ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C31 Volume 42 of the European Communities 5 February 1999
English edition Information and Notices
I Information
European Parliament
Written Questions with answer
(1999/C 31/001) E-2691/97 by James Provan to the Commission Subject: Use of European Regional Development Funds in Sobral, Portugal (Supplementary Answer) ...... 1
(1999/C 31/002) E-0222/98 by Markus Ferber to the Commission Subject: EU aid from the social and regional funds for Bavarian Swabia (Supplementary Answer) ...... 1
(1999/C 31/003) E-0246/98 by Thomas Mann to the Commission Subject: Discriminatory tax legislation in the EU ...... 3
(1999/C 31/004) E-0681/98 by Florus Wijsenbeek to the Commission Subject: Cabotage in Italy ...... 3
(1999/C 31/005) E-0721/98 by Amedeo Amadeo and Salvatore Tatarella to the Commission Subject: Statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States ...... 4
(1999/C 31/006) E-0825/98 by Kirsten Jensen to the Commission Subject: PVC ...... 5
(1999/C 31/007) E-0846/98 by Klaus Rehder to the Commission Subject: Support by the Commission for European schools competitions ...... 6
(1999/C 31/008) P-0890/98 by Patricia McKenna to the Commission Subject: Refusal by the Irish airline Ryanair to recognize trade unions (Supplementary Answer) ...... 6
(1999/C 31/009) E-0916/98 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Tree-felling in contravention of Community legislation in Konikallio, near Forssa (Finland) ...... 7
(1999/C 31/010) E-0920/98 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the Commission Subject: EU standard for listeria ...... 8
(1999/C 31/011) E-0966/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the Commission Subject: Small and medium-sized tourist undertakings and the euro ...... 9 EN Price: EUR 34,50 (Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents (continued) Page (1999/C 31/012) E-0991/98 by Pieter Dankert and Jan Mulder to the Commission Subject: Conciliation Body for agricultural expenditure ...... 10 (1999/C 31/013) P-1006/98 by Corrado Augias to the Commission Subject: European Information Centres ...... 11 (1999/C 31/014) E-1034/98 by David Bowe to the Commission Subject: Shipment of waste to certain non-OECD countries ...... 12 (1999/C 31/015) E-1055/98 by Giacomo Santini, Claudio Azzolini and Umberto Scapagnini to the Com- mission Subject: Encouraging the non-food use of agricultural products ...... 12 (1999/C 31/016) E-1060/98 by Elisabeth Schroedter to the Commission Subject: Unjustified subsidization of the power station at Frankfurt an der Oder to encourage the use of domestic brown coal ...... 14 (1999/C 31/017) E-1072/98 by Raimo Ilaskivi to the Commission Subject: Certification of mould damage inspectors ...... 15 (1999/C 31/018) E-1088/98 by Klaus Lukas to the Commission Subject: Contributions ...... 16 (1999/C 31/019) E-1100/98 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: External evaluation of the European Training Foundation ...... 17 (1999/C 31/020) E-1112/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: EU import ban on beef ...... 18 (1999/C 31/021) E-1130/98 by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra to the Commission Subject: Human rights in China ...... 19 (1999/C 31/022) E-1132/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso to the Commission Subject: Drift gill nets ...... 19 (1999/C 31/023) E-1175/98 by Ulf Holm to the Commission Subject: Transport of animals ...... 20 (1999/C 31/024) E-1187/98 by Richard Corbett to the Commission Subject: Effect of US bank holidays on intra-EU bank transfers ...... 21 (1999/C 31/025) E-1190/98 by John Cushnahan to the Commission Subject: Internet gambling ...... 21 (1999/C 31/026) E-1192/98 by Stephen Hughes to the Commission Subject: Agricultural surpluses in the European Community ...... 22 (1999/C 31/027) E-1196/98 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Legislative proposal concerning forestry policy ...... 22 (1999/C 31/028) E-1198/98 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Forestry aid programmes ...... 23 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1196/98 and E-1198/98 ...... 23 (1999/C 31/029) E-1224/98 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Further information on the subway and high-speed tramway and application of Directive 85/337/EEC in Italy ...... 23 (1999/C 31/030) E-1226/98 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Insurance agencies in Italy ...... 24 (1999/C 31/031) E-1238/98 by Allan Macartney to the Commission Subject: Proposed Rural Development Regulation ...... 25 (1999/C 31/032) P-1241/98 by Esko Seppänen to the Commission Subject: Saving the cultural heritage of Europe ...... 26 (1999/C 31/033) E-1251/98 by Odile Leperre-Verrier to the Commission Subject: Food aid in the EU (Supplementary Answer) ...... 27 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page
(1999/C 31/034) E-1264/98 by Ernesto Caccavale to the Commission Subject: Recovery and protection of remaining Italian varieties of hemp ...... 28
(1999/C 31/035) E-1265/98 by Ernesto Caccavale to the Commission Subject: Discriminatory reduction in Community funds for fibre hemp-growing ...... 29
(1999/C 31/036) E-1266/98 by Ernesto Caccavale to the Commission Subject: Legal confusion regarding fibre hemp-growing ...... 30
(1999/C 31/037) E-1291/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz to the Commission Subject: EU funds for the construction of a road through the planned Monte Epomeo nature reserve on Ischia . . 31
(1999/C 31/038) E-1298/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: EU-South Africa fisheries agreement ...... 32
(1999/C 31/039) E-1309/98 by Laura González Álvarez and Pedro Marset Campos to the Commission Subject: Applications by Spanish ‘Ingenieros Técnicos’ ...... 32
(1999/C 31/040) E-1315/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the Commission Subject: EURO 1999 ...... 33
(1999/C 31/041) E-1316/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the Commission Subject: EURO 1999 ...... 34
(1999/C 31/042) P-1326/98 by Rolf Berend to the Commission Subject: Mutual recognition of teaching diplomas in the EU ...... 34
(1999/C 31/043) E-1340/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the Commission Subject: The euro and 1999 ...... 35
(1999/C 31/044) E-1356/98 by Allan Macartney to the Commission Subject: Proposed USDA standards for organic foods ...... 36
(1999/C 31/045) E-1381/98 by Pervenche Berès to the Commission Subject: Revision of Directives 92/46/EEC and 92/47/EEC ...... 37
(1999/C 31/046) E-1391/98 by Richard Howitt to the Council Subject: High-Level Disability Group ...... 38
(1999/C 31/047) E-1398/98 by José Apolinário to the Commission Subject: Agriculture ...... 38
(1999/C 31/048) E-1410/98 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Opening of a quarry in Pieria ...... 39
(1999/C 31/049) E-1533/98 by Panayotis Lambrias to the Commission Subject: Destruction of ‘Nature 2000’ biotope at Pieria ...... 39
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1410/98 and E-1533/98 ...... 40
(1999/C 31/050) E-1456/98 by Felipe Camisón Asensio to the Commission Subject: Hop-growing in the province of Leon (Spain) ...... 40
(1999/C 31/051) E-1461/98 by Honório Novo to the Commission Subject: Additional information concerning the EPAC restructuring and financial reorganization plan ...... 41
(1999/C 31/052) E-1471/98 by Susan Waddington to the Commission Subject: EU assistance to NGOs working with street children in Honduras ...... 41
(1999/C 31/053) E-1495/98 by Heinz Kindermann, Jan Mulder, Jan Sonneveld and Robert Sturdy to the Commission Subject: Availability of equine medicines ...... 42
(1999/C 31/054) E-1537/98 by Caroline Jackson to the Commission Subject: Equine medicines ...... 43
(1999/C 31/055) E-1725/98 by Graham Mather to the Commission Subject: Marketing authorization for veterinary medicinal products used for horses ...... 43 EN (Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents (continued) Page
(1999/C 31/056) E-1921/98 by Lutz Goepel to the Commission Subject: Use of medicinal products for horses used for sport ...... 43
(1999/C 31/057) E-1948/98 by Liam Hyland to the Commission Subject: EU regulations on equine medicines ...... 44 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1495/98, E-1537/98, E-1725/98, E-1921/98 and E - 1948/98 ...... 44 (1999/C 31/058) E-1499/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion ...... 45
(1999/C 31/059) E-1503/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion ...... 45 (1999/C 31/060) E-1506/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion ...... 46
(1999/C 31/061) E-1507/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion ...... 46 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1499/98, E-1503/98, E-1506/98 and E-1507/98 . . . 46 (1999/C 31/062) E-1500/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion ...... 47
(1999/C 31/063) E-1502/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion ...... 47 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1500/98 and E-1502/98 ...... 48
(1999/C 31/064) E-1505/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion ...... 48 (1999/C 31/065) E-1509/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion ...... 49 (1999/C 31/066) E-1516/98 by Helena Torres Marques to the Commission Subject: Euro campaign and women ...... 50 (1999/C 31/067) P-1524/98 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the Commission Subject: The environmental impact of PVC and the proposal for a Council Directive on end- of-life vehicles . . . 51 (1999/C 31/068) E-1540/98 by Phillip Whitehead to the Commission Subject: Antibiotics ...... 52
(1999/C 31/069) E-1542/98 by Gianni Tamino to the Commission Subject: Crucifixion of a dove at Whitsun ceremony in Orvieto ...... 53 (1999/C 31/070) E-1544/98 by Amedeo Amadeo to the Commission Subject: Zoonoses ...... 54
(1999/C 31/071) E-1545/98 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Promotion of plants and flowers ...... 55 (1999/C 31/072) E-1548/98 by Doeke Eisma to the Commission Subject: Nuclear waste transported to Scotland from Georgia ...... 55 (1999/C 31/073) E-1552/98 by Rainer Wieland to the Commission Subject: Motor-vehicle number-plate requirement ...... 56 (1999/C 31/074) E-1566/98 by Marie-Thérèse Mutin to the Commission Subject: Recognition of the training and status of French psychiatric nurses ...... 57 (1999/C 31/075) E-1568/98 by Andrea Manzella to the Commission Subject: Assassination of Bishop Juan Gerardi ...... 58
(1999/C 31/076) E-1577/98 by Robin Teverson to the Council Subject: Funding for the elderly ...... 58 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page
(1999/C 31/077) E-1601/98 by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas to the Commission Subject: Protection of laying hens ...... 59 (1999/C 31/078) E-1604/98 by Ernesto Caccavale to the Commission Subject: Infringement of the principle of transparency of Community acts ...... 59 (1999/C 31/079) E-1610/98 by Susan Waddington to the Commission Subject: Impact of GATT/WTO on animal protection ...... 61 (1999/C 31/080) E-1623/98 by Amedeo Amadeo to the Commission Subject: Fifth framework programme for RTDD (budget for implementation) ...... 61 (1999/C 31/081) E-1624/98 by Amedeo Amadeo to the Commission Subject: Fifth framework programme for RTDD (budget for implementation) ...... 62 (1999/C 31/082) E-1625/98 by Amedeo Amadeo to the Commission Subject: Fifth framework programme for RTDD (budget for implementation) ...... 62 (1999/C 31/083) E-1626/98 by Amedeo Amadeo to the Commission Subject: Fifth framework programme for RTDD (budget for implementation) ...... 62 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1623/98, E-1624/98, E-1625/98 and E-1626/98 . . . 63 (1999/C 31/084) E-1628/98 by Amedeo Amadeo to the Commission Subject: Twenty-sixth report on competition policy ...... 63 (1999/C 31/085) E-1631/98 by Amedeo Amadeo to the Commission Subject: Annual Report of the Cohesion Fund (1996) ...... 64 (1999/C 31/086) P-1657/98 by Stéphane Buffetaut to the Commission Subject: Compulsory bottling in the region of production ...... 65 (1999/C 31/087) P-1658/98 by Edouard des Places to the Commission Subject: Powers of interprofessional bodies regarding management of markets ...... 66 (1999/C 31/088) E-1661/98 by Rainer Wieland to the Commission Subject: Subsidies for the Stuttgart region and for Germany (Supplementary Answer) ...... 67 (1999/C 31/089) E-1667/98 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the Commission Subject: Compatibility of the criteria for aid under the Commission’s milk programme with Article 129 . . . . . 68 (1999/C 31/090) E-1685/98 by Kirsi Piha to the Commission Subject: Monitoring of the EMU information fund ...... 68 (1999/C 31/091) E-1686/98 by Kirsi Piha to the Commission Subject: Position of business organizations in social dialogue ...... 69 (1999/C 31/092) E-1687/98 by Kirsi Piha to the Commission Subject: Substance of enlargement negotiations ...... 70 (1999/C 31/093) E-1688/98 by Kirsi Piha to the Commission Subject: Substance of enlargement negotiations ...... 70 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1687/98 and E-1688/98 ...... 70 (1999/C 31/094) E-1706/98 by Stéphane Buffetaut to the Commission Subject: Joint-trade organizations and restriction of competition ...... 70 (1999/C 31/095) E-1708/98 by Edouard des Places to the Commission Subject: Official symbols and logos for AOCs and IGPs ...... 71 (1999/C 31/096) E-1709/98 by Edouard des Places to the Commission Subject: Packing and bottling in the region of production ...... 72 (1999/C 31/097) E-1710/98 by Edouard des Places to the Commission Subject: Packing and bottling in the region of production ...... 73 (1999/C 31/098) E-1715/98 by Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: Infringement proceedings brought by the European Union against Italy concerning the sale of the Rome Milk Centre ...... 73 EN (Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents (continued) Page
