researchers have begun this evaluation albeit only partially. Ex post estimates for 1989-1993 show net job creation under Objective 2 of about 450 000. For 1994-1999, ex ante estimates indicate gross job creation of some 650 000 (4). Between 1995 and 1999, the Employment Initiative Youthstart, Now, Horizon and Integra contributed to measures on human resources, improved operation of the labour market and the promotion of equal opportunities. The ESF publications show examples of ‘good practices’ in this area.

An initial report on the territorial employment pacts (a pilot project launched by the Commission in 1997 in coordination with the Member States) provides encouraging information about 89 sub-regional areas (5). This interim report shows, in particular, that the structural programmes have redirected resources to the territorial pacts; this concerns a sum of approximately € 1 600 million for the years 1998 and 1999, of which € 500 million came from the three Structural Funds and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). It also indicates that the quantified objectives for job creation in this pilot project account for the creation of some 55 000 additional jobs.

In the new programming of the Structural Funds (2000-2006), a mid-term evaluation has already been planned and will determine the attribution of a performance reserve (4 % of the total sum allocated to the Member State). This evaluation will follow methodological guidelines, including for the calculation of the impact on employment, which have been drawn up by the Commission and are currently being tested in some Member States.

Main decisions taken since the Luxembourg European Council

The employment guidelines are revised every year. In 2000, the basic structure of four pillars has been preserved, while some changes have been made in order to highlight the key role of the public employment services and social protection systems in the strategy, as well as the importance of knowledge and skills related to the information society.

The implementation of the Title on employment was supplemented by Council recommendations to the Member States on their employment policies (6), formal consultation between the various Community institutions (including the Parliament) and the establishment of the Employment Committee provided for in Article 130 (7).

Since Luxembourg, the European Council has adopted follow-up initiatives: at Vienna (December 1998), simplification of procedures and a mandate for effective synergy between economic and employment policies; at Cologne (June 1999), the European Employment Pact the common framework for the Luxembourg process, the process for reforming the markets in goods, services and capital (Cardiff) and the informal macro-economic dialogue between the Council, the Commission, the European Central Bank and the social partners; Helsinki (December 1999), coordination of the existing processes and instruments for social cohesion and the information society in Lisbon on 23 and 24 March 2000.

At the same time, the Commission has adopted several communications on the consideration of employment in the other Community policies (Article 127 of the EC Treaty) (8); employment in the information society (9); and the modernisation of social protection (10).

(1) COM(93) 700 final. (2) SEC(1999) 1933. (3) Conclusions of the ESF mid-term evaluations. (4) 9th annual report on the Structural Funds. (5) SEC(1999) 1932. (6) Council Recommendation of 14 February 2000 (5161/00/SOC2 Ecofin4). (7) Council Decision of 24 January 2000 (2000/98/EC). (8) COM(1999) 167 final and COM(2000) 78 final. (9) COM(2000) 48 final. (10) COM(1999) 347 final. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/85

(2000/C 374 E/098) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0471/00 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: JOP Programme

1. Is it true that the Commission has decided to end the JOP Programme?

2. If so, was it because of the difficulties encountered? If so, what were these difficulties?

3. Alternatively, was the decision taken because of problems arising from fraud? If so, what was the extent of the programmes at issue (funds allocated), compared with those which were not?

4. Will the Commission put forward another similar programme or does it take the view that the thinking behind the existing programme fails to take sufficient account of the specific needs arising in each particular case?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

Over the years, PHARE has developed into an instrument of support for the preparation of the partner countries for their accession to the Union. The required priority actions are identified in the accession partnerships which were approved by the Council on 6 December 1999. This re-orientation of PHARE on a targeted number of accession priorities has indeed also lead to the decision to reduce the number of multicountry sectorial programmes. The decision to terminate the Joint venture programme (JOP) should be seen against this background. No other reasons were at the basis of that decision.

However, support to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in candidate countries continues through the new framework for investment support from PHARE to promote economic and social cohesion in the candidate countries. These actions are considered annually within the national PHARE programmes for each candidate country. Also the new pre-accession instrument Special accession programme for agriculture and rural development (Sapard) will, under certain conditions, be in a position to provide investment support for SMEs in order to meet the acquis requirements in the agricultural and rural development sector. In addition, PHARE funds are made available in co-operation with international financial institutions for providing loans to SMEs in the partner countries.

(2000/C 374 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0474/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Aid for Sicilian fishermen

The Sicilian Region, in accordance with regional Law No 30/1998, has introduced accompanying measures to offset the effects of temporary terminations or restrictions of fishing activities. This aid has not yet been released because the Commission has raised objections to which the Sicilian government has responded.

Given that, in the past, the Commission’s opinion on the regional law in question has been favourable, can the Commission say:

1. What specific reasons lie behind the Commission’s continued refusal to authorise the Sicilian Region to release the aid to the Sicilian fishermen who have applied for it;

2. When does the Commission intend to take a decision on this matter so that the economic hardship of hundreds of people working in the fishing industry, who are already suffering as a result of not being able to work, can be alleviated? C 374 E/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

The Commission is examining the compatibility of the measure in question (Law No 30 of 26 October 1998) with Community law.

It will shortly arrive at a decision, taking special note of the additional information sent it by the Italian authorities on 28 December 1999.

(2000/C 374 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0481/00 by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Funding under the URBAN Community initiative

Could the Commission indicate the amount of funding the Spanish region of Estremedura is likely to receive under the URBAN Community initiative?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The guidelines for the URBAN Community initiative are expected to be approved by the Commission by end of March 2000 or early April 2000. Member States are invited to present programme proposals to the Commission within six months after publication in the Official journal.

The Community initiative will be financed jointly by the Member States from national resources and by the Community from the European regional development fund (ERDF). The total contribution by ERDF to URBAN during the programming period 2000-2006 is fixed at € 700 million, at 1999 prices. The appropriation for each Member State is allocated on the basis of urban population, the number of people out of work and the number of long-term unemployed in the urban areas involved. The indicative allocation of the commitment appropriation for Spain amounts to € 106 million. Furthermore, the guidelines specify an indicative number of urban areas to be covered by the Community initiative, which is eight in the case of Spain.

The guidelines do not specify any regional allocation of the funds. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, it is the role of Member States to propose the urban areas for support under URBAN, provided that the proposed programmes comply with the conditions, criteria and priorities set out in the guidelines and that they remain in the limits of the financial allocation.

(2000/C 374 E/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0484/00 by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Funding under the Leader+ Community initiative

Could the Commission indicate the amount of funding the Spanish region of Estremedura is likely to receive under the Leader+ Community initiative? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/87

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Commission has distributed the EUR 2 020 million budget for Leader+ among the Member States.

Spain has been allocated EUR 467 million and it must now draw up the programmes to implement Leader+.

The programmes will be sent to the Commission for approval and it is on that basis that the potential funding for the various regions will be known.

The Commission has not yet received the Leader+ programmes, so it cannot give the Honourable Member any more information.

(2000/C 374 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0491/00 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Agricultural subsidies paid to US farmers

Can the Commission state whether it has up-to-date information on the total amount of agricultural subsidies paid to farmers in the United States and whether recent increases in income aids to US farmers are in keeping with the rules of the World Trade Organisation.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The United States’ budget for agriculture is substantially greater than that for the Community’s common agricultural policy (€ 63 and € 69 billion in 1999 and 2000, respectively). A significant portion of this budget, however, is spent on measures which are only of indirect benefit to american farmers, such as food, nutrition and consumer services, which accounted for € 35 billion of the agricultural budget in 1999.

The primary means of support for farmers is in the form of direct payments under the Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA) and the loan deficiency payment system, which bridges the gap between the market price and a pre-determined amount per tonne, known as the loan rate.

In 1999, United States federal payments to farmers, in direct form, amounted to € 22,7 billion, through a combination of those pre-programmed payments under AMTA and the special emergency packages approved in 1998 (some of which were only paid out in 1999), and 1999. This was a considerable increase on previous years. This is the equivalent of € 11 000 per farm and is double the average direct payment received by Community farmers.

Obviously, the Commission is concerned with the upward trend in recent years of United States federal expenditure on agriculture and is monitoring developments closely. However, in relation to the compatibility of United States measures with World trade organisation (WTO) rules, the United States has not yet notified its 1998 and 1999 measures on agriculture. Its last notification was for marketing year 1997. This notification showed that the total aggregate measurement of support (AMS) commitment level for the United States was $ 21 491 million, while its current AMS in that year was $ 6 238 million. In other words, the United States had substantial room for manoeuvre within its AMS ceiling. On the other hand, the total level of outlay on ‘green box’ measures was $ 51 250 million, compared to outlays during the 1986-1988 reference period of $ 26 150 million. However, there is no WTO ceiling on outlays on ‘green box’ measures. C 374 E/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

The Commission will closely monitor future WTO notifications by the United States to ensure that agriculture related expenditure is correctly classified under WTO rules and that commitments are respected.

(2000/C 374 E/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0495/00 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), Sergio Berlato (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Specific character of foodstuffs

It would appear that there has been a considerable delay in applying Regulations (EEC) Nos 2081/92 (1) and 2082/92 (2) if it is true that, in the wake of the adoption of the basic 1992 texts, the first application for recognition of specific character was received only in 1996.

More specifically, there are reports that certain such applications, made over a year ago, have received no reply.

Given the important repercussions of the regulations in question, in terms of both economic and regional competitiveness, can the Commission say:

1. Whether the above is true?

2. If so, what the real reason is for such delays?

3. Whether such delays depend on the complexity of the procedures or on the operational capacities of European or national institutions?

4. Whether it thinks it would be appropriate to submit proposals with a view both to streamlining procedures and to ensuring greater certainty in determining the procedures for the above applications?

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1. (2) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 9.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

On 14 July 1992, as part of the reform of the common agricultural policy, the Council adopted Regulations (EEC) Nos 2081/92 and 2082/92 protecting, in the first case, geographical indications (PGIs) and designations of origin (PDOs) and, in the other, designations as a guaranteed traditional speciality (TSGs) in the field of agricultural products and foodstuffs. These Regulations came into force on 26 July 1993.

Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (PGIs/PDOs) provides for two types of registration: by the normal procedure and by the simplified procedure. Under the simplified procedure, the Regulation gave Member States a six- month deadline from the date of entry into force (or the accession date of the new Member States in 1995) to inform the Commission about designations already protected at national level which they would like registered at Community level. The Member States sent the Commission more than 1500 names for registration under the simplified procedure. It took the Commission several years to vet all 1500 applications. Following this vetting operation, the Commission registered about 500 PGIs and PDOs. Some applications were withdrawn by the Member States (about 700) and more than 300 applications for mineral waters proved not to be registerable because of a compatibility problem between the Community rules on mineral waters and the Regulation on designations of origin and geographical indications. Of the 155 Italian applications under the simplified procedure, there remain two for which the procedure has not yet terminated. These applications turned out to be particularly complex and have given rise to voluminous correspondence and many bilateral meetings with Italy as well as multilateral ones with all Member States. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/89

Under the normal procedure, the Regulation lays down two successive six-month deadlines after notification of an application to the Commission. The first six-month deadline (Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92) is required for practical and administrative reasons (translation of the applications files, canvassing opinions from other Commission departments, requests for additional information, possible consultation of the Scientific Committee, etc.). The second six-month deadline, which begins with the publication of an application in the Official Journal, is designed to give scope for objections (Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92). This is because it is essential to know what the situation is in other Member States regarding a product for which a Member State has requested registration at Community level, as well as to give them an opportunity to object if they have a valid reason.

If there is an objection which deserves consideration, an additional three-month period is provided for (Article 7(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92), in which the Member States involved can seek agreement among themselves. If, on expiry of this period, no agreement has been found, the Commission then has to draw up a decision to be submitted to the Regulatory Committee. These procedures are long and can vary in length according to the complexity of the application, but it is essential to ensure that applications are in conformity with the Regulation and that third parties’ rights are safeguarded.

Since the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 535/97, Member States have been able to grant transitional protection at national level until a decision on an application for registration has been taken at Community level. This is designed to protect the interests of the producers applying for registration.

Given the importance of the interests concerned and the need to ensure that Community registration remains credible in permitting exclusive use of a name in market counting 373 million consumers, the Commission does not think it is appropriate to propose lightening the procedure for registration of PGIs and PDOs.

As regards Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 (TSGs), the Commission sent the Council a report on its implementation in July 1999. This report indicates that efforts are being made to improve the operation of this Regulation.

(2000/C 374 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0496/00 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), Sergio Berlato (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Consumer protection

According to the current rules on the labelling and presentation of agri-food products destined for the final consumer, it does not appear to be compulsory, in certain cases, to indicate the place of origin of the product or of its main ingredient; nor does it appear to be compulsory to inform the final consumer of the fact that an agri-food product or its ingredients have been genetically modified. Moreover, according to press reports, a voluntary information campaign has been launched by 60 producers and distributors in Italy who have chosen to label their products as not being genetically modified.

If the above interpretation is correct, can the Commission state:

1. whether there are any reasons preventing the Commission from submitting proposals for amending Articles 3, 11 and 12 of Directive 79/112/EEC (1) with a view to making it compulsory in all cases to indicate on the label of a product destined for the final consumer the place of origin of that product or of its main ingredient;

2. whether, the Seattle meeting of the WTO notwithstanding, the EU has had, is having or intends to have talks with the USA with a view to drawing up regulations concerning products containing GMOs or nutraceuticals;

3. whether it is aware of any genetically modified products being marketed in the EU?

(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 1. C 374 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

1. Article 3 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 consume (1), as last amended by Directive 97/4/E (2) provides that particulars of the place of origin or provenance must only be provided in the cases where failure to give such particulars might mislead the consumer to a material degree as to the true origin of provenance of the foodstuff concerned.

This approach is informed by the following considerations. Generally, with the exception of products which are covered by specific regimes (protection of geographical indications and designations of origin of agricultural products and foodstuffs, fruit and fresh vegetables, etc.), or products which are labelled on the basis of other objective criteria (e.g. protection of public health, in the case of the Commission’s proposal on the labelling of bovine meat), there is no direct link between a foodstuff’s properties and its place of origin. In the case of ordinary products, the place of origin or provenance does not affect quality, but may however be a means of discrimination. In the context of the principle of the free movement of products in the internal market, mandatory indication of the place of origin or provenance unless justified by one of the above-mentioned objective criteria is liable to favour behaviour in the Member States that bestows special privileges on domestic production.

2. Discussions on questions concerning foodstuffs derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are currently under way in several international forums, notably the OECD and the Codex Alimentarius.

The Commission has bilateral contacts both with the United States government and numerous other third countries, at different levels, concerning several problems, including biotechnology. The idea is to pool information and viewpoints and to organise discussions on possible solutions to major problems

3. Since 15 May 1997, novel foods and novel food ingredients have been subject to the procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredient (2). To date no food or food ingredients containing GMOs have been authorised on the basis of Article 4 of this Regulation. However, pursuant to the procedure set out in Article 5 of this Regulation, fundamentally equivalent products have been placed on the market on the basis of notifications. Up to now ten products have been notified (six colza oils and derived products of four different varieties of maize). In compliance with its obligations, the Commission has published the list of notified products in the Official Journal (3).

Moreover, before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, two GMOs were authorised pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organism (4) (genetically modified soya by Commission Decision 96/281/EC of 3 April 1996 concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified soya beans (Glycine max L.) with increased tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, submitted pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC (5), and genetically modified maize pursuant to Commission Decision 97/98/EC of 23 January 1997 concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) with the combined modification for insecticidal properties conferred by the Bt-endotoxin gene and increased tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium, also submitted pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC (6)). Hence they may be used in human food.

(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 1. (2) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. (3) OJ C 200, 26.6.1998, OJ C 181, 26.6.1999 and OJ C 71, 11.3.2000. (4) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. (5) OJ L 107, 30.4.1996. (6) OJ L 31, 1.2.1997. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/91

(2000/C 374 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0501/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(25 February 2000)

Subject: Council staff working hours

What are the expected working hours in total per week and in start and finish times each day of members of the Council’s staff? What arrangements are proposed to staff to cover flexitime?

(18 May 2000)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that Council staff working hours are governed by Title IV, Chapter I, Articles 55 to 56b of the Staff Regulations Regulations and Rules applicable to officials and other servants of the European Communities. Under those Articles, the normal working week may not exceed 42 hours in accordance with a general timetable laid down by the appointing authority. In the Council General Secretariat that general timetable makes provision, for full-time work, for a minimum working week of 37,5 hours, from between 08.00 and 08.45 to 17.00, including a lunch break between 12.15 and 14.15 depending on arrival time, with the proviso that this must not prevent meetings from continuing until 18.00.

The Council would also point out that the first paragraph of Article 55 of the Staff Regulations also stipulates that officials in active employment shall at all times be at the disposal of their institution, although the total overtime which an official may be asked to work is not to exceed 150 hours in any six months (Article 56). It also seems necessary to make it clear that in the framework of the provisions described above, the rhythm of work of staff of the Council General Secretariat is closely linked to and dependent upon the volume and rhythm of the activity of the Council itself, which means that the statistics requested in the question should be regarded more as indicative than strictly mathematical. In practice, therefore, most staff directly involved in the proceedings of the Council’s subordinate bodies work until at least 18.00. Lastly, as part of the continuing discussions on the working conditions of staff of the General Secretariat, a draft reform of the timetable is being studied.

(2000/C 374 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0502/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Commission staff working hours

What are the expected working hours in total per week and in start and finish times each day of members of the Commission’s staff? What arrangements are proposed to staff to cover flexitime?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

According to Article 55 of the Staff Regulations officials in active employment shall be at all times at the disposal of their institution. Under established agreements, however the normal working week shall not exceed 42 hours and no official may be asked to work overtime for more than 150 hours in any six months. For Commission staff the Appointing Authority has determined, in accordance with the Staff Regulations, that the weekly working time is 37 hours 30 minutes (valid since 1 October 1986). C 374 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

The Commission applies the following rules in respect of the hours of the working day: the official hours are from 8.30 (8.45 on Monday) to 13.00 and from 14.15 to 17.30 (16.30 on Friday). During these hours there has to be a permanent presence in each service.

The following facilities have been agreed for flexible working hours: all staff must be present from 9.30 to 12.00 and from 14.45 to 17.00 except on Fridays when this obligatory presence ends at 16.00. The remaining flexible hours must be worked between 8.00 and 20.00 with an obligatory 30 minutes break for lunch and with the daily working hours being limited to 10 hours per day.

Management of the flexible working time is the responsibility of each head of unit who determines the appropriate control in agreement with his or her personnel.

These rules apply in principle to all staff covered by the Staff Regulations working in Brussels. For other working places the details related to flexible working time are determined in accordance with the needs and specificity of the location.

It should be noted that many officials often work more hours than the normal weekly working hours because of the requirements of their tasks and the relevant staff available.

(2000/C 374 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0508/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Real per capita gross regional product figures

Further to the answer to Written Question E-2223/99 (1), in which the Commission detailed real per capita gross domestic product and real per capita gross regional product figures for the Union, will it now make available on the same basis the latest available figures for each region for 1997? Will the Commission also explain why there is such a substantial time lag in the publication of these figures?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 150.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

The results of the 1997 regional gross domestic production (GDP) estimation are forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament.

Concerning the delay in publishing these regional statistics, it has to be taken into consideration that regional GDP is published at the NUTS 3 level, i.e. including more than 1000 regions in the Community. Collecting and processing this data in the Member States takes time. The basic statistics, regional gross value added (GVA), are supplied by the Member States 24 months after the reference year. This is a normal time for the collection of such detailed statistics. Unfortunately it is not always the case that Member States send the data within this time; so Eurostat publication has to wait until a reasonable quantity of basic data has been supplied. Until recently there was no legal base for these statistics, so there was no instrument to enforce timely data transmission.

This situation will improve when the European system of accounts 95 (ESA95) delivery programme comes into force. Then the time lag will indeed be limited to 24 months after the reference year, e.g. in December 2001 Eurostat will have the necessary information to calculate regional GDP for 1999. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/93

(2000/C 374 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0510/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Studies of inflation differentials

In the light of the answer to Written Question E-2228/99 (1), is the Commission aware of the studies undertaken by academics and market participants into the sustainable inflation differentials of each Member State in the eurozone? Would the Commission please list for each Member State the inflation differentials which different studies undertaken by academics and market participants have suggested would be sustainable?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 127.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Academic studies trying to assess the scope for sustainable inflation differentials in Economic and monetary union (EMU) include Alberola and Tyrväinen (1998), and Canzoneri et. al. (1998). These studies rely on the so-called Balassa-Samuelson model or an amended version thereof. The International monetary fund has also attempted a cross-country quantification of the Balassa-Samuelson effect in several recent reports. Market participants tend either to refer to these studies or to refer to the historical experience of some existing monetary unions, notably the United States or the United Kingdom. The European central bank (ECB) analysed the issue of inflation differentials in a monetary union in its monthly bulletin of October 1999.

The simulated sustainable inflation rates in the academic studies are given in a table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. The simulations rely on three basic assumptions: (i) long-run purchasing power parity (PPP) will hold for tradeables in the euro area; (ii) the productivity growth differential between tradeables and non-tradeables will remain the same in EMU in each country as in the historical period; and (iii) prices in each sector will evolve in line with unit labour costs. Alberola and Tyrväinen allow for differences in sectoral wage trends in what they call an ‘extended Balassa- Samuelson’ model.

These numerical exercises are valuable in showing that sustained inflation differentials in EMU may be justified. This fact needs to be recognised in the multilateral surveillance process and in the economic policies of euro area participants.

The simulations should not be viewed as accurate predictions of future long-term differences in inflation across EMU. The role of traded goods productivity bias in explaining real exchange rates across industrialised countries is still a matter of debate in the economic literature (cf. Rogoff (1996)). In the experience of EMU countries, national price levels measured in common currency have diverged by considerably less over long periods than the above simulations suggest. The assumptions underlying the simulations de facto have not been fulfilled (and need not be so in future), for example long-run PPP for traded goods has not been satisfied for all countries in the sample (cf. Canzoneri et.al. (1998)); the relative price of non-tradeables has risen generally less fast than indicated by relative productivity trends (cf. Canzoneri et.al. (1998)); productivity differentials between sectors may change over time (the remaining scope for catching-up in e.g. Italy and Spain is smaller today than in the early 1970s).

Experience from other monetary unions may help to shed light on the issue of inflation differentials in EMU. From 1950 to 1978 (when the Irish pound ceased to be linked to the British pound), the average difference in annual consumer price index (CPI) inflation between Ireland and the United Kingdom (countries with a considerable difference in the level of economic development at the time) was 0,4 %. Between Luxembourg and Belgium, the average difference over the period 1950-1988 was about 0,3 % per annum. C 374 E/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

The Commission views the above mechanical simulations as upper limits on the likely scope for sustained inflation divergence in EMU. Nevertheless, in the economic management of the euro area it is very important to recognise that persistent inflation differences may be warranted in view of longer-term structural forces. The Commission welcomes the Parliament’s interest in this important topic and would be glad to discuss further these issues with the Honourable Member.

(2000/C 374 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0511/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (28 February 2000)

Subject: Disrespect for EU law by Member States

In the light of the answer to Written Question E-2230/99 (1) (3 December 1999) and to the picture of sustained and increasing disrespect for European Union law, particularly by France, how does the Commission propose to improve matters? Does the Commission recognise that its existing efforts to curb infringements are inadequate? Does it believe that the system of penalties should be reinforced against persistent law-breakers, and will it bring forward proposals to that effect in the forthcoming Intergovern- mental Conference?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 153.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (10 April 2000)

The Commission considers that the existing infringement procedure in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty has proved its efficiency for years. Therefore the Commission does not intend to propose a reform of this procedure.

The largest proportion of infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission is solved before any action is taken in the Court of justice, the Member State having brought the infringement to an end. As an illustration of this efficiency, in 1999 only 16,5 % of infringement cases having been subject to a prior letter of formal notice had to be submitted to the Court by the Commission.

The possibility of a second action in the Court of justice with financial penalties (Article 228 ex Article 171 EC Treaty) introduced by the Treaty on European Union has again reinforced the efficiency of this procedure.

Moreover, in order to ensure a more and more systematic review of the implementation of Community law by the Member States, the Commission constantly improves its operational procedures in that field. The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the forthcoming 17th report for an outline of these new operational measures. This will be made available to the Parliament in the coming weeks.

(2000/C 374 E/110) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0516/00 by Michael Gahler (PPE-DE) to the Commission (28 February 2000)

Subject: Nationality in relation to double taxation

A German and an Austrian are employed at the Frankfurt branch of the Austrian Chamber of Commerce, a public body. Whilst the Austrian, as an employee of a public body, is treated as having his permanent residence in Austria, the German employee comes under the double taxation agreement between Austria and Germany. Pursuant to that agreement, he has limited tax liability in Austria unless, in accordance with the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Schumacker case, he applies for unlimited tax liability. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/95

This situation gives the Austrian employee specific advantages, for example the payment of child allowances provided for in Austria or the possibility of deducting compulsory sickness insurance from tax over and above the limit for contributions set in Germany.

Is it consistent with European law that an Austrian employee should be in a better position than a German one merely because of his nationality?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

As the Court of Justice has found on a number of occasions, the situation of residents and non-residents is usually different, which accounts for different tax treatment (1).

Under Article 3 of the Austrian law on tax procedures (Bundesabgabenordnung BAO), Austrian civil servants posted abroad are considered to be theoretically resident in Austria irrespective of where they actually live. They are therefore liable for tax in Austria on income earned anywhere in the world. There are comparable rules in all the Member States.

This legislation is not inconsistent with European law, since nationals of other Member States who are not resident in Austria and who are paid by the Austrian state, such as an employee of the Austrian Chamber of Commerce in Frankfurt (Germany), may opt for unlimited tax liability in Austria (Article 1 § 4 ÖEStG), if their income from Austrian sources makes up the greater part of their income from sources anywhere in the world.

If this is not the case, and it is therefore not possible to opt for unlimited tax liability, an employee unlike an Austrian civil servant is taxed as an Austrian non-resident (with his income as an employee of the Chamber of Commerce). On the other hand, he is treated as resident for tax purposes in Germany. In this situation, certain differences in treatment, such as those highlighted by the question by the Honourable Member, may arise from the different status of residents as compared to non-residents. This is an inevitable consequence of the existence of two different national tax systems which have not been harmonised.

(1) (CJEC, judgment of 14.2.1995, case C-279/93 Schumacker; judgment of 12.5.1998, case C-336/96 Gilly).

(2000/C 374 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0518/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Environmental impact assessment and the protection of species

The council of the city of Leverkusen has noted with approval the attached decision on B-Plan No 143/III Hornpottweg and instructed the administration to consider possible planning variants for the link to the planned industrial area.

The area is well-known because of its importance for bird migration and as a buffer zone for the adjoining nature reserve in the municipal area of Cologne, and it is one of the moorland, dry grassland and inland dune biotypes which are at serious risk.

Many of the species relevant to North Rhine-Westphalia according to the EC bird conservation directive (79/409/EEC (1)) and many of the migratory bird species regularly occurring in North Rhine-Westphalia as referred to in Article 4(2) of the EC bird conservation directive for which protective measures are needed occur in this area or use it as a stopover point on their migratory passage. Applications from the Working Party on Biotype Networking of the Cologne, Leverkusen and Rheinisch-Bergischer Kreis groups of BUND (Association for Nature and Environmental Protection Germany) for the area to be protected as a nature reserve have been unsuccessful. C 374 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Several points of the environmental impact assessment undertaken in the context of the preparation decision conclude that the project should not be implemented.

1. Does the Commission believe that the EIA is consistent with the new EU directives?

2. Does the Commission agree that the bird conservation directive and the protection of the area as a stopover point for migrating birds should be given a high priority?

3. Does the Commission take the view that the competent authorities should not simply dismiss the clearly adverse outcome of the EIA?

4. Does the Commission agree that particular account needs to be taken of the protection of nature and species in agglomerations?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

The Commission agrees that Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) (Birds Directive) is of great importance in each Member State and is to be respected by every competent authority. Therefore the Commission has launched a number of infringement proceedings concerning the realisation of projects in SPAs, in addition to the general infringement proceedings dealing with the failure of Germany to designate sufficient special protection areas (SPA). The Commission also holds the view that nature and species protection is especially important in urban areas.

However, the literature about important bird areas in Europe indicates that there is no site of European importance in Leverkusen (no indication of a national importance or regional importance for the area concerned is known to the Commission). In line with the subsidiarity principle the Commission therefore considers the case mentioned by the Honourable Member falls under the competence of the Member State.

For sites of local importance, even those hosting some species of the Birds Directive or a habitat of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive) (2), the Honourable Member should address herself to the authorities of the Member State.

The subsidiarity principle is also relevant to the question of how to handle the results of the environmental impact assessment concerning the birds value of the site. Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (EIA Directive) (3) in Article 8 lays down that information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 must be taken into consideration in the development consent procedure. However, an adverse outcome of the EIA does not necessarily lead to a decision to dismiss the project.

The material provided concerning the consent procedure of the council of the city of Leverkusen on the B-Plan No 143/III Hornpottweg does not prove an infringement of the EIA Directive. According to the consent, a comprehensive evaluation of all different effects of the construction plan has been carried out. The material provided does not allow an assessment of how far the EIA was considered in the consent procedure and public consultations have been executed.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/97

(2000/C 374 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0528/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Reduced VAT rate for electronic news media products

Under the sixth VAT directive, Member States are permitted to apply a reduced VAT rate to the supply of certain goods and services. Some Member States include newspapers and periodicals under Annex H to the directive in question, levying a reduced VAT rate on such products. The fact is, however, that news media services are increasingly being provided electronically, and this is resulting in distortion of competition between paper and non-paper publications.

Will the Member States have the possibility in future of extending the reduced VAT rate to electronic news media products, and in particular CD-ROMs and on-line publications?

Reply given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

In principle, under current Community VAT legislation, particularly Article 12 of the sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) (1), the standard rate of VAT applies to newpapers and other news media.

However, Member States wishing to do so may allow a reduced rate for books, newspapers and periodicals.

Where intagibles are concerned, in June 1998 the Ecofin Council approved the principle by which an operation that makes a product available in digital form via an electronic network should be regarded for VAT purposes as a service provided.

The question whether some services of this kind may be added to the list of goods and services eligible for a reduced rate will be examined more widely in the course of a forthcoming revision of the scope of reduced rates of VAT. However, at this stage, it would be premature to anticipate the Commission’s work by commenting on the future VAT treatment of electonic news media products.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, as last amended by Directive 1999/85/EC (OJ L 277, 28.10.1999).

(2000/C 374 E/113) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0532/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Conditions imposed by certain Italian credit institutions on its own current account-holders

What consumer protection rules exist in relation to bank deposits?

Can banks always do as they wish, within the bounds of the laws to prevent usury, or does the European Union consider that they are obliged to comply with specific rules?

Is the Commission aware that, in Italy, certain credit institutions have set borrowing rates of 13 % for their customers while paying only 0,1 % (or even less) on accounts that are in credit? C 374 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Under Article 47(2) of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 57(2)), there are various Community directives which coordinate and, where necessary, harmonise the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in the Member States to facilitate access to credit activities and their exercise within the single market.

In this connection, the European Parliament and the Council adopted, on 30 May 1994, Directive 94/19/ EEC (1) on deposit-guarantee schemes, which ensures a harmonized minimum level of deposit protection. From 1 January 2000, the aggregate deposits of each depositor must be covered up to at least EUR 20 000.

Moreover, in its communication ‘Implementing the framework for financial markets: action plan’ (2), adopted on 26 May 1999, which was sent on the same date to the European Parliament and the Council, and was confirmed by the Cologne European Council, the Commission pointed out that cross-frontier retail financial trading would only flourish if consumers had confidence in the integrity of the service being provided and the selling methods used by suppliers, the credentials of the supplier and the availability and efficacy of redress procedures in the event of a dispute. For this reason, the communication stresses that action at EU level for retail markets and for the protection of consumers remains a high priority. The communication lists a series of areas for action which the Commission has identified to give consumers the tools (information) and guarantees (clearly established rights and effective redress procedures) they need to participate fully and actively in the single financial services market: identifying the consumer protection rules which are not harmonised and which should not be maintained, to reduce obstacles to the cross- border provision of services; promoting the introduction of effective mechanisms to overcome the flaws in the single retail financial services market due to differences in private law; creating the legal conditions necessary for pan-European use of new distribution routes and new distance-selling technologies; encouraging the introduction of safe and cheap methods of payment which will allow individuals to make cross- border payments without having to pay exorbitant fees.

However, the Commission feels that it is neither possible nor appropriate to intervene as regards the interest rates offered by credit institutions. As the Honourable Member is aware, under Article 4 (formerly Article 3a) of the EC Treaty, the Community’s economic policy is based on the single market and is conducted in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition. It is respect for this principle which ensures the best allocation of economic resources. Within this context, it is for each credit institution, while observing the rules on competition, to define its own commercial policy according to its perception of market risks. As it pointed out in its reply to Written Question E-2738/99 by Mr Zappala and Mr Tajani (3), the Commission feels that, quite apart from being legally questionable, public intervention designed to impose restrictions on the financial market would be an obstacle to the free movement of financial services. It would prevent consumers from taking full advantage of the benefits of the single market as regards increased choice and competitive conditions and would, therefore, be harmful to both firms and consumers, with a negative impact on development and employment.

Regarding European competition rules, Article 81 (formerly Article 85) of the EC Treaty prohibits any anti-competitive agreements between firms, particularly as regards pricing, and Article 82 (formerly Article 86) prohibits any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market. These articles only apply, however, to restrictions on competition which significantly affect trade between Member States. If this is not the case, the national competition authorities are responsible for applying national competition law.

The Honourable Member is probably aware that the Bank of Italy, as the Italian competition authority for the banking sector, has recently adopted a decision admonishing Italian banks for anti-competitive agreements, particularly as regards credit and debit interest rates, concluded by a group known as the ‘friends of the bank’ and imposing fines. Since the Bank of Italy has made investigations which led to this 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/99

decision, and it has yet to be established whether the matter has had a significant effect on trade between Member States, the Commission did not consider it appropriate to intervene in the case in question.

(1) OJ L 135, 31.5.1994. (2) COM(1999) 232 final. (3) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 120.

(2000/C 374 E/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0533/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Falcone programme (1997-2001)

Could the Commission list the regional and/or national administrative authorities and public or private bodies to which sums or contributions have been allocated, stating the amount involved and whether or not payments have already been made, for each of the various actions included in the Falcone programme (1997-2001) (which has a budget of ECU 10 million, or approximately ITL 19 billion) in Italy and in the other Member States?

Has any action been taken to check that the funds were used for their intended purpose and the projects successfully implemented?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the general background against which the implementation of the Falcone programme, like all other Justice and home affairs programmes, is evaluated. Projects are selected in two stages, first by professionals and then by representatives of the Member States meeting within the Falcone committee. The aim is to encourage cooperation between professionals from a large number of Member States (and non-member countries) on a multidisciplinary basis. Emphasis is put on training measures, joint projects and studies on themes linked to combating and preventing organised crime. The approach taken is not to consider the beneficiary and his national origin but to support projects which create synergy between Member States. The selection criteria and priority themes are described in detail in the annual Falcone programme published in the Official Journal (1).

The Commission publishes a report each year giving the breakdown of projects by type of beneficiary and type of measure. In addition to the priorities by type of project set out in the annual programme, the Commission endeavours to encourage cooperation between both national authorities and regional authorities or non-state organisations (universities, associations). The breakdown for 1998 was: 51,3 % for national authorities, 11,3 % for regional authorities and 37,4 % for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and a number of research institutes. The corresponding figures for 1999 are 59,7 %, 18,3 % and 22 %.

NGOs, Number of projects National authorities Regional authorities including universities 1998: 35 18 6 11 1999: 38 22 8 8

NGOs, Financing National authorities Regional authorities including universities 1998: € 2 252 644 1 156 064 255 458 841 122 1999: € 1 959 960 1 171 306 357 974 430 680 C 374 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

The Commission has drawn up a list of projects cofinanced in 1998 and 1999, broken down by the three types of beneficiary, which will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. The Commission would recall that a report on the implementation of all the programmes in 1998 has been sent to Parliament (2).

With regard to the monitoring of the implementation and financing of projects, the fact that payments are made in instalments enables the Commission to ensure that the various stages of the projects are carried out properly. The last instalment is conditional on the beneficiary producing a report on implementation.

The Commission participates as far as possible in the projects, which enables it to make sure on the spot that implementation of the projects matches the award criteria and decisions. The Commission found that the beneficiaries were highly motivated, with the result that targets were met and cooperation often went far beyond the projects financed. Moreover, independent experts are currently evaluating all programmes, and this will make it possible to assess the results of the projects already completed under the Falcone programme since it came into operation at the end of 1998.

