WRITTEN QUESTION E-1714/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Climate subsidy for egg producers.
8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/11 Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 (3) which will replace Council Directive 88/166/EEC, and which provides that Member States may, while respecting the general rules laid down in the EC Treaty, maintain or apply within their territories provisions for the protection of laying hens which are more stringent than those envisaged by the Directive. It is clear that the aim of the Directive is to set up minimum standards for animal welfare and, therefore, Member States may go further if they wish provided that they respect the general rules laid down in the Treaty. This is in conformity with the judgement of the Court of justice of 19 October 1995, in case C-128/94, Hönig. It cannot be disputed that some aspects of enhanced animal welfare standards such as provisions of superior housing arrangements may influence production costs but actually, the protocol No 33 of the Amsterdam Treaty requires the Commission and Member States to consider animal welfare a priority when drawing up transport, single market and research policies. It does not therefore appear, on the basis of the information available, that the existing legislation which the Honourable Member has mentioned, infringes Community law applicable either to animal welfare or the common organisation of the agricultural market. (1) OJ L 270, 14. 12. 1970. (2) OJ L 74, 19. 3. 1988. (3) OJ L 203, 3. 8. 1999. (2000/C 225 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1714/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 September 1999) Subject: Climate subsidy for egg producers To offset the disadvantages of a cold climate and long distances, a special Norrland subsidy is paid to egg producers in northern Sweden. The subsidy is paid per hen. The EU has insisted that the subsidy be reduced on competition grounds. Is that a reasonable requirement given that production in the region is lower than consumption? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 November 1999) In accordance with Article 142 of the Act of Accession, the Commission has authorised Sweden to grant long-term national aid with a view to ensuring that agricultural activity is maintained in specific regions covering the agricultural areas located north of the 62nd Parallel and some adjacent regions affected by a comparable climatic conditions rendering agricultural activity particularly difficult. These aids are to be granted, in particular, to maintain traditional methods of primary production and processing, to facilitate the disposal of those products and to ensure that the environment is protected and the countryside preserved. These aids must not lead to an increase in production (physical limits) or in the level of overall support (monetary limits) recorded during a reference period previous to accession. The long-term national aids were not authorised on the basis of Articles 87 and 88 (ex-Articles 92 and 93) of the EC Treaty but in accordance with Article 142 of the Act of Accession. The Commission by its Decision No 97/557/EC of 17 July 1997 amending Decision 96/228/EC on a long- term national aid scheme to assist farmers in northern areas of Sweden (1), determined the Nordic areas of Sweden, fixed the reference period to be used to ensure that Nordic aid does not lead to an increase in production or in the level of overall support and also determined the form and level of the aid and fixed the level of the agricultural production that may not be exceeded without the level of aid granted being reduced. C 225 E/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 Sweden is implementing this decision by the so-called Norrland subsidy, which is a continuation of the aid regime in force before accession. Under this regime aid is granted per replaced laying hen. A national limitation is set so that the aid is granted only from 1,000 replaced hens per year onwards. The Commission decision defines the maximum aid rates and the maximum allowed production amounts, which are based on the reference period. When the national implementation is in line with the Commission decision, the only possible reduction requirement comes in the case where the total amount of production is exceeded. Then Article 4 of the decision requires that Sweden shall reduce the aid granted proportionally in the following year. The fundamental principle of the Article 142 is to maintain the traditional agricultural activity in northern regions and not to increase the production with the help of the aid. (1) OJ L 230, 21. 8. 1997. (2000/C 225 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1715/99 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 September 1999) Subject: Internet surveillance by American secret services Following on from Echelon, the Anglo-American system for monitoring communications between citizens, the NSA (National Security Agency) and the CIA, under the United States National Plan for Information System Protectioní drawn up by the National Security Council, are now able to monitor all information intruder detection and communication that takes place worldwide on the Internet, through a áfederal networkí (Fidnet). What measures does the Commission intend to take to protect the privacy of Union citizens and businesses against this new attack on individual and commercial freedom? Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (10 November 1999) On 24 October 1995 the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1). On 15 December 1997 the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 97/66/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (2). The deadline for implementing these Directives expired on 24 October 1998. Both Directives aim to ensure the rights and freedoms of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data, and in particular their right to privacy. These directives are obviously relevant to the matters raised in the Honourable Memberís written question. The scope of the Directives is naturally limited to the issues which come within the framework of the EC Treaty and both Directives allow exemptions in order to safeguard particular interests such as public security or the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences. Any citizen who feels that his or her privacy is prejudiced can either complain to the national supervisory data protection authorities or make submissions to a national court. The question of alleged interception for national security reasons falls outside the competence of the Commission as defined by the EC Treaty. In this respect, the Honourable Member is referred to the answers provided by the Commission to written question E-1039/98 by Mrs Van Dijk (3), E-1040/98 by Mrs Van Dijk (4), E-1306/98 by Mrs Muscardini and others (5), E-1429 by Mrs Raschhofer (6), E-1776/98 by Mr Manisco (7), E-1987/98 by Mr Kaklamanis (8), H-1067/98 by Mrs McKenna during question time at