(1999/C 31/099) E-1716/98 by Florus Wijsenbeek to the Commission Subject: Long distance rail links ...... 74
(1999/C 31/100) E-1721/98 by Pervenche Berès to the Commission Subject: Limits on noise emitted by airports in the European Union: closure at night ...... 75
(1999/C 31/101) P-1738/98 by Joan Colom i Naval to the Commission Subject: Report on the COM in olive oil ...... 75
(1999/C 31/102) P-1746/98 by Dominique Souchet to the Commission Subject: Driftnets and Special Fishing Permits ...... 76
(1999/C 31/103) E-1748/98 by Jannis Sakellariou to the Commission Subject: Illegal supply of temporary labour ...... 77
(1999/C 31/104) E-1751/98 by Anita Pollack to the Commission Subject: CAP reform and job creation ...... 77
(1999/C 31/105) P-1760/98 by Paul Lannoye to the Commission Subject: ERDF financing of the EMAHL (Liège Art and History Museum Grouping) project ...... 78
(1999/C 31/106) P-1761/98 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Liquid biofuels ...... 79
(1999/C 31/107) E-1778/98 by Reimer Böge to the Commission Subject: Analytical studies and cooperation on Agenda 2000 ...... 80
(1999/C 31/108) E-1782/98 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Operational programmes (Interreg II) ...... 81
(1999/C 31/109) E-1799/98 by José Barros Moura to the Commission Subject: Financing of Spain’s water supply scheme from Community funds ...... 82
(1999/C 31/110) E-1800/98 by Friedhelm Frischenschlager to the Commission Subject: Export premiums − transport of live animals ...... 83
(1999/C 31/111) E-1807/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Operation of European Studies Centres in Greece ...... 84
(1999/C 31/112) E-1946/98 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: European Language Centres ...... 84
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1807/98 and E-1946/98 ...... 84
(1999/C 31/113) E-1809/98 by Peter Truscott to the Commission Subject: Structural Fund ...... 85
(1999/C 31/114) E-1810/98 by Peter Truscott to the Commission Subject: Structural Fund ...... 85
(1999/C 31/115) P-1821/98 by Doeke Eisma to the Commission Subject: Ban on use of silicone breast implants ...... 86
(1999/C 31/116) E-1829/98 by Klaus Rehder to the Commission Subject: Cultivation of hemp ...... 86
(1999/C 31/117) E-1831/98 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Structural support in Austria ...... 87
(1999/C 31/118) E-1836/98 by Felipe Camisón Asensio to the Commission Subject: Subsidies for tobacco growers ...... 88
(1999/C 31/119) E-1850/98 by Carlos Pimenta to the Commission Subject: Financial support granted in connection with the closing down of the Chernobyl plant and for the completion of the K2 and R4 reactors in Ukraine ...... 89
(1999/C 31/120) E-1851/98 by Graham Mather to the Commission Subject: Barriers to the single market in cars ...... 90 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page
(1999/C 31/121) E-1868/98 by Ernesto Caccavale to the Commission Subject: Apparent illegality of the ban imposed by Campania on private consortia receiving Community funding 91
(1999/C 31/122) E-1869/98 by Luigi Caligaris and Eolo Parodi to the Commission Subject: Construction of the Lyon-Turin-Milan-Venice-Trieste link and connection to the port of Genoa . . . . . 92
(1999/C 31/123) P-1871/98 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Commission Subject: Action plan for the introduction of advanced television services in Europe ...... 93
(1999/C 31/124) E-1877/98 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Agri-environmental measures in Ireland ...... 93
(1999/C 31/125) E-1878/98 by Bernie Malone to the Commission Subject: Zero VAT-rate for phosphate-free fertilizers ...... 94
(1999/C 31/126) E-1885/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the Commission Subject: Convergence report ...... 94
(1999/C 31/127) E-1886/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the Commission Subject: Convergence report ...... 95
(1999/C 31/128) E-1887/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the Commission Subject: Convergence report ...... 95
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1885/98, E-1886/98 and E-1887/98 ...... 95
(1999/C 31/129) E-1888/98 by Gianni Tamino, Fausto Bertinotti, Carlos Carnero González, Luciana Castellina, Lucio Manisco, Luciano Pettinari, Luciano Vecchi and Luigi Vinci to the Commission Subject: Human rights in Mexico ...... 96
(1999/C 31/130) P-1890/98 by Vincenzo Viola to the Commission Subject: Importation into Sicily of lemons from outside the Community ...... 97
(1999/C 31/131) P-1892/98 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti to the Commission Subject: System for the award of licences under the new COM in bananas ...... 98
(1999/C 31/132) E-1897/98 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Pollution of the town of Chania through the expansion of an electricity plant ...... 98
(1999/C 31/133) E-1899/98 by Clive Needle to the Commission Subject: Purchase of duty-free goods after 1999 ...... 99
(1999/C 31/134) E-1909/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Powers of the Commission for the coordination of EU policy on economic and social cohesion and regional planning ...... 100
(1999/C 31/135) E-1920/98 by Lutz Goepel to the Commission Subject: Registration of horses ...... 100
(1999/C 31/136) E-1928/98 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Aid for businesses in the earthquake-hit areas of the Umbria and Marche regions ...... 101
(1999/C 31/137) P-1940/98 by Wilfried Telkämper to the Commission Subject: Joint declaration on EU-New Zealand relations ...... 102
(1999/C 31/138) E-1949/98 by Anita Pollack to the Commission Subject: WTO ...... 102
(1999/C 31/139) E-1952/98 by Anita Pollack to the Commission Subject: Tropical forest budget line ...... 103
(1999/C 31/140) E-1953/98 by Anita Pollack to the Commission Subject: European patent application for meningitis bacteria ...... 104
(1999/C 31/141) E-1960/98 by Antonio Tajani and Claudio Azzolini to the Commission Subject: Freedom of education ...... 104 EN (Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents (continued) Page
(1999/C 31/142) E-1963/98 by Joaquim Miranda to the Commission Subject: Trans-European high-speed network ...... 105
(1999/C 31/143) E-1966/98 by Ursula Stenzel to the Commission Subject: Education programmes ...... 105
(1999/C 31/144) E-1968/98 by Kenneth Coates to the Commission Subject: Control of major accident hazards ...... 106
(1999/C 31/145) E-1970/98 by Ernesto Caccavale to the Commission Subject: Serious irregularities in Commission competition procedures ...... 107
(1999/C 31/146) P-1972/98 by Antonio Trizza to the Commission Subject: Italian bill on the marketing of virgin and extra-virgin olive oil ...... 107
(1999/C 31/147) E-1975/98 by Kenneth Coates to the Commission Subject: Discriminatory charging for higher education ...... 108
(1999/C 31/148) E-1976/98 by Graham Mather to the Commission Subject: Reduced rats of VAT under the Sixth VAT Directive ...... 109
(1999/C 31/149) E-1978/98 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Radioactive waste disposal in Italy ...... 110
(1999/C 31/150) E-1997/98 by Mark Watts to the Commission Subject: Passenger listing ...... 110
(1999/C 31/151) E-2008/98 by María Sornosa Martínez to the Commission Subject: Infringement of the principle of equal access to employment in the fisheries industry in Albufera de Valencia ...... 111
(1999/C 31/152) E-2015/98 by José Apolinário to the Commission Subject: Support for the creation of an energy agency in the Algarve region ...... 112
(1999/C 31/153) E-2020/98 by Edith Müller to the Commission Subject: Democracy and Civil Society Awards ...... 112
(1999/C 31/154) E-2025/98 by Gunilla Carlsson to the Commission Subject: Commercial imports of used cars ...... 113
(1999/C 31/155) E-2037/98 by Klaus Hänsch to the Commission Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann, North Rhine- Westphalia (Supplementary Answer) ...... 114
(1999/C 31/156) E-2038/98 by Klaus Hänsch to the Commission Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the city of Oberhausen, North Rhine-Westphalia (Supplementary Answer) 114
(1999/C 31/157) E-2039/98 by Klaus Hänsch to the Commission Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the city of Wuppertal, North Rhine-Westphalia (Supplementary Answer) . 115
(1999/C 31/158) E-2040/98 by Klaus Hänsch to the Commission Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the city of Remscheid, North Rhine-Westphalia (Supplementary Answer) 115
(1999/C 31/159) E-2041/98 by Klaus Hänsch to the Commission Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the city of Solingen, North Rhine-Westphalia (Supplementary Answer) . . 116
(1999/C 31/160) E-2044/98 by James Moorhouse to the Commission Subject: Trade agreement between the EU and Mexico ...... 116
(1999/C 31/161) E-2045/98 by James Moorhouse to the Commission Subject: Human rights violations in Mexico − Chiapas massacre ...... 116
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2044/98 and E-2045/98 ...... 117
(1999/C 31/162) E-2049/98 by Jan Sonneveld and Petrus Cornelissen to the Commission Subject: Imports of third country citrus fruits into Italy and Greece ...... 117 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page
(1999/C 31/163) E-2065/98 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Reform of fine arts academies to convert them into higher education institutes ...... 118
(1999/C 31/164) E-2341/98 by Fiorella Ghilardotti, Ombretta Colli, Cristiana Muscardini, Maria Colombo Svevo, Carlo Secchi, Guido Podestà, Marco Formentini, Claudio Azzolini, Monica Baldi, Umberto Scapagnini, Pasqualina Napoletano, Biagio De Giovanni and Luciano Vecchi to the Commission Subject: Reform of the Academies of Fine Art in Italy and recognition at European level of the diplomas they award 118
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2065/98 and E-2341/98 ...... 119
(1999/C 31/165) E-2073/98 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Non-ionizing radiation in the communes of Orte and Gallese ...... 119
(1999/C 31/166) E-2074/98 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Restricted access to commercial buildings ...... 120
(1999/C 31/167) P-2080/98 by David Thomas to the Commission Subject: Residue testing on poultrymeat ...... 121
(1999/C 31/168) E-2081/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: The URBAN programme in Greece ...... 122
(1999/C 31/169) E-2092/98 by Doeke Eisma to the Commission Subject: Upsurge in computer-related repetitive strain injury (RSI) ...... 122
(1999/C 31/170) E-2108/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Reopening of centre for rehabilitation of torture victims in Turkey ...... 123
(1999/C 31/171) E-2111/98 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: EC milk subsidy for schools ...... 123
(1999/C 31/172) E-2130/98 by Felipe Camisón Asensio to the Commission Subject: Implementation of the Ecos-Ouverture programme in Extremadura ...... 124
(1999/C 31/173) E-2131/98 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Abolition of duty-free sales ...... 125
(1999/C 31/174) P-2135/98 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Searches of the premises of Austrian banks ...... 125
(1999/C 31/175) E-2150/98 by Irene Soltwedel-Schäfer to the Commission Subject: Child labour and protection of young people ...... 126
(1999/C 31/176) E-2157/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Long delays affecting the payment of pension entitlements ...... 127
(1999/C 31/177) E-2159/98 by Katerina Daskalaki to the Commission Subject: Danger facing the oldest monastery in the world situated in Turkey ...... 128
(1999/C 31/178) E-2160/98 by Katerina Daskalaki to the Commission Subject: Discrimination concerning the parents of large families ...... 128
(1999/C 31/179) E-2166/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso to the Commission Subject: Aid to European businesses investing in Cuba ...... 129
(1999/C 31/180) E-2175/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the Commission Subject: Exclusion of AEK football team from UEFA Cup ...... 130
(1999/C 31/181) E-2181/98 by Jan Mulder to the Commission Subject: BSE and the adverse consequences for exports of animals and animal products from the countries affected 131
(1999/C 31/182) P-2183/98 by Sirkka-Liisa Anttila to the Commission Subject: Protection of the conditions for oilseed production in Finland in connection with the Agenda 2000 reforms 131
(1999/C 31/183) P-2207/98 by Katerina Daskalaki to the Commission Subject: Destruction of woodland greenbelts in Attica ...... 132 EN (Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents (continued) Page