(1) OJ C 355, 8.12.1999. (2) SEC(1999) 1955.

(2000/C 374 E/115) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0540/00 by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 February 2000)

Subject: WTO agriculture, environment

As the negotiations on a comprehensive WTO Round in Seattle were unsuccessful, it is certain that the issues on the ‘built-in agenda’ agriculture and services will at least be discussed. On the other hand, there is uncertainty about how the negotiations on a new WTO Round will continue.

Does the comprehensive approach adopted by the Commission in Seattle retain its validity for the new WTO Round?

How does the Commission intend to meet the need for the issue of the environment to be included in the new WTO Round?

What steps will the Commission initiate with a view to involving NGOs in the WTO context?

Will the Commission forward to the European Parliament all information relating to the negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Community’s approach with regard to a new World trade organization (WTO) Round was reconfirmed, both by the Council and by the Parliament in its resolution of 15 December 1999. The overall approach with regard to a new Round therefore remains valid.

This includes the need to make sure that the WTO is responsive to legitimate trade-related concerns, such as in the area of environment. Although this is still a controversial issue, the Commission is convinced that the basic objectives remain valid. It is currently reflecting on how to take this particular theme forward in its continued efforts to launch the New Round, for instance through intensified efforts to explain more clearly the objectives, to engage in a confidence-building exercise to alleviate concerns of some trade partners, particularly developing countries, and to evaluate the means to achieve these basic WTO objectives. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/101

It is also continuing, as part of the preparations for the launch of future negotiations, the sustainability impact assessment, which includes an examination of the potential impact on the environment of further liberalisation and changes to WTO rules. The Parliament has been kept informed of the progress of this project and members have been invited to meetings with Member States and civil society on it.

The Commission has sought to involve non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations both at the level of the WTO and at the Community level. The Member of the Commission responsible for trade held a number of consultations with NGOs before Seattle. In the WTO the Commission has made proposals for increased transparency in terms of document availability. It continues to reflect on further means to improve transparency and dialogue with the NGO community, both at the level of the Community, and in the context of the WTO.

Regarding the transmission of information to the Parliament, the Honourable Member is aware of the commitment by the Commission to provide documents and information on a regular basis to the Parliament, both during the preparation and in the course of negotiations, as appropriate.

(2000/C 374 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0543/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Draft new Community framework on State aid for environmental protection

The Commission is currently discussing with the Member States an important document on a Community framework for State aid for environmental protection. This is to come into force in July 2000. The Community framework is essential for the management of State environmental aid, for example with regard to Member States’ promotion of renewable energy sources.

1. What are the main criteria by which the Council judges State aid for environmental protection?

2. More precisely, what approach to support for renewable energy sources underlies the Community framework?

3. How will the Council ensure the transparency and cooperation with Parliament promised by the Commission President, Romano Prodi?

(18 May 2000)

The Council has, on many occasions, emphasised the importance of promoting renewable sources of energy as a means of achieving the goals of both energy policy and environment policy. In this context, the Commission is to submit a proposal for a Directive on access for electricity from renewables to the internal electricity market in the very near future.

With respect to state aid, the Council recalls its Resolution on renewable sources of energy (1), adopted on 8 June 1998 in which it noted ‘that Member States choose the most appropriate means of promoting use of renewables … which are best suited to their national circumstances and are in conformity with Treaty obligations and comply with Community state aid guidelines for environmental protection’. Moreover, the Council welcomed the intention of the Commission ‘to consider appropriate modifications in favour of renewable energy sources during the revision of the guidelines for Community state aid’.

(1) OJ C 198, 8.6.1998, p. 1. C 374 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0547/00 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission (28 February 2000)

Subject: Corpus Juris and staff

Further to the reply given to my Written Question E-2596/99 (1), will the Commission indicate the positions currently held by the authors of the reports on Corpus Juris?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 79.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (13 April 2000)

The group of researchers working on the Corpus Juris were chosen for this purpose because they are well- known experts in criminal law in their respective Member States.

As far as the Commission is aware, these researchers are still working in their respective Member States, where they hold independent posts in universities and higher education and are recognised as authorities in jurisprudence. Some of them hold other national posts (as judges).

Mrs Mireille Delmas-Marty, who was given the task of drawing up the summary report on the Corpus Juris follow-up study, was recently appointed, on the basis of a joint agreement between Parliament, the Council and the Commission (1), as a member of the Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

(1) OJ C 220, 31.7.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/118) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0549/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission (28 February 2000)

Subject: Current situation in the European milk sector

In the light of the information forwarded to the Commission by the Member States in the first four months of the current milk year (April to July) and the Commission’s forecasts on the basis of that information, which were published in November, it appears that several Member States will exceed their allocated milk quotas.

With a view to forming a picture of the situation in the European milk sector now that the current milk year is drawing to a close, can the Commission report on the most recent data available on the quantities of milk produced by the various Member States during the current milk year (1999/2000) and the level of quotas used up on the reference date?

In particular, can the Commission say, on the basis of its end-of-year forecasts, which Member States are expected to exceed their quota and by how much?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (27 March 2000)

First of all, the official data concerning the quotas has to be communicated to the Commission, by the Member States before 1 September of each year following the end of the reference period (April-March) by the questionnaire in annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of the Commission, from 9 March 1993, laying down the detailed rules of the additional levy in the sector of milk and of the (1) milk products according to the forecasts of the fourth indent of Article 8. For this reason, the data referring to reference period 1999/2000 will be known only after this date. This questionnaire constitutes the base for the payment of the additional levy. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/103

However, Member States, in practice current, communicate to the Commission the development considered deliveries carried out to industry. Currently, the Commission has these estimates for the period April- December, except for Greece (August) and Spain (November). In this estimate, one can observe that certain Member States exceed the profile considered for the period in question. As one can observe in the table which is sent directly to the Honourable Member as well as to the Secretariat-General of Parliament, this involves Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

At the reading of this table, one must take account that the transfers provided for in Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of the Council, of 28 December 1992, establishing an additional levy in the sector of milk and of the (2) milk products can cause an increase or reduction in the overshooting according to the case.

Considering what precedes, the data available gives only a partial vision of the quantities of overshooting, since the estimates of the 25 % of the reference period also are missing, i.e., January 2000 at March 2000, which can change significantly the development undertaken until now by each Member State.

(1) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993. (2) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992.

(2000/C 374 E/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0551/00 by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Ground services and air traffic control

Civil aviation is, by definition, an international concern. Individual nations must therefore be bound by common rules and standards. Technical standards are set at international level by the ICAO, and at European level by the ECAC. Individual countries have the sovereign right to choose exactly how to transpose the recommendations made by those bodies into their national legislation.

In keeping with the objectives set for the European Union, uniform rules should be laid down for the main sectors of the industry in the interests of air safety. As far as aircraft and pilots are concerned, the rules governing systems and staff training and mobility have already been harmonised. However, a number of shortcomings are still to be found in European air traffic control legislation.

In view of their impact on air safety, European standards based on uniform criteria should be laid down for maintenance and systems management operations carried out by the various national bodies operating in the civil aviation sector (airport operating companies, ground service companies, etc.). There is also a need for common standards governing licences and certificates of competency for air traffic controllers (as provided for in Annex 1 to the ICAO Convention), AIS officers, meteorologists and technical ground staff.

An EU directive should therefore be adopted with a view to ensuring both the adoption of and compliance with uniform criteria and respect for the principle of freedom of movement for ground staff and air traffic controllers.

Does the Commission intend to submit proposals for Community legislation governing the above matters, and if so, when?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

As far as the production, maintenance, and operation of aircraft and related personnel are concerned, the development and implementation of common safety regulatory standards and procedures have been C 374 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

pursued within the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). This regulatory framework has also allowed procedures for joint certification and has become part of the Community order by means of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (1). At the same time, a level playing field has been created for fair and equal competition of all actors in the Community. A proposal for the establishment of a European organisation (EASA) which will build upon JAA to improve and reinforce it is now under discussion within the Commission.

In the field of air traffic management, Eurocontrol develops standards and technical specifications aiming essentially at ensuring interoperability and a seamless operation of national systems. Eurocontrol standards become part of the Community order by means of Council Directive 93/65/EEC of 19 July 1993 on the definition and use of compatible technical specifications for the procurement of air traffic management equipment and systems (2). However, Eurocontrol work is mainly focused at system and air traffic control (ATC) procedures standards and does not cover the full range of requirements related to ATC services, staff and operations. This difference is partly explained by the lack of a European market for ATC and the consequent prevalence of national arrangements, which show significant variations.

On the more specific question of common standards governing licences and certificates of competence for air traffic controllers, Eurocontrol is working to introduce a harmonised scheme in the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) area. The Community is closely following this activity, which may lead to an Community directive, as suggested by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991. (2) OJ L 187, 29.7.1993.

(2000/C 374 E/120) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0556/00 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Protocol on cooperation between the Aquitaine region, the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country and the Autonomous Community of Navarre

In 1980 France and Spain signed an agreement in Bayonne, France, paving the way for regional cross- border cooperation. On 3 October 1989, in Bordeaux, the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country and the Aquitaine region signed a protocol on cooperation formalising cross-border relations between them. They were subsequently joined by the Autonomous Community of Navarre on 13 February 1992, when a new protocol was signed.

The objectives of that protocol are:

to exchange information and harmonise the policies pursued by the three regions to develop infrastructure in the communications, training, economic, social, research and cultural fields, where the said policies overlap;

to reach agreement on the framing and development of projects of joint interest; and

to foster cooperation between public-sector, professional and private-sector bodies in the three regions.

On 25 January last the Government of the Autonomous Community of Navarre decided unilaterally to withdraw from the protocol on cooperation, citing political differences of no relevance to issues in the areas covered by the protocol.

Does the Commission believe that the development of cross-border cooperation between these three regions could suffer as a result of this move, especially bearing in mind that the new Interreg Community initiative will strengthen such cooperation? Will the Commission say whether the subsidies and aid currently received by the Autonomous Community of Navarre for projects under the said protocol are now in jeopardy? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/105

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (17 March 2000)

During the new programming period for the Structural Funds (2000-2006), the Interreg Community Initiative will cover only projects which are of a genuine cross-border and transnational nature and which form part of a cooperation programme drawn up jointly by the appropriate authorities on both sides of the border.

In addition, this programme will have to be implemented by joint cooperation structures: a joint Monitoring Committee, steering committee and management/payment authority for the Member States and frontier regions covered by the Interreg programme. The establishment of these joint cooperation structures is therefore a condition for the implementation of Interreg and a condition of admissibility and approval of the programme by the Commission.

In this context, it is clear that agreements and bilateral protocols of cooperation, such as the Bayonne agreement mentioned by the Honourable Member, can prove very useful for the creation and consolidation of the joint Interreg structures.

The France/Spain cross-border programme is currently being completed and is in no way affected by the decisions taken by the government of the Comunidad Foral of Navarre. At this stage, it is not possible to forecast how the new Interreg III Community Initiative will be implemented in these regions since the Commission will soon adopt its guidelines on this topic. The Member States and regions concerned will then be invited to prepare proposals for operational programmes.

(2000/C 374 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0557/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Procedures for dismissals

In view of the Commission’s reply to my Written Question E-2225/99 (1) that it had dismissed eleven people in the last five years, does it take the view that its procedures for dismissal are (a) comparable with those of other employers in the public and private sectors, and (b) adequate to deal with disciplinary problems? If not, how does it intend to improve them?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 151.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the disciplinary procedures set out in the Staff Regulations and which allow inter alia, for dismissal of officials, apply to all European Institutions.

The Commission is aware of the existence of a variety of different rules for disciplinary actions in Member States’ civil services. In the course of preparing its consultative document on discipline and its draft Decision on administrative improvements to disciplinary procedures, both scheduled for October 2000 (see Action Plan of 1 March 2000, action 57/58), the Commission will take into account best practices in Member States and international organisations for dismissal procedures and for disciplinary procedures as a whole. Disciplinary procedures in certain professions and administrations in the private sector may also have relevance, in so far as they are comparable.

As the Commission made clear in the White Paper on ‘Reforming the Commission’ (1) (see Chapter IV.5 ‘Discipline’) it is aware of the shortcomings of the current system which ‘is too slow, has many layers of procedure and is based around a disciplinary board that varies in composition and is purely internal. Staff are not sufficiently well-informed about their obligations and the possible consequences of breaches of the rules’. The Commission will make specific proposals for changing the Staff Regulations in order to C 374 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

rectify these deficiencies and achieve a system which is fair, consistent, and not subject to undue delays. The proposed setting up of an inter-institutional disciplinary board and the possibility for the administration to present its case to the disciplinary board are among the changes which will require amendments to the Staff Regulations. Changes which do not require amendments to the Staff Regulations will also be introduced. As the White Paper said ‘clear rules will be set out in a handbook together with an explanation of rights and obligations; guidelines will be developed for penalties related to the gravity of the offence; an enlarged permanent secretariat for the disciplinary board will provide greater consistency; and disciplinary decisions will be published (with names removed to protect confidentiality)’.

Developments such as these are sensible and necessary ways of modernising provisions in the Commission and other Institutions and dismissal will certainly be retained as a penalty where such a course is justified on the basis of objective evidence and effective procedures. The Commission is certain, however, that the Honourable Member will agree that the overall effectiveness of disciplinary systems is best measured by the degree to which they help to prevent indiscipline, rather than by the number of employees who are dismissed.

(1) COM(2000) 10 final.

(2000/C 374 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0558/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Reassignment of Commission staff

In view of the reduction in the workload of the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, given the successful conclusion of the third stage of monetary union, and in view of the very sharp increase in the workload of the Directorate-General for Competitions, given the sharp increase in European mergers and acquisitions, has the Commission taken any measures to reassign staff from the one to the other? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2000)

The preparation of the introduction of the euro on 1 February 1999 required intensive preparatory work by the Directorate general for Economic and financial affairs (DG ECFIN) (1) in co-operation with other Commission services.

Since the launch of the euro, an essential part of DG ECFIN’s activities has been redirected towards ensuring economic and monetary union (EMU)’s smooth functioning. This reorientation has been accompanied by an important modification of DG ECFIN’s organizational structure in early 1999. Besides the increased importance of economic policy co-ordination and multilateral surveillance (including the Broad economic policy guidelines, the Stability and growth pact, excessive deficit procedure, Cardiff process, Cologne process, etc.), the advent of the euro has also brought a number of other important issues to the forefront, such as the integration of financial markets and the external aspects of EMU, all of which have contributed to DG ECFIN’s workload since 1999.

It should also be kept in mind that important parts of DG ECFIN’s work are not directly ‘euro-linked’. This applies for instance to most of the activities of the directorate for international affairs, the economic evaluation directorate (in charge of the economic analysis of the different Community policy areas), the financial directorate (in charge of financial market analysis, capital movements, etc.), the Financial operations service in Luxembourg, etc. The Commission can not therefore concur with the view that the introduction of the euro has decreased DG ECFIN’s overall workload. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/107

The Commission is fully aware of the sustained increase in the number of cases to be dealt with in the field of competition policy, in particular in the area of mergers. In order to face the growing workload, the Commission has reinforced the Competition Directorate general with around 50 staff units since 1998. However, this reinforcement only partially meets the actual needs of DG Competition, despite the motivation and commitment of its staff.

As done thus far, the Commission will continue to review critically its activities in order to shift resources towards core activities and new political priorities. Once all the possibilities for reallocation of existing human resources to priority areas are exhausted, the Commission will request additional human resources from the budget authority.

(1) Total ECFIN staff (permanent officials and temporary agents) amounts to 316 in Brussels and 108 in Luxembourg and represents about 2,1 % of total Commission staff.

(2000/C 374 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0559/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Direct foreign investment

What was the total of direct foreign investment in each of the Member States in each of the last five years? What was the breakdown of direct foreign investment by other Member States of the European Union and by third countries, and what was the amount in each case from Japan and the United States?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

The answers to the questions put by the Honourable Member are to be found in three statistical tables sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat.

Table 1 gives the foreign direct investment (FDI) in all the Member States from 1994 to 1999 as well as the FDI undertaken by the various Member States during the same period.

Table 2 gives the FDI for 1998 undertaken in each Member State by (a) the other Member States (overall figures) and (b) all third countries (overall figures). The specific figures for the FDI in each Member State by Japan and the United States are also given.

Table 3 sets out in detail the FDI in each Member State by each of the other Member States.

Given the interest shown by the Honourable Member in foreign direct investment in the Community, it seems appropriate to bring to his attention the recent publication by Eurostat of a book containing the most recent statistics on the matter (European Union direct investment yearbook 1999 Data 1988-1998. Theme 2: Economy and Finance) (1).

(1) ISBN 92-828-8310-8. C 374 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0560/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: EU fraud

Will the Commission give an estimate of identifiable fraud against the EU budget in each year of the last five available years and also express this as a proportion of the total budget? Would the Commission please give the comparable figures for each of the Member States’ own budgets so as to enable a comparison to be made and as an exercise in best practice and benchmarking?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its last two annual reports on the Protection of the financial interests of the Communities Fight against fraud for 1997 and 1998 (1).

These reports analyse the cases notified by Member States involving irregularities and fraud against traditional own resources and the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee section and structural operations.

The 1998 report shows that on the basis of the cases of irregularities and fraud notified by the Member States and the investigations carried out by the Commission with the help of the Member States, the budgetary impact was 3,8 % for own resources, 1 % for the EAGGF Guarantee section and 0,18 % for structural operations in 1998.

It was also found that one fifth of the cases notified by the Member States in 1998 could constitute criminal offences (fraud).

On the basis of the data concerning investigations conducted by UCLAF (now OLAF, the European Anti- fraud Office), the budgetary impact of cases relating to expenditure managed directly by the Commission for which there is no system of notification by the Member States is put at 0,10 % for 1998.

The Commission feels that fraud against national budgets, for which it has no figures, is something essentially different, thus making any comparison very rash (in the main these are administrative budgets whereas 95 % of the Community budget is ‘grants’).

(1) COM(98) 276 final and COM(1999) 590 final.

(2000/C 374 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0565/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Confidential documents

Will the Commission confirm that any of its employees found to have given early sight of a reasoned opinion or other quasi-legal document to an interested party prior to publication would be instantly dismissed? Has this happened in the past? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/109

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

According to Article 17 of the Staff Regulation and the Commission’s decision on public access to Commission documents, officials are bound by an obligation of discretion in relation to information which comes to their attention whilst carrying out their duties. However, this obligation of discretion does not forbid access being given to internal documents on the express condition that access be granted in accordance with the procedures and under the rules in the Commission Decision (1). Access will be denied if the document is covered by one of the exceptions expressly provided in the Code of Conduct.

Failure to respect the obligations set down in the Staff Regulations may give rise to disciplinary proceedings. Decisions about whether there has been an infringement and, if so, what sanction would be appropriate are made in those proceedings. The removal from post of an official or other servant is the most severe sanction foreseen in Article 86 of the Staff Regulations. It is therefore only applied in cases where it is proportionate to the professional fault in question.

In the last five years no official or other servant has been removed from office for giving access to a confidential document as described above to an affected party prior to publication.

(1) OJ L 46, 18.2.1994. Commission Decision (94/90/ECSC/EC/Euratom) of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission documents.

(2000/C 374 E/126) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0567/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: EU budgetary contribution

Will the Commission publish details of the net contribution to the EU budget of each Member State for each of the last available five years (a) on the basis of UK rebate budgetary balances (after reallocation of Customs duty revenue) and (b) on a gross basis before reallocation of Customs revenue? Will it say which basis it prefers, and why?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

The Honourable Member will find the answers to his questions in the documents called ‘Allocation of 1998 EU operating expenditure by Member States’ for the period 1992-1998. Table 6 of the statistical annex answers question a) and the arithmetic difference between Table 3f and 4f answers question b). This report is also available on the web at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg19/pdf/agenda2000/statdepenses98.pdf.

The Commission believes that there is no optimal way to measure net contributions. The Commission has consistently argued in this sense. For a thorough discussion, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission report on own resources of October 1998 and in particular to Annex 3 and related references. This report is also available on the web at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg19/en/agenda2000/ownresources/index.htm. C 374 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0575/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission (23 February 2000)

Subject: Structural Funds

On the basis of the Commission’s estimates and in accordance with the relevant criteria, how much are the Balearic Islands due to receive form the Structural Funds in the 2000-2006 period, and what will the breakdown of the amount be?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (21 March 2000)

On 22 December 1999 the Commission took a decision of principle on the list of the areas of Spain eligible under Objective 2 during the 2000-2006 programming period. Following consultation of the three committees at the end of January, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), the Commission will shortly take a final decision on this list. The Balearic Islands will appear in part on this list and will therefore benefit from Objective 2 appropriations.

On 1 July 1999 the Commission adopted the indicative distribution among the Member States concerned of the commitment appropriations for Objective 2 for the 2000-2006 programming period. The appropriations allocated to Spain comprised EUR 2 553 million for the eligible areas and EUR 98 million for the Objective 2 areas receiving transitional support. Immediately it has taken a final decision on the list of areas eligible under Objective 2, the Commission will send the Spanish authorities a proposal for the distribution among the regions concerned of the appropriations available under this Objective using the method it employed to distribute the Objective 2 appropriations among the Member States.

However, it should be stressed that this proposal is indicative in nature. Final distribution will be decided by mutual agreement between the Member State and the Commission, when the various single programming documents concerned are adopted. It is therefore impossible at this stage to assess the amount which the Balearic Islands will receive under Objective 2.

This is also true of the other structural assistance which the Balearic Islands could receive, Objective 3, the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance and the Interreg, Urban, Equal and Leader Community Initiatives.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0576/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission (23 February 2000)

Subject: Community promotion of the cider industry within the European Union

Cider has become the hallmark of various Community regions, especially the Spanish region of Asturias, which is widely recognised as a leader in the production of cider, the marketing and consumption of which are expanding beyond the Spanish domestic market to reach every part of Europe and North America.

However, even such a universal beverage as cider currently needs a boost to its potential sales and consumption levels, particularly within the EU market, for which reason producers would like to know whether they could be granted Commission aid for the purpose of developing programmes which would encourage consumers to choose cider over other more harmful beverages.

Could the Commission say whether it could devise programmes to increase sales and consumption of cider within the EU market, along the lines of the various campaigns which it has organised in order to increase the consumption of other agricultural products such as olive oil, wine and oranges? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/111

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

As the Honourable Member states, the Community helps finance promotional programmes for certain agricultural products originating in its territory. At present these include olive oil, milk and milk products, quality beef and veal, apples and citrus fruits, nuts, table olives, raisins, grape juice, quality products from the outermost regions, live flowers and plants and fibre flax. The legal basis for the Community part- financing of these programmes is provided by the Council Regulation on each individual product.

In order to extend the possibility of supporting such promotional programmes for agricultural products, the Commission intends soon to submit to the Council a draft regulation to harmonise and simplify the system for promoting agricultural products in the Community. To that end, the list of products included in this system will not be a closed one, and any product will then be able to seek to be the subject of a promotional campaign part-financed by the Community.

(2000/C 374 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0580/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

Can traditional EU institutional allies, especially the Parliament and the Commission, themeselves maintain a sense of unity in disseminating notions of a ‘European Interest’ to a wider audience?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission regrets that it does not have sufficient information to be able to answer the question.

(2000/C 374 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

To what extent have traditional conflicting relations between national and local levels of governments, in EU Member States, created difficulties for T-TEN project development?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, Member States are responsible for the implementation of the network within their own territory. The respective roles of national, regional and local government in infrastructure project development vary between Member States, but in each case negotiations between the different national actors take place within the Member State concerned, without direct involvement from the Commission. C 374 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0582/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable tansport policy

Can national governments and EU institutions, habitually at loggerheads on transport questions, actually achieve a sufficient meeting of minds?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The question of sustainable transport is of vital interest to all Member States as well as the Community as a whole. A sufficient meeting of minds can only be achieved through dialogue and openness. The Commission has for this reason set up a joint transport and environment expert group to advise it on issues of environmentally sustainable transport, which is one of the key concerns in the common transport policy. The Commission intends to come forward in the autumn of this year with a new communication which sets the common transport policy in the new context of the 21st century. The communication will aim to take account of the profound changes that are occurring in the European economy and the trend to globalisation as a whole. In addition to this initiative, the Commission intends to issue a further communication in 2000 on the subject of ‘Clean urban transport’. These two new communications will give the Community the opportunity to re-assess what has to be done to ensure that transport plays an effective role in the general effort to ensure sustainable growth in the Community.

(2000/C 374 E/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0583/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

Will the Commission state to what extent it believes the EU should consciously strive towards the harmonisation of transport policies in Europe, i.e. through common traffic rules, taxation regimes, maximum speed, safety requirements, and vehicle standards and deregulation policies?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission believes that transport policies should be harmonised to the extent necessary for the efficient functioning of the internal market, to avoid distortions of competition, and to promote environmental protection and transport safety.

On the question of common traffic rules for international traffic, these and certain internal rules, such as the size, shape and colour of road signs, are carried out within the Vienna Convention on international road transport which is administered by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

Regarding maximum speed, speed limits are set nationally by Member States. The Commission does not intend to intervene in this matter, unless it receives clear signals that this would stand a chance of success, but believes more could be achieved by developing speed management devices.

Concerning safety requirements and vehicle standards, a whole range of vehicle standards are already harmonised both for commercial and private vehicles. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/113

In the road sector, the Commission recently published (1) a follow-up communication to its road safety communication of 1997 detailing progress made in the action programme for road safety 1997-2001 and setting priorities for future action.

The Commission has also just made another fundamental step forwards towards the enhancement of maritime safety in the Community waters through the adoption on 21 March 2000 of a communication on the safety of the seaborne oil-trade (2) in which it proposes to strengthen the existing legislation on port state controls and classification societies, but also to phase out oil tankers with a single hull in Community waters.

In the air transport, Commission is also acting in particular as regards safety through the creation of a European aviation safety authority, which would ensure through the integration of national systems a high and harmonised level of security.

(1) COM(2000) 125 final. (2) COM(2000) 142.

(2000/C 374 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0587/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

What is the Commission’s view of the inherent tension between the desire to see the economic benefits of T-TEN arrive speedily and concern that enviornmental issues should be properly addressed?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

Article 6 (ex Article 3c) of the EC Treaty requires that environmental considerations be integrated into all aspects of Community policies in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development. Integration of environmental considerations is also called for under Article 2 of the Community guidelines for the development of the Trans European transport network (TEN-T) adopted by the Parliament and Council by co-decision in 1996 (1). This sets out that the network should be developed to ensure the sustainable mobility of goods and people to help achieve the Community’s objectives particularly in regard to the environment and competition, and contribute to strengthening economic and social cohesion. Article 2 further sets out that development of the network should take full account of the comparative advantages of all modes of transport and allow the optimal use of infrastructure capacities.

The guidelines set 2010 as the time horizon to complete the TEN-T. The Commission is working with Member States and all concerned to ensure that this target is met and that in so doing long term sustainable benefits are achieved for the Community’s citizens and businesses. Where applicable, projects of common interest for development of the TEN-T are subject to environmental impact assessment under Community legislation. The Commission has also adopted a proposal for a directive on strategic assessment of the environmental impacts of certain plans and programmes (2). The Council reached unanimous political agreement at first reading on this proposal in December 1999. The Commission considers that the use of strategic environmental assessment from the earliest stages of national planning processes involving the consideration of different policy and infrastructure development options could significantly enhance the integration of transport and environmental considerations and help reduce the need for environmental mitigation measures at project level. C 374 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

The Commission is currently considering how best to take forward these issues in its report on the revision of the TEN-T guidelines that will be submitted to the Council and Parliament this summer.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996. (2) OJ C 83, 25.3.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0591/00 by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Quarry in val Coalba

An aggregates quarry located in the beautiful val Coalba (municipality of Villa Agnedo), which is to form part of the future Brenta riverside park, has applied for a renewal of its authorisation to quarry for gravel. The proposed extension is to run for at least thirteen years and involve the removal of an overall total of 950 000 cubic metres of material. When the Province of Trento’s urban development plan was revised in 1987, environmental restraints were placed on the site, which is of unquestionable natural beauty.

The quarrying work would have serious repercussions, causing environmental damage in an area known for its geological features, flora and fauna, possibly disturbing the hydrogeological balance and undermining the safety of the road network, and transfiguring a site that is to become one of the main features of the future Brenta riverside park. The mouth of the valley, where the aggregates are processed, forms part of a bicycle trail and of plans for a riverside park which the Provincial Council is including, together with those for the valle del Chiese, in the economic programming document covering local projects to receive European Union funding over the next five years.

Would the Commission not agree that, in view of the possible geological risks involved, an environmental impact assessment should be carried out?

Would it not agree that there is a contradiction in terms between promoting tourism in the val Coalba and accepting the presence of a quarry that seriously detracts from the natural beauty of the site?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

The Commission does not have competence to carry out environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures with reference to the projects covered by the Community legislation on EIA. According to Council Directives 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) and 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2) which has modified Directive 85/337/EEC, it is Member States which are competent to carry out EIA procedures with reference to the projects located in their territory.

As regards the nature conservation aspect, the site mentioned by the Honourable Member is not considered among the protected areas concerned by Council Directives 79/409/EEC of 7 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (3), or 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (4).

The Commission, in the light of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty, has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law. As the guardian of the EC Treaty, it does not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/115

In the specific case, due to a lack of grounds of complaint on the application of Community law, no breach can be identified at present.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. (3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2000/C 374 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0593/00 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region Structural Funds, 2000-2006

On 21 July 1999, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, establishing the general provisions on the Structural Funds (1).

The Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region (Portugal), which met the Objective I eligibility criteria laid down for the Second Community support framework 1994/1999 (2), but after assessment, ceased to be eligible from 1999 (3). It should nonetheless continue to benefit, on a transitional basis, from the Funds from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005 (4). In accordance with the Conclusions of the Berlin summit of 24 and 25 March 1999 (5), the phasing out mechanism must be applied to former Objective I regions. Over and above this, the Conclusions acknowledge that the Lisbon Region should have ‘special provisional treatment’ in the shape of a grant of € 500 million (6). In view of the obvious disparities between the Region’s various economic operators and sectors, the agreement merely reflected the over-arching horizontal principles deriving from the Treaty which apply to all Community policies, namely sustainable development and equal opportunities.

These principles, like the acquis communautaire’s competition rules, are undermined by the failure to pursue the agreed phasing-out policy. Economic operators in the neighbouring regions eligible under Objective I will enjoy enormous competitive advantages, giving rise to imbalances and distortions.

Given that the Structural Funds for the Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region are currently suspended, will the Commission give the reasons for this suspension? If it has taken place in the context of negotiations with the Portuguese Government, what are the reasons and who is responsible for failing to apply the provisions of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, failing to observe Commission Decision 1999/ 502/EEC of 1 July 1999 and ignoring what was agreed at the Berlin Summit?

(1) Pursuant to Article 161 of the Treaty and under the procedure laid down in Article 251 thereof. (2) Regulations (EC) Nos 2052/88 and 4253/88, OJ L 158, 15.7.1988 and OJ L 374, 31.12.1988. (3) cf. Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. (4) i.e. the provisions of Article 6 should have been applied, and likewise the provisions of Articles 7(2), second paragraph and (3), third paragraph of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, in accordance with Commission decision 1999/502/EC OJ L 194, 27.7.1999. (5) And particularly paragraphs 42, 43 and 44(a) thereof. (6) Paragraph 44(a).

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

After the guidelines on national regional aid were adopted (1), the Commission asked the Portuguese authorities to send it a notification under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 93(3)), supplying C 374 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

a draft map which would show, first, the regions which the Portuguese authorities suggested should qualify for national regional aid under the exemptions in subparagraphs (a) and (c) of Article 87(3) of the Treaty (formerly Article 92(3)), and, second, the intensity ceilings for aid for initial investment and aid for job creation linked to investment envisaged in each of the regions shown, and the ceilings applicable where aid under different schemes was combined.

The Portuguese authorities supplied a draft map of national regional aid for the period 2000-2006, and on 8 December 1999 the Commission approved the sections of the map defining the regions in Portugal qualifying for the exemption in Article 87(3)(a), namely North, Centre, Alentejo, Algarve, Azores and Madeira.

But in respect of the only Portuguese region which was to qualify under the exemption in Article 87(3)(c), namely Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, the Commission initiated the procedure laid down in Article 88(2): it took the view that on the basis of the available information the proposal made by the Portuguese authorities could not be considered compatible with the guidelines. According to the Portuguese notification the whole of this region, which accounts for 33,4 % of the population of the country, was to be covered by the transitional period referred to in point 5.7 of the guidelines, during which the aid intensities which had applied there until the end of 1999 under Article 87(3)(a) would be adapted. Given the limitations on the geographical scope of point 5.7 of the guidelines which are imposed by footnote 43 to that point, however, only a section of the region accounting for 10,2 % of the population of the country would qualify for such a transitional period.

As the Honourable Member observes, Article 88(3) has the effect of suspending assistance until the Article 88(2) procedure has resulted in a final decision. Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 states that assistance from the Structural Funds must comply with Community competition law, which means that all public regional aid in the Lisboa e Vale do Tejo region, whether or not part-financed by the Structural Funds, has been suspended since 1 January 2000.

However, this suspension relates only to aid from the State for regional purposes, and does not in any way affect Structural Fund measures which are intended to part-finance aid schemes of other kinds, or which do not comprise any aid to firms. The Lisboa e Vale do Tejo region in its entirety will continue to qualify for transitional support under Objective 1 from 1 January 2000 until 31 December 2005, and the subregions Lezíria do Tejo and Médio Tejo will qualify for the same assistance until 31 December 2006. The Community support framework for Portugal for the period 2000-2006 was approved by the Commission on 14 March 2000, and includes provision for the assistance to be given to the Lisboa e Vale do Tejo region.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

(2000/C 374 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0594/00 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Communications directives

The USA’s intelligence service NSA carries out widespread eavesdropping on telecommunications through the Echelon system. According to reports in the press, the French government also has a similar espionage system. Can the Commission confirm the existence of these systems, and if so, in what way will these matters be taken into account in the drafting of the new telecommunications directive?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its statement on Echelon at Parliament’s March III part session (1). 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/117

The Commission is currently preparing the revision of Directive 97/66/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1998 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (2). The provisions concerning privacy will attempt to take into account the current and future technological developments.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (March 2000). (2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.

(2000/C 374 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0599/00 by Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Exchanging banknotes in national currencies for euro

On 1 January 2000, all cash held in the national currencies of the countries in the euro-zone must be converted into euro. Many citizens keep sums of money in cash at home, the origins of which are perfectly legal, but which have not been declared to the tax authorities.

The origins of these sums of money may be various and reflect the tradition of cash payment and what is known in popular French culture as savings kept ‘under the mattress’.

Converting this cash into euro will mean that holders will have to declare the money to the tax authorities and pay tax or even fines. Unless preventive action is taken, there is a definite risk of tax evasion occurring as a result of funds being channelled through countries outside the euro-zone, or even of fraud.

Although only a rough estimate can be made of the amount of money involved in each country, the national banking authorities estimate that the amounts are not insignificant and that large-scale tax evasion could have an adverse effect on the economies of the euro-zone.

In addition, depending on how strict an approach is taken in each of the Member States, there is a danger of harmful tax competition occurring within the Union.

One solution may be the reinvestment of these sums of money, under certain conditions, in the national economies.

Has the Commission addressed the problem, in particular as part of the tax package that is currently being discussed? If so, can it explain what proposals it has made? If not, does it intend to look into the issue?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

In order to avoid complicating the conversion of banknotes in 2002, the Member States do not wish to create new controls in addition to those already in place. Under Council Directive 91/308/EC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering (1), banks will simply have to check the identity of customers converting a sum of over € 15 000 in one or more transactions.

Coins and notes will be converted free of charge for bank customers provided that the sums involved are ‘household amounts’. It will often be possible to exchange notes at commercial banks for several months after they cease to be legal tender. The exchange period will be longer at the central bank, usually about ten years, or sometimes indefinite, as in Belgium.

(1) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991. C 374 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0610/00 by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission (3 March 2000)

Subject: The EU ban on phtalates in toys

Please can you forward me a copy of a letter from James Bridges (Head of the EU’s Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Eco-toxicity and the Environment CSTEE) to the Commission, which stated that the Committee disagreed with the proposed ban and put forward the idea of migration limits as an alternative to the ban?

Furthermore, it would be extremely helpful if Professor Bridges could present his scientific findings on this issue to the Environment Committee of the European Parliament.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (3 May 2000)

The Commission has already sent the requested correspondence to the chairman of the public health and environment committee of the Parliament.

As regards the possible presence of Professor Bridges before the environment committee, such a request will have to be addressed to him directly given the status of scientific committees’ members as independent from the Commission.