(1999/C 31/184) E-2212/98 by Kenneth Coates to the Commission Subject: Health and safety: monitoring of persistent enquirers ...... 133 (1999/C 31/185) P-2237/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz to the Commission Subject: Hunting of goosander ...... 134 (1999/C 31/186) E-2240/98 by Bertel Haarder to the Commission Subject: Staffing policy in the EU institutions ...... 134 (1999/C 31/187) E-2243/98 by Allan Macartney to the Commission Subject: Socrates: Occupational Travellers (Comenius Action II) ...... 135 (1999/C 31/188) E-2245/98 by Allan Macartney to the Commission Subject: Horse medication and welfare ...... 136 (1999/C 31/189) E-2273/98 by Richard Corbett to the Commission Subject: ‘Presidency of the Union’ ...... 136 (1999/C 31/190) E-2316/98 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Introduction of the euro ...... 137 (1999/C 31/191) E-2325/98 by Jannis Sakellariou to the Commission Subject: Peace process in the Middle East ...... 137 (1999/C 31/192) E-2330/98 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Agency accommodation in Grange ...... 139 (1999/C 31/193) P-2346/98 by Frédéric Striby to the Commission Subject: Night flying and noise abatement measures ...... 139 (1999/C 31/194) E-2349/98 by James Moorhouse to the Commission Subject: Situation in Mauritania ...... 139 (1999/C 31/195) P-2355/98 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: Financial transactions carried out by Mr Karadzic ...... 140 (1999/C 31/196) E-2358/98 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Presidential elections in Togo ...... 141 (1999/C 31/197) E-2360/98 by Maartje van Putten to the Commission Subject: Emissions of greenhouse gases from cattle farming ...... 141 (1999/C 31/198) P-2373/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Inadmissible actions by the Head of Representation of the Commission in Ankara ...... 142 (1999/C 31/199) E-2389/98 by Allan Macartney to the Commission Subject: Car prices: disparities in car prices among Member States ...... 142 (1999/C 31/200) E-2418/98 by Anita Pollack to the Commission Subject: Monsanto and the terminator gene ...... 143 (1999/C 31/201) E-2433/98 by Bartho Pronk and Petrus Cornelissen to the Commission Subject: Exclusion of merchant seamen from EU directives ...... 143 (1999/C 31/202) E-2441/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Disposal of sludge from the Psyttaleia sewage treatment plant ...... 145 (1999/C 31/203) P-2478/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou to the Commission Subject: Proceedings against France for infringement of Community tax legislation ...... 145 (1999/C 31/204) E-2505/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou to the Commission Subject: Progress of actions brought against France for violations of Community environmental law ...... 145 (1999/C 31/205) E-2506/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou to the Commission Subject: Actions to be brought against France in the area of the environment ...... 146 (1999/C 31/206) E-2507/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou to the Commission Subject: Progress of actions initiated against France for violations of the Community rules establishing the single market ...... 146 EN (Continued on inside back cover) Notice No Contents (continued) Page
(1999/C 31/207) E-2508/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou to the Commission Subject: Actions to be brought against France for violations of the rules establishing the single market ...... 146 (1999/C 31/208) E-2509/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou to the Commission Subject: Actions to be brought against France for violation of the rules on European taxation ...... 146 (1999/C 31/209) E-2510/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou to the Commission Subject: Progress of actions initiated against France for violations of Community competition rules ...... 146 (1999/C 31/210) E-2511/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou to the Commission Subject: Actions envisaged against France for failure to comply with competition rules ...... 147
Joint answer to Written Questions P-2478/98, E-2505/98, E-2506/98, E-2507/98, E-2508/ 98, E-2509/98, E-2510/98 and E-2511/98 ...... 147
(1999/C 31/211) E-2495/98 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Article 169 ...... 147
(1999/C 31/212) E-2497/98 by Anita Pollack to the Commission Subject: Phthalates in baby toys ...... 147 (1999/C 31/213) E-2499/98 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor to the Commission Subject: Spanish mediation to remove obstacles to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process ...... 148 (1999/C 31/214) E-2537/98 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann to the Commission Subject: The Crédit Mutuel and state aid ...... 149 (1999/C 31/215) E-2554/98 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström, Raimo Ilaskivi and Jyrki Otila to the Com- mission Subject: Equal treatment in respect of certain services ...... 149
(1999/C 31/216) E-2577/98 by Anita Pollack to the Commission Subject: Car prices ...... 150 (1999/C 31/217) P-2585/98 by Robert Evans to the Commission Subject: Human rights in Bahrain ...... 151 (1999/C 31/218) E-2592/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Compliance with quality standards in public works in Greece ...... 151 (1999/C 31/219) E-2601/98 by Anna Karamanou to the Commission Subject: Violence and sexual harassment at the workplace ...... 152 (1999/C 31/220) E-2610/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso to the Commission Subject: Infringement procedures in the social and employment spheres ...... 152
(1999/C 31/221) E-2659/98 by Riccardo Garosci to the Commission Subject: Protection of consumers from phthalates in soft toys made of PVC ...... 153
(1999/C 31/222) E-2755/98 by Graham Mather to the Commission Subject: Commission personnel ...... 153 (1999/C 31/223) E-2756/98 by Graham Mather to the Commission Subject: Commission personnel ...... 154 (1999/C 31/224) P-2761/98 by Xaver Mayer to the Commission Subject: Breeding game on farms ...... 154 (1999/C 31/225) E-2833/98 by Niall Andrews to the Commission Subject: School leaving age ...... 155
EN 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/1
I
(Information)
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER
(1999/C 31/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2691/97 by James Provan (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1997)
Subject: Use of European Regional Development Funds in Sobral, Portugal
It has been drawn to my attention that EU grants are being made twice to people in Sobral, Porches, Portugal; once for orange-growing subsidies on land recently cleared, and once for the destruction of those new orange trees to make way for infrastructure development in the form of the new autoroute, the Via Infante de Sagres.
What controls does the Commission employ to ensure that the projects qualifying for ERDF funds are not being used by the national authorities to pay compensation for land which has already been in receipt of EU subsidy for other purposes?
Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(8 May 1998)
In the absence of more precise information (the beneficiaries’ names, exact location of the holdings concerned, year of grant of aid), the Commission is not in a position to check whether the aid for orange-growing was actually awarded. It is worth pointing out in this connection that any subsidy would have been conditional on maintaining the new plantings for a minimum of five-years.
With regard to the construction of the Sobral-Algarve sections of the ‘Via do Infante de Sagres’, the Portuguese authorities have confirmed in a letter dated 13 March 1998 that no funding from the European Regional Development Fund was awarded for these road sections. In the circumstances, the question of whether Community funding was awarded twice to the same people does not arise.
(1999/C 31/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0222/98 by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Commission
(13 February 1998)
Subject: EU aid from the social and regional funds for Bavarian Swabia
Can the Commission provide the following information on EU economic and regional aid for the region of Bavarian Swabia:
1. How much EU structural aid − broken down by fund and Community initiative − went to that region in 1997?
2. What sum went to agriculture? C 31/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
3. How many jobs were created with EU economic and regional aid in the region of Bavarian Swabia in 1997?
4. How much EU structural aid went to comparable regions in other Member States in 1997?
5. How many jobs were created with EU economic and regional aid in comparable regions in other Member States in 1997?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(22 June 1998)
The Commission cannot supply the information requested on such a precise geographical scale. Information is, however, available from regional administrative authorities for certain policies, in particular the structural policies.
Certain parts of the Regierungsbezirk of Swabia (Landkreise Aichach-Freidberg minus the towns of Aichach and Friedberg, Oberallgäu minus the town of Sonthofen, and part of Donau-Ries) are eligible for Objective 5b (development and structural adjustment of rural areas) for the period from 1994 to 1999. The Single Programming Document (SPD) for the parts of Bavaria eligible for objective 5b was adopted on 23 December 1994. The aggregate contribution from the three Structural Funds amounts to ECU 571.95 million, of which ECU 211.62 million comes from the European Development Fund (ERDF), ECU 120.11 million from the European Social Fund (ESF) and ECU 240.22 million from the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).
Objective 5 million ecus % ERDF 211.62 37.0 ESF 120.11 21.0 EAGGF Guidance Section 240.22 42.0 Total 571.95 100.0
The Commission has no information on the manner in which a Regierungsbezirk in Bavaria uses the ESF contribution nor, therefore, on the labour market impact. It is consequently impossible to make comparisons with other regions. The Objective 3 operational programme for Bavaria provides for ESF participation of ECU 56.49 million (1994-99), the figure for objective 5b being ECU 117.65 million.
The Single Programming Document (SPD) for Objective 4 and the operational programme of the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal Labour Office) are managed either at national level or by the Bundesanstalt itself. In the Regierungsbezirk of Swabia funds from the Bavarian support programme for Objectives 3, 4 and 5b and from the support programme of the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit for Objective 3 are basically involved. The Staatsministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Familie, Frauen und Gesundheit (Bavarian Ministry for Labour, Social Affairs, Family Matters, Women and Health) may be able to supply information on the regional use of the contribution paid by the ESF to the Land of Bavaria. That Ministry and the Bundesanstalt are responsible for paying out the ESF contribution.
The aggregate contribution from the three Structural Funds is ECU 571.95, of which ECU 211.62 million comes from the ERDF. ECU 88 million (about 42 %) of this had been spent by 31 December 1997.
The same towns and Landkreise in the Regierungsbezirk of Swabia are eligible for the Leader II Community initiative, which has a package of ECU 43.05 million, of which ECU 12.09 million comes from the ERDF, to establish links between measures to develop the rural economy. Certain towns and districts, such as the town of Kempten and the Landkreis Unterallgäu, are also covered by the Konver II programme, which has a package of ECU 17.3 million under the ERDF, of which ECU 8.45 million have already been approved and committed for the conversion of the armaments industry. The Landkreis Oberallgäu is eligible for the RETEX programme with an ERDF package of ECU 9.8 million for regions heavily dependent on the textile industry. The eligible parts of the Regierungsbezirk are covered by the SME programme with an ERDF package of ECU 6.97 million to help small businesses adapt to the single market. The towns and Landkreise on the border between Germany and Austria are covered by the Interreg II (Bavaria/Austria) programme with an ERDF/ESF package of ECU 24.6 million for the development of cross-border regions and cross-border cooperation.
The Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund as a contributing Structural Fund is conceived as supplementing or contributing to corresponding national measures (Article 4 of Regulation 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/3
(EEC) 2081/93 (1)); its contribution is generally paid to operational programmes determined by the Länder. The Commission is not currently in a position to answer the Honourable Member’s question on this point. However, ECU 243.33 million has been paid to the region for Objective 5b purposes.
The Honourable Member is requested to define what he means by ‘comparable regions’ in points 4 and 5 of his question so that they can be contacted.
Community aid of ECU 14 000 was paid under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) in 1997. This helped to preserve jobs in the fishing and fish-farming industries.
(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
(1999/C 31/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0246/98 by Thomas Mann (PPE) to the Commission
(13 February 1998)
Subject: Discriminatory tax legislation in the EU
Under to Section 10(1), subpara. 1. of the German Income Tax Act (EStG), maintenance payments to an ex-wife are recognized as special expenditure (Sonderausgabe) when she lives in Germany. However, if the ex-wife of a non-German (e.g. British) EU national lives in the EU outside Germany (e.g. in Britain), the maintenance payments are regarded under S. 33a(1) of the Income Tax Act merely as extraordinary changes (außergewöhn- liche Belastung), which makes a significant difference to the amount deductible for tax purposes.
A recent decree of 1 September 1997 on S. 33a(1) of the EStG states that: ‘Deductibility is conditional on the taxpayer being able provide evidence that the person resident abroad is in need of maintenance’. If the person’s ex-wife lives in Germany, no such evidence is required. The only evidence required here is that tax is being paid on the maintenance payments by their recipient.
Does this constitute a discrimination against other EU nationals in terms of tax legislation?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(5 May 1998)
The Honourable Member appears to refer to legislation and administrative instructions which no longer apply to Community residents.
The German tax rules have been changed by the Tax Act 1996 in such a way that under Article 1a § 1 No1 of the Income Tax Act (EStG) alimony payments to ex-spouses living in another Member State are now also tax deductible as special expenses in accordance with Article 10 § 1 No1 (EStG). Such deduction is subject to the production of a certificate of the competent tax authority from which it can be seen that the alimony payments are declared for tax purposes. However, a proof of the recipients’s need to be furnished within the limits of Article 33a EStG is not required in cases which fall within the scope of Article 1a EStG. Thus alimony payments to an ex- spouse living in another Member State are put on a par with alimony payments to an ex-spouse living in Germany from a tax point of view.
(1999/C 31/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0681/98 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission
(10 March 1998)
Subject: Cabotage in Italy
Is the Commission aware that the capacity rules, whereby foreign carriers can become established in Italy but cannot obtain a licence immediately, will continue in force on a provisional basis even after cabotage is permitted on 1 July 1998? C 31/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Is the Commission aware that − in addition to the capacity rules − there are still compulsory tariffs for national transport, and hence for cabotage, too, in Italy?
Does the Commission feel that such systems are in accordance with the principle of the free movement of goods in the European Union?
Does the Commission intend to exert pressure on the Italian authorities to liberalize this obsolete policy in the spirit of Community thinking?
If so, how?
If not, why not?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(25 May 1998)
The Commission is aware that Italy still maintains capacity rules for carriers established in Italy who want to carry out national transport in Italy. A foreign carrier, after becoming established in Italy, may therefore face difficulties in obtaining a licence in a similar manner to a ‘new’ Italian carrier. Community rules of non- discrimination could only be invoked if foreign carriers had more difficulties than ‘new’ Italian carriers. A Member State seeking to maintain capacity rules in national transport will find that they become largely ineffective − and even discriminatory against its own national carriers − after 1 July 1998 when, provided that they have a Community licence for international transport, non-resident carriers can carry out cabotage free of quantitive restrictions in the Member State concerned.
Council Regulation (EEC) 4059/89 abolished tariffs for international transport between Member States as from 1 January 1990 but tariffs for national transport can still be set by the national authority. The Italian tariff rules for national transport are also applicable to cabotage in Italy since Article 6.1(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) 3118/ 93 states that the rules of the ‘host’ Member State apply for ‘rates and conditions governing the transport contract’.
The Commission considers that the abolition of quantitive restrictions on cabotage as from 1 July 1998 will be a further step in the opening up of national markets of individual Member States thus promoting the free movement of goods in the Community.
(1999/C 31/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0721/98
by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Salvatore Tatarella (NI) to the Commission
(18 March 1998)
Subject: Statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States
This question concerns the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 3330/91 on the statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States (COM(97) 252 final − 97/0155 COD) (1).
Although the Commission proposals are to be welcomed in that they put into practice the objectives, set out in the SLIM initiative, of producing simpler, more transparent and effective provisions and are in accordance with the recommendations of the Intrastat group which took part in the pilot project, could the Commission ensure that a standard form is adopted for the additional declaration throughout the Community, in order to help firms which have branches or associated companies in more than one Member State and to make the data collected more uniform?
(1) OJ C 203, 3.7.1997, p.10. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/5
Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission
(12 May 1998)
The Commission’s proposal for simplifying the Intrastat system aims at reducing the number of data elements collected in order to reduce burdens on businesses. The proposal is part of a simplification package proposed by the Commission based on the recommendations of the Slim/Intrastat team.
In the proposal two types of data elements exist: mandatory and optional. These two types of data elements are also found in the present Intrastat system. The mandatory elements comprise a common set of information collected Community wide. The optional elements may be collected at national level, but are left to the discretion of the Member States. Accordingly, differences between Member States will still exist in respect of information requirements.
It should be emphasized that a single form was introduced in 1993 with the new Intrastat system comprising all mandatory and optional data elements (Commission Regulation (EEC) 3590/92 of 11 December 1992 concerning the statistical information media for statistics on trade between Member States (1)). The declarants may in principle use this form or the available national form.
An electronic form developed under the Edicom project is also available for the declarants in the IDEP/CN8 software package, which is now used in 12 Member States. A revised version of this programme is planned for 1999, which includes a multinational and multilanguage option in particular for enterprises operating in several Member States.
(1) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992.
(1999/C 31/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0825/98
by Kirsten Jensen (PSE) to the Commission
(26 March 1998)
Subject: PVC
In the proposal it presented recently for a Council Directive on end-of-life vehicles, the Commission does not propose phasing out PVC in motor vehicles made after 1 January 2002, it being argued that the problem should be resolved horizontally because PVC is to be found in many products.
When will the Commission make its proposals concerning the horizontal approach to PVC, and how can the producer liability principle be incorporated? Will it take other initiatives to achieve a significant reduction in the quantities of PVC in the waste stream?
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(20 July 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question P-1524/98 by Mrs Riis- Jørgensen (1).
(1) See page 51. C 31/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0846/98 by Klaus Rehder (PSE) to the Commission
(26 March 1998)
Subject: Support by the Commission for European schools competitions
1. How does the Commission check applications from clubs, associations and private individuals for support from the Commission for European schools competitions?
2. In particular, how does it determine whether the applicant himself deserves support, has an educationally viable concept and is not misusing such competitions e.g. simply to collect addresses?
3. On what grounds did the Commission support the ‘Verein zur Förderung kreativer Bezieh-ungen europäischer Kinder e.V’ (Association for the promotion of creative relations between European children) and allow this association to advertize this support publicly?
Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(30 April 1998)
1. The Commission does not finance European schools competitions, with the exception of ‘Europe at school’ activities, which have existed for more than 40 years and are funded by the Commission, Parliament and European Cultural Foundation. Consequently, the Commission is not called upon to check applications for support submitted by associations or private individuals. It sees Socrates, the European education programme, as the main framework for transnational cooperation between pupils and schools, including school partnerships under Action 1 of the Comenius chapter, but Socrates does not make provision for the funding of competitions.
2. As the Commission does not examine applications for financial support for competitions of this type, it cannot reply to this question.
3. Since the Commission does not finance European schools competitions, it was unable to give a positive response to an application for support for a European drawing competition received from the mentioned association in January 1998. Instead, it drew attention to the many possibilities offered by the Socrates programme. In particular, it made the point that school partnerships under Action 1 of Comenius allow pupils to become involved in creative work on the subject of the diversity of the European situation, in a transnational framework.
Nevertheless, the Commission welcomes initiatives such as a European drawing competition designed to foster cross-border friendships among children.
(1999/C 31/008) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0890/98 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission
(11 March 1998)
Subject: Refusal by the Irish airline Ryanair to recognize trade unions
Ryanair, the Irish airline, has been involved in a protracted dispute with its baggage handlers. The dispute arises from the company’s refusal to recognize or negotiate with the trade union representing these workers. The company has also refused to go through the normal channels for resolving trade disputes, as it will not participate in any arbitration procedure initiated by the Irish Labour Court.
Ryanair’s management has been a major beneficiary of the liberalization of air transport within the EU.
Bearing in mind Articles 11 to 13 of the European Social Charter, which deals with the rights of workers to freedom of association and collective bargaining, will the Commission investigate the issues surrounding the Ryanair dispute and issue a report thereon? What other action does it propose to take on this dispute?
When will the Commission be publishing its promised assessment on the social impact of the liberalization of air transport? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/7
Does the Commission have any proposals on how rights of workers to freedom of association and collective bargaining may be upheld in cases where companies seek to deny these rights?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(13 May 1998)
The matter mentioned by the Honourable Member does not fall within the competence of the Community. Article 2(b) of the Agreement on social policy annexed to the Social Protocol (new Article 137 (b) of the Amsterdam Treaty) clearly states that its provisions shall not apply to the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs.
However, the Commission is responsible for developing relations between management and labour at European level. The European social dialogue is built on the foundations of co-operation and dialogue at European and national level. If one side of industry refuses even to recognise the legitimacy of the other, then the whole structure of social dialogue and co-operation is undermined.
A study on the social effects of changes in the civil aviation sector is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
(1999/C 31/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0916/98
by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission
(26 March 1998)
Subject: Tree-felling in contravention of Community legislation in Konikallio, near Forssa (Finland)
Directive 92/43/EEC (1) and its Annex IV specify the animal and plant species in respect of which deliberate disturbance, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration (Art. 12(1)(b)), and deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places (Art. 12(1)(d)) is prohibited. These rules have also been incorporated into Finnish environmental protection legislation. The flying squirrel is included among the species in Annex IV, and therefore it is also a protected species which is covered by the provisions of the above- mentioned directive and environmental protection law. Among the EU Member States, the flying squirrel is found only in Finland where it is classified as endangered and its level of protection as poor.
Experts consider that the forest area of Konikallio near Forssa, in its entirety, is the best possible habitat for the flying squirrel. At the beginning of February 1998 felling began and a permit was obtained for gravel extraction which could clearly be regarded as having infringed, and still infringing, the above-mentioned provisions. No attempt was made in the course of felling to take account of the living requirements of the flying squirrel so as to prevent its breeding sites being deteriorated or destroyed. The felling was carried out at a time which disturbed the flying squirrels during their breeding season.
Research also indicates that the area is a habitat for seven species of bird referred to in the Annex to the Council Directive on the protection of wild birds (79/409/EEC) (2). The plans for the use of the area failed to take any account of this fact. The protection of bird species under Annex I of the Wild Birds Directive is a problem not just in the recent case in Konikallio, but especially in the ancient forests in Eastern and Northern Finland owned by the Finnish Government and managed by the national Forestry Administration.
What measures does the Commission propose to take to prevent more endangered species listed as endangered in the Natural Habitats and Wild Birds Directives from being destroyed before the Natura 2000 Community list is ratified? What penalties does the Commission intend to impose on Member States which permit Natura 2000 areas to be destroyed before the ratification of the network?
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. C 31/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(10 June 1998)
As pointed out by the Honourable Member, Article 12 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of national habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the habitats Directive, requires the strict protection of animal species in its Annex IV (a) and prohibits deliberate disturbance and the deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.
A forest area of Konikallio in Finland hosting flying squirrels, an Annex IV (a) species, was subject to logging and gravel extraction. The environmental and forestry authorities excluded from logging a one hectare area to protect the nesting and resting trees of the squirrels. The logging proceeded without disturbing the flying squirrels, which were not breeding. The environmental impact of the gravel extraction was assessed and the size of the extraction area reduced. These measures were taken to safeguard the flying squirrels. The Commission has no reason to object to the way the case was handled.
The Honourable Member also refers to bird species of Annex I of the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the birds Directive, occurring at Konikallio. Despite the presence of these species the Commission has no scientific evidence to conclude that this area qualifies for protection under the birds Directive.
The habitats Directive requires sites of Community importance to be protected from the moment a Community list is adopted. Before that the Commission encourages the Member States to use means in the national legislation, such as temporary prohibitions, to prevent candidate sites from being destroyed. This encouragement is also reflected in the Community support to nature conservation projects under Council Regulation (EC) 1404/ 96 of 15 July 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) 1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (Life) (1) and environmentally friendly farming schemes under Council Regulation (EEC) 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural protection methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment aid the maintenance of the country side (2).
The Commission has no power to impose penalties on Member Sates in the circumstances mentioned. Any penalties that might arise can only be in accordance with the relevant legislation in the Member State concerned.
(1) OJ L 181, 20.7.1996. (2) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
(1999/C 31/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0920/98
by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE) to the Commission
(26 March 1998)
Subject: EU standard for listeria
There is no binding, uniform standard in the EU for limit values for listeria. In the past the Member States’ differing positions on permissible levels of listeria have led to distortions of the market, causing considerable damage to enterprises.
For this reason, and with a view to enabling the fish processing industry to plan ahead safely, does the Commission consider that it would be desirable to establish an EU standard for listeria in fish products? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/9
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(27 May 1998)
Listeria monocytogenes is the infectious agent of Listeriosis. This is a bacterial disease usually manifested during pregnancy or among immunocompromised individuals as an acute meningoencephalitis with or without associated septicaemia (very often neonatal).
The disease could be transmitted to humans by food. The micro-organism could be present in a wide range of food, including almost all the animal products (independent of their degree of processing), and also raw vegetables. It is important to underline that the micro-organism is very resistant to low temperatures (in particular those usually recommended for domestic conservation).