(2000/C 374 E/139) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0615/00 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (3 March 2000)

Subject: EU Delegation in Havana, Cuba

Given that the EU’s representation in Cuba is merely a subsidiary of the Commission Delegation in Mexico, and that Cuba both participated as an observer in the entire post-Lomé Convention negotiating process and very recently stated its wish to sign the Agreement which will replace the Fourth Lomé Convention, is the Commission taking any steps to possibly open a European Union Delegation in Havana?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (10 May 2000)

There are no extra human and financial resources foreseen for opening new delegations in the 2000 budget. The available resources are committed to the existing external representations of the Commission.

There is a case to be made for the opening of a delegation in Cuba for the reasons stated in the question. However, a similar case could also be made for a number of other countries where the Community has important economic or political interests.

Any opening of a new delegation would have to be the result of redeployment of staff. Priorities will have to be set. They would need to be decided in the framework of the exercise which is under way to assess the needs of the external service over the lifetime of this Commission. A communication to the Council and the Parliament on the development of the external service, the best use of its existing means and, if it is found to be necessary, proposals for extra resources should be presented later in the year 2000.

Thus, while the Commission has the matter under review it can not give any undertaking on the opening of a delegation in Cuba or elsewhere. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/119

(2000/C 374 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0618/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Property speculation at Is Arenas

In reply to my Question No E-2177/99 (20 January 2000) (1), the Commission stated that the Is Arenas construction project would not be co-financed by the Community under the Structural Funds.

On 16 and 17 February 2000, the local press and television reported the declarations of a Sardinian politician whereby Community funding of ITL 4 billion under the Oristano Territorial Pact would be at risk if the Is Arenas construction project were to be blocked.

Can the Commission check whether this is true? What has the Oristano Territorial Pact got to do with the Is Arenas company’s project? Are the 4 billion lire perhaps intended to fund this project?

If not, can the Commission confirm that the Oristano Territorial Pact would not be compromised if the Is Arenas company’s project were to be blocked? If the funds are indeed intended for the project, does the Commission plan to freeze them, given that the project concerns an area which has been included in the proposed Natura 2000-Italy network and that no environmental impact assessment has been conducted?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 66.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

Since the Commission replied to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2177/99 (1), it has been informed that the project in question was actually selected for inclusion in the Oristano Territorial Pact, which is part-financed by the Community Structural Funds under the Territorial Employment Pacts multiregional operational programme for the Objective 1 regions in Italy.

The Is Arenas company’s project, which involves accommodation structures, was definitively approved by the Italian authorities in December 1999 and received part-financing from the European Regional Development Fund amounting to ITL 2 900 million (EUR 1,5 million) on a total investment of ITL 6 500 million (EUR 3,4 million).

The Commission is currently taking all the necessary steps to ascertain whether Community law on the environment has been violated. If so, the Commission would suspend Community assistance to the project in question.

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 66.

(2000/C 374 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0619/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Rates of reduction for products originating in China

Since the start of the 1990s, the EU has been administering import quotas for various products originating in China, including porcelain, china and earthenware products coming under tariff heading 691110. Invitations to tender for the quotas are issued annually, and the formula for allocation of the quota for each product between traditional and new importers varies from year to year. For 2000 a basis for allocation for earthenware of 75 % of the total quota for traditional importers and 25 % for new importers C 374 E/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

was applied. In view of the fact that the volume of applications greatly exceeded the quota, a rate of reduction of 51,54 % was initially set for traditional importers (1) and subsequently corrected to 31,37 % (2).

In recent years the rate of reduction has ranged between 10 and 19 %. The current rate of reduction in respect of applications is therefore causing major problems for Austrian importers. From the point of view of the logistics of purchasing, these companies now have major gaps in semi-finished goods in the low price sector which need to be closed.

What is the reason for the increase in the rate of reduction from 13 % for 1999 to 31 % for 2000?

What is the reason for the correction of the rate of reduction from 51 % to 31 % for 2000?

How is the quota allocated between the 15 EU Member States?

(1) OJ L 268, 16.10.1999. (2) OJ L 304, 27.11.1999.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

In accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 520/94 establishing a Community procedure for administering quantitative quotas (1), the annual quota distribution for year 2000 was implemented on the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1369/1999 of 25 June 1999 (2), which established the administrative procedures for the eventual allocation of the quotas between traditional importers and importers other than traditional importers (newcomers). Article 2 § 2 and § 3 and Annex I and II specify the portions of the total available quotas for allocation to these two groups of importers as 70 % for traditional importers and 30 % for newcomers.

On the basis of the limits established by the above Regulation and following licence applications from importers and submission by the Member States of the relevant figures, the Commission published Regulation (EC) No 2201/1999 of 15 October 1999 (3) indicating the increase and reduction rates applicable for the different products under quota. In Annex I of this Regulation the reduction rate applicable to tableware, kitchenware of porcelain or china (HS/CN code 691110) for traditional importers is −51,54 %.

However, due to the fact that the figures submitted by one Member State, for this product only, were found to be inaccurate and greatly distorted the overall picture, the Commission informed all Member States about the error and, having verified the correct figures from that Member State, proceeded with the publication of the required corrigendum amending the reduction rate, for the product concerned, from −51,54 % to −31,37 % (4).

The reduction (or increase) rates as they apply to traditional importers are influenced each year by the chosen reference period of their previous imports and the percentage of the total available quota allocated to them. For the 2000 quota allocation, as compared to the 1999 similar exercise, both factors were different and both influenced negatively the reduction rate applicable to CN code 691110 (the same principle and result applied to all other products under quota).

More specifically the reference imports, as reported, were higher for the 2000 allocation by approximately 18 % (reference period: 1997 or 1998 imports) compared to the 1999 allocation (reference period: 1996 or 1997 imports), increasing the reduction rate, and the percentage of the total quotas allocated to traditional importers was reduced from 75 % in 1999 to 70 % in 2000 for all C/N quota lines of products, further increasing the applicable reduction rate for the 2000 quota year.

As regards the last question, the quota is allocated on a Community-wide basis, not between Member States.

(1) OJ L 66, 10.3.1994. (2) OJ L 162, 26.6.1999. (3) OJ L 268, 16.10.1999. (4) OJ L 304, 27.11.1999. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/121

(2000/C 374 E/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0622/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Ireland’s implementation of EU environmental legislation

Would the Commission provide a summary of all the outstanding pieces of EU environmental legislation which Ireland has so far failed to implement in part or in whole, comment on Ireland’s record in responding to Commission requests for information and outline any concerns it has about specific directives and their perceived non-implementation.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s annual reports on monitoring the application of Community law for an overview of the main issues of non-compliance with environmental legislation in the Member States, including Ireland.

As regards comments on Ireland’s record in responding to Commission requests for information on environmental complaints, the Commission has since mid-1999 been making systematic use of letters of formal notice pursuant to Articles 10 (ex Article 5) and Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty in relation to Member States which do not provide timely responses to such requests. Two such letters have been addressed to Ireland.

The Honourable Member is requested to identify the specific directives she has in mind.

(2000/C 374 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Leader+ funding for Ireland

Bearing in mind the success of and the importance of the previous Leader programmes to Ireland’s rural areas, and bearing in mind the current uncertainty regarding the scope and distribution of the next round of Leader+ funding, would the Commission provide an update on the state of negotiations between itself and the Irish Government, give an approximate date when detailed plans for the Leader+ initiatives will be published, comment on which areas are likely to receive what amounts, and make a statement on the precise arrangements for the delivery of the funds.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Commission is finalising the texts for Leader+ and the final version will be formally agreed and published in the Official journal shortly. Member States will be invited to present their proposals for programmes within six months of publication. Member States have been informed of the proposed allocations. Negotiations with Ireland will only commence when the proposal for a Leader+ programme has been presented to the Commission. The detailed information requested will become available with the proposal when Ireland has made its selection of local action groups for funding. C 374 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0624/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Asylum levels and moves towards a common asylum and immigration policy

Would the Commission provide a summary of the overall level of asylum-seekers entering the EU over the last year, comment on the trend in levels of asylum-seekers into the EU over the past five years, list the level of asylum seekers per capita, per Member State, and comment on recent developments in forging a common asylum and immigration policy.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The recent developments in forging a common asylum and immigration policy include Title IV of the new EC Treaty which entered into force on 1 May 1999; the presidency conclusions of the special European Council in Tampere of 15-16 October 1999, and in particular points 3, 4 and 10 to 27; and in particular Commission initiatives such as towards ‘Common standards on asylum procedures’ a Commission working document dated 3 March 1999 (1), a proposal for a Council regulation concerning the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of the fingerprints of applicants for asylum and certain other aliens, 26 May 1999 (2), a proposal for a Council directive on the right to family reunification, 1 December 1999 (3), and a proposal for a Council decision creating a European refugee fund, 14 December 1999 (4). Finally there is the ‘scoreboard’ to review progress on the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice in the Union, presented by the Commission to the Council and the Parliament.

Two tables illustrating asylum applications are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

(1) SEC(1999) 271 final. (2) COM(1999) 260 final. (3) COM(1999) 638 final. (4) COM(1999) 686 final.

(2000/C 374 E/145) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0626/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Kosovo: the right of the Serb minority to move to safe areas with a Serb majority

1. Is the Council aware that, since the establishment of the new authority in 1999, many of the remaining members of the Serb minority still living in Kosovo have no longer been able to travel freely within Kosovo and move (temporarily or permanently) to areas under the authority of the Government of Serbia or Montenegro, both because this section of the population is viewed with contempt by the Albanian majority, who were discriminated against between 1987 and 1999, and because there is inadequate manpower to provide military or police escorts to allow them to travel safely?

2. Can the Council confirm that in part of the town of Orahovac in Kosovo the Serb population now finds itself in a situation strongly reminiscent of that in the former ‘safe haven’ of Srebrenica in Bosnia- Herzegovina, i.e. that the people living there have become isolated from the surrounding area because it is populated by a different ethnic group who would like to see the back of the surrounded minority? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/123

3. How will the Council ensure that the Serb zone of Orahovac does not ultimately meet a fate similar to that of the ‘safe haven’ of Srebrenica, with the Dutch troops stationed there proving incapable of preventing the ethnic group which dominates the surrounding area from seizing the zone, after which its population would be forced to leave or even killed?

4. How will the Council ensure that all residents of the Serb zone of Orahovac and other isolated areas who for safety reasons decide of their own volition to leave their present area of residence permanently and move to areas which are under the control of the Government of Serbia or Montenegro or possibly, after reaching agreement on the subject with the Albanian majority, to the area to the north of the town of Kosovska Mitrovica, which has a long-standing Serb majority and borders on Serbia?

(25 May 2000)

The Council remains seriously preoccupied by the situation of the Serbs and of other ethnic and religious minorities in Kosovo and is appalled by the continuing high level of interethnic violence. The renewed outbreak of hostilities in Mitrovica is just the latest example of how difficult it is to overcome the hatred and distrust built up during decades. This situation could easily have serious repercussions in other cities in Kosovo, including Orahovac.

The Council has repeatedly expressed its commitment to the objective of a democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo in accordance with UNSCR 1244, including the unhindered and safe return of all refugees. UNSCR 1244 in all its aspects thus remains the basis for EU policy. The Council has furthermore reiterated on numerous occasions its strong condemnation of all acts of violence, harassment and intolerance and has made it clear to the Kosovo leadership that EU assistance would depend on credible efforts towards interethnic reconciliation.

The Honourable Member is certainly aware of the fact that the Council has not a direct role in the security side of implementation of UNSCR 1244: to this end and on the basis of a UN mandate, NATO has established a 50 000 troops security presence in the region. This force (KFOR) was created precisely to ensure a safe environment and security of minorities, in order to encourage the return of all refugees and displaced persons in the region. EU countries are currently providing 80 % of KFOR, and involved Member States have recently decided to increase their contingents.

To help combat interethnic violence and to create a secure environment necessary to keep the non- Albanian Kosovars from leaving the province and to motivate those who have already left to return, the EU is also supporting UNMIK’s efforts in building up the Kosovo Civilian Police force. In response to appeals by Mr Kouchner and by SG/HR Solana, Member States have made, in March 2000, extraordinary efforts in order to strengthen UNMIK police force with 320 extra policemen.

Taking into account the extremely difficult situation under which KFOR and the UN civil police have to operate, the Council feels that they have already achieved very substantial progress towards the aims spelled out in UNSCR 1244.

In order to deal with the current situation in Kosovo, the Council has also been giving strong support to the establishment of the UN administration (UNMIK) by contributing to its budget and by fully taking charge of UNMIK’s Fourth Pillar which deals with reconstruction and economic rehabilitation.

The Council also supports the decision by UNSG Special Representative Kouchner to set up a Joint Interim Administrative Council which should involve all ethnic groups progressively in the administration of Kosovo. So far, the Kosovo Serbs have refused to participate in this and other similar bodies. The EU has called on the Kosovo Serbs to re-consider their boycott in order to contribute to building a multi-ethnic Kosovo and securing a place for themselves in the emerging administrative structures. C 374 E/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0627/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Kosovo: privatisation of State enterprises before determination of the competent State authority

1. Can the Council confirm that factories, mines, construction companies and other enterprises in Kosovo which from their nationalisation, accompanied by the abolition of workers’ self-management, in 1994 until spring 1999 belonged to the State of Yugoslavia or, within the latter, to the federal state of Serbia, have since been, or are being, privatised by the new authority?

2. Since the establishment of the UNMIK administration in Kosovo, to whom has the revenue from the State enterprises referred to in question 1 been paid including that from the mining and industrial enterprise Trepca, which as recently as 1996 exported goods to the value of $ 100 million, and the part of the Jugobanka bank pertaining to Kosovo, which the French enterprise Société Commerciale de Métaux et de Minéraux wishes to take over?

3. In connection with the privatisation, is there any prospect of the power of decision over the enterprises being restored to the people of Kosovo, or do only rich foreign enterprises have the opportunity to take over businesses in Kosovo? Have foreign enterprises already invested in Kosovo, and if so, where and how much?

4. On what legal basis can privatisation take place in Kosovo without the involvement and consent of the Government of Yugoslavia or Serbia, given that, although in practice Kosovo is no longer under the authority of those governments, the constitutional status of Kosovo still has not been officially altered?

5. Will the Council take measures to ensure that any privatisations are delayed until elections have been held and Kosovo’s constitutional status has been finally determined, so that the State authority for Kosovo which is then recognised can take democratic decisions concerning the ownership of State enterprises?

(25 May 2000)

The Security Council of the United Nations, by Resolution 1244, has given the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) authority over the territory and people of Kosovo, including all legislative and executive powers, and to provide for transitional administration.

Regulation No 1999/1 on the authority of the Interim Administration, signed on 25 July 1999, states that UNMIK shall administer movable or immovable property, including monies, bank accounts, and other property of, or registered in the name of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or the Republic of Serbia or any of its organs, which is in the territory of Kosovo.

The Council is aware that UNMIK is working on a database of the 156 publicly owned enterprises in Kosovo, as a first attempt to put together, in a systematic way, information concerning public enterprises in Kosovo

As far as the Council is informed, UNMIK is finalising a privatisation strategy, which should take into account the time lag associated with the needed clarifications of ownership rights. It should envisage a scheme of management/lease contracts that would be concluded in parallel to this clarification process. Privatisation in the traditional sense would be considered once the ownership status of non-private enterprises would have been clarified. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/125

(2000/C 374 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0629/00 by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: The EAGGF Guarantee Section in the various EU Member States in the period 1997-1999

Can the Commission indicate the total amount received by each EU Member State under the EAGGF Guarantee Section in the years 1997, 1998 and 1999, and provide a breakdown of expenditure:

(a) by heading (arable crops, sugar, fibre plants and silk worms, fruit and vegetables, other plant products, wine products, tobacco, milk and milk products, beef/veal, sheepmeat and goatmeat, pigmeat, eggs and poultry, other measures concerning animal products, refunds on certain goods obtained by processing agricultural products, refunds in connection with Community food aid, distribution of agricultural products to deprived persons, accompanying measures, rural development measures linked to markets, other measures, income aid, and the European Fisheries Guarantee Fund); and

(b) by type of aid (export refunds, price compensating aids, acreage aid, aid for livestock, guidance premiums, private storage aid, withdrawals and similar operations, monetary compensatory amounts, measures accompanying reform of the CAP, and public storage costs)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the 27th and 28th financial reports of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) guarantee section (1) for the data concerning 1997 and 1998 requested in the first part of her written question.

The financial report for 1999 is not yet available and so the Commission is sending directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat extracts of the data to be included therein concerning the information requested for 1999.

As for the second part of her written question, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat some additional tables concerning the information requested for 1997, 1998 and 1999.

However, the Commission would like to underline that all the information which it is sending direct in respect of the1999 financial year has not yet been subject to a financial clearance of accounts and for this reason should not be considered as final.

(1) COM(98) 552 and COM(1999) 568.

(2000/C 374 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0651/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Environment tax

A forum was held in Palma de Mallorca in February attended by Mr Eusebio Murillo of the Directorate- General for Regional Policy, at which a proposal for an environment tax on tourists visiting the Balearic Islands, levied by the Regional Government of the Balearic Islands, was discussed.

Has any proposal for an environment tax in the Balearic Islands been submitted to the Commission or has it been consulted on the matter? C 374 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

If so, what recommendations did the Regional Government of the Balearic Islands put forward concerning this tax?

Under what conditions does the Commission believe such a tax could be introduced?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it has not been notified of a proposed environment tax in the Balearic Islands.

(2000/C 374 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0653/00 by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Use of Community funds for irrigation infrastructures on the river Guaro

In 1987 the Commission allocated 645 million pesetas (Decision C(87) 1626/13) for the construction of the La Vinuela dam on the river Guaro and for various irrigation infrastructures along the river’s banks.

However, only the work on the left bank of the river Guaro has been completed, while the work on the right bank is still unfinished (technical data sheet No A N 94 P 0101 includes the Guaro irrigation project as part of the operational programme for Andalucia, 1994-1999). In addition, a delegation of interested parties visited the offices of DG XVI in Brussels without obtaining a satisfactory reply from the Commission.

In the light of the above, will the Commission say why the work on the right bank has not been completed? What steps has the Commission taken to provide full information to those affected by these projects?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission suggests that the Honourable Member refer to the information already given to Parliament on the project in question, in particular its reply to Written Question E-1391/99 from Mr Sakellariou (1), its communications on petitions 249/1999 and 391/1999 and its letter dated 6 May 1999 to Mrs Theato.

According to information provided by Spain, apart from the previous part-financing of the construction of the dam at La Viñuela, the work part-financed under action 6.1.1. of the operational programme for Andalusia 1994-1999 is all located on the left bank of the river Vélez and has practically been completed. In fact, the technical description in the OP does not specify whether the projects are located on the left or the right bank of the river, but states only ‘Obras de distribución en el Guaro’.

The Commission would like to point out that, under the principle of subsidiarity, it is the job of Member States to select the projects to be part-financed. According to information received from the national authorities, the projects to which the Honourable Member refers will most probably be implemented during a later programming phase but the same authorities do not specify if they intend applying for Community part-financing for this future development work.

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 3. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/127

(2000/C 374 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0656/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Road tunnel in the port of Olbia, Sardinia

In its answer of 21 December 1999 to the above Member’s first question on the Olbia tunnel (E-2039/ 1999) (1) the Commission only dealt with the environmental impact assessment issue. The questioner also mentioned the fact that ANAS (the Italian highways authority) hired the Roman firm Tor di Valle to build the tunnel, instead of the elevated road section, contrary to the provisions of the port master plan in force since 26 June 1981 and without issuing a call for tenders.

Does the Commission not consider that to award the contract for the construction of the tunnel without issuing a call to tender contravenes European legislation on public contracts (2)? If it does, what steps will it take to ensure compliance with this legislation?

With regard to its comments on the environmental impact assessment aspect, the Commission recognises that a preliminary assessment must be carried out to ascertain whether the project for the tunnel and the relevant sliproads should be subjected to an environmental impact assessment. However, this was not done. The Commission also adds that it will take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with Community law.

To what measures is the Commission referring? How does it intend to ensure that the preliminary assessment is carried out before it is too late, in view of the advanced stage reached in the work?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 73. (2) See Council Directives 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 (OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1), 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1), and 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54).

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Following the Honourable Member’s question, the Commission met with the Italian authorities in December 1999 and asked them to supply all the information necessary to evaluate whether the award of the works contract to build a tunnel in the port of Olbia was compatible with Community law on public contracts. The Italian authorities undertook to send the requested information as soon as possible, but stressed that it would be difficult to obtain the relevant documentation quickly as the contract had been awarded back in 1991. The Commission has yet to receive the information it requested, and has drafted a letter reminding the Italian authorities of their undertaking to send the documents in their possession.

With regard to the environmental impact assessment aspect, the Commission would stress that, as guardian of the Treaty, it will not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law. However, the case raised by the Honourable Member needs to be assessed in the light of the information which the Commission has requested from the Italian authorities and which has not yet been transmitted. In proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty it is incumbent upon the Commission to prove the allegation that the obligation has not been fulfilled. It is the Commission’s responsibility to place before the Court the information needed to enable the Court to establish that the obligation has not been fulfilled, and in so doing the Commission may not rely on any presumption. C 374 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0661/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Galicia and the Transeuropean Rail Networks

The President of Galicia, Mr Manuel Fraga, along with the President of Castille and Leon, Mr Lucas, has announced in the Galician press that he intends to hold talks with the Commission to secure pesetas 600 000 million (EUR 3 610 million) worth of the Cohesion Fund monies earmarked for Spain, for the purpose of incorporating Galicia, via Castille and Leon, into the transeuropean high speed rail network.

Since Mrs Loyola de Palacio, the transport Commissioner, has repeatedly said that the decision on the high speed links for the period 2000-2006 under the Cohesion Fund would be taken by the Spanish Government, with which President Fraga should have considerable direct influence, particularly as regards preventing Galicia from being disciminated against in the full scale Europe-wide modernisation of the railways, will the Commission please tell me the purpose of its possibly being approached by Mr Fraga in this way?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

The Commission is not in a position to comment on the meaning of or intention behind the statements of presidents of the Autonomous Communities.

The Commissioner responsible for transport was referring to one of the criteria which projects must meet to receive part-funding from the Cohesion Fund under Article 10(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/ 94 (1) instituting the Cohesion Fund. This lays down that the priority assigned by a Member State to a given project is one of the qualitative criteria which must be contained in any project proposal put to the Commission. In the case of transport projects, and more particularly those relating to the development of trans-European transport networks, the central government authorities are responsible for setting these national priorities.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.

(2000/C 374 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0665/00 by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: ‘Echelon’ telecommunications monitoring system. Involvement of the United Kingdom

Is the Commission aware of the revelations which have appeared in a number of newspapers and which featured in a news bulletin broadcast on 21 February 2000 by the international French-language television channel TV5 concerning the Campbell report, according to which the United Kingdom is involved in a telecommunications monitoring system known as ‘Echelon’ which is run by the USA and whose coverage extends to include Europe?

Under the terms of a secret agreement concluded in 1948 with the USA, the United Kingdom provides facilities for the equipment needed for this gigantic ‘ear’, which is capable of intercepting any kind of communication.

The Campbell report maintains that the USA has used the system not only for military purposes but also in order to benefit US industries and companies at the expense of European ones.

Is the Commission aware of these revelations? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/129

Does the Commission not consider that the United Kingdom has broken the solidarity pact which binds all the EU Member States?

Does the Commission not think that, in such circumstances, it should suggest to the Council of Ministers that the latter impose exemplary sanctions on the United Kingdom for infringement of the Amsterdam Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (18 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its statement on Echelon at Parliament’s March III part session (1).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (March 2000).

(2000/C 374 E/153) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0668/00 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission (29 February 2000)

Subject: Legislation to implement Article 299(2) in the framework of the common agricultural policy

With reference to the undertaking given by the Commission to include in its work programme for 2000 measures to accord special status to the outermost regions, what measures will the Commission adopt in the framework of the common agricultural policy to introduce legislation to implement Article 299(2) of the Treaty on European Union?

Given answer by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 March 2000)

On 23 November 1999, on the initiative of the President of the Commission, a partnership meeting was held bringing together Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the seven regions and three Member States concerned to discuss implementation of the new Article 299(2) (formerly Article 227) of the EC Treaty. In the light of this meeting and the memoranda presented by the regions and Member States, the Commission is now preparing the report called for by the European Council of Cologne.

In the spirit of Article 299(2), the Commission intends to continue its policy of taking account of the specific characteristics and constraints of the outermost regions, particularly as regards farming. Thus, as indicated in its work programme for 2000, once it has adopted its report the Commission will submit a draft to Parliament and the Council of any amendments of the Council Regulations on the agricultural sections of the POSEI programmes which might prove necessary.

(2000/C 374 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0671/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Raffaele Fitto (PPE-DE), Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE) and Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission (9 March 2000)

Subject: Violation of EU legislation on the cloning of human beings

What action does the Commission intend to take following the decision made by the European Patent Office in Munich to approve the grant of a patent for embryo duplication. C 374 E/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

How does it intend to uphold fundamental human rights and ensure that, unlike in countries such as the United States and Japan, it is impossible in the European Union to patent procedures involving the manipulation of the genetic structure of cells for the purpose of creating living organisms?

How does it intend to ensure that the document approved by the Patent Office categorically rules out the cloning of human beings?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The actions of the European Patent Office (EPO), which is not a Community institution, are governed by the European Patent Convention (EPC). This Convention is an international agreement to which 19 countries including all the Member States are a party. The implementing regulations to the EPC were amended last year to take account of Directive 98/44/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (1). The regulations, in following the wording of the directive, specifically exclude from patentability processes for cloning human beings, processes for modifying the germ line genetic identity of human beings and uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes.

In response to the controversy surrounding European patent EP0695351, the Commission wrote to the EPO expressing concern about the granting of this patent and seeking a swift amendment of this patent. In response, the EPO has agreed to constitute an opposition division earlier than normal to consider the oppositions that have already been filed in respect of this patent. This opposition division was duly constituted on 29 March 2000 and is expected to issue a preliminary ruling shortly. The Commission will continue to monitor developments and, should the action of the EPO prove inadequate, will consider further action including the possibility of the Commission or the Community formally opposing this patent before the EPO.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.

(2000/C 374 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0673/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Transfer of personal data and respect for privacy

Pursuant to Articles 29 and 31 of Directive 95/46 (1) on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data, the Working Party on Protection of Individuals and the data protection committee have been recognised as essential bodies in the debate on fixing the rules governing the application of the directive in question outside EU territory and notably in the United States. Negotiations with that country have now been in progress for two years, with no date set for their conclusion.

Can the Commission say:

1. What points does the EU consider as essential as regards guarantees and which cannot be agreed under the approach currently being adopted in the negotiations?

2. Are the differences between the legal systems concerned so great as to prevent a compromise solution being reached that would provide firm guarantees for citizens and consumers?

3. Would not acceptance by Europe of the self-regulation principle proposed by the United States (‘safe harbour’) be liable to weaken the protection of privacy and undermine the rules laid down in the directive? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/131

4. Given the danger that the conclusion of the negotiations may be postponed indefinitely, would it not be better to use contractual models for the transfer of data outside the European Union, such as those drawn up by the Council of Europe and the International Chamber of Commerce?

5. Does the Commission not think that, in any case, the EU’s main requirement should be to provide adequate protection of personal data for European citizens and ensure legal certainty for European businesses?

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The informal dialogue that the Commission has been conducting with the United States Department of commerce in accordance with Article 25 of 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 reached a provisional conclusion at the end of March 2000. The Parliament has already been informed that the Commission is presently recommending that Member States, meeting in the management committee set up under Article 31 of the data protection Directive, examine the American proposal for a ‘safe harbor’ with a view to issuing a positive opinion on the level of protection it provides. When such an opinion is delivered it will enable the Commission, on the basis of Article 25.6 of the data protection Directive, to adopt a decision recognising the safe harbor as providing adequate protection for the transfer of personal data to the American companies participating.

Companies that voluntarily adhere to self-regulatory system of the safe harbor will be required to disclose unambiguously and publicly their commitment to comply with the safe harbor principles and to be subject to the statutory powers of an American public body. In case of non-compliance with the principles, such a body must be empowered to investigate complaints and to obtain relief against unfair or deceptive practices as well as redress for individuals, irrespective of their country of residence or nationality.

The Commission considers these guarantees to be sufficient for both Community operators and citizens and hence does not consider that the proposed adequacy finding will undermine the rules laid down in the directive. In particular the Commission recalls the approach of the working party of data protection commissioners established under Article 29 of the Directive, recognising that self-regulation can in principle deliver effective privacy protection (1).

The Commission’s goal is not only to conclude the discussions with the United States as soon as possible, but also to initiate proceedings leading to the adoption of a Commission decision, based on Article 26.4 of the data protection Directive, recognising standard contractual clauses which offer sufficient safeguards for data transfers to any third country. The Commission considers that such clauses are needed to complement adequacy findings for specific third countries or sectors thereof, by providing an instrument available to Community operators to export data to any third country on a case by case basis.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Members that the Community’s primary concern should be to provide adequate protection of personal data transfers to third countries and legal certainty for European businesses. It believes that it has successfully worked towards achieving both these goals.

(1) Working Document WP 12 ‘Transfers of personal data to third countries: Applying Articles 25 and 26 of the EU data protection directive’, adopted on 24 July 1998 and available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal. C 374 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0677/00 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE), Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) and Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Structural changes in the Greek economy social security and financing of the insurance funds

One of the most crucial problems that the next government of Greece will be called on to resolve concerns social security and, in particular, the financing of the insurance funds. The funds have accumulated enormous inherent deficits which threaten their normal financing and the payment of pensions. The problem has become an explosive issue as, owing to the ageing of the population, the ratio of workers to pensioners is constantly falling. At present, the total number of pensioners is equal to 60 % of the working population and represents approximately 25 % of the total population of Greece. Furthermore, the labour market is inelastic and there is high unemployment of over 11 %.

As the constant delays in taking serious measures to deal with the situation are exacerbating the problem, will the Commission state:

1. its position on the social security problem and on the Greek Government’s inertia in not taking the necessary measures and carrying out the reforms which are de facto required,

2. the amount of the accumulated deficits of the insurance funds in Greece, what proportion of the national debt this represents and how those deficits will be dealt with without raising production costs and impairing competitiveness, increasing public deficits and creating further inflationary pressure,

3. in which direction the reforms must move to guarantee stable pensions and viable pension schemes,

4. how the insurance funds will be freed from government intervention which, by requiring that capital be tied up in government bonds and deposits with the Bank of Greece, results in unproductive forms of investment and use of the capital in the funds, and

5. how provision will be made for workers and pensioners alike in future without further loss of their income, bearing in mind that between 1985 and 1998 they lost an estimated 18 % of their real income?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2000)

In the field of social protection, the only binding Community standards are on equal treatment for men and women and on coordination of Member States’ social security schemes for the benefit of migrant workers and their families.

The organisation, application and conditions for the granting of the various benefits are national issues, provided that the above-mentioned Community standards are respected.

However, since 1990, in view of the common challenges facing national schemes, the Commission has been involved in a process of joint reflection with the Member States. This led to the Council adopting Recommendation 92/441/EEC of 24 June 1992 on common criteria concerning sufficient resources and social assistance in social protection schemes (1) and Recommendation 92/442/EEC of 27 July 1992 on the convergence of social protection objectives and policies (1).

In following up these Recommendations, the Commission adopted a coordinated strategy on the modernisation of social protection, in particular through its Communication of 14 July 1999 on ‘A concerted strategy for modernising social protection’ (2), which was confirmed by the recent Council conclusions of 17 December 1999 making provision for the establishing of a high-level group of Member States’ representatives to monitor the application of this strategy. The group has been set up on a 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/133

provisional basis, and the Commission has adopted a proposal for a Council Decision formalising the its existence (3). The recent conclusions of the Lisbon European Council of 23/24 March 2000 also follow up this strategy.

The Commission does not have the information requested under points 2 and 4.

(1) OJ L 245, 26.8.1992. (2) COM(1999) 347 final. (3) COM(2000) 134 final.

(2000/C 374 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0683/00 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Copyright directive

In its answer to question H-0691/99 (1), the Commission said that it feared that a more limited drafting of Article 5.1 of the Directive on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights in the Information Society could jeopardise the proper functioning of the networks.

In the meantime, the Council has adopted a political agreement on the proposed e-commerce Directive, which contains rules exempting intermediaries from liability for content transmitted and hosted on their networks. including copyright content.

Can the Commission explain why it still needs a wide exception to copyright for internet intermediaries under Article 5.1, knowing that this exception could conflict with some of the provisions of the e-commerce Directive, in particular regarding caching?

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999).

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The exception enshrined in article 5(1) of the proposal for a directive on copyright and related rights in the information society (1) for certain technical acts of temporary copying made on the networks is a necessary consequence of the comprehensive definition of the reproduction right, as set out in article 2 of the same proposal. It provides service and access providers with legal certainty for their activities as it exempts, where appropriate, certain acts of copying from the scope of the reproduction right. In the Commission’s view, the exceptions and limitations to the rights under article 5 of the proposal, as amended by the Commission (2), are not overly wide in scope but ensure an appropriate balance between the rights of rightholders and the legitimate interests of other groups involved (telecommunication operators, users, consumers, and others).

The need for such an exception has not diminished with the adoption of a common position on the proposal for a directive on electronic commerce (3), as the latter instrument does not harmonise copyright protection on substance but rather, as regards copyright infringements and others, addresses certain aspects of liability for activities in the network environment.

The Commission has drafted and negotiated both internal market initiatives in parallel taking due account of each other as the two initiatives are complementary in aiming to ensure a coherent and appropriate internal market framework for the information society.

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998. (2) OJ C 180, 25.6.1999. (3) OJ C 169, 16.6.1999. C 374 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0687/00 by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Origin of goods tariff preferences

When the Community, upon presentation of a certificate of origin (Form A) endorsed by the customs authorities of the producer country, grants tariff preferences for the importation of products from certain developing countries and it subsequently (after importation) emerges that the origin has not been determined in accordance with Community rules, what penalties (without going into too much detail on national laws) does the Community importer generally incur? Likewise, what penalty is imposed on the customs officer who completes the customs formalities for such importations into the Community?

Furthermore, has the Commission organised over the past two years any training courses on Community rules of origin in the following countries: Rwanda, Congo Brazzaville, Congo Kinshasa, Liberia, Algeria and Indonesia?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The sanction generally incurred by the importer in cases such as that referred to by the Honourable Member is that he has to pay non-preferential customs duties even if he is unable to pass on the cost of the duties to the persons to whom he has meanwhile sold the goods. The importer only escapes these consequences when, under certain restricted conditions, his legitimate expectations are protected by Court of Justice case law. This is not the case when a certificate of origin A has been issued on the basis of incorrect declarations by the exporter. According to Court of Justice jurisprudence, a customs agent, by the very nature of his functions, undertakes liability for the correctness of the documents that he presents to the customs authorities.

Over the last two years, the Commission has organised a number of training seminars on rules of preferential origin under the Lomé Convention. The seminars are organised by region among the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP). In July 1998 two seminars were organised for West Africa, in Côte d’Ivoire (Participants: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Togo) and in Ghana (Participants: Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone). In March 1999 a seminar was organised for Central Africa in Cameroon (Participants: Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo- Brazaville, Congo-Kinshasa, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Rwanda, Central African Republic and São Tomé).

(2000/C 374 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0688/00 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Council

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Possible amendment of Article 105(6) of the EC Treaty

Article 105(6) of the EC Treaty stipulates that the Council may confer upon the ECB specific tasks concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and other financial institutions ‘with the exception of insurance undertakings’.

However, the large European market in financial services being established calls for global prudential supervision, particularly following the countless mergers or acquisitions, not to mention the acquisition of cross holdings, among banks, insurance undertakings, investment funds and other professionals in the financial sector. Several EU Member States have already introduced single national prudential supervision for the financial sector as a whole, including insurance undertakings, or are in the process of doing so.

Would it not be wise to take the opportunity offered by the intergovernmental conference to propose that Article 105(6) be amended so as to provide the legal basis necessary to enable the Council to confer upon the ECB certain specific tasks, including those relating to prudential supervision of insurance undertakings? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/135

Reply (18 May 2000)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, in accordance with Article 48 (former Article N) of the Treaty on European Union, it is for the participants in the Intergovernmental Conference, that is to say the representatives of the Governments of the Member States, to adopt by common accord the amendments to be made to the those Treaties. In the case of institutional amendments in the monetary area, the Council of the European Central Bank is also consulted.

(2000/C 374 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0690/00 by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission (9 March 2000)

Subject: Establishment of a safe-driving centre in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

The principle of freedom of establishment, sanctioned in Article 43 of the EC Treaty, which bans all restrictions on the freedom of a citizen of one Member States to set up business in the territory of another, is one of the cornerstones of the European Union.