The Commission recognises that the scientific committees have indicated that the setting of limits for micro- organisms in foods may not always be the most effective strategy for dealing with the risk to health from certain contaminating bacteria. However, the Commission will request the scientific committees to examine the question of risk to health presented by Listeria in fishery products and other foodstuffs which may be consumed without further cooking.
(1999/C 31/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0966/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission
(30 March 1998)
Subject: Small and medium-sized tourist undertakings and the euro
At the part-session in March 1998 the European Parliament adopted the Torres Marques report (A4-0078/98) on the euro and tourism.
Small and medium-sized undertakings are, of course, the backbone of the tourist sector, especially in the southern countries of the European Union. However, funding for tourism is deemed wholly inadequate for the development of this sector, and if tourist SMUs are to adjust successfully to the euro they will clearly need additional funds.
Will the Commission say:
1. Does it intend to adopt special programmes to fund the development of tourist SMUs in order to shelter them as far as possible from the turmoil caused by the introduction of the new currency?
2. Is there any scope − for example, in the Community cross-border programme, Interreg, or other initiatives − for funding tourist undertakings in areas bordering on the future ‘euro zone’ which will obviously be in a particularly difficult situation as soon as the single currency is introduced?
Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission
(20 May 1998)
The Commission pays close attention to the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which account for a large part of the tourist industry. In order to assist SMEs with their preparations, it will continue to make available documentation and information adapted to their requirements, e.g. through Euro Info Centres. Acting with the Commission’s assistance, the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe has already produced various guides to help businesses, and SMEs in particular, to prepare for the introduction of the euro. A study of the practical consequences the transition to the euro will have for SMEs, including those in the tourist industry, is being prepared on behalf of the Commission. The Commission has also set up a working party to organise a seminar for October 1998 which will focus on providing guidance for and specific practical solutions to difficulties the tourist industry may encounter in connection with the introduction of the euro. Against this background, the Commission intends to launch pilot actions introducing the euro in the tourist industry in 1999.
The recommendations on practical aspects of the introduction of the euro recently adopted by the Commission include provisions dealing specifically with SMEs in view of the specific difficulties confronting them identified by the advisory working party. C 31/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
The Commission is not establishing a special programme to fund SMEs in connection with the introduction of the euro. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that the provisions on joint European ventures and the SME guarantee facility in the proposal for a Council Decision on measures of financial assistance for innovative and job-creating small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (1) apply to SMEs in the tourist industry.
In addition, the measures provided for in the multiannual programme adopted for SMEs by Council Decision 97/ 15/EC of 9 December 1996 (2) apply to SMEs in the tourist industry.
(1) COM(98) 26 final. (2) OJ L 6, 10.1.1997.
(1999/C 31/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0991/98 by Pieter Dankert (PSE) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission
(2 April 1998)
Subject: Conciliation Body for agricultural expenditure
By decision of 1 July 1994 (OJ L 182, 16.7.1994.) the Commission set up a Conciliation Body with the task of mediating in disputes between the Commission and the Member States in the context of the discharge procedure on financial adjustments to expenditure notified by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
1. Is the Commission prepared to allow this Body to mediate in disputes concerning financial adjustments to expenditure notified by Member States on budget lines in Article B2-51 (Completion of the internal market in the agricultural sector)?
2. If not, what are the reasons for this distinction the type of matters which can be referred to the Body? Would it not be more logical for all agricultural expenditure in the budget to be eligible for the same sort of conciliation?
3. What other opportunities do Member States have for appealing against financial adjustments to notified expenditure on budget lines in Article B2-51?
4. To what extent does the Commission consider it desirable for the conciliation procedure to be applied in future to notified expenditure on budget lines in Article B2-51? If so, what action does it intend taking? If not, why not?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(27 May 1998)
The third subparagraph of Article 5(2) (c) of Council Regulation (EEC) 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), which introduces the possibility of examination by a Conciliation Body of divergences of position between the Commission and Member States, covers only EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure, i.e. does not extend to Guidance Section or any other agricultural expenditure, such as that under Chapter B2-51.
One of the reasons for setting up the conciliation procedure was a desire, given the large annual volume of Guarantee Section expenditure, to avoid an excessive number of appeals to the Court of Justice over Commission refusal to accept all or part of the expenditure submitted by a Member State.
As indicated in Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/442/EC of 1 July 1994 (2) setting up the Conciliation Body, referrals to it are at the option of the Member State. Its findings are without prejudice to the final Commission decision under the accounts clearance procedure, which may differ from the Conciliation Body’s conclusions.
Both the Member States’ expenditure chargeable to the Guidance Section and their very diversified expenditure under Chapter B2-51 fall under the provisions of other legislative texts and hence are subject to different decision procedures. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/11
To bring this expenditure under Guarantee Section arrangements, as the Honourable Members request, would require extensive amendment of the underlying legislation involving the Council and Parliament.
Such an operation would also be premature at the present time given the Commission’s proposals under Agenda 2000 (3) for bringing certain other expenditure within the Guarantee Section framework.
As already made clear, reference to the Conciliation Body is not an ‘appeal procedure’ and in the event of irreconcilable positions on the eligibility of any expenditure incurred by a Member State, whether charged to the Guarantee Section, Guidance Section, Chapter B2-51 or elsewhere, the standard appeal procedure remains that legally laid down, namely reference to the Court of Justice, in which the Member State can publicly argue the validity of its claims and the Commission is required to state publicly the grounds for its refusal.
(1) OJ L 94, 28.4.1970. (2) OJ L 182, 16.7.1994. (3) COM(97) final 2000.
(1999/C 31/013) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1006/98 by Corrado Augias (PSE) to the Commission
(26 March 1998)
Subject: European Information Centres
The Commission’s network of European Information Centres are a valuable means of information and advice for and practical cooperation with the business world, throughout the European Union but especially in Italy, which has a great many small and medium-sized enterprises.
These European Information Centres are also an extremely useful interface for real contact with the European public, especially in outlying areas.
In Italy, at least, the Commission is only able to grant a tenth of the applications to open European Information Centres.
1. Does the Commission agree that it would be useful to back up its network of European Information Centres with ‘outposts’ in the provinces or communes which request them, with computer, fax or other information technology links between the Centres and their outposts in the field to expand the network of information and advice provided?
2. Does the Commission agree that it would be helpful to provide more information on the network of existing European Information Centres and on their record of activities?
Reply given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission
(16 April 1998)
The third multiannual programme for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (1997-2000) explicitly encouraged the creation of local partnerships to provide assistance to SMEs. In the document ‘strategic considerations regarding the European information centre network 1997-2000’, the Commission identified intermediary organisations representing SMEs within ‘network heads’. These organisations provide the impetus behind a national or transregional network made up of relays and develop direct, or more often indirect, contacts with enterprises.
The recent ‘call for tenders-for the partial renewal of the Euro info centres network and partnership with representative organisations’, envisaged this new version of EICs, and many applications have been successful.
Regarding the second question asked by the Honourable Member, the Commission recalls that since the creation of the EIC network in 1987, a series of promotional theme campaigns and two ‘European Business Weeks’ have been organised to increase the prominence of the EIC network at the heart of small and medium-sized enterprises. More than 360 events organised during the last awareness campaign promoted by the Euro info centres of the twelve Member States (including Italy) allowed 440 000 direct contacts to be made. Moreover, the 200+ advertisements printed in national and regional daily newspapers reached a possible 30 million readers. Finally, C 31/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
the Commission directly promotes the network using information technology (Europa web site, and the 100 or so web sites devoted to EICs), the ‘Euro-Info’ newsletter, and events and specialised fairs for small and medium- sized enterprises in which the Commission participates. The Commission finally recalls that self-promotion at a local level is one of the tasks of Euro info centres. An activity report produced by EICs is contained in the report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions (25 November 1997) (1).
(1) COM(97) 610 final.
(1999/C 31/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1034/98 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission
(6 April 1998)
Subject: Shipment of waste to certain non-OECD countries
With regard to the proposal for a Council regulation establishing common rules and procedures to apply to shipments to certain non-OECD countries of certain types of waste (COM(94) 0678), there has been much concern expressed by exporters of second-hand clothes.
‘Worn clothing and textiles’ appear under Annex II (the Green List) of the Waste Shipments Regulation 259/ 93 (1), although this covers these materials only when they are considered as waste. Can the Commission define when ‘worn clothing and textiles’ constitute waste?
(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(8 June 1998)
The qualification of items as waste has to be made in the light of the definition of waste as laid down in Article 1 a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1). On the basis of this provision waste is any substance or object in the categories set out in Annex I which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard. As Annex I contains a catch all entry (Q16 ‘Any materials, substances or products which are not contained in the above categories’) the qualification of a material as waste depends on whether it is discarded or intended or required to be discarded by the holder.
Clothes have to be considered as discarded when the holder puts them into a collection scheme for worn clothes. Re-usable clothes which are separated from the overall mass of discarded clothes no longer qualify as waste after having been sorted, washed and if necessary repaired. The product quality of the item can only be determined after the completion of these operations which ensure their re-usability.
It should be noted that these criteria for the distinction between waste and product are specific to the case of worn textiles. Accordingly, these criteria of distinction between worn clothes and second hand clothes do not necessarily apply to other wastes.
(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(1999/C 31/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1055/98 by Giacomo Santini (PPE), Claudio Azzolini (PPE) and Umberto Scapagnini (PPE) to the Commission
(6 April 1998)
Subject: Encouraging the non-food use of agricultural products
As part of the reform of the CAP the Commission communication to the Council and European Parliament entitled ‘Development and future of the CAP’ (COM(91) 258, 22 July 1991) states that the use of agricultural products for non-food purposes should be encouraged. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/13
The Commission has also supported the non-food use of agricultural products, particularly Biodiesel, and approved numerous research and development projects financed under the Thermie and Altener programmes.
Oleaginous plants for non-food use have covered almost all industrial set-aside areas, and Biodiesel represents one of the most important outlets: in 1996 17 production units with a production capacity of 1 million tonnes produced 450 000 tonnes of biofuel, corresponding to the agricultural production of some 500 000 hectares.
The White Paper on renewable energy (adopted by the Commission on 26 November 1997) sets a target of 2 % of the fuel market for biofuels. Emergency measures are essential for the 1998 marketing year pending an interim measure under Agenda 2000 since failure to find a solution could thwart years of research and development by both industry and agriculture and adversely affect the credibility of the renewable energy policy.
Does the Commission intend to adopt measures to encourage the production of seeds for non-food use on mandatory set-aside land and, considering that only a minimum percentage of mandatory set-aside land is under cultivation, adopt the solution of granting more aid to farmers who grow crops for non-food use than to those who do not?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(16 June 1998)
Biodiesel production from oilseeds grown on land set aside compulsorily has become in recent years an important sector of energy supply from renewable materials. It is true that this development, which also has advantages from the environmental point of view, is to some extent a by-product of the set-aside scheme. However, since compulsory set-aside was conceived as an instrument for managing the market in arable products and its rate has decreased significantly in recent years, it has proved, over the years, to be less suitable for ensuring biomass supply.
As the Honourable Members underline, the Commission has committed itself, under the Thermie and Altener programmes but especially by the adoption of the White Paper on renewable energy sources (1), in November 1997, to promoting energy production from biomass.
In this context, but also faced with the challenge posed by Agenda 2000 (2) to promote more rational development of agricultural policy, if is necessary to think about new ways of ensuring stable supplies of raw materials for the biofuels industry and to consider a harmonised approach concerning the tax measures currently applied at national level.
Within the framework of Agenda 2000 voluntary set-aside should play an important role, in view of the possibility, for Member States, to allow producers to freeze up to 100 % of their arable land. This can then be used to grow raw materials for non-food purposes, for example biofuel production.
Moreover, the Commission proposals provide for market policy to be supplemented by a new rural development policy which could also offer prospects in the field of renewable raw materials. Thus Member States can obtain Community aid for their national programmes aiming at the promotion of investments concerning non-food products.
(1) COM(97) 599 final. (2) COM(97) 2000 final. C 31/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/016) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1060/98 by Elisabeth Schroedter (V) to the Commission
(6 April 1998)
Subject: Unjustified subsidization of the power station at Frankfurt an der Oder to encourage the use of domestic brown coal
The Commission has failed to answer my specific Written Question No P-3142/97 (1) as to whether it gave notice of this subsidization.
This compels me to put more detailed supplementary questions:
1. Why does the Commission assume that the subsidization of the power station at Frankfurt an der Oder is not solely in the interests of the brown coal industry, when it results in the natural gas sector losing 63 % of its secure supply share to brown coal?
2. Does the Commission agree with the government of the Land of Brandenburg that the power station at Frankfurt an der Oder was not subsidized since the money was paid once and not on an ongoing basis, even though, taken annually, the subsidization amounts to almost half of the price of brown coal?
3. Does the Commission agree with the argument advanced by the government of the land of Brandenburg to justify the subsidy, that this brown-coal-dust- and gas-fired power station incorporates the latest technology, although it is known from the power station builder that comparable plants are in operation in Thailand and Malaysia?
4. What is the Commission’s position on the view of the government of the Land of Brandenburg that this power station variant is economically the most appropriate, when specialized institutes consider a gas-fired power station more advantageous on cost, price and competition grounds?
(1) OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 154.
Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission
(2 June 1998)
Firstly, it should be noted that aid monitoring procedures under Article 93 of the EC Treaty do not require the Commission to take the initiative in identifying state aid measures. Rather, the Member State concerned is obliged, under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty, to notify the Commission of such plans in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments. It is only where a Member State fails to meet this obligation and the Commission is nonetheless informed of the plans or state of affairs in question that it takes the first step by requesting information from the Member State concerned.
In the case in question, the German authorities were informed that the Commission departments had assumed, on the basis of the information provided by the German Government at the time, that the measures in question did not include aid. They believed that the grant for the building of the thermal power station in Frankfurt an der Oder would not affect the internal market. Since the contracts for the construction of the plant had been awarded after a public call for tender, the Commission departments believed there was no reason to fear any distortion of competition on the plant construction market.
The following paragraphs are responses to the individual questions asked by the Honourable Member:
1. Steps were taken to ascertain whether the grant awarded by the Land of Brandenburg benefited one particular energy source only, thereby affecting competition within the Community on the energy market. This was not true of the thermal power station in Frankfurt an der Oder, which runs on both brown coal and gas.
2. Under Article 92 of the EC Treaty, which contains a definition of the concept of state aid, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the common market, in so far as it affects trade between Member States. Whether a measure takes the form of a one-off or an ongoing payment does not, therefore, have any bearing on whether it is classed as a subsidy.
3. In its 1995 notification, the German Government made no reference to the argument mentioned in the written question. The question has not, therefore, been examined further, as it did not affect the assessment of the compatibility of aid with EU competition law in the remainder of the procedure. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/15
4. The German Government’s 1995 notification includes a comparison of the various options open to Frankfurt an der Oder which were discussed before it was decided to opt for a combination of gas and brown coal. The principal issue was that the new power station’s main purpose was to provide district heating for Frankfurt an der Oder. With this in mind, the following options were examined: a gas- and steam-turbine plant, a gas-turbine and waste-heat-boiler plant, a brown-coal-dust and steam-turbine plant and a brown-coal- dust and gas composite plant.
In comparing the relative merits and disadvantages of these options, the German Government established that a gas-fired power station did not always represent the best possible choice in the light of the specific needs of Frankfurt an der Oder, and that the combined option which was ultimately selected met the city’s needs best.
(1999/C 31/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1072/98 by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission
(6 April 1998)
Subject: Certification of mould damage inspectors
In recent years it has become ‘fashionable’ in several EU Member States to draw attention to the damage to dwellings caused by mould. This has led to an ever growing number of court cases which have centred round liability issues relating to mould discovered following the sale of a house or building, and to compensation for damage caused by mould. In deciding such disputes in Finland, expert opinions have been used which were drawn up by people and firms without adequate, or even any, expert knowledge.
In today’s Europe building materials, developers and builders move freely with the protection of the single market from one Member State to another. The problem is thus one which affects the whole European Union. In the light of the above, what measures does the Commission propose to take to guarantee the expertise of persons providing opinions for indoor climate measuring services, for example by certification or some other uniform procedure throughout the Union?
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(5 August 1998)
The Honourable Member refers to damage caused by mould inside dwellings and other buildings, and in particular to the lack of expert knowledge of the inspectors consulted during subsequent legal proceedings. He asks the Commission what measures it intends to take, e.g. procedures for certification or access to the profession, to ensure that the consultants and inspectors thus called upon actually possess the requisite knowledge.
As yet, the Commission has no plans for an inspector certification procedure common to all the Member States. However, it does consider that the problem of consultant expertise in the construction industry goes beyond the specific aspects of mould and arises at a more general level. Accordingly, the Communication on the competitiveness of the construction industry, (1) adopted by the Commission on 4 November 1997, a main objective of which is to promote quality, mentions that customer confidence will only be possible if customers can turn to specialist professionals with up-to-date knowledge. The Communication recommends that systems of registration and qualification of professionals be set up, based on ability and the mutual recognition of qualifications. The Commission is currently working with representatives of the Member States and the industry to examine the introduction of an action plan to build on certain of the Communication’s recommendations, including those mentioned above.
Moulds represent a major problem for the internal environment of buildings, and can affect their occupants’ health. To tackle this, one of the essential requirements of the Construction Products Directive (2) specifies that constructions works must be designed and built in such a way that they will not be a threat to the hygiene or health of the occupants as a result, inter alia, of the presence of damp on surfaces within the works. This requirement will also be included in future harmonised construction product standards, which will allow the free movement and use of such products.
Tackling indoor climate problems at source, via minimum requirements for construction materials, is one method of prevention. Another involves control of ventilation in dwellings as part of an overall strategy, known as the C 31/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
building systems approach, that pays attention to heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. However, the best way to improve indoor air quality is by education, for there are many measures which can be taken domestically to reduce the potential health risks associated with indoor pollution.
A number of scientific studies have shown that damp indoor climates and moulds increase the risk of asthma, allergic rhinitis and upper respiratory tract infections. The Commission proposal for a Community action programme on pollution-related disease (3) takes stock of the scientific evidence on exposure to moulds and possible health effects. Public awareness campaigns and the targeting of key actors such as consultants and professionals was proposed by the Commission. Activities in this domain might also consist of industry-led practical guidance for constructors and consumers.
(1) COM(97) 539 final. (2) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989. (3) COM(97) 266 final and COM(98) 231 final.
(1999/C 31/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1088/98 by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission
(7 April 1998)
Subject: Contributions
According to a report in the daily newspaper ‘Die Presse’ (27 February 1998), the head of the Commission’s representation in Vienna is of the opinion that Austria could contribute more, since it is the fifth wealthiest country in the European Union, but only seventh in terms of per capita contributions.
How is the public assertion by the head of the Commission’s representation in Vienna, Mr Wolfgang Streitenberger, that Austria contributes too little to the European Union’s budget compared to its per capita income to be construed?
Should Austria prepare to pay higher contributions?
Why is Mr Streitenberger, a representative of the Commission, focusing on a redistribution of contributions, when in Agenda 2000 the Commission assumes that the contribution rates will remain constant in the medium term?
Does Mr Streitenberger have the authority to make such statements?
If so, exactly what plans does the Commission have for the future distribution of contributions?
If not, what does the Commission intend to do?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 1998)
The data reported in Die Presse on 27 February 1998 are correct. Austria is indeed the fifth Member State according to gross national product (GNP) per head and it ranks seventh in terms of overall contributions to the Community budget in 1997. However, it is necessary to examine these data more carefully before arriving at a judgement about Austria’s contributions to the Community budget.
The determinants of contributions to the Community budget have been set out in the most recent own resources decision, that of October 1994. The Community budget is financed through customs and agricultural duties (usually called the ‘traditional’ own resources or TOR), a national contribution based on a harmonised value added tax (VAT) base and a national contribution based on GNP.
The volume of customs and agricultural duties reflects principally geographical and location advantages and, consequently, is not related to a Member State’s ability to contribute to the Community budget. The amount of customs duties collected in Austria is much lower than in other Member States of comparable size which have major port facilities. By contrast, VAT and GNP contributions are correlated with contributive capacity. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/17
The Austrian contribution in this area corresponds to its relative wealth. These considerations explain the difference mentioned in the article of Die Presse and recalled in the opening paragraph of this answer.
The present system will remain in force unless it is changed through a unanimous decision of the Member States. Consequently, future developments in contributions will continue to reflect economic developments, in particular developments in Austria’s VAT and GNP. Growth in total contributions, however, will also reflect growth in total expenditure. Over recent years, Community expenditure has been increasing very slowly. The use of cash balances available from the previous year has even resulted in the decrease in the Austrian contribution in 1998 mentioned in the Die Presse article.
The Commission, in accordance with Article 10 of Council Decision 94/728/EC of 31 October on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (1), intends to publish by the autumn of this year a report on the operation of the present financing system. The report will address, among other questions, the issue of the so- called budgetary imbalances.
(1) OJ L 293, 12.11.1994.
(1999/C 31/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1100/98 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission
(8 April 1998)
Subject: External evaluation of the European Training Foundation
The external evaluation of the European Training foundation required by Article 17 of Regulation 1360/90 (1) was concluded on 9 May 1997. In addition to this evaluation, Commission officials carried out their own studies. The report by the external advisors highlights a number of serious shortcomings which are hardly referred to in the Commission report.
1. How is it possible to justify studies being carried out both by external advisors and by the Commission’s own officials with one and the same objective of ‘assessing to what extent the foundation is achieving its aims’?
2. Are there points at which the assessments by the two bodies coincided, and was there cooperation in individual cases?
3. What criteria are decisive in awarding an external evaluation contract externally, i.e. to outside experts?
4. Could the evaluation have been carried out exclusively by the Commission’s own officials, and would they have come to the same critical conclusion?
5. How much was paid for the external assessment by Sofreco?
(1) OJ L 131, 23.5.1990, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(4 June 1998)
Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) 1360/90 of 7 May 1990 establishing a European training foundation (1) requires the Commission to establish a monitoring and evaluation procedure of the experience acquired in the work of the European training foundation and to report to the Parliament, the Council and the Economic and social committee on the results of this procedure. The Commission submitted its report on 18 July 1997 (2).
1. The Commission’s report is based on an evaluation of the European training foundation as well as information gathered by continuously monitoring the Foundation. The evaluation was carried out from February to April 1997 by an external organisation (Sofreco) and not directly by the Commission. The information gathered through monitoring stems in particular from the Commission’s continuous and close cooperation with the European training foundation. Both sources of information complemented each other. The Commission’s report of 18 July 1997 summarises the evaluation’s results (section 4) and draws certain conclusions, also using the Commission’s own experience gained through monitoring (in particular section 6). C 31/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
2. The evaluation by an external organisation followed specific terms of reference and did not overlap with other activities. The Commission’s report was produced in the light of the external evaluation and benefited from close cooperation with the external evaluation team.
3. The support of an external contractor was sought in particular to procure sufficient resources (staff, time, administrative capacity) in order to carry out a comprehensive study during the given period of time.
4. As already stated, the Commission did not have the appropriate resources to complete such an evaluation study in the given time-scale. In its report the Commission’s own observations in particular with respect to the European training foundation’s future focus, draw largely on the evaluators’ main recommendations.
5. The cost of the external evaluation was ECU 223 296.
(1) OJ L 131, 23.5.1990., as amended by Regulation (EC) 2063/94 (1) no L 216, 20.8.1994. (2) COM(97) 379 final.
(1999/C 31/020) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1112/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission
(8 April 1998)
Subject: EU import ban on beef
1. Do the EU’s arguments for the import ban on meat from hormone-treated cattle relate only to the evidence of residues of the hormones used which are detrimental to health? If additional arguments are put forward, can the Commission specify what they are?
2. Which qualified and respected scientists are working in what areas on the EU’s arguments in this case?
3. The SPS measures relate almost exclusively to the avoidance of health risks. Does the Commission make any additional demands? If so, what are they?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 1998)
1. The ban on the use of certain oestrogenic, androgenic and gestagenic hormones in livestock farming within the Community, and the import ban on meat from bovine animals treated with these growth hormones, are based on the potential risk presented for the consumer by the residues of these hormones in the meat. When these measures were adopted Parliament considered that scientific information about these substances was far from complete and that considerable doubt therefore existed about the desirability of their use and their effect on human health. The Appellate Body, although recognising that the scientific evidence presented by the Community was relevant, nevertheless indicated that this scientific evidence was not sufficiently specific to the case at hand, i.e. not focused enough on the genotoxic and carcinogenic potential of the hormones in question when used specifically for growth promotion purposes, in particular the potential effects arising from the presence in meat of hormone residues.