On the basis of this right there can be no restrictions on the opening of agencies, branches or subsidiaries by citizens of one Member State in the territory of another Member State. Consequently, they can set up and manage businesses and companies under the conditions laid down by the legislation of the country of establishment for its own citizens.

Is Luxembourg entitled to deny the principle of freedom of establishment to a Union citizen of non- Luxembourg nationality, on the basis that the business which he wants to set up would allegedly not be economically viable? Is the Commission aware that this has happened to an Italian national who, on the basis of the Ministry of Transport’s regulation of 19 June 1995, wanted to set up a safe-driving centre in the Grand Duchy and was refused permission on the grounds that ‘on the basis of economic assessments a single centre amply caters for the country’s needs’?

Does this discretionary refusal not, in effect, distort the rules of free competition and the market, to the detriment of Luxembourg citizens’ freedom of choice?

Is the Commission also aware that the Luxembourg Ministry of Transport issued a second regulation on 8 May 1999, revising the earlier regulation of 19 June 1995, also dealing with the establishment of a safe- driving centre on Luxembourg territory, but laying down new technical criteria, which in effect maintain a monopoly for the only existing safe-driving centre on Luxembourg territory, belonging to Goodyear and situated at Colmar-Berg?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (17 April 2000)

As the Honourable Member points out, the principle of freedom of establishment, sanctioned by Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty, may be exercised by natural or legal persons. In the case of legal persons, therefore, it is permitted to open agencies, branches or subsidiaries in Member States other than that in which the principal place of business is based.

However, the Commission would like to clarify that restrictions to exercising this freedom may nevertheless be recognised as being compatible with the principle of Article 43 of the EC Treaty if they are justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest and if they are not disproportionate to the objective being pursued. Such reasons may not include interests of an economic nature.

The specific situation mentioned by the Honourable Member has been brought to the Commission’s attention and, according to the information it has been given, it seems that the decision taken by the Luxembourg authorities to deny permission for economic reasons is not compatible with the principle sanctioned by Article 43 of the EC Treaty. This decision, based on a regulation which was no longer in C 374 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

force in Luxembourg at the time the Commission received its information, is not grounds for an action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty but may be appealed by the interested party at national level.

The Commission has also been informed that the Ministry of Transport’s regulation of 19 June 1995 was repealed and replaced by a regulation of 8 May 1999. Upon examination it contains detailed criteria for accrediting structures required for training and also training organisation procedures. In this regard, the Commission does not have any information which demonstrates and proves that these criteria in effect maintain a monopoly for the Colmar-Berg centre.

(2000/C 374 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0694/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Nuclear Safety, the Convention on Nuclear Safety and Sellafield

The Convention on Nuclear Safety came into force in October 1996. Could the Commission confirm which Member States have signed up, and if the United Kingdom is amongst the signatories?

The Nuclear Safety Review (i.e. a peer review process) provided for in the Convention was due in April 1999. Could the Commission provide an update on the outcome of the review, and comment on any subsequent related developments?

Considering the strict approach taken by the Commission over the safety of nuclear plants in applicant countries, would the Commission outline its position on the Sellafield nuclear plant in the UK, bearing in mind recent official criticism (1) of the plant, and outline what subsequent action the Commission feels should be taken at all levels of authority?

(1) Contained in a report by the British Nuclear Installations Inspectorate published on Friday, February 18, 2000.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2000)

All Member States and the European atomic energy Community are parties to the 1994 Convention on nuclear safety (1). The first review meeting under the Convention took place on 12-23 April 1999 in Vienna. The European atomic energy Community was not yet contracting party at that date and therefore it did not take part in the meeting. The United Kingdom submitted its national report and took part in the meeting. The International atomic energy agency (IAEA) that provides the secretariat for the meetings of the contracting parties to the Convention made available on internet the summary report of the meeting (http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/glance/legal/revmtg0199.html).

The Convention applies to the safety of land based civil nuclear power plants and therefore the Sellafield plant referred to is not within the scope of the Convention. It is, however, to be noted that one of the main requirements under the Convention is set out in its Article 8, regulatory body, as follows: ‘1. Each Contracting Party shall establish or designate a regulatory body entrusted with the implementation of the legislative and regulatory framework (…), and provided with adequate authority, competence and financial and human resources to fulfil its assigned responsibilities. 2. Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure an effective separation between the functions of the regulatory body and those of any other body or organisation concerned with the promotion of utilisation of nuclear energy’. In general, and indeed in the United Kingdom, the competence of the regulatory body is not limited to nuclear installations as defined by the Convention. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/137

The ‘strict approach’ vis-à-vis the applicant countries was taken on the basis of a clear ‘political acquis’ given by the Member States. No equivalent acquis exists for nuclear facilities inside the Community. However, the Commission has already discussed the British Nuclear installation inspectorate report with the company concerned and has agreed to meet senior officials of the company to review steps taken to improve the safety of the installations in the coming weeks.

The main Community requirements concerning protection against the effects of ionising radiation are laid down in Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of the workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (2). The Commission will continue to cooperate with the United Kingdom authorities with a view to the full application of the Community provisions. There is no evidence so far that the recent criticism on the Sellafield plant has any implications from a radiation protection point of view.

(1) Commission Decision of 16 November 1999 (1999/819/Euratom) concerning the accession of the 1994 Conven- tion on nuclear safety by the European atomic energy Community (Euratom), OJ L 318, 11.12.1999. (2) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996. Directive 96/29/Euratom repeals previous directives with effect from 13 May 2000.

(2000/C 374 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0695/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against parents of mentally handicapped children by certain insurance companies

Does the Commission consider as compatible with the principles of non-discrimination the practice by certain insurance companies of doubling the life-assurance premiums charged to parents of mentally handicapped children?

If there is nothing in European Union legislation as it now stands to outlaw such injustice, will the Commission not propose ways and means of ensuring non-discriminatory access to this type of insurance contract?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

The Commission is aware of the current negotiations for the renewal of the group life assurance contract (temporary optional membership) subscribed to by the Union nationale des associations de parents et amis de personnes handicapées mentales (Unapei) with a French assurance company. According to the latest information, the assurance company concerned has decided to pursue talks with Unapei, and in the meantime will maintain guarantees for the current year without raising premiums or reducing benefits.

The Commission shares parents’ concern and strongly hopes the negotiations will succeed, thus maintaining present levels of coverage.

Regarding Community law in this field, the Commission would recall that the third insurance directives, specifically the third life assurance directive (1), laid down the principle of freedom to set rates and abolished preliminary or systematic checks on rates and contracts which the assurance companies proposed to offer. Companies will generally set rates so as to achieve a balance between contributions and the amount of provision necessary to cover amounts due, in the light of actuarial principles.

Since it is the duty of the home Member States to check the assurance companies concerned, the Commission cannot check premiums and give an opinion on their level. It is the task of the national institution to ensure that insurance premiums are appropriate and in accordance with reasonable actuarial assumptions to enable companies to meet their contractual commitments. C 374 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

In addition, assurance companies must make available to the public the bases and methods used to assess technical provisions. Policy-holders are entitled to receive clear and accurate information in writing concerning the premiums felt to be appropriate and complaints procedures, including the existence of a complaints body if there is one, without prejudice to the right to take legal proceedings.

(1) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive), OJ L 360, 9.12.1992.

(2000/C 374 E/163) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0702/00 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Non-exportability of the Netherlands ‘Wajong’ benefit

The Netherlands Government has placed the Invalidity Insurance (Young Disabled Persons) Act acronym ‘Wajong’ in the annex to Article 10a of Regulation 1408/71 (1), as a result of which benefits under this Act can no longer be exported.

1. It is apparent from the preamble to Regulation 1247/92 (2) that ‘need’ is the essential criterion for the granting of the relevant benefits. Do Wajong benefits meet this requirement, given that they are available to all, irrespective of income from other sources?

2. Does the Commission agree that in fact only means-tested benefits can be listed in the annex?

3. To what extent does the situation described above detract from free movement of workers and the self-employed pursuant to Articles 39 and 42 of the EC Treaty, because children of these workers and self- employed persons cannot export the benefit concerned?

4. Article 4(2a) refers to special benefits. Will the Commission indicate the criteria for the concept ‘special’?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2. (2) OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) and its implementing Regulation No 574/72 coordinating the various social security schemes guarantee equal treatment in relation to the nationals of a given country, provide for the export of social security benefits within the Community and the aggregation of periods of insurance, and enable the sole applicable legislation to be determined so that migrant workers are not placed at a disadvantage as compared with persons who have spent their entire career in a single Member State.

The material scope of this Community legislation also encompasses special non-contributory benefits intended either to provide supplementary, substitute or ancillary cover against the risks referred to, or solely as specific protection for the disabled (Article 4(2a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71). Article 10a of the same Regulation states that such benefits, provided that they are listed in Annex IIa, are subject to special arrangements which depart from the exportability principle in that persons entitled to such benefits may only receive them in the territory of the Member State in which they reside.

Having said this, the Commission would like to make the following observations in response to the questions raised by the Honourable Member concerning benefits provided for under the Act passed by the Netherlands on 24 April 1997 (Wajong), which are entered in Annex IIa of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and thus constitute special non-contributory benefits not subject to export. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/139

1. and 2. The ‘special’ nature of this type of benefit lies in the fact that their characteristic features fall simultaneously within the areas of social security and social assistance; this is because of their personal scope, their aims and the arrangements for their application. These benefits thus confer a legally defined entitlement within the field of social security. In the area of social assistance, ‘need’ is an essential criterion for granting such benefits. This term may, however, refer to the specific situation in which the persons concerned find themselves and is not evaluated purely in financial terms for which it is assumed that means testing would necessarily be carried out. This is especially true when national legislation aims to meet the special needs of disabled people arising from their mental or physical state.

In this connection, the Court of Justice has already had occasion to accept the principle of non- exportability of a non-means-tested benefit for disabled people (see Case C-20/96 SNARES, 4 November 1997) (2). In addition, the Court has ruled that the special status of this type of benefits was also justified by the fact that they were closely linked to the economic and social structure of the Member State granting them, and thus also to the place of residence of the person concerned (see esp. judgment of 27 September 1998 in Case C-313/86 Lenoir) (3).

3. Finally, in the rulings referred to above, the Court accepted the validity of special coordination rules governing special non-contributory benefits, and in particular their non-exportability, under provisions of the EC Treaty.

4. In view of the above observations, the Commission considers that it would not serve any useful purpose to look in greater detail at the characteristics of special non-contributory benefits.

(1) Most recent consolidated version: Regulation (EC) No 118/97 (OJ L 28, 30.10.1997). (2) ECR 1997, I-6057. (3) ECR 1998, p. 5391.

(2000/C 374 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0704/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: High-Level Group on the withholding tax

1. Who has been appointed to serve in the High-Level Group charged with breaking the deadlock on the withholding tax and led by Manuel Baganha? In particular, who has been nominated to serve on the group by the British Government?

2. What is the formal remit of this working group and what languages will be used during meetings?

3. What meetings of the group have taken place, and when and where were they held? Please state in relation to each meeting (a) who attended the meetings and what was discussed, and (b) what was on the agenda and what were the formal conclusions.

4. When will the group next meet and what other future meetings have been scheduled? What will be on the agenda at these future meetings?

5. What consultations will the group undertake and with whom? How will the group determine which interest groups to consult on this very important matter? Will any representatives of the City of London financial services industry be consulted? If so, which representatives? What role will the Commission play in relation to the group?

6. When is the group expected to finalise its conclusions and/or to report back to the Council of Ministers? C 374 E/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Reply (18 May 2000)

1. The Council of 31 January 2000 decided to set up a High-Level Working Group on taxation in order to answer to the political will expressed in the conclusions of the European Council held in Helsinki, 10-11 December 1999, with regard to the tax package (see paragraphs 34-38 of the Presidency conclusions). The Council also agreed that the political importance accorded to the Group should be reflected in the appointment by each Member of the Council and the Commission of a high-level representative.

2. The Group has been set up within the framework of the Council. Its work is therefore subject to the Council’s Rules of Procedure. The Council will inform the European Parliament in the usual way on the outcome of discussions.

3. The Group has held meetings on 25 February 2000 and 3 April 2000. It considered specifically how the principle of an exchange of information could be implemented most effectively in the framework of the compromise put forward by the Presidency and the Commission on 7 December 1999.

4. The Group is expected to finalise its work in time so that the Council can report to the European Council in June 2000 at the latest.

(2000/C 374 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0713/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (17 March 2000)

Subject: Ethnic entrepreneurship

Can the Commission give a breakdown of the value of ethnic entrepreneurship by Member States over the past five years? Will the Commission in future include a section on ethnic entrepreneurship in its annual report on SME’s?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (28 April 2000)

Reliable statistics on ethnic entrepreneurs and on the importance of ethnic entrepreneurship in the Community are not yet available.

In order to obtain information on the problems and potential of ethnic entrepreneurship in Europe a study on young entrepreneurs, women entrepreneurs, co- entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs from ethnic minorities has been launched (open call for tender No 98/S 137-92958/EN (1). Once completed the Commission will analyse and disseminate the results.

Prior to the launch of the study mentioned above and within the framework of the third multiannual programme for SMEs (1997-2000), the Commission published a call for proposals on assistance for craft enterprises (2). The objective of this call was to provide assistance to these enterprises with a particular focus on measures in favour of women entrepreneurs, young entrepreneurs and enterprises made up of disadvantaged groups. One of the pilot actions financed under this call was ‘The ethnic minority business network’ (EMBNeT). Its main objective is to assist ethnic entrepreneurs to overcome business obstacles and regulation constraints. The final report is due by 30 June 2000.

Finally, in its forthcoming report on the coordination of activities in favour of SMEs and the crafts sector, under the section on promoting the spirit of enterprise and support to target groups, the Commission will report on action undertaken in favour of specific target groups including ethnic minorities.

(1) OJ S 137, 18.7.1998. (2) OJ C 117, 15.4.1997. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/141

(2000/C 374 E/166) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0714/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (17 March 2000)

Subject: National bankers and ethnic entrepreneurs

Has the Commission, in its roundtables with national bankers, raised the issue of discrimination against ethnic entrepreneurs? If not, will it do so in future?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (18 April 2000)

The issue of discrimination against ethnic minorities in the area of finance was touched on in both the 2nd and 3rd Round tables of bankers and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), since entrepreneurs from ethnic minorities were identified as being among the more vulnerable groups that encountered difficulties as regards access to finance. The Round table of bankers and SMEs is an initiative of the Commission to improve the relationship between banks and SMEs.

The 3rd Round table brought together European SME organisations and representatives from the European banking (saving, cooperative, commercial banks), venture capital and mutual guarantee associations and several public SME development agencies of the Member States. The final report of the 2nd Round table was adopted early in 1997 and the final report of the 3rd Round table will be adopted in May or in June 2000.

Some of the participating bankers seemed to feel that lending to such entrepreneurs meant taking on higher than average risk and often was not profitable, which translated into additional caution when assessing requests for loans. However, they continued to offer micro-loans to business creators in order to facilitate the integration of ethnic minorities into society, especially when part of the risk was taken on by public programmes.

In the 2nd Round table, one of the case studies highlighted in the final report as a best practice was that of Mama Cash in the Netherlands, an organisation that provides advice and guarantees to women (especially immigrant women from ethnic minorities) wishing to set up businesses, who have been refused credit by the banking sector. The initiative was considered to be especially interesting because it was successful, self- sufficient and did not rely on public funding.

The draft final report of the 3rd Round table also looks at the ethnic minority issue, highlighting various initiatives taken by British banks in order to better serve their customers from ethnic minorities.

The Commission will examine thoroughly the recommendations of the Round table on better access to micro-loans. In the meantime, the Commission recalls that, in its proposal for a directive on equal treatment irrespective of racial and ethnic origin of 25 November 1999 (1), discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin in access to services is expressly forbidden. The Commission has called on the Council and the Parliament to accelerate their handling of this proposal in order to secure its early adoption.

A copy of the final report of the 2nd Round table is sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat.

(1) COM(1999) 566 final.

(2000/C 374 E/167) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0723/00 by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission (17 March 2000)

Subject: Violation of directives by insurance companies in Italy

Is the Commission aware that Italian insurance companies refuse to insure the vehicles of Italian citizens in southern Italy, particularly in Campania and Puglia, even though motor vehicle insurance is compulsory C 374 E/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

under Italian law? For years, those companies have penalised citizens from southern Italy, charging higher insurance premiums in the above areas on the grounds that a large number of accidents occur in that part of Italy. This attitude leads to unequal treatment amongst Italian citizens, violates Community directives and makes it impossible for people to comply with the legal requirement that they obtain insurance.

Would the Commission not agree that a directive is required in order to put an end of such unequal treatment amongst Italian citizens and, at the same time, oblige companies operating in Italy to ensure southern Italian drivers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission was not aware of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member. It would point out that the third non-life insurance directive 92/49/EEC (1) introduced, in the case of motor vehicle insurance, a single authorisation and prudential and financial control system operated by the Member State in which the company has its head office. The taking up and pursuit of the business of insurance are subject to the granting of a single administrative authorisation by the authorities of that Member State. The conditions and scales of premiums no longer require the prior approval of the supervisory authorities of the home Member State, whose role is confined to monitoring forecasts of premiums and other financial resources intended to cover the company’s commitments and solvency margin.

Consequently, in the specific case of Italian companies with their head office in Italy, these companies fall entirely under the financial supervision of the Italian authorities. In other words, the compatibility of Italian insurance companies’ policies as regards premiums, which are designed to create technical provisions sufficient to cover their contractual commitments, should be considered in the light of the provisions of domestic Italian law and is the sole responsibility of the Italian supervisory authority.

Account must also be taken of the fact that companies fix their rates according to, among other things, the average frequency of accidents. According to their assessment of the risk, they are free to decide to modify their offer or even to leave certain areas of the national markets to their competitors.

For the rest, it is for the national authorities to provide for the appropriate mechanisms to ensure that policyholders can comply with their obligation to take out compulsory third-party insurance.

The Commission is consequently unable to intervene in an area which falls within the responsibility of the competent Italian authorities as regards monitoring and the commercial policy of companies.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(2000/C 374 E/168) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0724/00 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(14 March 2000)

Subject: Support of the peace process in Djibouti

A framework agreement designed to bring peace to Djibouti was signed in Paris on 7 February 2000 by the country’s government and by the Front for the Restoration of Unity and Democracy (FRUD).

The Council Presidency has since welcomed the suspension of hostilities between government and rebel forces.

In what ways is the Council intending to encourage and support the implementation of the agreement? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/143

(25 May 2000)

The signing on 7 February last of a framework agreement for reform and civil concord by the government of Djibouti and the Front for the Restoration of Unity and Democracy (FRUD) envisages the suspension of hostilities between government and rebel forces, as well as the liberation of prisoners held by both sides. This agreement to which the Honourable Member refers to was welcomed in a Presidency declaration issued on 21 February 200. The European Union expressed the hope that this agreement, in addition to the one signed in December 1994, would contribute to reinforcing civil peace and consolidating democracy and the development process in this country.

With respect to the question of the Honourable Member regarding encouragement and support for the implementation of the framework agreement, the Council recalls that Djibouti is a beneficiary of Community assistance allocated in the context of the Lomé agreement. A possible additional assistance which would target objectives of a political nature and be funded through the budget lines of the general budget of the EU dedicated to support human rights and democracy can always be considered, depending on a proposal from the Commission.

(2000/C 374 E/169) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0725/00 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(14 March 2000)

Subject: Homeopathic medicines in stock farming

Under a new Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 (1) of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (2) on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production), organically reared animals are, primarily, to be treated with homeopathic and herbal medicines, provided they are effective.

It is very constructive that homeopathic and herbal medicines are now accepted and are to be used but, in Sweden, veterinary surgeons have protested against the rule as they are not permitted to use homeopathic medicines as long as there is no scientific evidence that such preparations are effective. In contrast, anyone who is not a veterinary surgeon is allowed to treat sick animals with homeopathic medicine.

The consequence of this situation is that it is left to farmers first to make a diagnosis and then to try a homeopathic treatment. There is a great risk in this process that a correct diagnosis and professional treatment will come too late. There is also a greater risk of spreading disease.

What does the Council intend to do to ensure that animals in all countries receive professional and appropriate treatment and that veterinary surgeons are also allowed to use homeopathic and herbal medicines?

(1) OJ L 222, 24.8.1999, p. 1. (2) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1.

(18 May 2000)

Council regulation 1804/1999 stipulates that the treatment of sick or injured animals reared in organic farming has to privilege the use of veterinary medicinal products of plant origin and of homeopathic products, provided they are therapeutically effective and adapted to the illness the animal species concerned. C 374 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Every medicinal product of whatsoever origin must comply with specific rules before it can be marketed or administred in the European Community. According to the principles laid down in Article 4 of Directive 81/851/EEC, no veterinary medicinal product may be marketed in a Member State and no veterinary medicinal product may be administered to animals unless authorization has previously been issued by a competent authority.

Although Directive 92/74/EEC provides for a simplified registration procedure for homeopathic veterinary medicinal products Article 7 of this Directive explicitly excludes products which are intended for food producing animals from this simplified procedure. Both phytotherapeutic and homeopathic medicinal products for food producing animals must be authorized in accordance with the provisions of Directive 81/851/EEC, including the provisions concerning proof of therapeutic effect.

The above-mentioned rules apply to all persons who place on the market and administer veterinary medicinal products to animals.

The Council shall keep this situation under review and, in particular, shall examine any new proposals which the Commission may choose to submit.

(2000/C 374 E/170) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0733/00 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Subject: Italian decree concerning the dairy sector

The Italian Government has issued Decree No 8 of 4 February 2000 concerning, inter alia, ‘the temporary regulation of the dairy sector’. Paragraph 5 states that in the event of the purchaser failing to pay the additional levy the regional and provincial authorities shall forcibly collect it even from the producer, whether or not the latter is entitled to reimbursement from an insolvent purchaser or one who fails to fulfil his obligations.

This provision is surprising as it stands, unbelievable if it refers to the purchaser of milk as defined in Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1), and blatantly distorts the gist of the contents and recitals of the Regulation.

Can the Commission say:

1. what it thinks of the rules already introduced in Italy by virtue of the above-mentioned decree;

2. whether the concept of the purchaser as the sole and central instrument for the management and collection of the levy remains valid in Italy following this decree;

3. whether the Italian provision does not constitute a dangerous precedent for the implementation of the whole Community system;

4. whether, in view of this provision, producers should refuse to be subjected to the levy in order to safeguard themselves and their businesses from the probability of a compulsory twofold levy;

5. whether the provision introduced by the Italian authorities might not induce unscrupulous purchasers to avoid paying the levy, with impunity, appropriating the producer’s funds for long periods of time pending the outcome of endless legal proceedings typical of Italy.

(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/145

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

The Decree of 4 February 2000 cited by the Honourable Member was received by the Commission only recently.

The text of the Decree is currently being translated and scrutinised by the relevant department.

As soon as this review is finished, the Commission will be in a position to answer the Honourable Member’s questions.

(2000/C 374 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0740/00 by Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Subject: De Zaak Havana Club/WTO, Bacardi-Martini versus Pernod Ricard

1. Can the Commission explain why it is pushing so much for a WTO Panel procedure in the Article 133 Committee concerning the legitimacy of Section 211(b) of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 under the TRIPS Agreement, when several Member States have raised their doubts as to the need for such a Panel procedure?

2. Is the willingness of the Commission to support a private conflict of a commercial company not contrary to the new policy of the Commission to avoid blurring of interests in its decision-making process?

3. Can the Commission explain why the dispute between two commercial companies justifies the heavy judicial procedure of the WTO panel procedure?

4. Does the Commission think that asking for a WTO Panel in this particular matter is a sign of appropriate timing, bearing in mind the delicate trade relationships with the USA at the moment?

5. Can the Commission confirm that all means for an amicable solution have been exploited in this particular matter?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

1. Section 211 of the United States Omnibus Appropriations Act 1998 was adopted in October 1998. After detailed analysis, the Commission came to the conclusion that Section 211 violates certain provisions of the World Trade Organisation trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (WTO TRIPs) agreement, notably its national treatment provisions, trademark provisions and enforcement provisions. This analysis was shared by all Member States.

The Community and its Member States raised the incompatibility of Section 211 with the WTO TRIPs agreement with the United States on various occasions, including at the past three Community-United States summits and within the WTO TRIPs Council in order to find an amicable solution to the matter. However, the American administration constantly refused to engage in any substantive discussion. The Community and its Member States requested consultations under the WTO dispute settlement understanding in July 1999. Two rounds of consultations were held in September and December 1999, but the United States maintained the view that Section 211 is compatible with the United States international obligations. Having evaluated the outcome of the WTO consultations and the economic and political interests involved, the Commission came to the conclusion that it was appropriate to request the establishment of a WTO panel on this issue in order to ensure the proper application of the WTO TRIPs agreement by the United States. To this end, the Commission sought, in conformity with the established rules, the opinion of the Member States. C 374 E/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

2. and 3. The WTO dispute concerns an American law which, in view of the Community and its Member States, violates the WTO TRIPs agreement. This law can potentially affect all European companies dealing with Cuba. It should be in the interest of the Community and its Member States to ensure that the provisions of the WTO TRIPs agreement are respected by all WTO members. It is normal practice to examine the incompatibilities of the legislation of a WTO member with WTO rules not only from a legal point of view, but also from the angle of its economic importance.

On the basis of the information available, Section 211 was, so far, applied once. A European company challenged its American competitor before American courts about the use of a trademark and trade-name. Following the recent judgement of the American courts, the European company is now prevented from defending its rights in the United States. The judgement is mainly based on Section 211. On the other hand, the American courts did not examine the compatibility of Section 211 with the American international obligations.

4. and 5. As explained before, the Commission raised this matter on numerous occasions with the United States in order to find an amicable solution to the dispute. Each dispute settlement case should be examined and dealt with on its own merits. It should not affect the overall Community-United States relationship. This case relates to a trade dispute about a particular American law. It appears from the foregoing that the only means available to the Community and its Member States to ensure the proper application of the WTO TRIPs agreement by the United States is the request for a WTO panel.

(2000/C 374 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0742/00 by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Waste water disposal in Athens, Brussels and Milan

With regard to the poisoning of the river Danube and its branches in the region of Serbia and Romania at the present time, it should be pointed out that this situation could only have arisen because of the lack of waste water purification plants.

In this context, how does the Commission plan to deal with the problem of the lack of waste water purification plants in Europe?

What action does the Commission intend to take, in addition to this, with regard to the lack of waste water purification plants within the Union, and what is the situation with regard to waste water disposal in the cities of Athens, Brussels and Milan?

By what date does the Commission expect the work on the planned or improved waste water purification plants to be completed?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The issue of waste water treatment is a key factor in relation to public health and the environment. Urgent action is therefore needed in some major European cities in order to assure a high level of protection.

Waste water treatment plants for urban waste water and waste water from the agro-food industry are addressed by the 1991 urban waste water treatment directive (Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991, concerning urban waste water treatment (1)). This requires waste water collection and treatment for all concentrated areas of settlement or economic activity (‘agglomeration’) of more than 2000 inhabitants or the equivalent in waste water pollution, and sets deadlines for achieving the environmental objective in stages, depending on the size of the agglomeration and the characteristics of the affected water. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/147

Waste water from large industrial installations is addressed by the 1996 integrated pollution prevention and control directive (Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 (2)). For existing installations there is a transition period until 2007 for compliance with the directive.

Discharge of certain dangerous substances is covered by the 1976 dangerous substances directive (Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (3)) and its daughter directives on substances such as mercury, cadmium and others.

Waste water sources of relevance not yet covered by the above legislation will be addressed by the forthcoming water framework directive (Parliament second reading February 2000; conciliation and final adoption foreseen spring or summer 2000). Its main objectives will be expanding water protection to all waters, achieving or maintaining ‘good status’ within a set deadline, water management based on river basins, a combined approach of emission criteria and water quality criteria and involving the citizens more closely in planning and decision taking procedures.

The Commission in 1999 started an assessment of the measures taken by Member States to comply with the first stage of implementation of the urban waste water treatment directive (deadline 31 December 1998), as well as an assessment of the designation of sensitive areas. The results will be known later this year, and the Commission will take all necessary steps to enforce the legislation in cases of non- compliance. As regards known cases of non-compliance (Brussels, Milan), the Commission has already in 1999 started infringement proceedings.

The deadlines for the urban waste water treatment plants to be operational are 31 December 1998, 31 December 2000 and 31 December 2005, depending on the size of the agglomeration and the characteristics of the affected water. The deadline for the large industrial installations is 2007. The deadlines for those sources of pollution only addressed by the water framework directive (‘priority substances’) will be decided by the Parliament and the Council (‘priority substances’) when this directive is finally adopted.

The Community is also providing significant financial support for the construction of wastewater treatment plants in the less well off parts of the Community through, for example, the Cohesion fund (over € 3 800 million between 1993-1999). Furthermore, in the context of pre-accession financial assistance, wastewater treatment infrastructure will be a priority of the instrument for structural policies for pre-accession (Council Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 of 21 June 1999 (4)).

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991. (2) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996. (3) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. (4) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0748/00 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Fire safety code for television sets

Evidence suggests that there are television sets on the EU market which are more likely to ignite in the event of a fire, thus severely shortening people’s escape time. This has serious implications for every household with a television in Europe, and particularly in hospitals where fire codes do not allow for immediate evacuation of patients.

Does the Commission have any statistics concerning the incidence of fires in the EU, either from or involving television sets? C 374 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

If statistics on the fire safety of televisions are not currently available, will the Commission undertake to ensure that the involvement of televisions is recorded by the fire services when they attend fire incidents?

Will the Commission undertake to keep a record of the specific models of television sets that are involved in fires, so that we have a better understanding as to which types of televisions may pose a fire hazard in European homes?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Commission attaches a high priority to issues regarding fire safety.

To-date, the Commission has not received statistics concerning the incidence of fire involving television sets.

The safety of television sets is regulated by Directive 73/23/EEC relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (the Low Voltage Directive) (1). In response to the question from the Honourable Member, the Commission will discuss the subject of fire safety involving television sets with national authorities in charge of the enforcement of the above Directive at the Low Voltage Directive administrative co-operation meeting scheduled for 26-27 April 2000.

The meeting will also allow an exchange of information between Member States regarding incidents of fire relating to television sets.

It should be noted that it is the task of Member States to set up and implement policies on fire protection which may also include collecting incident statistics.

If it appears that a product covered by the Low Voltage Directive presents a potential fire hazard the Commission will co-ordinate the necessary actions on the part of national authorities regarding the application of the Low Voltage Directive.

For further information on this matter, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the Commission’s reply to Written Question P-0828/00 from Mr Davies (2).

(1) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973. (2) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 216.

(2000/C 374 E/174) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0750/00 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 March 2000)

Subject: Dutch legislation on termination of pregnancy

Is the Council aware of the proposed changes in Dutch legislation allowing abortion in pregnancies over 24 weeks on the grounds that the babies have a disability and does the Council consider that such a law would be contrary to Article 6 of the Treaties?

(18 May 2000)

National legislation relating to termination of pregnancy does not fall within the scope of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union which applies only to actions carried out, or to legal instruments and other legal acts adopted, either by the Union or by the European Communities. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/149

(2000/C 374 E/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0752/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Rome Convention

What meetings have taken place in the Commission relating to the proposed legislation on non- contractual obligations (Projet de communication sur la loi applicable aux obligations non-contractuelles (Rome II)) to replace the Rome Convention in the last six months? Where did these meetings take place? Have discussions on this proposal taken place with the Council during the last six months? If so, on what occasions and what were the conclusions of the meeting? What level of civil servant attended the meetings? Which Commission officials attended the meetings?

Which Commission officials and/or department have overall charge of negotiations on Rome II? Is the inter-service consultation document (DG JAI D (99) 495 Communication de la Commission sur la loi applicable aux obligations non-contractuelles), which is in circulation at the present time, available in English? If the answer is no, why is no copy available in English? What is the content of the inter-service consultation document and when is the outcome of the inter-service consultation expected?

Are any outside bodies being consulted on this proposal? If so, which groups are being consulted and how are these groups selected?

When is publication of a formal legislative proposal expected in this area and when is the legislative process expected to be completed?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Rome II project on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations is not intended to replace but to complement the existing Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations.

A number of discussions on the project took place in a Council working group between July 1998 and October 1999. These discussions have been temporarily suspended to allow the Commission to come forward with an initiative.

The document to which the Honourable Member refers is an internal inter-service consultation on a document to launch a public consultation. The Commission does not intend to put forward legislation until this process of public consultation has been concluded.

The Commission will shortly take a decision as to if and when this document will be adopted.

(2000/C 374 E/176) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0763/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(15 March 2000)

Subject: Production of Agent Orange by the European chemicals industry

On Tuesday, 22 February Belgium’s Deputy Minister of Overseas Development stated in Vietnam that his country bore a responsibility towards the Vietnamese people for the large-scale use of Agent Orange as a chemical weapon by the American army. He said that the Belgian chemicals industry had been involved in producing the defoliant in Belgium. On Friday, 25 February, however, Fedichem (the federation of the chemicals-processing industry) formally denied the involvement of the Belgium chemicals industry in manufacturing Agent Orange, C 374 E/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

To clarify this matter I should be grateful for answers to the following questions: 1. Were chemicals enterprises in Belgium involved in manufacturing of the defoliant Agent Orange, which was subsequently used by the American army as a chemical weapon in Vietnam, as the Belgian Deputy Minister has said? 2. Were chemicals enterprises in other EC Member States involved in manufacturing the defoliant Agent Orange, which was subsequently used by the American army as a chemical weapon in Vietnam?

Reply (25 May 2000)

The issue, to which the Honourable Member refers in his question, has never been raised within the Council.

The Honourable Member will recall that the TEU, setting up the common foreign and security policy, has been concluded and has entered into force much later than the events referred to in his question.

(2000/C 374 E/177) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0772/00 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission (9 March 2000)

Subject: Lesser Developed Countries in the WTO

The Commission has recently announced a package of trade concessions to the Lesser Developed Countries in the WTO. This package consists of a tariff-free access to ‘essentially all’ products from LDCs.

Could the Commission specify exactly which products are not covered by these concessions.

(2000/C 374 E/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0778/00 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission (16 March 2000)

Subject: Less Developed Countries in the WTO

The Commission has recently announced a package of trade concessions to the Less Developed Countries in the WTO. This package consists of tariff-free access to ‘essentially all’ products from LDCs.

In a separate question I have asked the Commission to specify exactly which products are not covered by these concessions.

Could the Commission also specify the value of trade in those products not covered by the package, for both the LDCs in question and the EU (by Member State).

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0772/00 and E-0778/00 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (27 April 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the Community initiative granting free access to industrialised countries’ markets for essentially all products from the least developed countries (LDCs), and greater access to developing countries’ markets. His question follows on from Oral Question H-206/00 made by Mr Howitt at Parliament’s plenary part-session in March (1). 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/151

The mandate given to the Commission in 1997 and confirmed in 1999 covers ‘essentially all’ products exported by the LDCs. At present 99 % of LDC exports enter the Community market freely. All non- agricultural LDC exports have free access to the Community. An initial measure in December 1998 introduced arrangements equivalent to the Lomé Convention for all LDCs (2). The Commission is drawing up additional proposals which will be put before the Council when they are ready. Only then can a quantitative evaluation be made.

These proposals will concern additional unilateral concessions for agricultural exports from the LDCs to the Community market. It should be noted that under the current mandate which covers virtually all or ‘essentially all’ agricultural exports the LDCs will have greater quota and tariff free access for agricultural products.

The few agricultural products which will not be fully liberalised under the Commission proposal to the Council will be covered by preferential access arrangements.

As the Member of the Commission responsible for trade told Parliament in March, other developed partners do not provide anything like the same access, although their markets are much more attractive to LDCs primarily because the rate of penetration of their products on these markets is extremely small.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (March 2000). (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 of 21 December 1998, OJ L 357, 30.12.1998.

(2000/C 374 E/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0776/00 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Subsidised filling station prices in the Dutch border region

1. Is the Commission aware that in the area of the Netherlands bordering Germany there are state subsidies for a two-stage reduction (between 0 and 10 km and between 10 and 20 km from the border) in fuel sales prices?

2. What is the Commission’s view of the fact that these subsidies mean that in some cases the fuel sales prices are below the delivered price of wholesalers on the German side of the border?

3. Is it true that these subsidies were abolished on 1 March 2000?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

1. The Commission has already taken a decision on the aid referred to by the Honourable Member.

On 3 June 1998 it launched an investigation under Article 88(2) (former Article 93(2)) of the EC Treaty into the state aid granted by the Netherlands to Dutch filling stations in the region bordering on Germany (1). It took its decision on 20 July 1999 (2).