2. Taking account of the conclusions of the Appellate Body, the Commission has started work on generating the scientific data required for a risk assessment linked more specifically to the residues from these six hormones and their metabolites in meat when used for animal growth promotion. In this context, the Commission has freed financial resources to request internationally recognised scientists to produce the missing data.
3. As the Honourable Member notes, the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures concern exclusively the human, animal or plant health risks, and the import ban on meat from animals treated with the hormones comes completely within the scope of these measures. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/19
(1999/C 31/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1130/98 by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE) to the Commission
(24 April 1998)
Subject: Human rights in China
In the Commission’s opinion, what is the state of human rights in China?
Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission
(9 June 1998)
Human rights in China play a fundamental role in Community-China relations. The Commission is fully aware of the continuing concerns related to various aspects of the human rights situation in China. These include the fate of individual dissidents, the extent of the use of the death penalty and the suppression of religious and cultural freedoms, including in Tibet. In view of these concerns, the Commission’s position, as set out in the latest communication on China, ‘Building a comprehensive partnership with China (1)’ is to engage China in a frank and constructive dialogue on human rights. Whilst it is clear that China has a long way to go in reaching acceptable standards for the respect of human rights, the Commission also recognises the efforts and improvements that have already been made. For this reason, the Commission considers that engagement is more effective than confrontation in producing the desired results in this area.
The Commission has noted that there have been signs in China of greater tolerance of dissident activity as shown in the run-up to the last National People’s Congress (the appearance of open letters and petitions etc). There has also been positive movement regarding the release of a number of well-known dissidents. The Commission also welcomes the signature by China, and its announced intention to ratify, the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and China’s undertaking to sign the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Commission repeatedly stresses that this must be followed by a full and comprehensive implementation of both United Nations Covenants. China’s commitment not to introduce the death penalty in Hong Kong and to allow the Hong Kong authorities to report on their United Nations human rights commitments autonomously are also encouraging.
Yet, ultimately, the real test for the state of human rights in China can not only be determined by the signature of international agreements or even the release of particular individuals from detention. The real test is in the everyday administration of justice within China and the way it affects ordinary citizens in concrete and specific ways.
By engaging China in open dialogue together with the use of a variety of co-operation projects the Commission hopes to be able to help strengthen civil society and promote the rule of law.
(1) COM(98) 181 final.
(1999/C 31/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1132/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission
(24 April 1998)
Subject: Drift gill nets
What are the reasons preventing the adoption of a decision to ban the use of drift gill nets by the EU fleet when fishing for tuna and swordfish?
Why is this matter left unresolved, even though the use of such nets is known to have a detrimental effect on fisheries resources?
What action is the Commission promoting in order to convert the fisheries fleet which would be directly affected by such a ban?
What is the Commission intending to do in order to ensure that the Council of Fisheries Ministers reach an agreement at their meeting in June which will bring about a ban that is both desired and desirable? C 31/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission
(4 June 1998)
The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to note the answers it has been giving for more than four years on the reasons preventing a successful outcome to its 1994 proposal (1). Recent progress in the Council was reported on in its reply to questions E-503/98, E-505/98, E-507/98, E-509/98 and E-511/98 by Mr Souchet (2).
As regards accompanying measures the Commission is at present looking, in close liaison with the national administrations concerned, at how to facilitate conversion to other safer and economically attractive techniques, avoiding those resources which are already overexploited. For the Atlantic it is concentrating on other methods of fishing for albacore.
The Commission will continue to make every effect to secure a rapid and equitable decision.
(1) COM(94) 131 final. (2) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998.
(1999/C 31/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1175/98 by Ulf Holm (V) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: Transport of animals
EU Agriculture Ministers meeting in December 1997 reportedly agreed on a compromise over detailed rules for long-distance transport of animals. It has proved difficult, however, to ascertain the precise implications of the new rules. Nevertheless, the media have reported that the new detailed rules are too lax and will not improve the situation of the animals, particularly in regard to ventilation.
Does the Commission believe that these new rules will make the transport of animals less cruel and barbaric than hitherto? If so, in what way are the new rules an improvement?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(12 June 1998)
Following the adoption by the Council of Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 90/628/EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport (1), there were two major obligations for the Commission to propose further detailed rules to the Council. The matters concerned were the fixing of conditions for staging points and the establishment of detailed standards for lorries. In respect of staging points, the Commission proposal was adopted as Council Regulation (EC) 1255/97 of 25 June 1997 concerning Community criteria for staging points and amending the route plan referred to in the Annex to Directive 91/628/EEC (2). After the journey time specified in the Directive has elapsed for the species of animal concerned, animals must be unloaded, fed, watered and rested for at least 24 hours at such a staging point. These rules apply from 1 January 1999. In respect of standards for up-graded lorries the Council adopted as Council Regulation (EC) 411/98 of 16 February 1998 on additional animal protection standards applicable to road vehicles used for the carriage of livestock on journeys exceeding eight hours (3). Important elements in this text are requirements for bedding material on the floor, appropriate feed on board the vehicle, access to the animals, ventilation equipment, movable panels for creating separate compartments and water supply to the animals. These rules will apply from 1 July 1999.
The Commission is of the opinion that the adoption of both regulations will constitute an important further step in safeguarding animal welfare during long distance transport, provided that all Member States enforce the rules adequately within their territories.
(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995. (2) OJ L 174, 2.7.1997. (3) OJ L 52, 21.2.1998. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/21
(1999/C 31/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1187/98
by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: Effect of US bank holidays on intra-EU bank transfers
Is the Commission aware that certain commercial banks in the UK do not credit sums transferred from another Member State to their customer’s account on the day after receipt of such funds, as is normal practice, when such days coincide with a bank holiday in the United States of America? In such cases, the money, which is already in the possession of the bank, is only credited to the customer on the first working day after the American bank holiday (which, in the event of weekends and UK holidays, may actually be several days later).
Does the Commission agree that the transfer of funds from one Member State of the Union to another should not be affected by a bank holiday in a third country?
If not, how does it justify such a situation?
Will it change when the euro is introduced?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(13 July 1998)
On 27 January 1997, the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 97/5/EC on cross-border credit transfers (1). The Directive will apply to cross-border credit transfers up to ECU 50.000 (and hence EUR 50.000 from 1 January 1999) and the equivalent sum in the national currencies of the Member States. It will enter into force on 14 August 1999, but Member States have promised best efforts to anticipate this to 1 January 1999.
Article 6 of the Directive requires an institution to execute a credit transfer within the time scale agreed with its customer. In the absence of such an agreement, default time scales are set out, stipulating, inter alia, that funds are to be made available to the beneficiary not later than the banking business day following the day on which the funds were credited to the account of the beneficiary’s institution (Article 6, paragraph 1, 2nd sentence of the Directive). This means, that in the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, British banks, unless they agree otherwise with their customers, should make funds available to the beneficiary on the day following receipt of funds in the context of a transfer. While the term ‘banking business day’ is not defined in the Directive, the Commission takes the view that it should be determined with reference to regulations or practices regarding banking holidays in the country where the receiving bank is located. In the circumstances described by the Honourable Member this would mean that British holiday rules should apply and that American bank holidays should not enter into account. This, however, will not immediately settle the question raised by the Honourable Member as the transposition period of Directive 97/5/EC (14 August 1999) has not yet expired. However, the Member States have promised their best endeavours to implement the Directive by 1 January 1999 and the Commission will make efforts to achieve the earliest possible transposition.
(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.
(1999/C 31/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1190/98
by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: Internet gambling
Does the Commission have any plans to regulate gambling via the Internet? What are the scope and potential outcomes of these regulations? C 31/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(13 July 1998)
The Honourable Member raises the issue of Internet gambling and its regulation. He will be aware that in 1991 the Commission undertook a study on gambling in the internal market. At that time there was no call for regulation in this area given the limited cross-border flows of such services.
This situation is now obviously changing with the possibility of such services being offered on-line. In its current examination on the legal framework for electronic commerce, the Commission is therefore considering the issue of the regulation of such on-line services.
Since the Commission has not yet completed its analysis of the existing regulatory situation, it is not possible at this stage to indicate whether the Commission will make regulatory proposals in this area and what will be their scope and content.
(1999/C 31/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1192/98 by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: Agricultural surpluses in the European Community
Could the Commission provide a breakdown of the annual figures for 1976 for the disposal of each class of produce from storage, by either:
1. donation to poorer countries; or
2. sale at greatly reduced prices to middle-income countries, such as the Soviet Union; or
3. feeding to animals; or
4. destruction/throwing away.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 1998)
The Commission is not able, for the purposes of a reply to a written question, to undertake the long and costly research needed to provide the Honourable Member with the information he asks for in the breakdown he indicates.
Most of the information he seeks has in fact already been published by the Commission in its annual reports on the agricultural situation in the European Union.
(1999/C 31/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1196/98 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission
(24 April 1998)
Subject: Legislative proposal concerning forestry policy
The commercial and environmental importance of the European Union’s forests as a source of both well-being and employment means that forestry strategy should reflect the multi-purpose nature of forests and the need for social, economic and environmental sustainability which takes into account the diversity of forests within the European Union.
In view of the above and also the call issued by Parliament in its report on forestry policy (Resolution A4-414/ 96) (1) in which it urged the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on a European forestry strategy, when does the Commission intend to draw up such a proposal?
(1) OJ C 55, 24.2.1997, p. 22. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/23
(1999/C 31/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1198/98
by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission
(24 April 1998)
Subject: Forestry aid programmes
In recent years the forestry sector has been the subject of a range of EU programmes including the Fair Programme, the programme to protect Community forests against fire and Leader II.
In view of the commercial and environmental importance of forests, the diversity of forests within the EU and the need to combat desertification, what is the Commission’s view to date of the European Union’s forestry policy? What are the Commission’s plans for the existing forestry programmes for the 2000-2006 period?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1196/98 and E-1198/98 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(16 June 1998)
The Commission is aware of the important role of forests in the context of rural development, employment, the safeguarding of ecological balance, the fight against erosion and desertification in rural areas.
The Commission intends to respect the deadline of 31 January 1999 in Parliament’s resolution and to submit a communication on the Community’s forestry strategy before the end of 1998. The Commission, moreover, has already responded to the request by Parliament to integrate forestry measures in a more coherent way in Community policies by devoting special attention to sylviculture within rural development policy in Agenda 2000 (1).
(1) COM(97) 2000.
(1999/C 31/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1224/98
by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: Further information on the subway and high-speed tramway and application of Directive 85/337/EEC in Italy
With reference to my previous Written Questions: P-0141/97 (1) on the construction of the Casaletto/ Largo Argentina high-speed tramway by Rome City Council, E-1273/97 (2) seeking further information, E-1270/97 (3) on Rome City Council’s project to build a subway under the Castel Sant’ Angelo and Directive 97/11/EC (4), E- 2632/97 (5), E-3001/97 (6), P-3740/97 (7) and E-3409/97 (8) on the same subject, E-1971/97 (9) and, in particular, E-3410/97 (10) seeking clarification on the application of Directive 85/337/EEC (11) on the Environmental Impact Assessment of the works in question, will the Commission say:
1. Whether it is aware that construction of the subway has been cancelled in favour of a different and far inferior scheme for an ‘underpass’?
2. Whether it intends to use the same EIB funding for this scheme which is different from the first one?
3. Whether the Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed for this project? C 31/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
4. Whether the Lazio Region, identified in the reply to Written Question E-3410/97 as the competent authority under Directive 85/337/EEC, is still in breach of this Directive?
5. Whether the infringement proceedings announced in the reply are still applicable and what stage the investigations have reached?
(1) OJ C 186, 18.6.1997, p. 234. (2) OJ C 367, 4.12.1997, p. 109. (3) OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 97. (4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. (5) OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 33. (6) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 52. (7) OJ C 174, 8.6.1998, p. 111. (8) OJ C 174, 8.6.1998, p. 54. (9) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 131. (10) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 104. (11) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(18 June 1998)
On the basis of information received from the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Commission would point out that that the works being funded by the EIB under the Roma 2000 framework agreement do not include the building of a subway under the Castel Sant’Angelo, or the smaller scale project referred to in the Honourable Member’s question.
In the framework of the internal distribution of the legislative power in Italy, regions are competent for adopting the transposing legislation for Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) in relation to works of regional relevance. Regione Lazio has not yet adopted the abovementioned legislation.
The infringement proceedings against Italy concerning the transposition of the above mentioned directive continue, and the Commission has delivered a reasoned opinion. As for the general content of the proceedings, the Honourable Member is kindly requested to refer to the response by the Commission to her written question E- 3410/97 (2).