The decision stated that the aid provided to 450 filling stations was incompatible with the common market and must be repaid. Subsidies to 183 smaller filling stations were covered by the ‘de minimis’ rule and did not constitute s aid.

For further details, the Commission would refer you to the published texts.

2. As in the above-mentioned case, the Commission would point out that aid is incompatible with the common market if it distorts competition and affects trade between Member States. It noted the distortions of competition referred to by the Honourable Member in its decision and took them into account. C 374 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

3. The Dutch Government has informed the Commission that the scheme was abolished on 1 February 2000.

(1) OJ C 307, 7.10.1998, p. 10. (2) OJ L 280, 30.10.1999, p. 87.

(2000/C 374 E/180) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0781/00 by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Food Authority

During the Committee on the Environment’s question-and-answer session of 23 February 2000 on the proposed establishment of a ‘Food Authority’, Commissioner Byrne made it clear that he believes that the proposed authority should not deal solely with food standards, but also should address nutritional and dietary issues. He added the rider, ‘so that the Food Authority is not merely telling scare stories from an ivory tower’. Furthermore, Commissioner Byrne stated that the Food Authority should draw on advisory research that may have been commissioned by outside organisations in the Member States.

With these points in mind, could the Commission please comment on this obvious opportunity to address positively the issue of fortification. More particularly, does the Commission support the need to authorise and regulate disease-risk reduction information on food packs providing customers with positive health- related information about food?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

As mentioned in the white paper on food safety (1), adopted by the Commission on 12 January 2000, a proposal for a Parliament and Council directive on on fortified food is foreseen for September 2000.

At present, the Commission is studying the issue of food fortification in depth with a view to preparing such a proposal. It is difficult at this stage to inform the Honourable Member about the proposal’s orientation as work is still in a preliminary phase.

Regarding the views of the Commission on claims concerning reduction of risk of disease, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question E-232/00 by Mrs Thomas-Mauro (2).

(1) COM(1999) 719 final. (2) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000.

(2000/C 374 E/181) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0786/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Council

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Judicial cooperation on paedophilia

The introduction of a policy on cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs under the Treaty of Maastricht was a vital step forwards in the European project.

It is indeed difficult to understand why, in a Europe of complete freedom of movement and establishment, justice should remain subject to rigid borders. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/153

Unfortunately, that new pillar of European policy failed to address international crime in the area of the abuse and trafficking of children and women, which can be seen to be on the rise.

This might be termed as the area of crime practised on a large scale which most seriously threatens the democratic society in which we live.

A recent case involving a Belgian citizen (Frans de Ryck) and Portuguese children from the Autonomous Region of Madeira has highlighted the shortcomings arising from the lack of cooperation in the area of justice with regard to this type of situation.

The Belgian state refused to extradite the citizen accused of the crime to Portugal, while the Portuguese State, through the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Republic, refused to provide the victims with any legal support.

As reported in the press (Diário de Notícias), only private efforts by the Portuguese Victim Support Association and the support of a Portuguese law firm succeeded in resolving the problem. In the meantime the accused has lodged an appeal against the decision, and the victim has no information on the progress of the appeal.

Does the Council not take the view that cooperation in the area of justice provided for by the Treaty on European Union should be extended to include international crimes involving the abuse and trafficking of minors and women?

Reply (18 May 2000)

The Council shares the Honourable Member’s concern to combat more effectively international crime involving the abuse of and trafficking in minors and women.

Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Amsterdam Treaty, moreover, refers specifically, amongst ways of creating an area of freedom, security and justice, to the fight against trafficking in human beings and crimes against children. It should also be noted that powers have been given to Europol in the field of child pornography (1).

The example quoted by the Honourable Member relates to a specific situation encountered in the field of extradition and is governed by the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957. The reasons which prevented the requested extradition from taking place in the case in question relate to the fact that the Convention allows the Contracting Parties to refuse to extradite their own nationals. That situation is supposed to change following ratification of the Convention relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union (2), which encourages Member States to review their domestic legislation, including their constitutional legislation, on this point. Furthermore, Portugal is shortly to put before the Council a significant initiative aimed at improving the situation of victims in the context of criminal procedure.

(1) Council Decision of 3 December 1999 (OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 21). (2) OJ C 313, 23.10.1996, p. 11.

(2000/C 374 E/182) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0790/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission (9 March 2000)

Subject: Construction of port facilities on the river Arousa (Spain) without an environmental impact assessment

The construction of port facilities for oil and chemical tankers, together with the creation of a storage area for oil and petro-chemical products, has prompted protests from the local population concerning the effects on the environment of the whole region. No environmental impact assessment was carried out for any of these building projects. C 374 E/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

The association for the protection of the river Arousa has submitted a complaint to the Commission concerning failure to comply with Community legislation on environmental impact assessments (Directive 85/337/EEC (1)).

Furthermore, the Spanish Government has not met the deadline for transposing Directive 97/11/EEC (2)on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, which amends Directive 85/337/EEC.

Following the recent environmental disaster caused by the sinking of the oil tanker Erika, public awareness is rising and means that public representatives must be increasingly sensitive to environmental issues. With this in view, the European Parliament recently adopted two resolutions (20 January and 2 March 2000). In addition, it has debated at length the coordination of EU environment policies with other policies such as the Structural Funds.

Was an environmental impact assessment necessary for the construction of the above-mentioned port facilities?

Can the Commission say whether these projects received any Community funding? When and how much? Which companies benefited?

What steps did the Commission take to ensure that these projects complied with the requirements of Community legislation on the environment?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(2000/C 374 E/183) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0804/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Installation of storage tanks for fuel and chemicals in the port of Vilagarcia de Arousa in Galicia without an environmental impact assessment

A new quay is being built in the port of Vilagarcia de Arousa in Galicia, with funding provided by the European Union through the ERDF, on which storage tanks with a capacity of 80 000 m3 for fuel and chemicals are to be placed, even though the environmental impact assessments required by Directive 85/337/EC (1) have not been carried out and the Council’s planning regulations have not been complied with. The installations, which are owned by the FINSA and Foresa undertakings, are situated on an estuary which is highly vulnerable to pollution caused by the handling of these products and to the consequences of potential accidents involving ships transporting the products. The Arousa estuary is extremely rich in shellfish and, among other species, the bulk of the 300 000 tonnes of mussels produced annually in Galicia comes from here, representing 50 % of world production of mussels. Activities linked to fishing and shellfish farming provide a source of income for 26 000 people on the Arousa estuary, while the chemical installations on the quay will create only three jobs.

All the economic and social sectors affected have protested against the construction of these tanks and have appealed on many occasions to the municipal council, the Galician government and the Spanish government, and now to the European Commission, with the aim of preventing the storage tanks from coming into operation.

The regional and central administration, under the pretext that the Spanish government did not comply with the provisions of the EC directive and clearly disregarded the need for an environmental impact assessment for this type of installation for the storage of oil and petrochemical and chemical products, while failing to take due account of the productive activities which provide the best guarantee for the present and future livelihood of people along the estuary, is permitting work to continue, with the result that there is a serious risk that the installations will come into operation in defiance of the law and to the detriment of the vital economic and social interests of the many people affected. It might also be pointed out that the Commission has recently brought a case against Spain before the European Court of Justice for failure to comply with Directive 85/337/EC. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/155

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that Community rules are complied with and the area is restored to its previous state, before the construction of the quay and the chemical and oil storage tanks in the port of Vilagarcia de Arousa, and to prevent the start or continuation of an operation which would be hazardous and seriously detrimental to fishing, shellfish farming and tourism, which represent the main source of income for people on the estuary and, indeed, throughout Galicia?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0790/00 and E-0804/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2000)

With regard to Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, it should be noted that Article 2 thereof provides that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size or location must be made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects before authorisation is granted. This provision applies to projects of the classes listed in Annexes I and II to the Directive.

As regards the facilities to which the Honourable Member refers, Annex I, point 8 includes trading ports, inland waterways and ports for inland waterway traffic which permit the passage of vessels of over 1 350 tonnes. Annex II, point 10 (d) includes the construction of ports (including fishing harbours) not listed in Annex I. Annex II, point point 6 (c) mentions storage facilities for petroleum, petrochemical and chemical products. Under the terms of Article 4 projects of the classes listed in Annex I must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment. Projects of the classes listed in Annex II must be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics so require.

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 97/11/EC (2) of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC provides that Member States must comply with the Directive by 14 March 1999 at the latest. However, under Article 3(2) if a request for authorisation is submitted before 14 March 1999 the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments continue to apply. It should be noted that the Commission automatically takes action whenever a Member State fails to communicate national implementing measures by the given deadline, under the terms of Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. As no official communication has been received, a reasoned opinion has just been sent to Spain regarding Directive 97/11/EC.

At all events, as guardian of the Treaties the Commission will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is complied with in the case in question. With regard to the possibility that the two projects concerned were cofinanced, the Commission has requested information from the Spanish authorities.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2000/C 374 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0791/00 by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Early Retirement from Farming Programme

The Greek Government has drawn up a table of minimum sizes of agricultural holdings for selecting Greek farmers for inclusion in the ‘Early Retirement from Farming Programme’ under Regulation (EEC) No 2079/92. C 374 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

The limits set out include: for non-irrigated crops: 2,5 hectares

for tobacco: 0,5 hectares + quota

Since many Greek agricultural holdings are in mountain regions, it follows logically that the above minimum areas per farmer are rare exceptions. As a rule, in the mountain regions of Greece very few hectares are used for non-irrigated crops and even fewer for tobacco.

The result of this state of affairs is that many farmers who fall within the spirit of the regulation may not be included in the programme because their crops do not cover the minimum area laid down.

1. Does the Commission consider that areas of this kind, which are excessive in the case of large numbers of Greek farmers, are in keeping with the objective of Regulations (EEC) No 2079/92 and (EC) No 1257/1999?

2. Is the Commission prepared to advocate the following criteria, to be applicable only to mountain regions of Greece: 0,5 hectares for non-irrigated crops and a simple quota, irrespective of land area, for tobacco?

3. For the purposes of the application of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, does the Commission propose to collaborate with the Greek Government to ensure that farmers in mountain regions, who are already at a disadvantage, are not put in a worse position through the deficient application in Greece of EU regulations which are supposed to be applied for their benefit?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

1. Article 6(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2079/92 (1) stipulates that the size of the agricultural holdings resulting from the transfer of land released by the transferor (i.e. the farmer taking early retirement) must be increased so as to improve their economic viability. The successor’s holding must be economically viable. Articles 10 and 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (2) contain the same requirement. The Commission therefore takes the view that granting early retirement aid to a farmer whose holding is too small jeopardises the economic viability of the holding transferred to the successor.

2. That is why the Commission is not prepared to see the minimum size of the transferred holding reduced below an economically viable threshold, account also being taken of the other contributory factors which define this viability concept.

3. The Commission intends to work together with the Greek Government on negotiating the rural development plan which Greece has submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, in order to determine the implementation requirements for the future early retirement scheme including of course the parameters for ensuring the economic viability of agricultural holdings resulting from the transfer of land.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992. (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0793/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Electricity generation from peat public service obligations

With reference to the new framework for further restructuring and liberalising the electricity market in Ireland, including the construction of two new peat plants, would the Commission outline the arrangements for public service obligations in relation to future electricity generation from peat? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/157

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

The Irish authorities have recently confirmed that they intend to notify to the Commission the setting up of a new support mechanism for peat in Ireland. Upon receipt of this notification, the Commission will examine the compatibility of the proposed support mechanism with Community rules on state aids.

In the framework of such examination, the Commission will study the Irish arrangements for public service obligations and security of supply in relation to future electricity generation by peat. This analysis will take into account the recent legal developments for the liberalisation of the European electricity market.

(2000/C 374 E/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0794/00 by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Vehicle registration tax

Given the current anomaly in Ireland where VRT can amount to 25 % of the Open Market Selling Price (OMSP) of a new car, and given that consumers throughout Europe pay VAT on the purchase of a new car, will the Commission consider taking some action against Ireland for what appears to be the imposition of double taxation on Irish car buyers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that under Community law as it stands the Member States may impose taxes other than VAT on vehicles. Article 33 of the Sixth VAT Directive itself (77/388/EEC) (1) expressly provides for this possibility:

Without prejudice to other Community provisions, (…) the provisions of this Directive shall not prevent a Member State from maintaining or introducing (…) any taxes, duties or charges which cannot be characterised as turnover taxes, provided however that those taxes, duties or charges do not, in trade between Member States, give rise to formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers.

The tax to which the Honourable Member refers is not similar to VAT and does not give rise to formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers.

It should, however, be pointed out that while the Member States are free to impose taxes on cars, they should nonetheless obey the established legal principle requiring them to take into account the deprecia- tion of second-hand vehicles originating in other Member States when applying the tax. Moreover, under Directive 83/183/CEE on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals (2), cars registered in a Member State following a move from another Member State must be exempted from all consumption taxes.

The Commission is currently preparing a study assessing the scale of distortion of the internal market caused by the lack of harmonisation of taxes on vehicles across the Community. The Commission also intends to launch a discussion with the administrations of the Member States and other Community institutions this year on future options for Community action on vehicle taxation.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. (2) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983. C 374 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/187) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0800/00 by Thierry Cornillet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Call for proposals for the integrated return programme to Bosnia and Herzegovina

Under the Obnova 2000 integrated return programme, the Commission has issued an invitation for proposals (SCR-E/110826/D/G/BH) concerning ‘housing, associated infrastructure and sustainability measures’.

Published on 3 February 2000 (1), the timetable for the selection process states that interested organisations wishing to participate in the call for proposals must send their letter of intent by 4 p.m. on 9 February 2000.

Organisations potentially interested in this type of programme often have several members from different regions. Moreover, they need to have in-depth consultations to determine a common interest, irrespective of the short deadline of six days, which includes a weekend.

1. What is the justification for such a short deadline (four working days), given the large scale of the projects concerned (between EUR 1 million and EUR 3 million)?

2. The call for proposals stipulates that letters of intent are to be sent by 4 p.m. on 9 February 2000 and that they will not be considered unless they are received by 4 p.m. on 9 February 2000; how does the Commission explain this confusion in the deadlines?

(1) OJ C 31, 3.2.2000, p. 5.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Obnova call for proposals SCR-E/110826/D/G/BH, covering funding for housing, integrated infrastructure and sustainability measures, was published on the Commission’s web site on 26 January 2000 and in the Official journal on 3 February 2000 (1). The call requested organisations interested in participating to submit letters of intent by 9 February 2000 to the Commission technical assistance unit in Sarajevo. The call gave the deadline for the receipt of project proposals as 21 March 2000, specifying that dossiers for the call for proposals would be available only for those organisations having expressed, by 9 February 2000, their intention to participate.

The publication of the call for proposals on the Commission web site took place several days before the publication in the Official journal, as the text for the latter needed to be translated into all the Community official languages. As a general rule, the Commission seeks to ensure more or less simultaneous publication of calls for proposals on its web site and in the Official journal. In this case, however, given the urgency of launching the Integrated return programme, it was decided to publish the call on the web site in advance of its publication in the Official journal, which took place as soon as possible thereafter. It should be borne in mind that that the overwhelming majority of organisations interested in such calls now favour the Internet as a source of information for Community funding opportunities. Based on past figures, it is estimated that the tenders site of the Commission’s Common service for external relations is currently consulted by between 200 000 and 300 000 visitors per month. Two weeks, or ten working days, were therefore available for the preparation of letters of intent, which is ample time for the preparation and submission of a simple letter of intent. The Commission draws attention to the fact that, at the time of presenting a letter of intent, interested organisations were not required to give any detailed information, either on potential project proposals or on personnel. Such information was to be provided only when full proposals were submitted, by 21 March 2000, thus giving ample time for preparatory discussions among members of organisations.

As far as the time and date for the submission of letters of intent are concerned, the Commission notes that text of the call for proposals did not apparently cause confusion among interested parties. No letters of intent despatched before the deadline were received after it.

(1) OJ C 31, 3.2.2000. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/159

(2000/C 374 E/188) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0801/00 by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Services provided to French public hospitals

When a research establishment subject to VAT in Belgium provides services listed in Article 9(2)(e) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to a French public hospital, which of them is liable to pay VAT on the services in question and in which country?

Would the position be the same if identical services were supplied by the same provider to a hospital established, for example, in the United Kingdom or in another Member State that has not exercised the option provided by Article 4(5), last paragraph, of Directive 77/388/EEC?

Has the Commission provided the national administrations and economic operators with a comprehensive list allowing them to determine in which cases VAT is payable when a State has exercised the option provided by Article 4(5), last paragraph, of Directive 77/388/EEC? Does it consider that it is up to the national administrations and economic operators themselves to find out about the legislation in the country of the person to whom services are supplied in order to determine whether or not VAT is payable in the country of the service provider? Does it not consider that there is a risk that failure to distribute certain information on implementation of the Sixth VAT Directive may lead to cases of non-taxation due to ignorance on the part of taxable persons and the civil servants responsible for regulating them?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2000)

Article 4(5) 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, provides that Member States may regard the activities of bodies exempt under Articles 13 or 28 as the activities of public authorities.

When exercising this option, a Member State may decide to regard activities which, according to the general principles, fall within the scope of VAT but are exempt under Article 13 (such as hospitalisation and medical care provided by bodies governed by public law) as being outside the scope of VAT. In neither case is VAT due on the services concerned.

However, as the Honourable Member rightly remarks, this option affects the decision on where certain expenditure incurred by such bodies should be taxed. Thus research services supplied by a taxable person to a public hospital are to be taxed either in the Member State in which the public hospital is established (under the general principles) or in the Member State in which the service provider is established (if the Member State in which the public hospital is established has exercised the option outlined above).

Under the current VAT system, there are several cases in which the status of the client determines where the transaction is to be taxed. In such cases, it is up to the supplier to find out what the customer’s status is.

The Member States have adequate Community instruments available to them to monitor such transactions. Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation lays down common rules for exchanges of information between Member States (1). Moreover, the Commission has a standing committee on administrative cooperation, which provides representatives of the national administrations with a forum for discussion of matters relating to such cooperation.

The system for taxing public authorities, and the scope of the exemptions for certain activities of public interest, are matters which the Commission intends to review as part of the exercise to modernise the current VAT system to ensure greater uniformity in the way that it is applied.

(1) OJ L 336, 27.12.1977. C 374 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/189) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0802/00 by Benedetto Della Vedova (TDI) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Compatibility of Italian Law No 454/97 (and the implementing decrees) with Community law on state aids

By means of Law No 454 of 23 December 1997 laying down measures for the restructuring of road haulage and the development of intermodality, the Italian Parliament sought to introduce benefits and incentives for road haulage firms.

The above law stipulates that only road haulage firms based in Italy may benefit from the above measures, thus raising doubts about its compatibility with Community law on competition and state aids.

Those doubts were removed by two decrees issued by the Transport Ministry on 14 October 1998 with a view to implementing Law No 454/97, which extend the benefits to ‘companies based in another EU Member State which hold a Community licence’; as a result, the Commission delivered a favourable opinion on the compatibility of Law No 454/97 with Community law (Decision 1999/590/EC (1)of4May 1999).

On 7 July 1999 those two decrees were replaced by two others which stipulated that entitlement to the benefits was restricted to undertakings entered in the road hauliers’ register in Italy (i.e. those that have at least a branch office in Italy), which would appear to invalidate one of the assumptions on which the Commission’s favourable opinion was based.

The favourable opinion itself was made conditional on both Law No 454/97 and the implementing decrees being amended so as to ensure that such aid could be granted solely with a view to offsetting the cost of meeting more stringent emissions and safety standards in other words, only the difference in cost between vehicles meeting normal standards and vehicles meeting more stringent standards (while, at present, the aid is based exclusively on the cost of a replacement vehicle). No such amendment has been made.

Would the Commission not agree that, since the two assumptions on which it based its favourable opinion (extension of the benefits to undertakings based in the EU and amendment of Law No 454/97 and the implementing decrees) are no longer valid, the provisions of Law No 454/97 violate Community legislation on state aids? If it does, how does it intend to prevent this situation from causing irreparable damage to road haulage firms?

(1) OJ L 227, 28.8.1999, p. 12.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

On 4 May 1999, upon completion of the procedure it initiated against Italy in March 1998, the Commission decided to authorise the Italian State aid scheme providing assistance for restructuring the road haulage sector and developing intermodality (Commission Decision No 1999/590/EC of 4 May 1999 on measures for the restructuring of road haulage and the development of intermodality (Law No 454 of 23 December 1997) which Italy intends to implement (1)). The Commission was able to deliver a favourable opinion in view of the amendments the Italian Government proposed to make to the existing texts, namely Law No 454 of 23 December 1997 and the Ministerial Decree of 14 October 1998 on incentives for investments in innovation and training.

The Decision also required Italy to inform the Commission that the amendments in question had been approved and to send it regular reports on the implementation of the authorised measures. To date, the Commission has received no such information and has received no word of the Ministerial Decrees of 7 July 1999 which replaced the Decrees of 14 October 1998. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/161

For want of more detailed information, the Commission in unable to comment on the situation the Honourable Member is referring to. Nonetheless, as part of its follow-up of the procedure it will check that the Italian measures remain fully compatible with the Community rules on State aid.

(1) OJ L 227, 28.8.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/190) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0806/00 by Gerardo Galeote Quecedo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Role of the Commission representative during official European Parliament visits

In view of the various different practices followed in respect of the role of the Commission representative during official visits by representatives of the European Parliament, could the Commission explain whether there are any rules governing the role of the Commission representative during official visits to third countries by parliamentary bodies, particularly as regards matters such as organisation, protocol, participation, etc?

Could the Commission also say whether there are any rules on its participation in meetings of parliamentary committees and interparliamentary delegations in Brussels, when issues are discussed for which its presence might by useful in providing information relevant to Parliament’s work?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

The role of the head of delegation of the Commission in third countries during official visits for the Parliament is defined in the Manual of operational procedures.

This role involves, inter alia, meeting the delegation of the Parliament on arrival in the country, providing (within reasonable limits) logistical support, briefing them on the situation in the country and on particular points of interest and accompanying the delegation from Parliament on their visits. It can also involve assistance, where needed, with local media contacts and where possible, offering appropriate hospitality.

The Commission adopted in 1999 a communication to the Council and Parliament in which it stated that heads of delegation could appear before parliamentary committees and inter-parliamentary delegations in the same way as officials of the Commission based at headquarters do. On such occasions they could answer specific questions concerning the exercise of their functions. The Commissioner in change of external relations has encouraged heads of delegations to offer, during visits to headquarters, to brief the relevant committee or delegation on the state of relations between the Union and the country or countries to which he is assigned.

(2000/C 374 E/191) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0808/00 by Hans Modrow (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Sanctions against Yugoslavia

In connection with their decision to suspend air traffic with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for six months the Member States of the European Union have drawn up a list of several hundred Yugoslav citizens who are subject to a general ban on entry to the European Union. C 374 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Will the Commission say:

Which institution drew up this blacklist and which criteria did it use to do so?

Was the European Parliament consulted before this step was taken and if not, is there any intention of remedying this situation?

Is it true that this list includes the names of the Minister for Refugee Affairs, Belgrade’s ambassador in Skopje and senior officials in the fields of the economy, trade and healthcare, i.e. persons directly involved in alleviating and eliminating the consequences of the war?

What does it mean by the phrase ‘persons who have contributed substantially towards strengthening the Milosevic regime’?

Is it aware that by imposing tougher sanctions in this way it is actually undermining the position of the Yugoslav opposition movement which considers that EU sanctions are strengthening the present regime in Belgrade?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

The Commission recalls that the Council has determined the criteria by which individuals are included in and removed from the list of those to whom visas will not be issued for entry into Member States. The visa ban lists are adopted by Council Decision implementing Article 1 of common position 1999/318/ CFSP (1).

The Parliament was not consulted in advance on this list. Under Article 15 of the Treaty on European Union, such consultation is not foreseen.

The list contains the names of members of the Belgrade regime and their supporters. In exceptional cases, exemptions may be made if this would further vital Union objectives and be conducive to political settlement in accordance with Article 1(4) of the common position.

The Commission considers that the phrase to which the Honourable Member refers is self-explanatory.

The Commission does not share the Honourable Member’s assessment that the toughening of the sanctions strengthens the Former Republic of Yugoslavia regime and is detrimental to the Serbian opposition. The sanctions are, as far as possible, applied in such a way as to impact on the regime but not the population. The visa ban, for instance, is recognised as an effective sanction against the regime in Belgrade, while some of the other sanctions have already been partly lifted (e.g. the flight ban and oil embargo as regards Kosovo and Montenegro) or are being temporarily suspended (e.g. the flight ban on Serbia, as part of a wider package of strengthening both the visa ban and the financial sanctions). The suspension of the flight ban was, inter alia, a response to demands by the Serbian democratic opposition.

(1) OJ L 123, 13.5.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/192) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0811/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 March 2000)

Subject: Minister Christian Sautter’s behaviour

At the meeting of EU Finance Ministers in Brussels on 28 February the French Finance Minister, Christian Sautter, caused a stir by displaying an unusual sticker. Attached to his overcoat and, later, his suit was a palm-size sticker showing a no-traffic sign with the diagonal through a bow tie, the trademark of the new 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/163

Austrian Federal Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel. To show his disapproval of Austria’s ruling coalition, the French Finance Minister turned in all directions several times on his arrival in the Belgian capital to draw the journalists’ attention to the sticker and the message it conveyed. His delegation, he said, had enough stickers for the other ministers. Later the Belgian Finance Minister, Didier Reynders, joined his French colleague. What constitutes good taste is, of course, arguable, but some things are totally lacking in taste.

Dr Wolfgang Schüssel is the Federal Chancellor of the Republic of Austria. As secretary of the parliamentary group of the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) for many years, as Secretary-General of the Austrian Economic Federation, as Federal Minister for Economic Affairs, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs and Vice-Chancellor, he had a blameless career. Since 1995 he has been the Federal party chairman of the ÖVP, a party which, like no other in Austria, has always pledged its allegiance to a democratic Europe. On 4 February 2000 Dr Wolfgang Schüssel was sworn in as Federal Chancellor. Over the years the Austrian people have been able to see how efficiently and professionally he operates. There cannot be the slightest doubt about his European mentality and attitude. The Council is therefore asked when it intends to put a stop to this evil campaign of character assassination and to ensure that common sense prevails in relations among European partners and friends.

(25 May 2000)

The Council has not taken a view on this subject and cannot therefore comment on the issues raised in the Honourable Member’s question.

(2000/C 374 E/193) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0812/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 March 2000)

Subject: Remarks by the Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel on the Austrian Government

At last, on 27 February, the Belgian Foreign Minster Louis Michel described his outspoken remarks on the Austrian Government as foolish and withdrew them. The international press agencies reported that he had described his call on Belgian tourists not to travel to Austria because of the new government coalition as incredible and verging on bad taste. But anybody looking for a Belgian reappraisal of its strategy of isolating Austria had their hopes dashed two days later.

In the interview in the Belgian weekly ‘Le Journal du Mardi’ published on 29 February Michel expressed his hope that the sanctions imposed on Austria by the 14 Member States would topple the Vienna Government. Asked the goal of his strategy towards Austria, he answered: ‘I should like to bring down the present Austrian Government. Haider is undoubtedly a neo-Nazi, but Wolfgang Schlüssel is his accomplice out of pure personal ambition’. Louis Michel, with his contradictory pronouncements, in blatant contrast with the European ideal of dealings between the Member States on the basis of partnership and responsibility, has set a precedent for relations between the countries in the European Union. The European project for peace and stability based on responsible economic, political and social cooperation on the basis of trust is being jeopardised by reckless and insensitive remarks such as Mr Michel’s.

What does the Council intend to do to halt the process of disintegration in the Union since the strategy of isolating Austria began? C 374 E/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(25 May 2000)

The Council has not taken a view on this subject, and cannot therefore comment on the issues raised in the Honourable Member’s question.

(2000/C 374 E/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0816/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE), Carlos Carnero González (PSE) and Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Compatibility of Member States’ social policies with Community law, particularly with the directives on the award of public works contracts

On the basis of the Beentjes case law findings, the Commission appears to be taking the view that requirements of a social nature can be included in the conditions for implementation of the contract, provided that certain publicity requirements are fulfilled and non-discrimination is guaranteed. Does the Commission not consider that including these requirements in the contract’s implementing conditions, instead of in the criteria for awarding contracts, reduces the chances of success for some EU businesses competing in the tender, and thus implies a major obstacle to the internal market? (A business that does not have a certain number of fixed posts cannot compete in a tender whose implementing conditions demand this minimum, whereas it could take part in a tender in which the creation of stable employment was one of the criteria for awarding the contract, for instance with a value of 20 % of the total points, and might gain the contract if it did well on the other award criteria.)

Paragraph 9 of the 1999 employment guidelines says that each Member State must give special attention to the needs of disabled people and develop preventive and active policies to promote their integration into the labour market. In paragraph 7 of the Council’s Resolution on equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities of June 1999, the Council says such opportunities ‘will be enhanced if specific attention is given to recruitment and retention of employees’. Are these not sufficient reasons to justify a public administration in including disabled access to employment as a tie-breaking criterion in the award of contracts, especially when the same Resolution encourages the Community’s own institutions to ‘promote equal employment opportunities for disabled people within their own services, by enacting rules while taking full advantage of existing legal instruments and practices’ (paragraph 5)?

Is there not a need to amend Directive 93/37/EC (1) concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, with the aim of clarifying the above concepts, taking account of the European Union’s current priorities, to ensure that in this way the Member States can adapt their social measures to meet their citizens’ needs?

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

(2000/C 374 E/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0817/00 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE), Carlos Carnero González (PSE) and Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Compatibility of Member States’ social policies with Community law, particularly with the directives on the award of public works contracts

Article 136 of the Treaty on European Union says that the Community and Member States must have as their objectives the promotion of employment with a view to lasting stable employment and the combating of exclusion. And the conclusions of the Vienna European Council of 11-12 December 1998 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/165

confirm that employment is the Union’s top priority. Bearing this in mind, does the Commission consider that the Member States’ social policies, particularly for the creation of stable employment and the social integration of disabled people, are compatible with Community law, and specifically, with the directives on the award of public works contracts?

Article 30 of Directive 93/37/EC (1) refers to the criteria for the award of contracts. It points out that the persons awarding the contract must base their decision either on the lowest price only or, when the award is made to the most economically advantageous tender, various criteria such as the price, period for completion, running costs, profitability and technical merit. Bearing in mind that these examples do not preclude other award criteria, does the Commission not take the view that the creation of stable employment and jobs for disabled people, as award criteria, could favour the most economically advantageous tender, in the spirit of the Beentjes judgment of the Court of Justice? This allows that ‘the criterion of’the most acceptable tender‘may be compatible with the directive if it reflects the discretion which the authorities awarding contracts have in order to determine the most economically advantageous tender on the basis of objective criteria and thus does not involve an element of arbitrary choice’.

Is there not a need to amend Directive 93/37/EC concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, with the aim of clarifying the above concepts, taking account of the European Union’s current priorities, to ensure that in this way the Member States can adapt their social measures to meet their citizens’ needs?

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0816/00 and E-0817/00 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Community directives on the award of public works contracts concern the internal market and are aimed, on the one hand, at optimising the management of public procurement by trying to obtain the best value for money and on the other at ensuring effective competition and equal conditions of access to the contract for all businesses. For this purpose they allow two alternatives for the award of contracts: award to the lowest bid or award to the bid offering the best value for money, the latter being assessed according to a set of objective criteria, some of which are listed as examples in the directives. The objective criteria all refer to the bid in question and provide information on the quality of the offer, but they may not refer to the structure of the business. The case law in the Beentjes judgment referred to by the honourable members specifically rules out the use of social criteria (in this case the employment of the long-term unemployed) as a basis for the award of a contract. The recent conclusions of the Advocate-General in Case C-225/98 support this interpretation. However, as the Commission stated in paragraph 4.4 of its Communication on public procurement of 11 March 1998 (1), it follows from this case law that it is possible to require, as a condition for the implementation of public works contracts awarded, the observance of obligations of a social nature, aimed, for instance, at promoting the employment of women or the protection of certain disadvantaged groups. Of course, only those implementing conditions which do not have a direct or indirect discriminatory effect on tenderers from other Member States are authorised. Furthermore, adequate transparency must be ensured by specifying these conditions in the invitations to tender or in the specifications.

Contrary, therefore, to what the honourable members suggest, the implementing conditions may not aim to exclude in advance certain businesses (the directives provide for selection criteria for this purpose), but they can require a commitment on the part of tenderers to take certain measures if the contract is awarded to them. To use the example given by the honourable members, there can be no question of requiring businesses to already have a certain percentage of permanent employees, but they can be asked to undertake to create new permanent posts for implementing the contract once it has been awarded.

Similar considerations apply regarding the use of the number of disabled workers in a business as a tie- breaking criterion. The Advocate-General considered in the above-mentioned case that the use of a subsidiary criterion as a tie-breaking criterion for equivalent tenders resulted in this criterion becoming the only decisive criterion for the award of the contract, which was expressly ruled out in the light of the Beentjes judgment and contravened the directives. On the other hand, nothing would prevent tenderers C 374 E/166 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

being required to undertake to employ, for the implementation of the contract, a number or percentage of disabled workers in accordance with the rules on transparency and non-discrimination regarding nationality. Furthermore, as the Commission pointed out in its above-mentioned communication, the rules in the directives on public works contracts allow applicants that contravene legislation on social matters to be excluded.

During the preparatory work for Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, the Member States specifically expressed their opposition to the introduction of criteria which were not strictly economic for the award of contracts.

The Commission announced in the above-mentioned communication its intention to adopt an explanatory communication on the social aspects of public works contracts. The purpose of this will be to clarify the principles applicable when social objectives are taken into account in the field of public works contracts and the conditions under which pursuit of this type of objective is compatible with the principles and rules of Community law on public works contracts.

(1) COM(98) 143.

(2000/C 374 E/196) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0827/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: EUR 2 million reduction in the Poseima programme

In his answer to question E-2403/99 (1) on the EUR 2 million cutback in the Poseima programme under budget heading B1-321 Commissioner Fischler said that the proposed reduction is merely the result of taking into account, in the estimates, the actual percentage of take-up of the budgetary allocation over the last few years. However, according to figures for 1998/1999 this does not appear to be the case.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. What actual amounts for the implementation of the Poseima programme were taken up overall by the Autonomous Region of the Azores and the Autonomous Region of Madeira in 1998 and 1999?

2. Whether it intends to revise its position for the 2001 budget?

3. What actual amounts and were used in implementing the Poseidom and Poseidom programmes?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 125.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission can confirm the answer already given to Written Question E-2403/99 by Ms Figueiredo (1).

Although the appropriations for 2000 were established before the end of 1999, it must be stressed that, while the overall expenditure of the Poseima programme in 2000 (€ 40,5 million) corresponded to the appropriations allocated (€ 40 million), this was due solely to the increase for ‘other measures’, which are, in any case, extremely volatile. In fact implementation of the supply balances stood at 81 %.

1. Implementation of the Poseima programme in 1998 and 1999 was respectively 73 % and 81 % for the supply balances and 84 % and 131 % for the other measures. Average percentages over the last five years are 71 % for the supply balances and 89 % for the other measures.

2. In its estimates for the establishment of the 2001 budget, the Commission will take account, as in the past, of the most recent outturns available, thus including 1999. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/167

3. Average implementation of Poseidom and Poseican programmes, over the last five years were:

a) Poseidom: supply 70 % other measures 69 % total 70 %

b) Poseican: supply 98 % other measures 61 % total 86 %.

These outturns (actual expenditure as a percentage of the appropriations provided) are based on budgetary data. Detailed quantitative data and data for each measure will be presented soon in the Commission Reports to the Council and to Parliament on the implementation of these programmes.

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 125.

(2000/C 374 E/197) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0836/00 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Environmental damage inflicted on the Danube and neighbouring regions by NATO bombing

The Romanian Minister for the Environment has alleged that the Danube has suffered greater environmental damage from NATO bombing which destroyed bridges, oil refineries and chemicals plants than from the recent cyanide spill. The environmental, economic and cultural damage to the Danube and the local population extends beyond Serbia and affects all the regions through which the Danube flows and will have distressing consequences for many years to come.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of the extent of the damage and, if so, what measures it proposes to assist the countries concerned, so that the environment, the economy and the culture of this sensitive region rapidly recover?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

During the Kosovo conflict the Commission financed a preliminary assessment of the environmental impact of the conflict. This was performed by the Regional environment centre (REC) for Central and Eastern Europe and is available on their Internet site (http://www.rec.org). A further, more detailed assessment of the environmental consequences of the war was performed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Balkan Task Force and is also available at their site on the Internet (http://www.grid.unep.ch). Both reports concluded that the Kosovo conflict did not cause an environmental catastrophe affecting the Balkan region as a whole.

Looking ahead, the Commission is supporting a regional environmental reconstruction programme in the framework of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe that will assist in environmental reconstruction and capacity building across the Balkan Region as a whole.

(2000/C 374 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0841/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Community legislation on the internal market and its transposition into national legislation

The Commission has correctly pointed out that the transposition of the rules governing the internal market into the legislation of the Member States is essential if the common market is to function properly. C 374 E/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Will the Commission say what it considers to be the chief impediments to the smooth functioning of the internal market in all fifteen Member States, what is the main problem encountered by undertakings in the Union, whether these undertakings face any additional costs or have marketing difficulties due to the incompatibility of Community goods and services and national standards which may vary from country to country and what progress Greece has made in transposing Community legislation on the internal market into its national law, compared with other EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2000)

Over the past 15 years enormous progress has been made in removing barriers to the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons in the internal market. This is confirmed by the business survey conducted in September 1999 among 4000 businesses, which was published in the single market scoreboard (1).

The majority of interviewees perceived a reduction in barriers to doing business in other Member States. In answer to the question, ‘In the last two years, how have obstacles developed in the Internal Market?’ the results were as follows:

(%)

Disappeared/no obstacles 20 Significantly reduced 19 Tended to decrease 25 Unchanged 27 Tended to increase 7 Don’t know 2

In the Commission’s view, it is difficult to reduce the remaining problems to a single main one. Although business confidence in the internal market remains high, firms still perceive a wide range of problems.

The Honourable Member will find in the following table the most frequent obstacles in the internal market cited in the business survey:

(%)

SME + 20 Majors Total (2893) (1) (502) (1) (3395) (1) Additional costs to render products or services compatible with national specifications 36 41 37 Unusual testing, certification or approval procedures 31 34 31 State aids favouring competitors 28 36 29 Difficulties related to the VAT system and VAT procedures 27 30 27 Restrictions on market access; existence of exclusive networks 22 29 23 Costly financing arrangements for cross-border transactions- 18 20 18

(1) The number in brackets indicates the number of interviews.

As most of the rules for the internal market are now in place, the focus is on ensuring that the rules function optimally and that they are adjusted to take account of new market and technological developments. This emerges strongly from the communication which the Commission adopted on 24 November 1999 setting out a new strategy for the internal market over the next five years (2). The strategy establishes an annual cycle of evaluation and priority-fixing, taking into account the actual functioning of product and capital markets and feedback received from citizens and business on their experiences with the internal market. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/169

Greece’s relative position in relation to the transposition of internal market rules has deteriorated in the last two years. According to the December 1999 Scoreboard statistics, 90 directives that should have been implemented by Greece by 15 November 1999 had not been transposed, compared to 19 directives overdue for Denmark, the best performing Member State and compared to an average of 52 directives taking all Member States together.

(1) SEC(1999) 2043. (2) COM(1999) 624 final.

(2000/C 374 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0846/00 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Action of the European Union against anti-personnel landmines

The Commission has adopted a proposal for a regulation on anti-personnel mines.

In the budgetary domain, horizontal line B7-661 has had its legitimacy strengthened. Does this mean that anti-personnel mine action programmes in all their diversity are to be financed exclusively from this line? In view of the particular approach adopted vis-à-vis humanitarian mine clearance by the NGOs, which favour integrating mine clearance in an overall development approach, what measures will be taken to ensure the actual access of NGOs to Union financing?

For the purposes of implementing EU actions against anti-personnel mines, the principle of aid being conditional on accession to and observance of the Ottawa Convention is accepted. This principle is subject to exceptions in the case of assistance to victims and is coupled with a proposal to assist the applicant countries in applying the Convention’s provisions. What will be the relevant criteria and detailed arrangements, which should not bring about on the ground a ‘double victimisation’ of certain vulnerable communities?

In the context of stepping up EU action for the actual implementation of the Convention and its universalisation, how large has been the place given to anti-personnel mines in the political dialogue with the Union’s partners and, more especially, with the countries applying for accession?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2000)

1. The communication and proposal for a regulation recently presented by the Commission are aimed, on the one hand, at enabling the EU to devise a more active and consistent strategy on anti-personnel mines, and on the other, at giving the necessary legal basis and both a horizontal and specific purpose to budget heading B7-661, which was created by Parliament in 1996 but had no legal basis until now.

The approach adopted was to formulate an overall policy framework for EU action on anti-personnel mines, within which the relevant sectoral and regional/local measures could be situated. The projects undertaken may be financed by the horizontal budget line, or by existing regional/local programmes. This approach will enable us to integrate into the overall strategy a number of projects of common interest to any mine clearance activity, for example systematic plans to assess past or ongoing operations, the evaluation of the needs of both the population and the mine clearance units, the drafting of regional and multiannual plans, verification of the aims pursued, rationalisation of instruments and interventions, and guarantees that EU operations are consistent with its commitments under the Ottawa Convention. C 374 E/170 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Once the Regulation is adopted, a multilateral exercise to programme anti-mine activities will be launched. It will be based on the general policy guidelines and will include both horizontal activities and activities linked to particular countries or regions. The multiannual programme will be published and will therefore be accessible to all non-governmental organisations. The latter are already the main recipients of Community funds, directly or indirectly. Partnership agreements are also planned to execute the multiannual projects.

2. With regard to the criteria to be applied to helping people affected by anti-personnel mines in countries that have not signed up to the Ottawa Convention, the Commission is carefully verifying several factors, sometimes individually, sometimes together; firstly, as the question suggests, information on the state of the affected population groups for whom a country requests mine clearance assistance; the country’s practice with regard to the production and storage of and trade in mines; the degree of acceptance of support measures for accession to the Convention, and verification that neither commercial nor scientific goals are being pursued with the aid of Community assistance. It is also important, in some cases, to know how the mines (or unexploded devices) came to be laid. This list of background information is not exhaustive but gives an idea of the approach the Commission intends to adopt.

3. This approach is obviously reflected in political dialogue both with the countries which have applied for membership and with other countries. The proposed Regulation, which is not limited to mines but covers all unexploded devices, also addresses the problems of storage and accumulation of such devices. The Commission wastes no opportunity to cooperate with non-member countries to speed up the eradication of this scourge, both by improving coordination of our respective policies and by putting together the resources necessary to develop better instruments and strategies.

(2000/C 374 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0847/00 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Installation of a delegation to Havana and cooperation with Cuba

Recently Cuba officially requested its accession to the ACP-EU agreements. At a time when this partnership is starting up again on a new basis, we must open the door to Cuba to encourage its own opening.

Currently, Cuba is the only country in Latin America and the Caribbean not to have concluded a cooperation framework agreement with the European Union.

With a rapid accession to the new ACP-EU agreement it should be possible to proceed to a cooperation framework agreement with a view to formalising and redefining the cooperative ties between Cuba and the European Union.

The early installation of a Commission Delegation to Havana would open the way to intensifying the dialogue with the authorities and all sectors of Cuban society to define future cooperation between the European Union and Cuba.

Is such a plan being considered by the Commission? If so, how soon?

How does the Commission propose to strengthen and formalise cooperation with Cuba?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

For the Honourable Member’s first question concerning the opening of a Commission delegation in Cuba, pleas see the reply to Written Question E-0615/00 from Mr Miranda (1). 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/171

In response to the second question on the formalising and strengthening cooperation with Cuba, we should point out that Cuba sent a letter to the ACP-EC Council of Ministers on 10 March confirming its wish to be come a signatory to the new ACP-EC Partnership Agreement.

This request is currently being studied by the Commission and the Council.

In the shorter term, and independently of the talks on the new Partnership Agreement, the Commission is evaluating its cooperation with Cuba in order to identify, in the EU common position, the best way of using the various cooperation instruments, especially the idea of humanitarian aid. The aim of such a change in the structure of aid is to make our cooperation more effective.

(1) See page 118.

(2000/C 374 E/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0849/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Pier Casini (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) and Vittorio Sgarbi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Protection of the ethnic minority in Slovenia and Croatia

Is the Commission aware of the serious and continuous violations of fundamental individual freedoms and property rights to which Italian citizens living in Slovenia and Croatia have been, and continue to be, subjected, in that their rightful property, of which they were dispossessed by the Yugoslavian Communist regime, has not been returned to them? What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that the governments of these countries take measures to protect the 350 000 Italian exiles who have been deprived of legal certainty and who, because of their nationality and ethnic group, are effectively condemned to lifelong exile?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the laws of countries like Slovenia, which is set to join the European Union, and Croatia respect the basic principles of the EU legal framework and combat all kinds of discrimination on the basis of nationality?

How does the Commission intend to foster compliance with:

1. the Declaration on Human Rights;

2. the Amsterdam Treaty (Article 6);

3. the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

4. the UN conference on human settlements (Habitat), Vancouver, 31 May 1976?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including those of minorities, has always been a priority in the Commission’s external relations.

With regard to Croatia, in particular, the Commission has always been highly critical in its regular reports on the country and in its contacts with the previous Croat leadership on this point, full observance of human and minority rights being a precondition to any improvement in relations between the Community and Croatia.

The same message has been given to the new Croat Government, stressing the importance of genuine implementation of international legislation on this issue. The priority given to respect for human rights, with particular reference to minority rights, was also enshrined in the first recommendations of the EU- Croatia Consultative Task Force, which called on the Croat Government to undertaken the necessary C 374 E/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

constitutional changes in order to fully respect all minorities. In addition, there was also a reference to their commitment to starting work on adopting a law on education and the use of minority languages in accordance with the standards of the Council of Europe.

Given the commitments accepted by the Croat Government and its first action plan, the Commission expects initial results in April.

With regard to Slovenia, accession negotiations were opened in the light of the Commission’s opinion of July 1997, which stated that Slovenia fulfilled the political criteria laid down at Copenhagen. Slovenia presents the characteristics of a democracy, with stable institutions guaranteeing the rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities.

The Commission found in particular that Italian citizens in Slovenia had obtained recognition as a minority and the associated constitutional rights.

The Commission is aware that the process of returning property is very slow in Slovenia. It is following the process carefully in the context of bilateral relations and discussed the matter at a recent Association Committee meeting on 23 March 2000. However, the Commission has no power to intervene directly on this matter. Article 295 (formerly Article 222) of the EC Treaty expressly states that it shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership.

(2000/C 374 E/202) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0856/00 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission (21 March 2000)

Subject: Eurostar socio-economic data

What is the measure of statistical error in the socio-economic data produced by the Statistical Office of the European Community for GDP/PPS 1994-1996 and for the unemployment rate in 1995-1997?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission (19 April 2000)

As regards GDP/PPS, the Commission does not have the necessary information to calculate the error rate requested by the Honourable Member. However, as part of its ongoing project to improve the quality of its statistics (Qualistat), the Commission has implemented various measures with the general aim of improving the accuracy of these indicators.

As regards unemployment rates, calculated using the Community Labour Force Survey, Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 of 9 March 1998 (1) on the organisation of a labour force sample survey in the Community requires Member States to ensure that, for a group of unemployed people representing 5 % of the working age population, the relative standard error for the estimation of annual averages at NUTS II level shall not exceed 8 % of the sub-population in question.

(1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998.

(2000/C 374 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0857/00 by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 March 2000)

Subject: Construction products directive

The construction products directive was designed to remove barriers to trade within the European Union. It is designed to ensure that all products sold within the construction industry within the EU are fit for 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/173

their intended use. Each product will bear a CE mark to indicate compliance with a harmonised European specification or a European technical approval. There will be a transitional period within which national and harmonised standards can be used. One of the areas affected by the harmonised standards is ‘safety in the case of fire’.

Has the Commission estimated the cost of the implementation of harmonised standards to the fire safety industry?

What assurances can Commission give that the harmonised standards will be implemented simultaneously across all Member States?

How will the Commission ensure that individual Member States do not add their own test methods or criteria, thereby perpetuating barriers to trade?

Will the Commission reassure the industry that the test laboratory capacity is adequate to cope with the re-testing of every product?

Given the demand on the notified laboratories, will the Commission permit a CE mark to be issued from tests undertaken in accordance with the final draft of the prEN (Draft European Standard)?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2000)

Whilst no specific evaluation of the costs to the fire safety industry has been carried out, the Commission considers that the benefits of the internal market for producers, in terms of increased access to European markets without the need for multiple testing to different national standards, will far outweigh the initial costs of implementing the harmonised standards.

The obligation to implement the harmonised standards arises simultaneously in each Member State. Having fixed the transitional arrangements in consultation with the Member States’ representatives in the standing committee on construction, the Commission will closely monitor the implementation measures taken in each Member State. This practice is already well established in other areas in the form of an internal market scoreboard.

The Commission has all of the legal instruments necessary to ensure that the Member States regulate in accordance with the EC Treaty. If necessary, the Commission will not hesitate to commence infringement proceedings in cases where these obligations are not net.

In fixing the duration of the period of co-existence of national and European standards, the Commission will take account of the capacity of the notified bodies to undertake the necessary work in relation to attestation of conformity.

Directive 89/106/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1) stipulates that the CE marking must be affixed on the basis of the finalised European standard. However, testing carried out by an approved laboratory in accordance with the definitive final draft of a standard may subsequently be taken into account during the formal attestation of conformity procedures.

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989. C 374 E/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0864/00 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 March 2000)

Subject: VAT on mandates

Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point 3, of the Belgian value added tax (VAT) code stipulates that the execution of contracts concerning ‘mandates’ is regarded as a service.

The Belgian VAT authority infers from this that the activities of a person who has been given a mandate are always liable to VAT, even when that person intervenes in the context of an activity which is exempted by Article 13 of the Sixth Directive, Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977.

Article 6 of the Sixth Directive, however, does not define ‘mandate’ as a taxable service. On the contrary, it is clear from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and, more specifically, from the judgment of 7 June 1977 in Case C 2/95, Sparekassernes Datacenter (SDC) v. Skatteministeriet that the activity of a person who has received a mandate must be exempted if that person himself carries out the activity exempted by Article 13 of the Sixth Directive. On the other hand, it follows from the judgement of the Court of Justice of 25 February 1999 in the case concerning Card Protection (Case C 349/96) that an exemption depends not on the capacity of service supplier but solely on the nature of the service supplied.

What is the Commission’s interpretation in this matter? Does it believe that the activities of a person given a mandate are in principle always liable to VAT and thus even when his intervention occurs in the context of an activity which is exempted by Article 13 of the Sixth VAT Directive?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (26 April 2000)

The carrying out of a mandate for a consideration by a taxable person is incontestably a taxable operation within the meaning of Article 2 of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC. Although this activity is not explicitly named in Article 6 of the Sixth Directive, the supply of services is defined there by default: ‘shall mean any transaction which does not constitute a supply of goods’.

Furthermore, as a general rule, operations upstream of the operations exempted do not benefit from this exemption and must therefore be taxed (judgment of 12 July 1985, case 107/84 Commission v. Germany).

On the other hand, it may also happen that the provider of the services under the mandate also carries out operations which are exempt if the beneficiary of the services is not the exempted customer but the party for whose benefit the exemption is intended.

However, the Commission considers that these issues must be analysed on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the fact that, since the exemptions are derogations from the general taxation rule, they must be interpreted in a restrictive manner, and therefore a general principle whereby all agents acting on mandates in exempt operations benefit from the exemption can not be drawn from the judgment of 7 June 1997 (case C-2/95 SDC).

(2000/C 374 E/205) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0868/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission (22 March 2000)

Subject: Boycott of Austrian travellers by taxi drivers in Brussels

The ‘Union des Taxis de Bruxelles’ has stated that as from today, Wednesday, 8 March 2000, Austrian nationals will no longer be transported. This boycott affects mainly staff and customers of the Austrian embassy, the EU representation and the offices of the federal regions. The reason given is that the majority of taxi drivers are immigrants. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/175

This attitude is contrary to every principle of tolerance and equality between all human beings irrespective of their race, nationality, sex and religious principles. Clearly, Austria’s rights are being infringed here when citizens are denied access to goods and services.

In view of the urgency of the matter, will the Commission state what measures it intends to take to counteract this anti-EU discrimination against Austrian nationals and hence citizens of the Union?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The freedom to provide services, a fundamental principle based on non-discrimination with regard to nationality, is required of the national authorities of the Member States and of organisations responsible for governing occupational sectors.

According to the information available to the Commission, the situation described by the honourable Member stems from an initiative of an economic operator and not from an order issued in respect of taxi drivers by the Belgian authorities.

In this context, the Commission has no legal means allowing it to take action to put an end to the discriminatory measures referred to.

Private behaviour which discriminates against customers on the basis of nationality is, however, a matter for national jurisdiction. Victims could respond to such behaviour either by initiating criminal proceedings (with a claim for damages at the court in Brussels) or civil proceedings for exemplary damages.

(2000/C 374 E/206) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0870/00 by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Austria’s Stability Programme

1 March was the deadline for submission of the Member States’ Stability Programmes. The Austrian government had not yet submitted its programme by that date. Does the Commission know the reason for the delay and when the Austrian Government intends to submit its programme?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The new federal government of the Austrian Republic was sworn in on 4 February 2000. Both the budget for the year 2000 and the stability programme are treated as high priority issues.

The Minister of Finance presented the draft budget to the Austrian Parliament on 21 March 2000. The Minister of finance, immediately after having taken office, informed the Commission by letter that the federal government will update the stability programme, which already has been discussed with the Laender and communities, by the end of March 2000, after the presentation of the budget. C 374 E/176 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/207) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0871/00 by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Setting up businesses

According to OECD figures, the number of statutory documents needed to set up a business in the Member States of the EU varies between two or three in Denmark and 28 in Greece.

Does the Commission consider that these differences between the Member States encourage the setting up of new businesses, especially by young people? Does the Commission intend to take any practical steps to remedy this evident distortion of the single market?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2000)

The Commission shares entirely the concern of the Honourable Member over the regulatory burdens involved in setting up a business that continue to exist in a number of Member States, and regards the simplification of the formalities involved in business start-up as a priority.

That is why, while recognising that this is primarily a matter for national governments, the Commission has encouraged Member States, in its BEST report (1), to address this problem and has supported their efforts to find simpler and better solutions.

The BEST report calls on Member States to facilitate the creation of enterprises. Under the follow-up (2)to this report, the Commission is monitoring and evaluating progress made by the Member States, and is also sharing information about good practices. The Commission will report on the follow-up later this year.

Further, under its concerted actions (3), the Commission assists Member States in exchanging good practices. A good example is the French ‘Centres de formalités d’entreprises’, which have greatly simplified procedures for start-ups. Moreover, there is encouraging evidence of Member States learning from each other’s experience. For example, the Portuguese ‘Centro de Formalidades das Empresas’ network, which has reduced normal start-up times for businesses from around six months to around fifteen days, exploited the French experience.

Benchmarking is an important tool to show differences and progress, and the Commission will continue benchmarking between Member States in the field of entrepreneurship and innovation.

(1) Report of the Business Environment Simplification Task Force. This report can be found on Internet: http:// europa.eu.int/comm/dg23/gen_policy. (2) Action plan to promote entrepreneurship and competitiveness. This can be found on Internet: http://europa.eu.int/ comm/dg23/gen_policy. (3) Outlined in the recent report to the Council and Parliament on concerted actions, adopted by the Commission on 9 November 1999, COM(1999) 569 final.

(2000/C 374 E/208) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0877/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Unlawful State subsidy to the DSB

Passenger transport between Copenhagen and Æro is provided by two carriers, one a privately owned bus company and the other a rail link operated by the DSB (Danish Railways). 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/177

Since 1 January 1999 the Danish State has purchased public transport services from the DSB under a contract according to which the State pays a gross subsidy of DKR 2,9 billion. When the Inland Revenue Department decided in 1999 that VAT should be charged on the Great Belt Bridge tolls, the subsidy paid to the DSB was increased on the grounds that:

as the DSB had to pay VAT on permanent railway charges in 1999, the DSB net subsidy would be increased by DKR 192,5 million.

In other words, the DSB is paying VAT on the bridge tolls, but having it refunded via the State contract. The private bus company does not receive any kind of public subsidy and pays VAT which is not refunded.

Does the Commission consider this form of VAT refund to the DSB as compatible with the Community’s rules on competition and State subsidies?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it has already received information concerning the issue she raises and is currently examining the arrangement in question. The Commission has therefore asked the Danish authorities to provide the Commission with all relevant information, in order to allow it to make an assessment of the arrangement under applicable state aid rules.

(2000/C 374 E/209) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0881/00 by Harlem Désir (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Redundancy plan in the wake of the ABB-Alstom group merger

In November 1999 the Commission authorised the merger of the ABB and Alstom groups, which created the world’s largest energy producer ABB-Alstom Power. Today, as feared by the employees, the group has announced that it is to shed 10 000 jobs, including 5 460 in Europe, primarily in France and Germany.

The Commission bears great responsibility for this. When it authorised the ABB-Alstom merger, it had a duty to take all necessary steps to safeguard jobs and to monitor compliance with Directive 94/45/EC (1) on informing and consulting workers in undertakings and in Community-scale groups of undertakings. In its resolution of 17 February 2000, Parliament reminded the Commission of this requirement, but it was completely disregarded and the group totally failed to comply with the obligation to inform workers in the event of restructuring.

Did the group’s senior executives inform the Commission of their redundancy plan when they applied for authorisation to merge and, if so, why did the Commission approve such a plan? If they concealed the plan, which had undoubtedly already been drawn up in November 1999, does the Commission not have the right to take action against the group for having misrepresented the implications of the merger for the workforce?

Whatever the case, what measures does the Commission intend to take in response to this breach of Community law and to persuade the group to shelve its plan?

(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64. C 374 E/178 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2000)

The Commission authorised the merger in question under the powers conferred upon it by the EC Treaty and in accordance with the Community legal provisions in force. In exercising these specific powers the Commission restricted itself to competition law issues, as required by the relevant provisions.

The Merger Regulation is partly based on the provisions of the EC Treaty which recognise that distortions of competition may prevent Community citizens from sharing the benefits of the common European market in goods and services. In other words, the EC Treaty considers that competitive markets in which buyers and sellers can act openly and freely are likely to provide the best results for citizens throughout the Community in terms of price, efficiency, customer choice, product quality, employment and in other respects. Consequently, the criterion which the Commission must apply to mergers focuses on their anticipated effect on competition. The Commission carefully examined the impact of the ABB-Alstom merger on the structure of competition in the relevant markets within the European Economic Area (EEA) and conducted a survey to obtain the reactions of competitors, customers and suppliers. Its conclusion was that there was no risk of serious competition problems, as a result of which, in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Merger Regulation, it authorised the transaction.

Nevertheless, the Commission, as guardian of the EC Treaty and secondary legislation, is obliged to examine this type of operation from various angles. In particular, using all the means laid down in the EC Treaty, it must also monitor and ensure compliance with other Community legal instruments concerned with this type of operation from other perspectives, such as information and consultation of workers.

As these provisions are imposed by Community directives and national provisions incorporating directives into national law, it is in the first instance the task of the national authorities to assess any possible infringements which are referred to them under the procedures for the protection of the rights referred to in those national provisions.

The Commission also asked the national authorities for clarifications as soon as suggestions of infringements of these provisions were brought to its attention.

More generally, the Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member that the expected social impact of any managerial decision must be the subject of information to and consultation of workers’ representatives at the earliest possible stage, in order to facilitate the search for appropriate solutions from the point of view of safeguarding jobs. This is the objective of recent proposals in this area, which the Commission hopes will rapidly come to fruition.

(2000/C 374 E/210) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0883/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Relocation of Commercial Hydraulics from England to Germany

Ultra Hydraulic Ltd. (a division of Commercial Hydraulics) has recently announced plans to close down its operation in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK to relocate to Germany. This announcement was made without prior notification to the trade unions, and the move itself will result in the loss of 252 jobs at the Cheltenham site.

Has the European Commission allocated funds to Commercial Hydraulics for this move, and has it also checked to find out whether the German Government has allocated funds to the company for this move and, if so, whether it complied with European Union legislation on State Aids? Does the Commission feel this lack of consultation about the move corresponds to the spirit or letter of the law on worker consultation? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/179

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

The Commission has not received any notification from the German Government with respect to the relocation plans of Commercial Hydraulics mentioned by the Honourable Member. It has also from other sources no information concerning the allocation of funds for this move by the German Government. Therefore the Commission is not in a position to determine whether the state aid rules of the EC Treaty, in case they would apply, are respected.

Furthermore, the Commission did not allocate itself funds for this move.

The Commission has no detailed information on the steps taken by Ultra Hydraulic Ltd or Commercial Hydraulics to inform and consult workers’ representatives on the closure of the Cheltenham site and the subsequent redundancies. In any case, as a result of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on collective redundancies (1) and the relevant British provisions implementing it, Ultra Hydraulic Ltd is clearly under the obligation of doing so before implementing any redundancies. Accordingly, it falls in the first place to the British authorities to assess whether this obligation has been respected.

Relocations or closures as such are not for the moment subject to any explicit obligation to prior information and consultation deriving from Community law. It was precisely to try to overcome this gap that the Commission presented in November 1998 a proposal establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the Community (2), which provides for permanent and regular employee involvement on strategic developments as well as the foreseeable evolution of employment within companies. The Commission is actively seeking an early adoption of this proposal.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998. (2) OJ C 2, 5.1.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/211) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0891/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium

The dioxin crisis in Belgium once again demonstrated how vulnerable the food chain, and checks on it, are. An assessment such as that made by the Dioxin Committee of the Chamber of Representatives can help to eliminate problems. Both the European Union and the fifteen Member States have an important role to play in this.

The Members of Parliament observe, inter alia, that the Union’s rules on sludge differ in substance between language versions and that at all events they ought to be supplemented and better defined.

Is it true that the rules on sludge differ in substance between language versions, as the Dioxin Committee claims?

(a) If so, how will the Commission ensure that these differences are eliminated?

(b) If not, is the Dioxin Committee wrong to state that the rules on sludge in the European Union differ in substance between language versions? C 374 E/180 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

In order to ensure a high level of public health and consumer protection, point 5 of the Annex to Commission Decision 91/516/EEC of 9 September 1991, establishing a list of ingredients the use of which is prohibited in compound feedingstuffs (1), specifically prohibits the use of sludge from sewage plants treating waste waters.

This rule does not differ in substance between language versions. However, in order to leave no doubt as to the scope of the prohibition, a draft Commission decision amending Decision 91/516/EEC was submitted to the opinion of the standing committee for feedingstuffs on 29th February 2000. This draft decision, which secured a favourable opinion of this committee, states that all wastes obtained from the various phases of the urban, domestic and industrial waste water treatment process, irrespective of any further processing of these wastes and irrespective also of the origin of the waste waters, shall be prohibited in compound feedingstuffs.

(1) OJ L 281, 9.10.1991.

(2000/C 374 E/212) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0895/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Assessment of the dioxin crisis in Belgium

The Members of Parliament repeatedly call for ‘clear, complete guidelines on the responsible use of animal waste’.

Are the existing guidelines clear and complete enough to ensure that animal waste is used responsibly?

(a) If so, on what grounds does the Commission unlike the Dioxin Committee consider that the guidelines on the responsible use of animal waste are clear and complete?

(b) If not, will the Commission draft proposals for establishing a clear and complete system for the responsible use of animal waste?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

The Commission shares the view of the dioxin committee of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives on the issue of animal waste.

The possible exclusion of certain animal waste from the feed chain has been discussed for some time at political, technical and scientific level. In the light of these discussions, it is considered appropriate to prohibit the recycling of high-risk animal waste into the feed chain.

To this end, a proposal for a Council and Parliament regulation establishing new rules for the disposal and the processing of animal waste is in preparation. Its submission to the Council and to the Parliament is scheduled for June 2000. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/181

(2000/C 374 E/213) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0898/00 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Suppliers of services to Community institutions

In the context of the new commitments concerning transparency in the work of the Community institutions (also sanctioned by the recent publication of the Commission’s White Paper on reform) the European Parliament’s Internet website provides information on public contracts for services awarded by Parliament and other Community bodies.

Those interested can also use this website to subscribe to an update notification system. This service is managed by the American private company Netmind, whose site is automatically accessed during the subscription process.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. Whether the American company was chosen by the Community institutions and, if not, what selection procedures were used?

2. Whether the Community institutions have access to the personal data recorded when a user registers, whether it is the property of the American company or of the institutions and what use is made of the data?

3. Why one of the institutions opted for a service offered by an American private company, in view of the fact that other information servers in the European Union offer exactly the same service, but using Community IT structures?

4. In view of the fact that the American company’s service which Parliament is using is still in a beta version, whether it considers that this offers sufficient guarantees as regards efficiency, accessibility, performance and, above all, confidentiality?

5. Whether this choice should not be considered questionable, not least in view of the recent hearing on the Echelon network?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2000)

The content of the website to which the Honourable Member refers is managed directly and exclusively by the Parliament. It is thus to the Parliament that the Honourable Member should address his request for information.

(2000/C 374 E/214) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0901/00 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Tour Managers and Tour Guides

I understand that the European Commission has had some involvement in this issue in the past and is well aware of the difficulties Tour Managers experience in attempting to exercise their right to work in other EU countries.

London members of the International Association of Tour Managers have contacted me. Whilst recognising the clear difference of the qualification Tour Guide, in being able to guide in ‘historic monuments’ and museums, they feel that both the stretching of this definition and excessive demands for qualification as a Tour Guide (in some places including residence), are unreasonable restrictions. C 374 E/182 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Instances of Tour Managers being fined for walking groups from a coach to their restaurant have been cited as not uncommon.

Does the Commission intend to take any further action in this regard to clear up this confusion and end these restrictions?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The matter of the difficulties faced by tour managers in the exercise of their profession abroad has been raised with the Commission by the relevant professional organisations such as the European Tour Operators Association (ETOA), the European Travel & Tourism Action Group (ETAG) and the Interna- tional Road Transport Union (IRU). On this matter in general the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers given by the Commission to Written Questions E-2615/96 by Mr Kellett- Bowman (1) and E-797/98 by Ms Daskalaki (2). The Commission’s working paper on tourist guides, which was adopted in 1997, provides all relevant details on the applicable Community legislation (3).

The Honourable Member indicates that two restrictions are regarded as unreasonable by the International Association of Tour Managers: the interpretation of the definition ‘historic monuments and museums’ and the excessive demands for tourist guide qualifications.

On the first point, the Commission observes that in its judgements on tourist guides (judgements of 26.2.1991, Case C-154/89 France [1991] ECR I-659, C-180/89 Italy [1991] ECR I- 709 and C-198/89 Greece [1991] ECR I-727), the Court of justice clearly ruled that making the provision of services of tourist guides subject to the possession of a professional licence infringes the freedom to provide services, where those services consist in guiding tourists in places other than ‘museums or historical monuments which may be visited only with a specialised professional guide’. Therefore, the provision of services by tourist guides coming from other Member States is limited by this exception. As to the type of museums and historical monuments which are subject to specific national rules, tourist guides must comply with national legislation. The Commission has carefully analysed the legislation adopted by the Member States to comply with these judgements and found it compatible with Community law in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The Commission considers that in the absence of detailed criteria of interpretation laid down by the Court the exception for ‘museums or historical monuments which may be visited only with a specialised professional guide’ can be interpreted in the light of the principle of proportionality.

According to this principle, national laws that restrict the freedoms established by the EC Treaty must be proportionate to the goals pursued. The Court ruled that the aim of this exception is to protect the general interest in ‘the proper appreciation of places and things of historical interest’ and to ensure ‘the widest dissemination of knowledge of the artistic and cultural heritage’ of a Member State (see judgement of 26 February 1991 in Case C-154/89, paragraph 21). Therefore, the proportionality of the legislation adopted by each Member State in order to comply with the ‘tourist guides’ judgments should be assessed, for every site or every category of sites included in the exception, against the requirement of a specialised professional guide to protect ‘the proper appreciation of places and things of historical interest’ and to ensure ‘the widest possible dissemination of knowledge of the artistic and cultural heritage’. Such an appraisal lies primarily with the Member State concerned as it is the national authorities which are best placed to assess local historical, cultural and artistic interests. The Commission considers that too broad an interpretation of this exception, covering practically all the museums and historic monuments could be in contradiction with the Court’s judgements.

On the second point, in the absence of harmonisation of the training and other conditions of access to a profession, each Member State remains free to regulate professions within their territory and to establish the level of qualifications required for their exercise. When Member States regulate the profession of tourist guide Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (4) and Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (5) apply. To the Commission’s knowledge, the condition of residency is not required in any Member State in order to obtain recognition of the qualification as tourist guide. The Commission has never received any complaint concerning a refusal by a Member State to recognise a tourist guide qualification or concerning any 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/183

particular difficulty regarding recognition procedures in this area. Interested parties are invited to make known the existence of such requirements to the Commission.

As regards the imposition of fines on tour managers, the problem appears to be due mainly to a confusion between the profession of tour manager and that of tourist guide. According to the principle of subsidiarity, the responsibility for the definition of the scope of these two professions lies with the Member States. The facts brought so far to the Commission’s attention in this connection do not indicate a practice that could constitute an infringement of the EC Treaty. The Commission would in any case remind the Honourable Member that Article 49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty (freedom to provide services) can have direct effect and confers rights on individuals that national authorities must respect. Interested parties can therefore best protect their rights by applying to the national courts for the annulment of such fines under its provisions.

(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1997. (2) OJ C 323, 23.10.1998. (3) SEC(97) 837 final. (4) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. (5) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2000/C 374 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0902/00 by Efstratios Korakas (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 March 2000)

Subject: Reform of the system of aid for cotton

Under Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1553/95 (1), before the start of the 1999/2000 marketing year the Commission is required to present a report on the operation of the system of aid for cotton and to submit a reform proposal only if the report shows it to be necessary. However, the Commission has submitted a reform proposal directly. In its explanatory memorandum, the Commission acknowledges that ‘this requirement [to draw up a report on the operation of the system as set out in paragraph 11 of Protocol 4 annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece] was partly anticipated … by the Report from the Commission to the Council on Greek requests in the cotton sector (COM(98) 10 final)’.

The Commission has failed to honour its obligations and, moreover, has put forward arguments in the explanatory memorandum to its reform proposal which, in the absence of a thorough analysis, paint a distorted picture of the operation of the sector. The cost of the cotton scheme depends largely on the price of cotton on the world market. The Commission contends that ‘expenditure could exceed EUR 900 million’. It chose to submit its proposal at a time when world prices were at their lowest since the previous reform of the cotton scheme. Furthermore, the world cotton price has risen by 48 % since the date of adoption of the Commission proposal barely three months ago. In fewer than three months the reform proposal has become outdated and irrelevant.

As a result, the institutions required to adopt a position on the Commission proposal have three problems to contend with: the Commission’s failure to honour its obligations, the lack of a reliable analysis, and the use of economic arguments which could prove misleading. Will the Council demand that the Commission honours its undertakings under Regulation (EEC) No 1553/95? Will it ask the Commission to submit a new, updated proposal which takes account of the report on the operation of the system of aid for cotton?

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 45.

(25 May 2000)

After submitting its report on Greek requests regarding the cotton sector to the Council in February 1998, and in accordance with the invitation addressed to it by the Council in June 1998, the Commission submitted to the latter in December 1999 two proposals for reform of the system of aid for cotton. C 374 E/184 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

While retaining the thrust of the current aid system, the Commission proposals concern, as the Honourable Member will certainly have noted, a number of important economic, technical, budgetary and environmental aspects, which indicate the complexity of the analyses which the Commission undertook in preparation for drawing up its proposals.

These are currently being studied in detail within the Council’s working parties.

The Council will, in good time, take an appropriate decision on this file. In making its decision, the Council will not fail to examine closely the Parliament’s forthcoming Opinion on the matter.

(2000/C 374 E/216) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0906/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Alteration of the cultural heritage in FYROM

Extensive alterations have reportedly been made recently to the architecture of the Church of Ayios Dimitrios in the town of Bitola (Monastir) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), which clearly constitute alteration of the cultural heritage of that historical monument and of the region in general. Will the Commission say whether it is aware of this situation, what steps it intends to take to put an immediate end to these actions, and whether it has taken or intends to take any measures to protect the historical monuments and the cultural heritage in general in the Balkans?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his question regarding the cultural heritage of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).

Unfortunately, it has been unable to obtain precise information relating to the church of Ayios Dimitrios, but, in general terms, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-0077/99 submitted by Mr Kaklamanis, particularly the second paragraph (1).

(1) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 142.

(2000/C 374 E/217) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0914/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Volume of EU legislative proposals

How many new legislative proposals (for directives, regulations and decisions) have been made by the Commission in each year for the last ten years? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/185

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (15 May 2000)

Number of proposals presented by the Commission

Proposals Proposals Proposals Year for regulations for directives for decisions 1999 164 36 205 1998 230 63 271 1997 238 52 245 1996 246 63 200 1995 290 71 236 1994 305 52 201 1993 343 54 214 1992 368 86 191 1991 373 61 175 1990 427 88 202

Source: General report (1993-1999); internal databases of the Commission (1990-1992)

(2000/C 374 E/218) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0916/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (25 March 2000)

Subject: Stock of EU legislation

What is the total stock of EU legislation (directives, regulations, decisions) in each year for the last ten years (taking end of year numbers)?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (15 May 2000)

Number of Council/European Parliament instruments and of Council instruments in force as at 31 December of the year concerned

Year Regulations Directives Decisions 1999 1 930 1 191 301 1998 1 909 1 205 292 1997 1 835 1 195 263 1996 1 875 1 189 247 1995 1 915 1 165 232 1994 2 144 1 170 265 1993 2 138 1 146 249 1992 2 256 1 119 242 1991 2 182 1 048 231 1990 2 145 998 216

Source: General Report (1997-1999); Celex base (1990-1996) C 374 E/186 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Number of autonomous Commission instruments in force as at 31 December of the year concerned (1)

Year Regulations Directives Decisions 1999 3 924 485 5 067 1998 3 874 440 4 670 1997 3 631 409 4 290 1996 3 370 408 3 848 1995 3 411 371 3 474 1994 3 519 343 3 281 1993 3 556 322 3 085 1992 3 471 283 2 914 1991 3 287 263 2 788 1990 3 053 257 2 563

Source: General Report (1997-1999); Celex base (1990-1996) (1) Except for the instruments not published in the Official Journal or published in light type (routine management instruments valid for a limited period).

(2000/C 374 E/219) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0922/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Promotion of the euro to children

1. Could the Commission please state what funding has been given to the Organisation ‘Informer et Ensigner l’Europe et la Democratie (Inform and Teach about Europe and Democracy)’ by the European Commission and/or any other European Union organisations? In particular, what funds have been devoted to the production and the dissemination of the educational video produced by this organisation as a result of work in the Brussels school ‘Nos Enfants’ and referred to in Inf€uro, Bulletin No 14?

2. Could the Commission please state how much EU funding has been devoted to projects aimed at promoting the euro in schools and/or to children (a) in the last 12 months and (b) over the last five years? Could the Commission please state what organisations have received funding to promote the euro in schools and/or to children?

3. To the knowledge of the Commission, have any projects designed to promote the euro to UK children been run in the last 12 months? If so, can the Commission please give details of all such projects including the names of any schools which took part? Can the Commission give details of how much money was provided for such projects by the Commission and/or any other EU institution?

4. How can the Commission reconcile the funding of projects aimed at persuading children of the merits of the euro with the fundamental principle that neither schools nor public authorities should engage in the political indoctrination of children?

5. Will the Commission guarantee to cease all campaigning to promote the single currency in the UK, since funding such campaigns constitutes an unwarranted political interference in the democratic process in the UK, as it decides on whether or not to join the euro? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/187

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

1. The non-profit-making organisation mentioned by the Honourable Member received, under the ‘young people’ partnership programme, assistance of € 30 000 (10 % of the total cost) for the co- production of the cassette ‘The euro, it’s child’s play’. At the initiative of the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, and in the presence of the President of the Parliament, the Chairman of the Economic and Social Committee and a member of the Commission, a presentation to the press was organised. This event was very well received, including by the Anglo-Saxon press.

Given the success of this video production and in order to meet the many requests from associations and the educational world, in 1997 the Commission purchased 8 200 cassettes in various language versions for a total amount of € 41 000. They are distributed upon request only. Several Member States of the euro zone have incorporated this tool into the official teaching materials distributed in the educational networks to prepare teachers and pupils for the introduction of the euro into the everyday life of each citizen.

In order to allow the Honourable Member to appreciate herself the purely educational nature of this video, a copy is being sent to her directly and to the Secretariat-General of the Parliament.

2. Under the Prince programme, a budget heading created at the initiative of the Parliament in order to finance information and communication measures on the euro, the Commission developed a programme of partnership with civil society, organised on the basis of a call for proposals. This is the context in which transnational projects targeted at school and youth circles have been selected.

For 1999, seven information projects about the euro for young people were selected for a total amount of € 519 166. Over the past five years, the Commission has counted eleven different projects for an amount of € 767 275. The beneficiaries of this assistance are all non-profit-making associations, the list of which is being sent to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of the Parliament.

3. No direct measures among children have been conducted in the United Kingdom over the past twelve months.

4. The authorities of the Member States that belong to the euro zone decide on the priority target groups within the framework of the bilateral agreements signed with the Commission and the Parliament. The educational world and young people are among the priority target groups. This objective is clearly stated in the communication concerning the communication strategy to be adopted in the final stages of the introduction of economic and monetary union, which was approved by the Commission in early February 2000 (1). The draft report on the euro communication strategy, which is currently being drafted and whose rapporteur is the Honourable Member Mr Karas, also contains a very strong focus in this area, stating that young people, and especially school pupils, form a very precious target group because many of them are open about the euro and are therefore a well-defined target group.

5. To date, the Commission has signed no bilateral agreements on the euro with the United Kingdom. It is nevertheless willing to respond to any request for information that it may receive.

(1) COM(2000) 57 final.

(2000/C 374 E/220) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0928/00 by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Publication of business accounts

In the United Kingdom a private limited company is required by law each year to publish its accounts and file them so that they are readily available to anyone who wishes to see them. As a result, its competitors are able to gain valuable commercial information on which to plan their marketing strategy. C 374 E/188 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

In Germany, the law also states that a private company or partnership is required to publish its accounts, but if it does not, it is subject to a small fine. It appears that many German companies prefer to pay the fine and not publish their accounts, because they do not wish to give their competitors a commercial advantage.

Can the Commission please advise:

1. Whether it considers this discrepancy in national legislation to contravene internal market principles, since it provides an unfair competitive advantage to certain categories of company?

2. Whether the competitive disadvantage of UK private companies is reflected in other countries, apart from Germany?

3. If the answer to 1 is affirmative, what action it proposes to take to address the problem?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission does view as a breach of internal market principles the failure by national authorities to ensure the publication of annual accounts by limited companies (as required by the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (1) and Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (2)).

For this reason, infringement proceedings were launched against Germany in relation to its failure to impose appropriate sanctions against companies which fail to file their annual accounts as required by Articles 2(1)(f), 3 and 6 of Council Directive 68/151/EEC and Article 47(1) of Council Directive 78/660/ EEC.

The Court of justice gave a judgement in the Commission’s favour on the 28 September 1998 (Case C-191/ 95) stating that ‘… by failing to provide for appropriate penalties in cases where companies limited by shares fail to effect compulsory disclosure of their annual accounts as prescribed, in particular, by Articles 2(1)(f), 3 and 6 of the First Directive, in conjunction with Article 47(1) of the Fourth Directive, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives’. Consequently, Germany is currently adopting legislation which will rectify the situation.

The Commission is not aware of this problem existing in any other Member State.

(1) OJ L 65, 14.3.1968. (2) OJ L 222, 14.8.1978.

(2000/C 374 E/221) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0931/00 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Participation of research partners from developing countries in environmental research programmes funded by the EU

The key to the development of developing countries is for those countries themselves to have the opportunity to participate in development work, i.e. both in defining problems and in seeking solutions to them. Hitherto the EU has not, on the whole, pursued this approach with regard to projects in the field of science and technology which relate to developing countries. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/189

The EU’s framework programmes do not extend to developing countries. In other words, it is not possible, for example, for partners from North Africa to participate in environmental science and technology projects. Nothing prevents them from carrying out research, but there is no scope for funding, as developing countries cannot join consortia in search of funding.

Why is this so surely, opportunities for Russia, for example, to participate have been increased?

Has the matter been considered with reference to the fact that, for instance, desertification problems in North Africa or the problems of the Mediterranean are located on the EU’s own doorstep?

In the form taken by funding, will the EU give greater responsibility to local researchers, to ensure that action continues after the financing has ceased and that projects are not implemented without any input from local researchers?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission fully endorses the Honourable Member’s view regarding the role of research in the development of developing countries and the fact that research should be demand-led and target the problems of development in those countries.

The thematic programmes of the 5th framework programme do indeed allow for the participation of developing countries, albeit without the possibility of Community funding (the situation is the same for Russia), but this is progress over the 4th framework programme which was only open in part to them.

However, they do have two possibilities specially reserved for them under the horizontal programme INCO: the INCO-DEV action which aims specifically at promoting scientific and technical cooperation between the Community and all developing countries; and the INCO-MED action which concerns only the Mediterranean countries involved in the areas specific to this region. The problem of water, including the problems of desertification, is one of the central themes of INCO-MED.

These two programmes, with their ongoing dialogue with the representatives of these regions, link them not only to the area of cooperation but also to selection of proposals, especially as regards their relevance to the development of the region.

Furthermore, the methods of implementing INCO-DEV and INCO-MED not only authorise but actually encourage initiatives from developing countries. In any case the participation of scientists from these countries on an equitable basis is one of the conditions for eligibility of the proposals received under these programmes.

One of the objectives is to help to increase the research capacities of these countries, through joint research between them and the Community to help them take increasing charge of their role in their development process.

(2000/C 374 E/222) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0939/00 by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Belgian legislation on clinical biology laboratories

In Belgium, Royal Decree No 143 of 30 December 1982 stipulates that individuals who are not qualified to carry out medical tests may not occupy any kind of supervisory position in clinical biology laboratories. C 374 E/190 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

On 17 December 1999, a complaint was referred to the Commission (COMP/37.7.754) contesting this law, which clearly has a bearing on freedom of establishment (Article 43 of the EC Treaty).

In 1987, following an appeal by the Commission, the Court of Justice ruled that the law was compatible with freedom of establishment as it was not deemed to be discriminatory. No attempt was made, however, to check that the law complied with the proportionality principle. (Judgment of 12 February 1987, Case 221/85, Commission v Belgium, ECR 1987, p. 719).

Nevertheless, as of 1995 (Judgment of 30 November 1995, Case C-55/94, Gebhard, ECR 1995, p. I-4186), the Court deems that any national measure even where applicable to EU residents without distinction, as is the Belgian law in question that is ‘liable to hinder or make less attractive’ the exercise of, or access to, a profession by a national of another Member State, may be incompatible with Article 43 of the EC Treaty unless justified by compelling reasons of general interest and duly proportional.

In this context, how does the Commission intend to apply this new case law, which acknowledges the validity of the argument espoused by the institution up to eight years ago? Will the Commission now ascertain the proportionality of the provisions in question which the Court refused to do in 1987 in view of the fact that the rules on operating clinical biology laboratories in the various EU Member States are still so divergent?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (10 May 2000)

As pointed out by the Honourable Member, there have been changes in the Court of Justice case law on the freedom of establishment.

Furthermore, there are a number of new elements in the appeal mentioned which were not present in the appeal which led to the Court judgment of 12 February 1987. The Commission is therefore carrying out a detailed examination of the Belgian legislation on medical analysis laboratories.

(2000/C 374 E/223) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 March 2000)

Subject: Restitution of stolen or illegally exported cultural artefacts

A new convention on the restitution of stolen cultural artefacts is being promoted in the United Nations calling for negotiations to be held in such cases between the parties concerned.

1. Has the Commission expressed its support for the convention in question?

2. Has it proposed that the Member States sign this convention?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (12 May 2000)

As far as the Commission is aware, there are no proposals emanating from the United Nations for the adoption of a new convention on the return of stolen cultural artefacts, this issue having already been the subject of the 1995 Unidroit Convention on the international return of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. The Commission took part in the work on drafting this Convention as an observer.

The Commission shares the general aim of combating illicit trade in cultural objects, which was the driving force behind the Unidroit Convention, but given the Community’s responsibilities in this field as Community law stands at present, it has not yet registered its support for the Convention by proposing that the Member States sign it. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/191

The Commission would like to point out that for the European Economic Area (EEA), Directive 96/100/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 February 1997 amending the Annex to Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (1) lays down arrangements and a procedure, to be applied among the States which are party to the EEA Agreement, for the return of cultural objects which have been unlawfully removed from the territory of one of these States. This Directive is an accompanying measure to the process of completing the internal market, as its purpose is to supplement border controls in providing the means of affording suitable protection to cultural objects.

Community regulations have been taken into account by the Unidroit Convention, Article 13 of which stipulates that ‘in their relations with each other, Contracting States which are members of organisations of economic integration or regional bodies may declare that they will apply the internal rules of these organisations or bodies and will not therefore apply as between these States the provisions of this Convention the scope of application of which coincides with that of those rules’.

A declaration of this type has been made by two of the five Member States which have signed the Convention: the Netherlands, which did so upon signing the Convention, and Finland, which has already ratified the Convention, when its deposited its instrument of ratification. The other Member States which have signed the Convention to date are France, Portugal and Italy. Italy has already deposited its instrument of ratification and thus become party to the Convention.

(1) OJ L 60, 1.3.1997.

(2000/C 374 E/224) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0950/00 by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Trans-European networks

The European Council meeting in Essen in 1994 adopted a number of priority TEN projects. One of those fourteen projects was the development of the ‘Nordic triangle’, an important project for infrastructure in the Nordic region. In its progress report on these TEN projects, the Commission notes that Sweden is not fulfilling its commitments, which is affecting the necessary expansion of capacity on the E6 and E4, not to mention the Malmö-Trelleborg stretch of the E6, which is so important for the country’s imports and exports. What does the Commission intend to do in response to Sweden’s failure to act and the delay in complying with these commitments which are such important infrastructure projects for Sweden and for Europe?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

In 1998 and 1999 the Commission published two follow-up reports (1) concerning the progress and status of the 14 specific projects identified at the Essen European Council in December 1994. In both reports it is stated that three projects are near completion, six others will be finalised around 2005 and five will be finalised significantly beyond 2005.

The project called the Nordic Triangle, which contains the sections of the E4 and E6 mentioned by the Honourable Member, is among the five projects in the last group. The special nature of the Nordic Triangle, which is a multi-modal corridor with a large number of sub-projects, makes it very difficult to establish a firm overall timetable and financing plan. Negotiations on this issue are taking place between the Commission and the Finnish and Swedish authorities.

The implementation of transport infrastructure projects falls primarily under the responsibility of the Member States and the regional and local bodies following the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission cannot therefore require the Member States to implement any particular infrastructure project. However, the Commission can encourage the Member States to implement a project by offering financial support or C 374 E/192 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

by helping to establish alternative financial solutions like public-private partnerships. The Commission has previously supported upgrading and construction on several sections of the E6 and E18 within the Nordic Triangle.

(1) ‘Report on progress and implementation of the 14 Essen projects’ (COM(98) 356 final) and ‘1998 Annual report on the Trans-European Networks’ (COM(99) 410 final).

(2000/C 374 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0952/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (22 March 2000)

Subject: Schloen shooting range

Reports from the local citizens’ action group and the Bündnis 90/Grünen group in the district (Kreis) of Mütitz indicate that the Land government has so far failed to take effective action to halt the Schloen shooting range project (24 stands). According to a study carried out by the University of Greifswald for the municipality of Schloen and in the opinion of the Vice-President of the Nature Conservation Federation (NABU), Professor Succow, the area concerned is the habitat of an extremely wide range of species, including priority species, which means that its designation as an FFH or EU bird conservation area would be justified. This has also been put to the Land government through the Association for Nature and Environmental Protection Germany (BUND).

1. Is the Commission aware that the notified FFH protected area designations by Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania have thus been incomplete?

2. Does the Commission agree that this designation as a protected area within the meaning of the EC bird protection directive needs to be undertaken and notification as an FFH area given without delay?

3. Is the Commission aware that, although the appropriate ministry knows of the adverse consequences (including the abandonment of a sea eagle’s nest, a breeding ground for cranes and a colony of corncrakes and the sustained disturbance of movements of migratory birds between the Mütitz National Park and the Torgelower/Varchentin Lakes area), it is not giving the municipality of Schloen enough support in preventing the construction of the shooting range?

4. Is the Commission aware that a number of other, ecologically safe sites for the project have been proposed to the shooting club, but have always been rejected?

5. Is the Commission aware that the authorising agency has made serious errors in the authorising procedure and that these have not yet been duly corrected?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (27 April 2000)

The Commission considers that there is a lack of sufficient Natura 2000 sites under Council Directive 92/ 43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) not only in Mecklenburg Vorpommern, but also more generally in Germany. As a result the Commission brought the matter before the Court of justice already one year ago and it awaits the judgement.

Likewise, there is a legal action against Germany for its failure to classify sufficient areas under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (2). The Commission has decided to bring this matter too before the Court of justice.

The Commission does not have the necessary information to establish if the area at Schloen qualifies for inclusion in Natura 2000. Nor is it able to answer the specific questions concerning this project in or close to Schloen, when no detailed information is presented.

If there is evidence to show that there is an infringement of European law the Honourable Member is invited to provide more detailed information pursuant to the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC or Directive 79/409/EEC. That would include an evaluation of the importance of the site for different species and habitats of Community interest in accordance with the requirements of the directives. As regards the 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/193

project, the significant effect on the site would have to be established as well as the existence of specific alternative solutions. Furthermore, information would be needed on the geographical location, delimitation and Natura 2000 value, compensation measures already foreseen, and other details that are of importance to investigate the case.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2000/C 374 E/226) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0961/00 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 March 2000)

Subject: A favourable climate for EU inventors

One of the most productive features of our economy is that of invention. However, inventors are not only faced with multiple challenges relating to their own inventions: they have to confront a veritable forest of red tape.

At a moment when the Community is endeavouring to take a major step forward to catch up on lost ground in the technological field at planetary level, it is essential that inventors should be offered a new climate enabling them to develop their inventions in comfort and patent them in secure and reliable conditions, without being overwhelmed by bureaucracy.

Can the Commission state whether it believes it should promote an in-depth study to ascertain the real situation of inventors in the Community, the nature of their concerns, their difficulties in relation to the two poles of Munich and The Hague, and, in general, all the factors that can make the difference between success or failure, across the range of activities in which inventors can contribute to the Community’s economic activity as a whole?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (3 May 2000)

The Commission agrees with the honourable Member regarding the need to ensure that inventors in the Community benefit from a climate conducive to the development of their activities.

Innovation has, indeed, become a major vector of lasting growth for businesses and of economic prosperity for society as a whole.

With a view to defining the suitable framework for the development of inventions and innovative actions in Europe, the Commission has consulted a number of interested circles, especially through its Green Papers on Innovation in Europe (1) and on the Community patent and the patent system in Europe (2). Following these consultations, it submitted ambitious action plans containing concrete measures in order to meet the needs of industry and independent inventors.

Among the more important initiatives, the Commission announced that it would make legislative proposals for creating a Commuity patent, producing the same effects throughout the Community, which would be simple to administer, easily accessible and reasonably priced. The Community patent was also described by the Commission, in its January 2000 communication entitled ‘Towards a European Research Area’ (3), as a powerful lever for the development of research in Europe.

Furthermore, innovation should also be boosted thanks to other measures, such as the development of the role of national patent offices towards encouraging innovation, improving access to patent information or introducing the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Help Desk, which is a service designed to help those involved in innovation and to familiarise them with intellectual property.

(1) COM(97) 736 final. (2) COM(97) 314 final. (3) COM(2000) 6 final. C 374 E/194 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/227) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0972/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Aid from Community funds

Over 150 workers at ‘Lisnave Lisbon Naval Shipyards Ltd’ have been waiting for 15 years to be taken on again by this undertaking, having been forcibly dismissed a move which they have never accepted.

It is now reported that ‘Lisnave’ or ‘Gestnave Industrial Services Ltd’, the successor company, received aid from Community funds.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. What Community funds were allocated to these undertakings?

2. In allocating Community funds, was due attention paid to the need to maintain jobs?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2000)

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

(2000/C 374 E/228) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0976/00 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Continuation of the building projects in the Sintra-Cascais natural park in Portugal

In the answer to my Written Question E-1977/99 (1) Mrs Wallström stated that she had registered the cases notified by me and sought clarification from the Porguese authorities.

Is the Commission aware that the above building projects in particular in the Cabo Raso and Abano areas notwithstanding statements by the competent national authorities to the contrary are being continued and have already resulted in considerable damage to the natural park which is visible to all and to which the Portuguese media have repeatedly drawn attention?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 57.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

The two building projects in the Cabo Raso and Abano areas of the Sintra-Cascais park, which has been proposed as a site of Community importance by the Portuguese authorities, were registered as case No 1999/2275.

Having examined the case, the Commission wrote to the Portuguese authorities on 4 January 2000 to draw their attention to the obligations laid down in Directives 92/43/EEC (Habitats) (1) and 85/337/EEC (Impact Assessment) (2). At the same time, it asked them for their assessment of the situation. No reply has been forthcoming. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/195

At its meeting on 21 March 2000, taking the view that the projects were not being carried out in compliance with the above-mentioned Directives, the Commission decided to pursue the case under Article 226 (ex 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2000/C 374 E/229) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0977/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Situation of the European shipbuilding industry

During February and March a delegation from the European Commission met with the South Korean authorities to express once more the grave concern in the European shipbuilding sector regarding the well- documented unfair practices employed by this country, which have brought the industry to the brink of destruction.

Will the Commission explain which issues were discussed and why no agreement was reached?

Knowing the desperate situation of the sector, what action does the Commission intend to take next?

Given that this question does not just affect Europe, do the United States and Japan share the European Union’s concerns?

If South Korea maintains its inflexible position, does the Commission, with the support of the European shipbuilding industry, intend to take up the issue with the World Trade Organisation?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member in regard to the European shipbuilding industry.

In line with the Industry Council’s conclusions of 9 November 1999, the Commission has initiated a dialogue with Korea aiming to halt the unfair practices of Korean shipyards. The Commission has had three bilateral meetings, one in Paris in December 1999, the second in Seoul in February 2000 and the third in Brussels from 14 to 16 March 2000. The aim of the discussions was to obtain definite commitments from Korea with a view to stabilising the world shipbuilding market, which would help to bring prices up. To achieve this, Korea should undertake not to aid shipyards in difficulty and not to subsidise the sector either directly or indirectly. It should also make commitments to financial transparency and compliance with international accountancy standards.

On 29 March 2000 Korea sent ‘agreed minutes’ accepting the Commission’s proposals, with some exceptions. If an agreement is reached in the near future, the Commission together with the European industry and the Member States will check very carefully that Korea fulfils its commitments.

However, should Korea not deliver or if there are no tangible results on the market, the European industry has said that it will file a complaint with the Commission (under the Trade Barriers Regulation, i.e. Council Regulation No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community’s rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation) (1) against Korean subsidy practices. If the complaint provided sufficient evidence the Commission would be prepared C 374 E/196 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

to initiate an investigation. This could end up before the WTO Disputes Settlement Body, thus offering the Community the prospect of Korea’s practices being penalised.

The Commission is prepared to propose using all the trade policy instruments available to find a solution to the sector’s problems, consistent with its international obligations.

The shipbuilding industry in Japan, also affected by aggressive Korean competition, has noted the possibility of WTO action against Korea. The Japanese authorities have said that they will participate in any WTO proceedings initiated by the Community. The American industry has written to its authorities to demand trade action of this kind against Korea.

The Commission is paying particular attention to this issue and to the effects of unfair competition by Korean shipyards on the Community shipbuilding industry.

(1) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994.

(2000/C 374 E/230) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0978/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: T5 forms

Further to my previous question (P-2817/99) (1), will the Commission base its answer on the fact that responsibility remains with the exporter, whereas, after stamping, the form is in the possession of the authorities and, therefore, under their sole control.

Will the Commission take steps to ensure that responsibility for returning T5 forms is transferred to the authorities since they are in possession of the form?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 209.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

The Commission maintains that it is not necessary to transfer responsibility for returning T5 forms to the competent authorities since it is already legally their responsibility. As far as it is aware the situation described by the Honourable Member is not usual in one or more Member States.

If in a particular case it is found that the competent authorities have not fulfilled their obligation to return the original control copy T5, the exporter still has the option, as the Commission pointed out in its Answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-2817/99, to seek confirmation that the goods comply with their intended use or destination. As a last resort, exporters can exercise their rights, including through the courts, notably where a Member State may have failed to fulfil its Community obligations and particularly where they may have suffered injury as a result.

While it is not for the Commission to interfere in individual cases such as these, it will nonetheless remind Member States of their obligations in this matter with regard to general compliance with Community law. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/197

(2000/C 374 E/231) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0984/00 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Loi Evin Case

Commissioner Bolkestein has previously stated that the Loi Evin Case is being actively considered. Can he state who will be conducting these negotiations and does he undertake to report back to the Parliament on the outcome?

(2000/C 374 E/232) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0985/00 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Loi Evin Case

Commissioner Bolkestein has previously stated that the previous Commission decided that a non-statutory Code of Conduct is an appropriate means of dealing with National Legislation which infringes the single market. Will the Commissioner make the procès verbal of the meeting at which this decision was taken available to the Parliament?

(2000/C 374 E/233) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0986/00 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Loi Evin Case

Will Commissioner Bolkestein give an assurance that if these negotiations do not result in a solution which is compatible with the Treaty and which provides legal certainty to private interests, he will refer the matter to the European Court?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0984/00, E-0985/00 and E-0986/00 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

The Commission would reiterate that it is examining this case very carefully, not only because of the great concern in the Parliament but also because it is keen to ensure that the rules of the internal market are respected.

The Commission’s main objective in this case is to ensure that the extra-territorial effects of the Loi Evin are compatible with Article 49 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 59), namely that they are proportionate to the objective of protecting public health, an objective which the Commission fully supports. In this respect, the Commission is of the view that the 1995 Code of Conduct could in principle be an adequate means to ensure that the requirement of proportionality is satisfied. However, the Commission takes the view that the French authorities need to further improve the Code with a view to limiting its application to a limited number of well defined cases and to ensuring that it provides greater legal security and predictability for all parties, including organisers of sports events in other Member States. The Commission intends to discuss these points in the near future with the French authorities. When the Commission reaches a final decision on this case this decision will be made public according to the normal procedures and the Commission would, of course, be pleased to answer any further questions Honourable Members may have. C 374 E/198 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/234) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0990/00 by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission (31 March 2000)

Subject: MEDIA II: share-out of appropriations to participating countries

Since my Written Question E-0104/00 (1) has regrettably failed to elicit a proper answer, will the Commission now say how MEDIA II funding has been allocated to participating countries since the programme was launched? What amounts have the different Member States received in absolute and percentage terms, and why have those amounts been granted?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 178.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (15 May 2000)

A table setting out the financial aid granted to each country in the first four years of the MEDIA II programme (1996 1999) has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat-General of Parliament.

The table is accompanied by statistics relating to the share of the European market of each Member State and participating State in the MEDIA II programme. The statistics for the years 1998-1999 are provided by way of illustration and do not represent the final figures. Theyare expectedto be confirmed during the programme’s final evaluation. These data show how the funds are allocated under the MEDIA II programme in relation to the actual situation on the market.

Example: The Netherlands represents 1,8 % of total investment in film production in Europe, and 2,7 % of the European market in terms of cinema box office receipts. Between 1996 and 1999, this Member State received 5,45 % of the funds granted under the MEDIA II programme, including 3,5 % of the funds allocated to producers and 4,9 % of the support given to distributors. The proportion of funds allocated to Netherlands professionals was therefore higher than their actual representation on the European market, in terms of both production and market share.

Under the MEDIA II programme, the Commission selects the beneficiaries in accordance with the arrangements set out in Council Decisions 95/564/EC of 22 December 1995 on the implementation of a training programme for professionals in the European audiovisual programme industry (MEDIA II Training) (1) and 95/563/EC of 10 July 1995 on the implementation of a programme encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II Development and distribution) (1996- 2000) (1).

The projects which are co-financed by the Commission are chosen on the basis of quality and European added value, irrespective of their nationality or country of origin. The Commission and the MEDIA Committee lay down guidelines setting out the various eligibility and selection criteria that apply.

Lastly, a final report on the evaluation of the MEDIA II programme will be sent to Parliament once the programme finishes at the end of the year 2000.

(1) OJ L 321, 30.12.1995.

(2000/C 374 E/235) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0995/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (31 March 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety

In the annex to its White Paper on food safety (COM(1999) 719 final), the Commission indicates that it will present a proposal for a directive on fortified foods. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/199

Could the Commission explain:

1. On what basis the Scientific Committee for Food will define upper safe limits for vitamin and mineral intakes, and how the Commission will utilise these in defining maximum limits for food fortification in the Directive? 2. Whether the Directive will allow the use of those vitamins and minerals, which it has listed in the Directive on Dietary Foods for Special Medical Purposes (1999/21)?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

1. The Commission has given a mandate to the scientific committee for food (SCF) to review the upper levels of daily intakes of vitamins and minerals that are unlikely to pose a risk of adverse health effects. The SCF is responsible for ensuring that its review is consistent with the principles of scientific risk assessment.

The Commission intends to include in its proposal for a directive on fortified foods the principles and criteria to be taken into consideration for defining maximum limits for added vitamins and minerals. In view of the early stage of the preparation of the above proposal the Commission is not in a position to give details on these principles and criteria. One of these principles, for example, will be the basic principle of food law, namely that the products resulting from the addition of vitamins and minerals should be safe. Potential intakes from all food sources will also be one of the criteria that will have to be considered.

On the basis of the upper safe levels derived through scientific risk assessment by the SCF and applying the defined criteria and principles as part of risk management assessment, maximum limits of vitamins and minerals in the fortified foods will then be set.

2. Commission Directive 1999/21/EC of 25 March 1999 on dietary foods for special medical purposes (1) does indeed include a list of vitamins and minerals that should be present in these products. The SCF adopted on 12 May 1999 an opinion on nutritional substances that may be added to foods for particular nutritional uses. That report includes a list of vitamins and minerals similar to that included in Directive 1999/21/EC. These lists will serve as the basis for establishing the list of vitamins and minerals that may be added to fortified foods.

(1) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.

(2000/C 374 E/236) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1004/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Unlawful restriction of free movement of labour

In order to be approved as an authorised tourist guide in Italy, the following conditions must be satisfied:

Would-be guides must pass an Italian examination, which is not held on a regular basis; it may be up to 10-15 years before the next examination.

Part of the examination consists of a test in written Italian. The standards are very strict and many of the foreign guides fail this part of the examination. The guides speak fluent Italian but often do not write as well as the national guides. The written Italian requirement does not seem relevant as the guides often guide in their native language.

A passed examination only entitles the holder to practise in the town or region in which the examination was passed, which makes it impossible for guides to accompany groups on tours throughout the country.

Is it the Commission’s view that this form of examination and issuing of authorisations is consistent with Community rules on the free movement of labour? C 374 E/200 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2000)

The profession of tourist guide is subject in Italy to the possession of a qualification at the level indicated in Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (1). The Directive provides that nationals from one Member State have the right to exercise in another Member State a profession for which they are fully qualified in their Member State of origin. The host Member State can require the migrant to undergo an adaptation period or an aptitude test when there are substantial differences between the migrant’s education and training and the requirements in the host Member State.

Italy has implemented the Directive through a decree adopted in 1994 (‘Decreto Legislativo 2 maggio 1994, No 319’). This decree provides that recognition can be made subject to the accomplishment of an adaptation period or an aptitude test, at the option of the applicant, when there are substantial differences between the applicant’s training and the training laid down by national law. Applicants can assert their rights pursuant to this decree that appears in line with Community law.

As far as the Commission is aware, aptitude tests are regularly held for the applicants who have opted for this kind of compensatory measure. The test is in Italian, but it is aimed to assess the professional knowledge of the applicant on specific subjects necessary for the pursuit of the profession (i.e. archaeology or art history) and not linguistic skills. In any case, it is for the applicant to chose between the aptitude test and the adaptation period that does not involve a written examination.

As regards the geographical scope of the authorisations, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that under the Directive the applicant has the right to exercise the profession on the same conditions as those which apply to the host Member State nationals. That said, the authorisations granted to Italian nationals under the provisions governing entry to this profession in Italy are no broader than the authorisations granted to Community nationals under the recognition system, as they are valid only in the region issuing them. The extension of the authorisation to other regions is governed by internal law, which applies equally to all Community nationals. The particular local cultural and historical aspects inherent to this area of activity would seem capable of justifying specific regional provisions. Therefore, the Commission takes the view there is no clear infringement of Community law.

(1) OJ L 30, 9.2.1995 (as last modified).

(2000/C 374 E/237) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1021/00 by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Infringement of European legislation by the German and Belgian trotting federations

1. Can trotting horses which are regularly entered in the German Studbook be removed from the latter by the German Trotting Federation (HVT) because the period allowed for export within the EU has been exceeded by one month?

2. Can the Belgian and German Trotting Federations require the payment of import and export duties by their members for the temporary or permanent import or export of trotting horses within the EU?

3. Can the German Trotting Federation (HVT) refuse to allow breeding mares imported into Germany with a foal in order to obtain registration in Germany to be permanently exported to another EU Member State? 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/201

4. Can the German Trotting Federal require owners of trotting horses from another EU Member State to stable horses of German nationality in Germany for six months of the year?

5. Can the German Trotting Federation remove trotting horses from the German Studbook and races for failure to apply for an export document or for exceeding the period allowed for export within the EU?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the problems mentioned by the Honourable Member and has therefore launched an inquiry with the authorities concerned. The competent authority of one Member State already officially informed the Commission that they had requested the appropriate documentation from the organisation in question. The Commission will reply direct to the Honourable Member about these findings.

Community legislation with regard to equidae covers various aspects. The animal health conditions for movement and imports of equidae are laid down in Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 (1), and the veterinary certificate to be used in combination with the passport for registered equidae is laid down in Annex B of that Directive. Unless Member States apply the provisions of Article 6 of that Directive, an animal health certificate must be completed by an official veterinarian of the Member State of dispatch each time the animal is intended to be moved to another Member State, independently of whether this ‘export’ is permanent or temporary. This certificate is valid for a period of 10 days and may therefore be used for more than one ‘border crossing’ within this period.

The zootechnical and genealogical conditions for intra-Community trade in equidae are laid down in Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990. Based on this Directive, Commission Decision 92/353/ EEC of 11 June 1992 lays down the criteria for the approval or recognition of organizations and associations which maintain or establish stud-books for registered equidae (2). In accordance with this Decision, it is the responsibility of the Member States to approve the organizations and associations, in particular to avoid any discrimination of breeders. The criteria for entry and registration of equidae in stud-books for breeding purposes are laid down in Commission Decision 96/78/EC of 10 January 1996 (3).

Council Directive 90/428/EEC of 26 June 1990 on trade in equidae intended for competitions also lays down the conditions for participation therein.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990. (2) OJ L 192, 11.7.1992. (3) OJ L 19, 25.1.1996.

(2000/C 374 E/238) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1022/00 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Authority of the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia

According to the 6 March 2000 edition of the respected Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende, Mrs Beate Winkler, Director of the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, has just taken part in a multiethnic congress in Copenhagen.

At the congress, this EU official said that she and her Centre are monitoring and compiling statements by the Danish Folkeparti which, according to her information, is regarded as one of Europe’s extreme right- wing parties.

These statements are indefensible. The description ‘extreme right-wing party’ is absurd in reference to a social and liberal party and the issues which the Centre should be dealing with have nothing to do with the work or policies of the Danish Folkeparti. A left-wing Danish journalist who made similar statements in 1999 was sued and convicted in the Danish courts. C 374 E/202 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Mrs Beate Winkler’s statements give the impression that she has the authority to monitor, report on and reprimand Danish citizens and political parties because they hold views which her Centre deems to be incorrect. This is a serious infringement of Danish citizens’ democratic rights and it is of the greatest importance to establish whether the Commission takes the view that Mrs Winkler’s political activities are consistent with the EU Treaty and the tasks conferred on the Monitoring Centre.

In the Commission’s view, what authority do the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and its Director, Beate Winkler, have to criticise democratic political parties and political positions in a Member State?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2000)

The European monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia was established by Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 (1). The Regulation creates an independent body which, while being answerable to the Community institutions for the use of Community funds, has maximum autonomy in the performance of its tasks (recital 23).

The Regulation lays down the objectives of the centre as being to provide the Community and its Member States with objective, reliable and comparable data at European level on the phenomena of racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism in order to help them when they take measures or formulate courses of action within their respective spheres of competence; and to study the extent and development of the phenomena and manifestations of racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism, analyse their causes, consequences and effects and examine examples of good practice in dealing with them.

The Regulation also defines a number of tasks which the centre may carry out to reach those objectives. Those tasks include carrying out scientific research and surveys, preparatory studies and feasibility studies and formulating conclusions and opinions for the Community and its Member States.

It is evident in this context that the task of studying the development of racism and xenophobia involves a wide range of action which must necessarily include the declarations made by political parties. To this end, the Commission notes that the monitoring centre has supported and promoted the signature by political parties from across Europe of the Charter of political parties for a non-racist society, which commits the parties to avoiding language in their political platforms which could promote or legitimise racist and xenophobic attitudes.

(1) OJ L 151, 10.6.1997.

(2000/C 374 E/239) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1033/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Clause 19 of the UK Financial Services and Markets Bill

Under Clause 19 of the UK Financial Services and Markets Bill (available on the internet at http:/ www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldbills/032/2000032.htm), the UK is seeking to impose extra territorial jurisdiction over financial service providers operating outside the UK. This clause would allow the UK Government to regulate companies based in other Member States who are selling financial services on the UK market via the internet. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/203

Does the Commission believe that this clause contravenes single market legislation? In the Commission’s view, does this clause contravene the spirit of the EU’s single market legislation and/or the single market principle? Is Clause 19 likely to contravene the e-commerce directive (assuming it is enacted in accordance with the Council’s recent agreement on a common position)?

Does the approach of the UK Government undermine the home country/country of origin control principle of the single market?

If it is the view of the Commission that Clause 19 breaches any EU laws or principles, what action does it intend to take against the UK Government?

Has the Commission received any complaints from the public concerning Clause 19?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

The Commission is aware of the draft financial services and markets bill (FSMB).

The Commission is concerned to ensure that Clause 19, once it comes into force, is consistent with internal market principles and in particular, with the provisions in the draft Directive on a legal framework for e-commerce (1). The Commission and the British authorities are in contact to this effect.

The Commission has not received any official complaints concerning clause 19, which is not yet in force.

(1) COM(98) 586 final.

(2000/C 374 E/240) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1061/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Discrimination by a Member State between its own citizens

With reference to my priority written question to the Commission (P-0555/00) (1), the Commission did not, in my view, answer the question.

The Danish Government has put forward a draft law to amend Danish legislation on holidays. The problem is that this law discriminates between workers with a collective agreement and those without an agreement.

My question was whether, in the Commission’s view, it is consistent with the Treaties for a Member State to discriminate between its own citizens i.e. employees covered by a collective agreement as opposed to employees without a collective agreement so that those who are covered by a collective agreement are able to carry over days’ holiday to a new holiday year, while those not covered by an agreement are not offered that possibility?

Is it, in the Commission’s view, reasonable for a Member State to discriminate between its own citizens on the basis of whether they are covered by a collective agreement or not?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000. C 374 E/204 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (15 May 2000)

As the Commission indicated in its reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-0555/00 (1), the issue raised by the Honourable Member is the responsibility of the Danish authorities provided that Danish legislation, if amended, guarantees that Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (2) is respected.

From a general point of view, it may, however, be stated that legislation in Member States often differentiates between the rights and obligations of individuals on various grounds. However, provided that the differentiation is not made on grounds which violate Community law, the reasonableness of such provisions must be assessed at national level.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000. (2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(2000/C 374 E/241) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1063/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (4 April 2000)

Subject: The Id al-Kabir festival violation of EU directives and French legislation

The Commission is doubtless aware of the fact that the religious slaughter of sheep at the annual Id al-Kabir festival near Paris is brutal and illegal.

It is a blatant violation of French law and also of Council Directive 93/119 EC (1) which specifically forbids the religious slaughter of animals in the open air. To make matters worse, the animals are often appallingly treated before being slaughtered, which is a violation of Article 3 of Directive 93/119 EC.

1. Why has the Commission as the guardian of the European Treaties and legislation so far failed to act in this matter?

2. When does it intend to initiate proceedings against France for violating the Treaties (under Article 226) owing to its failure to implement Directive 93/119 EC?

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (11 May 2000)

Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Community legislation concerning the slaughter and killing of animals in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993, on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.

The Commission is informed about the treatment of animals during this event. The inadequate slaughterhouse capacity in certain urban areas of France appears to be one of the reasons for the observations made with regard to the treatment of animals during the festival.

The Commission considers that the French authorities must find a practical solution for the problem concerning slaughterhouse capacity. On the other hand, treatment of animals which causes suffering during restraint and slaughter is not acceptable.

The French authorities have been contacted concerning the need to improve the arrangements. On this occasion, reassurances were received prior to the festival that the French authorities were taking a wide range of measures including close contacts with the different Islamic religious and cultural groups to involve them more widely in discussions on this issue in order to improve the situation with the view to achieve better animal welfare and hygiene conditions. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/205

Now that the festival has passed a formal report is awaited from the French authorities, before the Commission takes, if necessary, further initiatives including the opening of proceedings under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(2000/C 374 E/242) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1066/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Microcredit

Microcredit is an organisation that loans small amounts of money (principally) to women so as to enable them to set up a business of their own with a view to their becoming financially independent.

Could the Commission please indicate what funds the EU has allocated for the expansion of Microcredit? Could it also stipulate what measures it has taken to ensure that the money does eventually reach those that are most in need of it?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 2000)

An indication of the funds allocated specifically to microcredit expansion, separately for example from the amounts devoted to training for candidate entrepreneurs, is unfortunately not available without extensive research through the intermediaries carrying out the programmes mentioned in the Member States.

However, a number of actions undertaken by the Commission involve the use and promotion of microcredit activities. Those actions are, in large measure, designed to facilitate the access to business start-up finance for small entrepreneurs without sufficient own resources or means of qualifying for access to finance on normal commercial terms, for example, from banks.

Some actions have been undertaken under the European social fund (ESF) programmes. For example, the pilot action local social capital under Article 6 of the ESF is currently experimenting in 31 different areas of the Community the use of small grants to support social cohesion and micro-firm creation projects. During the programming period 1994-1999, Community initiative Employment-NOW (New opportunities for women) has supported a great deal of projects favouring access to finance, particularly offering training. Around one third of its actions are directed towards business creation.

With a view to the mainstreaming of the local social capital pilot project, Regulation (EC) No 1262/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 21 June 1999 on the European social fund (1) has provided that a reasonable amount of the Fund appropriations within Objectives 1 and 3 shall be available in the form of small grants. In addition, the Regulation also provides that the Fund shall support activities to promoting entrepreneurship in general (Article 2.1.d) as well as improving women’s access to business start-ups (Article 2.1.e). Although the programming of the period 2000-2006 is not sufficiently advanced to provide concrete figures, it is very likely that there will be increased support for women entrepreneurs during that period.

It is important to note that the above actions have not been financed by direct transfer of funds from the Commission to the final beneficiary. The actions are co-financed by the Member States, and money is paid out through intermediaries at a local level. Community funds are transferred in full respect for the principle of subsidiarity, which constitutes a major element of financial security for this type of operation, where local detailed knowledge of the beneficiaries and their needs is crucial to ensure that assistance is well targeted and not misdirected.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. C 374 E/206 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/243) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1068/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Tuberculosis testing in bovine animals

The only test for bovine TB approved in the EU is the single intradermal comparative test as specified in Directive 64/432 (1), which is ‘herd specific’ as distinct from ‘animal specific’. Considerable work has been done on laboratory blood tests from TB, with the gamma-interferon test being the most promising of these. Would the Commission indicate when a blood test for TB in cattle is likely to be introduced and give details of the type of test most likely to be employed?

(1) OJ L 121, 29.7.1964, p. 1977-2012.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Annex B of Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra- Community trade in bovine animals and swine provides for the standards for the manufacture and use of bovine and avian tuberculins. According to Community legislation in force, the tuberculin skin test is the prescribed test. Also the manual of standards for diagnostic tests and vaccines of the Office international des epizooties (OIE) prescribes only the tuberculin skin test for international trade purposes.

Denmark, Germany, the Provinces of Bolzano and Trento in Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, and Sweden have successfully eradicated the disease by using the tuberculin skin test and are recognized as officially free Member States or regions in accordance with the Directive.

In accordance with Article 16 of that Directive the Commission, on the basis of an opinion of the scientific veterinary committee, shall update and if necessary amend Annex B to adapt it to scientific developments. In November 1999 the Commission received the final report of the scientific committee, which is also published on the web-site of the Directorate general for Health and consumer protection.

In this report the scientific veterinary committee confirms the tuberculin skin test as the prescribed test. However, it also refers to serological tests and the gamma-interferon test. With regard to the latter the report concludes, that ‘acceptance of this diagnostic assay as an official supplementary test procedure for tuberculosis should be encouraged to allow its use under local conditions in individual eradication schemes’.

The OIE recommends the gamma-interferon test only for animals that are difficult or dangerous to handle, such as vicious cattle or other bovidae.

The gamma-interferon test is so far accepted as an official test for use in Australia, New Zealand and the United States.

The Commission will review the technical annexes of Directive 64/432/EEC. However, this review requires further consultation with Member State experts from diagnostic laboratories and veterinary administrations. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/207

(2000/C 374 E/244) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1079/00 by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Professional recognition of dental technicians

In view of the professionalism required to practise as a dental technician and the fact that in many EU Member States such technicians have already been granted professional status, can the Commission say what steps the Italian Government has taken to recognise the profession of dental technician?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

The Commission has no information on the steps mentioned by the Honourable Member. Since the profession of dental technician has not, in fact, been subject to any Community harmonisation, the Member States alone remain responsible for granting official status to, and regulating, this profession (conditions governing training, access to and pursuit of the profession). Furthermore, Council Directives 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) and 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 (2) on the general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas, which can be applied to recognition among Member States of qualifications obtained by dental technicians, do not impose any obligations on the Commission to carry out detailed studies into all the professions to which these Directives may apply. In this context, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that the profession of dental technician (‘odontotecnico’) is already regulated in Italy, as it has been included for Italy in the list in Annex C of Directive 92/51/EEC.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. (2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2000/C 374 E/245) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1106/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: The Spanish Government’s failure to comply with Law No 31 of 8 November 1995 on the prevention of hazards at work

Council Directive 89/391/EEC (1) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work was transposed by the Spanish Government in Law No 31/95 of 8 November 1995 on the prevention of hazards at work.

One of the obligations laid down in the law is that the health committee of any firm with more than 100 employees should consist of four members appointed by the trade union and four others appointed by the authorities. However, the prison of A Lama, in Pontevedra, Galicia, which has more than 100 employees, does not comply with this requirement, since the health committee does not have any members appointed by the authorities, which adversely affects its efficiency. As a result the officials appointed by the trade union complained to the Director of the prison, the Director-General for Prisons, the Ministry for the Civil Service and the Ombudsman, without managing to obtain a solution to the problem.

In view of this failure to fulfil obligations, what steps will the Commission take to ensure Spanish central government’s compliance with laws such as the aforementioned Directive and remedy this current form of discrimination?

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1. C 374 E/208 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2000)

Articles 10 and 11 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (1) (Framework Directive) lay down rules on information, consultation and balanced participation of workers and/or their representatives in the field of safety and health at work in accordance with national laws and/practices.

In accordance with Article 4 of Directive 89/391/EEC, it is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure adequate controls and supervision of the national provisions implementing this Directive.

Consequently, any possible infringements of the national provisions implementing the Directive must be brought to the attention of the relevant Spanish authorities, i.e. the labour and social security inspectorate, which must organise and carry out the necessary inspections and checks to ensure proper application of these provisions.

Should the Commission receive specific information suggesting that the Spanish authorities have failed to monitor the application of the national provisions implementing Directive 89/391/EEC, it will take the necessary action.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(2000/C 374 E/246) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1176/00 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Nationality of key officials dealing with postal service liberalisation

Can the Commission confirm that:

the new director in charge of postal services in the internal market is Dutch;

the Commissioner’s special adviser for postal affairs is Dutch;

the chef de Cabinet of the Commissioner responsible for postal services liberalisation is Dutch;

the responsible Commissioner is Dutch;

the Dutch post office is the post office in Europe that most actively supports full liberalisation?

Does the Commission agree that public perceptions of this situation could undermine the credibility of its internal reform and in particular the ‘de-flagging’ of posts and policy sectors?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The answer to the Honourable Member’s questions is yes. In addition to this, it is worth mentioning that out of the team of six dealing with postal issues in the Directorate general for the internal market, two are French, one is German, one is British, one is Portuguese and the head of unit is Spanish. Furthermore, the deputy director general of the Directorate general for the internal market is Austrian and the director general British. Moreover, it should be noted that the Commission is in contact with all national regulators and with postal operators in various Member States. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/209

Finally as regards the policy of de-flagging of posts, the answer given above tends to show that there is no particular problem in this respect.

(2000/C 374 E/247) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1190/00 by Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Subject: European Social Funds

Under the current system of payment for the European Social Fund (ESF), voluntary and community sector projects receive a 50 % advance payment, followed by a further 30 % advance payment (when half of the first advance has been spent). The remaining 20 % is paid after submission of the final claim.

The new system proposed by the Department for Education and Employment will see an advance payment of only 10 % and then projects will have to submit claims in arrears (probably quarterly) to receive further payment. A balance of 20 % will still be withheld for remittance following the final claim.

Can the Commission clarify if it has the right and authority to intervene in the payment of European Social Funds at a national level if the Commission believes the funds are not being allocated in the most effective manner so as to benefit those organisations who deserve and require this funding to survive. It is estimated that at least 90-95 % of the organisations that at present receive ESF will, under the new system of payments, be closed due to lack of funds to support their programmes.

Would it be possible for the Commission to support the alternative payment system that is being put forward by the organisations involved?

They are proposing the ‘Scottish Model’ whereby:

Quarter 1: 30 % in advance;

Quarter 2: 25 % in advance, subject to satisfactory Quarter 1 returns;

Quarter 3: 25 % in advance, subject to satisfactory Quarter 2 returns;

Quarter 4: 20 % final payment in arrears, subject to satisfactory audit of all Quarters.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

The responsibility for fixing the detailed rules for the implementation of the European social fund (ESF) within a Member State lies with the managing authority of the programme. The programming documents adopted by the Commission will not contain information on, for example, the amounts to be paid by way of advances to project organisers. In these circumstances, the Commission cannot intervene in this matter.

However, the Department for Education and Employment has recently decided, following discussions within the United Kingdom, to increase the advance payment from 10 % to 30 % of the first year costs of the project for all organisations. The Commission welcomed this decision. C 374 E/210 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/248) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1221/00 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Subject: Transport of live animals use of approved staging points in Italy

Council Directive 91/628/EEC (1) (as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC (2)) on the protection of animals during transport lays down that animals must be unloaded and given 24 hours rest, food and water after travelling for 29 hours in the case of sheep and 24 hours in the case of pigs.

This obligatory unloading, feeding, watering and resting must take place at a staging point which has been approved by the Member State under Council Regulation No 1255/97 (3).

Many pigs, sheep and cattle are transported on long journeys to Italy from other Member States. Which approved Italian staging points are in practice used for the unloading, feeding, watering and resting of animals which enter northern Italy from other Member States and are then transported through Italy to southern Italy or Greece?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17. (2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52. (3) OJ L 174, 2.7.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 of 25 June 1997 concerning Community criteria for staging points and amending the route plan referred to in the Annex to Council Directive 91/628/EC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 on the protection of animals during transport provides (Article 3(1) that ‘Member States shall ensure that staging points are approved by the competent authority of the Member State in whose territory they are situated.’ The competence of the Commission is defined in paragraph 3 of the same article, which states that ‘The competent authority shall notify the Commission of the list of approved staging points and any updates. The Commission shall present this information to Member States in the framework of the Standing Veterinary Committee’.

Additionally, in order to increase the diffusion of this list to the public and in particular to non- governmental organisations such as transporters and animal protection organisations, the Commission has also made the staging point list available at the following Internet address: http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/dg6/vets/info/data/stagpt/stagpt.htm

Concerning the transport of animals to Greece or to Southern Italy, the last update of the list on 31 March 2000 mentioned seven staging points in Italy. The last staging point communicated by the Italian authorities is located in the province of Bari (Puglia region) which corresponds to the main route used for the transport of sheep to Greece. Another Italian staging point is situated in the province of Roma (Lazio region) on one of the main routes to Southern Italy.

The Commission is following with particular attention the development of the network of staging points within the territory of the Community.

(2000/C 374 E/249) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1223/00 by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Recognition of French teachers in Bavarian schools

In order to be recognised as a teacher at a school in Bavaria, a Frenchwoman trained as a high school teacher of German and French (CAPES diploma) and with 10 years’ teaching experience in a French school 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/211

must first of all gain a very high mark in the examinations leading to the award of the ‘Grosse Deutsche Sprachdiplom’ (advanced German language diploma) and then sit aptitude tests or take conversion courses if she fails to meet any of the requirements imposed under the examination regulations applicable to teachers.

1. What view does the Commission take of the ways (advanced German language diploma, aptitude tests, conversion courses) in which this teacher is required to prove her abilities in the light of the anti- discrimination laws applicable to EU citizens and the principle of the free movement of persons?

2. Whilst acknowledging that, pursuant to the subsidiarity principle, education is a matter for the Member State or their regions, will insistence on the above principles not mean that the requirements for recognition are made so stringent that it will to all intents and purposes be impossible for a teacher to practise his or her profession in another Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 2000)

The recognition of teaching qualifications is governed by Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years duration (1). This Directive provides that nationals from one Member State have the right to exercise in another Member State a profession for which they are fully qualified in their Member State of origin. The Directive does not harmonise the different training courses required in each Member State for access to the various professions. For this reason, Article 4 of the Directive provides that the host Member State can impose on the migrant a compensatory measure (i.e. an aptitude test or an adaptation period, the migrant may decide) when there are substantial differences between the migrant’s education and training and the requirements in the host Member State.

Accordingly, the Bavarian authorities have the right to impose on the holder of a teaching diploma awarded in another Member State the completion of an adaptation period or to take an aptitude test in order to make good a deficiency detected in his education and training in comparison to that required in Bavaria.

Language requirements, according to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (2), are compatible with Community law when they are justified by the nature of the post to be filled. The Court of justice has stated that a post of lecturer in public vocational education institutions is a post justifying the requirement of linguistic knowledge, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the above mentioned Regulation, provided that such a requirement is imposed in a proportionate and non-discriminatory manner (Judgment of 28 November 1989, Case C-379/87). The Commission considers that the Bavarian legislation does not infringe these principles, since it provides that the competent authority may accept other evidence, apart from the ‘Große Deutsche Sprachdiplom’, of the linguistic knowledge of the applicant. As far the Commission is aware, the Bavarian authorities require the ‘Große Deutsche Sprachdiplom’ only when the migrant cannot prove otherwise that he has the linguistic knowledge necessary to teach the specific subjects covered by the authorisation requested.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. (2) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(2000/C 374 E/250) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1234/00 by Karin Scheele (PSE) to the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Subject: The softener diethylhexyladepate in PVC

In the retail food trade in Austria, food items available for self-service, such as cheese in portions are generally wrapped in cling-film (which may be made from PVC) to keep them fresh. These PVC films C 374 E/212 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

contain the softener diethylhexyladepate, which is suspected of being dangerous to health. In some cases this softener is added to foodstuffs, particularly those with a high fat content.

Commission Directive 89/109/EEC of 21 December 1989 (1) (as amended by Dir. 95/3/EEC (2)), relating to materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs, sets a general limit value of 60 mg/kg. A study carried out by the Salzburg (Austria) food research institute showed, however, that this value was exceeded in 73 % of cases, sometimes by up to four times the acceptable daily intake.

1. Has the Commission recently carried out or ordered any studies on possible health risks of diethylhexyladepate, or has it any plans to do so in the near future? If studies already exist, what were the results of these studies?

2. Has the Commission considered the possibilities of banning PVC films (particularly those containing the softener diethylhexyladepate) as food packagings?

3. Is the Commission planning to prescribe a particular limit value for diethylhexyladepate? If so, what limit value does it propose?

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 38. (2) OJ L 41, 23.2.1995, p. 44.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

1. The Commission is aware of the problem of migration of plasticisers into fatty foodstuffs, and has therefore requested the advice of the scientific committee on food (SCF) on the toxicity of diethylhex- yladipate (DEHA). The SCF is the scientific committee which deals with all issues related to food contact materials. The SCF, in its session of 16 December 1994, established a tolerable daily intake (TDI) for this substance of 0,3 milligrammes per kilogramme body weight (mg/kg b.w). This means that a 60 kg person can tolerate daily during his lifetime a dietary exposure of 18 mg DEHA. Two studies were carried out by the Ministry of agriculture, food and fisheries (MAFF) of the United Kingdom to estimate the real exposure of the consumer, by taking into account the level of DEHA in the daily diet in the United Kingdom. Both surveys indicated that the estimated exposure of the consumer was lower (and in the second survey, substantially lower) than the tolerable value established by the SCF.

2. No. A ban on polyvinyl chloride (PVC) films (particularly those containing the softener diethylhex- yladipate), does not appear justified on the basis of the available scientific evidence at present. However, the Commission will continue to monitor developments in this area.

3. Yes. The Commission is preparing a new amendment of Commission Directive 90/128/EEC of 23 February 1990 relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs (1) to regulate the specific migration of DEHA. It is premature at this stage to indicate the future value of the specific migration limit. In fact, the consultation of the interested parties (Member States, enforcement laboratories, etc.) is not yet finished, and other statistical data are expected which may affect the estimation of the real exposure and the Commission position on this issue.

(1) OJ L 75, 21.3.1990. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/213

(2000/C 374 E/251) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1235/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Subject: Bristol Austria Dipl. Ing K. J. Madden v Pfeifer Ges.m.b.H.

‘Bristol Austria Dipl Ing K. J. Madden’ is a small company registered under the owner’s name: Mr Ken J Madden. This company is a consultancy for British companies wishing to export to Central Europe, and deals particularly with ‘Bristol Uniforms Ltd’, which supplies firebrigade uniforms to the Austrian firebrigade. Mr Madden’s company has a website address: ‘bristol-austria.com’.

An Austrian producer known as Pfeifer Ges.m.b.H. has insisted that Mr Madden’s company change its website address from ‘bristol-austria.com’ to something not including the word Austria. Mr Madden’s company has until 6 April to comply with this request or to defend the action. Yet the website address does not indicate that the company is anything other than a proprietorship.

Pfeifer is virtually a monopoly in Austria, being one of two Austrian producers of protective fire clothing. In 1997 they were sued by the Austrian Feuerwehrverband (Fire Brigade Association) for falsely using the registered logo of the Verband together with a subsidiary company name, and more recently have launched a new fire-coat onto the European market which BTTG (the UK’s premier test house) and two separate German test houses have found after extensive testing to be 32 % under the required standard.

Will the Commission look into this matter and determine whether or not Pfeifer Ges.m.b.H. has been acting illegally in trying to force Mr Madden’s company to change its website address?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

The Honourable Member’s question appears on the basis of the information submitted to relate to a domain name dispute under the.COM top level domain.

The registration of domain names within.COM is the responsibility of the company Network Solutions Inc. (NSI). The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has put in place a uniform dispute resolution procedure that may be applied to all trademark-related disputes arising from registration made in.COM.

Under the policy set by ICANN, most types of trademark-based domain-name disputes must be resolved by agreement, arbitration or court action, before a registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name (see http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm). Disputes which arise from abusive registrations of domain names (for example, cybersquatting) may be addressed by expedited administrative proceedings that the holder of the trademark rights initiates by filing a complaint with an approved dispute-resolution service provider.

The Commission is not competent to decide on such cases. It might be necessary for the Honourable Member’s constituent to seek legal advice from a specialist in this area.

(2000/C 374 E/252) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1255/00 by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Italian girl held in Kuwait City

Erica is thirteen years old and has an Italian mother and an Egyptian father. Since mid-January she has been sheltering in the Italian Embassy in Kuwait City, where she went of her own accord for help. The girl, C 374 E/214 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

whose father was awarded custody after her parents’ divorce, finds it intolerable to live with him in an Islamic environment in a country which blatantly violates many of the rights that European women consider inalienable. Erica is an Italian citizen and wants to return to Italy to live with her mother and younger sister. She is under the protection of the Italian authorities who are providing her with every assistance under Italian law. However, it is difficult to bring her out of the country and to re-unite her with her mother as she wishes, and as has been reiterated in a letter from the President of the Republic of Italy, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi.

What measures does the Commission intend to take so that its representative can help the Italian Embassy in its efforts to comply with Erica’s wishes and enable her to return to Europe to live with her mother?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

The Commission does not have a representation in Kuwait.

It was not informed of the case referred to by the Honourable Member, which is not covered by its mandate but falls within the competence of the Member States, specifically Italy in its bilateral relations with Kuwait.

The Commission relies on the authorities in Kuwait and Italy to solve the problem according to their laws and in the girl’s best interests.

(2000/C 374 E/253) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1268/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Euro-Arab Management School

The European Parliament’s resolution of 30 March 1984 (1) created a Euro-Arab University in Spain, as part of the Euro-Arab dialogue set up between the then European Economic Community and the Arab League.

Plans to create a Euro-Arab Management School in Granada were approved by the European Commission’s Mediterranean Committee on 21 September 1994.

The Euro-Mediterranean Conference held in Barcelona in November 1995 referred to the School and the important role it would play in the field of vocational training and education, making it of undoubted value as a regional cooperation project for the Mediterranean area.

In the 1999 budget Parliament adopted an appropriation of EUR 100 000 for the School (Item A-3119), which the Commission has still not disbursed, and a commitment of EUR 380 000. At the same time the Commission endowed the School with a redemption fund of EUR 6 million, of which only the interest payments may theoretically be used, but bureaucratic difficulties are preventing their use.

1. What are the reasons preventing the use of these funds?

2. Is the Commission aware that the economic difficulties described above may prevent the operation of this important project for Euro-Arab cooperation in a region vital to European interests, as pointed out in a number of Parliament’s resolutions and Commission and Council statements?

3. Does the Commission have the political will to provide the Euro-Arab Management School with the greatest possible cooperation and financial aid, since this is a project that will make a very positive impact on the exchange of experience and the training of business managers from the Arab world and Europe?

(1) OJ C 117, 30.4.1984, p. 165. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/215

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (16 May 2000)

Experts were commissioned to carry out a rehabilitation study of the initial objectives of the Euro-Arab Management School (EAMS) and its achievements to date.

The conclusions of this assessment show that there is a substantial difference between the initial objectives and what has been achieved.

At this stage the EAMS project is being evaluated carefully to work out the best plan of action for the School’s future.

The Commission is aware of the School’s financial difficulties and of the importance of the project and will do its best to judge objectively and make decisions in the best interests of all concerned.

(2000/C 374 E/254) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1291/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (19 April 2000)

Subject: Project for construction of a water purifying plant in Gondomar in the context of the integrated improvement project for the Ria de Vigo financed by the Cohesion Fund

The decision of the Commission to grant Cohesion Fund aid to the set of integrated clearance projects for the Ria de Vigo (Galicia) (Commission Decision 95/11/61/035) provides, in one of its paragraphs, for a specific action for integrated improvement for Gondomar and the river Miñor. This specific project was costed at ECU 4 836 036 in total. In the case of Gondomar, the first stage consists of the construction of a water purifying plant and a number of collectors; the construction work has terminated, but the plant is not yet officially in operation. The project has given rise to a major controversy in the local community, and has even been the subject of a complaint lodged with the regional ombudsman for Galicia: the plant has been built on privately-owned land belonging to a single proprietor, and the contract of sale was drawn up in a secret and irregular fashion. It further appears that the transaction has been highly profitable for the owner, who has now filed a request for the land to be reclassified with a view to using it for property development. In addition, the access road to the plant (linking the Ramallosa-Gondomar road to the parish of Dornas, in the municipality of Gondomar) runs through this person’s land and has not yet been completed: access to the plant is thus not at present possible.

Can the Commission call for an inquiry into these circumstances, as well as for the assessment and monitoring of this project, which has been suspended for some time and which appears to exhibit operational irregularities?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (7 June 2000)

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

(2000/C 374 E/255) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1302/00 by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission (12 April 2000)

Subject: Statement by the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council

Does the President of the Commission, in his capacity as a member of the European Council, agree with the statement made to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 3 April by Mr Philippe de Boissieu, Deputy Secretary-General of the Council, that the European Council never read the Presidency’s Conclu- sions and could not explain them? C 374 E/216 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Does he share Mr de Boissieu’s view that the European Council is not able to play an effective role in coordinating the general affairs of the Council?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2000)

It is Commission policy not to comment on the internal affairs of the other Community institutions.

(2000/C 374 E/256) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1323/00 by Alexandre Varaut (UEN) to the Commission

(17 April 2000)

Subject: Restrictions on televising in France of sporting events staged abroad

What is the Commission’s position regarding the complaints lodged in 1995 in particular by producers and dealers in French wines labelled appellation d’origine contrôlée, over restrictions on the televising in France of sporting events staged abroad, because of hoardings around the grounds advertising alcoholic beverages. This position of the French authorities is based on a restrictive interpretation of the (French) ‘loi Evin’ which bans all TV advertising and on a ‘code of good conduct’ (drawn up in March 1995) which formalised that interpretation.

1. Can the Commission contemplate closing the case, even though it has identified, in its reasoned opinion of July 1996, clear restrictions on freedom to provide services and even though France has shown no intention of modifying its position?

2. Can the continuation of discussions with the French authorities lead to a satisfactory solution when, contrary to the undertaking it gave in December 1998, it failed to consult the complainants and given that, since 1996, discussions have taken place time and again without any solution appearing?

3. Can the French authorities be said to respect the proportionality principle, when their approach (formalised in the ‘code of good conduct’) has the effect of allowing the televising of sporting events which count among those drawing the largest audiences, such as the World Cup or World Championships, of preventing medium-sized producers (wine producers) from advertising events which would be accessible to them and, in fact, of penalising drinks (wines) which are hardly consumed by young people at all?

4. In no way is the ‘code of good conduct’ binding on the authorities responsible in France for prosecuting the author of an infringement of the Evin law and, hence, of a criminal offence. How does the Commission intend, within the framework of discussions with France, to guarantee legal certainty under the conditions defined by the Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

The Commission is continuing its high-level contacts with the French authorities with the aim of finding a satisfactory solution, by mutual agreement, to the restrictions on the freedom to provide services which led to a reasoned opinion being issued in 1996. As part of these discussions, the Commissioner responsible for the internal market will soon be meeting the French ministers concerned. The outcome of the discussions will determine the future course of the current procedure. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/217

The Commission is convinced that solutions can still be found which will be satisfactory to everyone. In the coming discussions, it will emphasise the importance for the French authorities of consulting the interested parties, including the complainants.

The discussions are specifically aimed at finding proportionate responses which are consistent with Community law and the public health objectives of the regulations in question. The Commission is aware of the consequences of these regulations, particularly for medium-sized producers such as wine producers. The effects of the legislation will be at the heart of the discussions.

A code of conduct is likely to offer quick and satisfactory solutions to the problems, providing that certain conditions are met in terms of consulting the interested parties and in terms of content, transparency and dissemination. In order to maximise legal certainty, the Commission considers in particular that all interested parties (advertisers, broadcasters) should be able to obtain quick, clear and precise information from the French authorities regarding the status of any given sports event in relation to the distinctions made by the code.

(2000/C 374 E/257) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1339/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Employee consultation legislation

Does the Commission feel that the announcement made by Commercial Hydraulics Ultra Division on 6 March that their factory in Cheltenham (UK) would close with the loss of 252 jobs and that they would commence consultation after the announcement had been made, fits with the spirit of the law on employee consultation legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0883/00 (1).

(1) See page 178.

(2000/C 374 E/258) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1372/00 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 April 2000)

Subject: Proposal for a directive on food supplements

At present there is no harmonised legislation on food supplements in the European Union. This has serious and persistent effects on the free movement of such goods in the European Union.

In its White Paper on food safety, the Commission announced that it would submit a proposal for a directive on food supplements to the Council and Parliament in about March 2000. A harmonisation measure of this kind could solve the above problem.

How is the drafting of the proposal for a directive going, and when will the Commission submit it to the Council and Parliament? C 374 E/218 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.12.2000

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (26 May 2000)

The Proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive on food supplements which had been announced in paragraph 105 of the White Paper on Food Safety was adopted by the Commission on 8 May 2000. It will soon be transmitted to Council and Parliament, and published in the Official Journal.

(2000/C 374 E/259) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1378/00 by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (27 April 2000)

Subject: Asti-Cuneo motorway

The Italian government appears to intend to begin to work on the Asti-Cuneo motorway in the Piedmont region, on the basis of renewal of the concession granted to SATAP (Societá Autostrada Torino-Piacenza). This company will thus be responsible for both the Turin-Piacenza link and the Asti-Cuneo link. No call for tenders has been made. The government has also, by ministerial decree, approved 19 agreements made with concessionaires (in 19 separate ministerial decrees). The Italian Court of Auditors, which has unblocked seven of the 19 conventions between ANAS (the Italian national roads authority) and the 19 concessionaires, has not yet given an opinion on the extension of the concession to SATAP. However, in September 1999 the Counsellor-Delegate of the Court of Auditors responsible for monitoring ANAS wrote to the Italian government expressing the view that the concession granted by the government to SATAP in 1991 is not in conformity with the law, since it took the form of a private transaction, despite the fact that Directive 89/440/EEC (1), under which a public call for tenders is mandatory, was already in force.

Furthermore, in 1993 the Asti-Cuneo project was refused approval by the environmental impact assessment committee of the Italian environment ministry; this decision was reversed by the Italian cabinet, in votes in 1994 and 1999, on the basis of changes to the project which, however, entailed neither a fresh environmental impact assessment nor the republication of the project (which would have allowed the citizens affected by the proposed route to submit their comments).

In the specific case of the Asti-Cuneo link, an appeal is pending before the Administrative Tribunal of the Lazio region concerning the Massimimi-Cuneo stretch. In addition, a judicial inquiry is in progress into SATAP’s accounts, following 33 calls for legal investigation of alleged cases of accounting fraud by the company’s administrators.

In view of the above, does the Commission not consider that the extension of the motorway concession by the Italian government to SATAP, without a call for tenders, is contrary to Community law, and, in particular, to Directives 92/50/EEC (2), 93/36/EEC (3) and 93/37/EEC (4), and that this extension is undesir- able, given that several legal inquiries are under way into the Italian concessionaire’s affairs? Does the Commission not also consider that there should be an environmental impact assessment of the new project?

(1) OJ L 210, 21.7.1989. p. 1. (2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1. (3) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1. (4) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (29 May 2000)

The Commission intends to ask the Italian authorities for all the information needed to assess the compatibility with Community law of the contracts for the construction of the new stretch of the Asti- Cuneo motorway, and of the extension of the concession to the SATAP company, as raised by the Honourable Member. Should the examination of that information reveal that the procedures followed were incompatible with the above-mentioned Community law, the Commission could initiate infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. 28.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/219

It should, however, be pointed out that this question, and that of the other concessions referred to by the Honourable Member, must be viewed within the more general framework of the motorway concessions in all the Member States, which the Commission is currently studying. The Italian authorities have already provided the Commission with information on the general regulatory framework governing extensions of existing concessions. Under Ministerial Directive No 283 of 20 October 1998, existing concessions can be extended only if there is a financial settlement of the dispute deriving from the freezing of charges which entitles the concessionaires to a refund. In addition, under the same Ministerial Directive, any motorway concessionaire would be obliged by law, as well as by each individual agreement, to award all works contracts according to the Community award rules, and to award at least 40 % of the work to third parties. This information, and that from the other Member States, is currently being examined by the Commission with a view to devising a consistent approach to all motorway concessions, having regard to the major economic and social implications of the matter at stake.

As regards the environmental impact assessment, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not in a position to take a view on the subject matter. Should the modified Asti-Cuneo motorway project have been authorised in order substantially to comply with the criticisms made in the original environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure, it would not necessarily need to have been made the subject of a new EIA procedure. The Honourable Member is kindly requested to give more information on the matter in order to enable the Commission to assess the case.

(2000/C 374 E/260) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1415/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission (3 May 2000) Subject: Investigation regarding state aids to the ‘Crédit Mutuel’ To what extent is it possible to speak of state aids in the case of the French cooperative bank, ‘Crédit Mutuel’, since the bank in question raises funds and supports private savings and the sums concerned are allocated to general interest purposes as defined by the public authorities, such as local development and low-cost housing. Furthermore, Crédit Mutuel’ is required in return to comply with a number of specific additional requirements (notably restrictions on its network and field of operation). In the very few disputes concerning savings examined by the Commission, the solutions reached have never involved fines. Does the Commission not believe that in such cases emphasis should be placed on finding a fair and progressive solution to any dispute, since support for savings, particularly private saving, must be a major priority for Europe and indeed is recognised as such in most Member States?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (24 May 2000) The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to her oral question H-0386/00 during question time at Parliament’s Mai II 2000 part-session (1).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (May 2000).