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (2) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998.
(1999/C 31/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1226/98 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: Insurance agencies in Italy
In Italy insurance agencies, which are defined as businesses and governed by the Italian civil code, are organized in accordance with commercial criteria. The number of registered brokers amounts to some 25 000 and there are estimated to be several thousand general agencies. Sub-offices depend on these agencies and form a network employing clerks and thereby providing work for tens of thousands of employees. The economic relationship between companies and brokers is regulated under the so-called ‘advance commission’ system whereby commissions are calculated in advance for the duration of multi-annual contracts. This self-financing system enables the agencies to carry out large productive and organizational investments. When the insurance agencies in Italy are required to comply with the EU Directives they will no longer be able to enter into multi-annual contracts and the income from commissions will be drastically reduced.
In the light of the above, will the Commission say:
1. Whether this is likely to damage or cause economic imbalances in the organization of agencies in Italy?
2. Whether studies have been carried out into the possible impact of compliance on the Italian insurance system?
3. Whether a European legal framework is also possible for insurance agencies? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/25
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(16 June 1998)
1. The only directive currently applicable to insurance intermediaries is Council Directive 77/92/EEC of 13 December 1976 on measures to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of the activities of insurance agents and brokers (ex ISIC Group 630) and, in particular, transitional measures in respect of those activities. (1) The other Community directives on insurance, and in particular the directives on life and non-life insurance, are, by contrast, applicable to insurance undertakings. These directives do not seem to have caused any imbalances in the organisation of agencies in Italy.
There is also a Commission recommendation 92/48/EEC of 18 December 1991 on insurance intermediaries, but it is not binding. (2)
The above-mentioned instruments do not stipulate how the payment of commissions to insurance intermediaries is to be organised. This is therefore solely a matter for the companies to decide.
2. The Commission has published a study on the impact of Community single market legislation on the insurance industry. (3)
3. A version of the European legal framework currently applicable to insurance intermediaries is at present being examined.
(1) OJ L 26, 31.1.1977. (2) OJ L 19, 28.1.1992. (3) Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (1998): Volume1 (Insurance) of SubseriesII (Impact on services) of the Single Market Review series.
(1999/C 31/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1238/98 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: Proposed Rural Development Regulation
Has the Commission taken account of the following weaknesses in the proposed Rural Development Regulation?:
− Restriction to farmer clients, not the whole of the rural population including rural SME’s. This will restrict the possibility of integrated rural development.
− The restriction of rural environment measures to agricultural environment.
− No clear role for rural localities, people and organizations in integrated planning.
− Lack of reference to community development measures.
− Lack of integration with national measures.
Has the Commission fully considered the advantages of broadening the scope of rural development to encompass not only agriculture but other industrial sectors that will play an increasing role in the future of rural needs, ensuring that the approach is integrated and inclusive and enables a longer term view to be taken of the rural economy?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 1998)
The Commission proposal (1) concerning rural development comprises two aspects which integrate and ensure full coverage of the needs of the agricultural and forestry sectors as well as the rural areas and their populations.
The first aspect concerns support for investments in agricultural holdings, setting-up of young farmers, training for the agricultural sector, support for early retirement, less-favoured areas and mountain farming, support for C 31/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
agri-environment and for improved processing and marketing of agricultural products as well as measures for the development of forestry.
The second aspect concerns the wider elements for rural development involving the development of all the resources of the territory, in particular local products, tourist and craft activities, conservation for the rural heritage as well as diversification to provide multiple activities or alternative incomes, the improvement of living conditions and the preservation of the environment.
This proposal on the agricultural sector and rural activities aims to develop in a durable way the economic, social and environmental interactions between agriculture and territory.
It is based on the conviction that a multi-disciplinary approach to rural development is capable of developing the synergies and opportunities which contribute towards the prospect of sustainability in the long term for the rural economic micro-system. In other words the future for the agricultural sector is deeply connected with that of the rural economy, in particular in the most marginal rural areas and in the agricultural sectors which are in crisis.
In addition, the Commission’s proposals (2) with regard to regional policies supported by the structural funds would bring additional help to the worst affected areas of the Community. The Commission proposes to maintain objective 1 which would offer assistance through integrated programmes to the least developed parts of the Community and, as at present, it can be expected that this would include many rural areas. Outside the objective 1 regions, the new objective 2 has a specific strand addressing the problems of the rural areas. The Commission has recommended that population coverage in these areas should be 5 % of the total of the Community.
(1) COM(98) 158 final. (2) COM(98) 131 final.
(1999/C 31/032) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1241/98 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(9 April 1998)
Subject: Saving the cultural heritage of Europe
It has been reported (The European, 30.3.1998) that ‘no-holds-barred’ fighting is coming to Europe. It is banned in more than 40 American states but it is taking a grip on Europe, where it is spreading to the countries of the former Soviet Union, but also to Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands.
It is not sport. It involves, even killing, one’s opponent. It is an uncivilized, brutal and inhuman business, which is undermining Europe’s cultural heritage.
Is the Commission planning any measures to counter this threat to our culture?
Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission
(8 May 1998)
The Commission has also learned of this type of fighting from the press.
Without prejudice to any judicial cooperation within the meaning of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs), local and national authorities are responsible for granting authorisation for such events. Thus, it is for the Council, as part of cooperation within the meaning of the said Title VI, to deal with the problems arising from such activities.
Where persons engaging in this activity could be considered as ‘workers’ within the meaning of labour law, Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers (1) and Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work (2) could be applicable. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/27
Even so, the Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member. ‘No-holds-barred’ fighting is not part of Europe’s cultural and sporting traditions. It is an outstanding example of the dangers which threaten sport and television when making a profit is the sole consideration.
(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989. (2) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.
(1999/C 31/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1251/98
by Odile Leperre-Verrier (ARE) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: Food aid in the EU
Now that winter is coming to an end, can the Commission provide details of the food aid granted directly or indirectly to approved non-governmental organizations?
What steps will it take to reduce poverty and malnutrition, which are on the increase in the Member States of the European Union?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(3 July 1998)
The Commission confirms that, during last winter and in fact throughout the year, it continued to implement its programme of aid for deprived persons in the Community.
This measure was decided on in 1987 during a particularly hard winter (1). On the basis of the experience gained and the reactions both of the Member States and of the humanitarian organisations, it was decided to make it a permanent programme as from the following year. It consists in placing foodstuffs from Community intervention stocks free of charge at the disposal of the organisations working with deprived persons, if necessary after processing or exchange within the same category of products.
This measure is organised in the form of annual plans. It is coordinated by the Commission (2) and is implemented by the Member States which wish to take part in it. They also designate the beneficiary organisations. The annual plan applicable last winter was adopted by the Commission on 2 October 1997 and was adapted in the course of the year according to the state of stocks and the appropriations available (3). It applies until 30 September 1998 and receives funding of ECU 196 million.
Moreover, in addition to this food measure by which the Commission uses European farmers’ and growers’ produce, and particularly their surpluses, for the benefit of deprived persons in the Community, the fight against social exclusion and poverty are taken into account in a number of European programmes or measures and more particularly under the European Social Fund (ESF) and the associated Community initiatives. In the reform of the ESF, the promotion of social integration and of equal opportunities for all in access to the labour market constitutes one of the defined priority fields of action.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) 3730/87 of 10 December 1987 laying down the general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks to designated organisations for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community, OJ L 352, 15.12.1987. (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) 3149/92 of 29 October 1992 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community, OJ L 313, 30.10.1992. (3) Commission Decision 98/203/EC of 3 March 1998 amending Decision 97/660/EC adopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 1998 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community, OJ L 77, 14.3.1998. C 31/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1264/98
by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: Recovery and protection of remaining Italian varieties of hemp
It emerged from the conference organized by Assocanapa (Italian hemp growing coordination body) on 27 and 28 February 1998 in Carmagnola on the recovery of hemp-growing in Italy that most Italian varieties of fibre hemp (Carmagnola, Eletta Campana, Fibranova and many others) have been lost forever or are in danger of being lost because Italian research institutes have ceased to produce them for decades.
Italian varieties, which were the result of centuries of selection, were considered the best in the world, with fibre yields of up to 60 % more than other varieties.
The availability of Italian hemp varieties is considered an essential requirement for a return to a form of hemp growing that is not dependent on Community subsidies and would eventually become economically independent.
The loss of Italian hemp varieties is economically damaging to the countries concerned by this important crop and irreversibly harmful to biodiversity and the environment.
An uncertified hemp seed has been identified among Piemontese farmers, which is certainly derived from ancient local crops.
Will the Commission indicate what measures should be adopted to step up research and guarantee the protection of remaining Italian hemp varieties?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(29 May 1998)
As regards measures for stimulating research and guaranteeing the conservation of Italian and European varieties of hemp, Council Regulation (EC) 1467/94 of 20 June 1994 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture (1), adopted a first Community programme for the conservation, characterisation and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture.
The objectives are to help ensure and improve the conservation, characterisation, documentation, evaluation and utilisation of potentially valuable plant and animal genetic resources in the Community.
Council Regulation (EC) 1467/94 provides for concerted measures and for shared-cost projects. Concerted measures coordinate individual measures for the conservation, characterisation and utilisation of those genetic resources in agriculture carried out in the Member States.
Shared-cost projects for the conservation, characterisation and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture, must, as a general rule, be carried out by participants established within the Community. Priority is to be given to projects providing for the participation of two or more unconnected participants established in different Member States.
Projects must, as a general rule, be concluded following an official selection procedure based on calls for proposals published in the Official journal.
(1) OJ L 159, 28.6.1994. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/29
(1999/C 31/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1265/98
by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: Discriminatory reduction in Community funds for fibre hemp-growing
For may years now, the European Union has encouraged the production of fibre hemp with a contribution of ECU 700 per hectare.
In Italy, hemp-growing has been completely abandoned since the beginning of the 1970s owing to the introduction of anti-drug legislation.
Leading national and international experts have unanimously acknowledged the need to reintroduce hemp- growing as a rotating crop, in accordance with Community directives aimed at cutting down on food crops, reducing the environmental impact and combating soil impoverishment and desertification, which are the result of single crop farming and unbridled use of land. In the absence of a hemp sector, since the crop has not been grown for decades, the European Union has a decisive role to play in reintroducing the crop; this role could subsequently diminish as the product penetrates the market.
It has also been reported that a proposal to reduce the EU contribution has recently been put forward and discussed.
Such a reduction would adversely affect the reintroduction of hemp-growing in countries which, like Italy, are only starting to grow it this year while favouring agriculture in countries in which it is economically well- established owing, in particular, to less punitive and stringent anti-drug legislation.
In view of the present production aid system in many other sectors, which is actually contrary to free market rules, will the Commission take the necessary action to prevent Community aid to fibre hemp- growing for industrial purposes being reduced in a discriminatory manner compared to the aid provided for other crops or at least to ensure that it is not reduced in the case of countries like Italy, where it has only been possible this year to reintroduce the crop?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(9 June 1998)
As regards the system of Community aid for hemp, in the 1998/99 price package the Commission proposed a reduction of 25 % in the subsidy per hectare (ha).
This proposal reflects a twofold concern.
On the one hand, the significant and continuous expansion of the Community areas sown to hemp (9 726 ha in 1995/96, 13 722 ha in 1996/97, 22 835 ha in 1997/98 and an estimate varying between 35 000 and 40 000 ha in 1998/99) can be attributed partly to the level of aid, which is particularly high in relation to that for other agricultural products, in particular arable crops.
On the other hand, although it is not aware of any areas under hemp receiving Community aid which, in practice, were used to produce hemp for use as a drug, the Commission remains concerned by the question of controls, bearing in mind the potential risk of subsidising illicit hemp cultivation. In order to reduce the risks of improper use of the scheme, the Commission recently proposed the introduction of a system of obligatory contracts between producers and first processors.
The proposed reduction in aid should thus constitute a brake on the recent increase in area and, therefore, supply better guarantees regarding the effectiveness of the control measures provided for in Community legislation. This proposed reduction is applicable to all Community producers and there cannot consequently be exemptions for producers in certain Member States, including those where hemp cultivation has just been reintroduced. C 31/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1266/98
by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: Legal confusion regarding fibre hemp-growing
Under Italian anti-drug legislation, the growing of Indian hemp is banned (TO 309/1990).
According to leading toxicologists, the tetrahydrocannibinol (THC) content of Indian hemp varies between 3.4 and 4.8 %.
It is well known that the THC content may vary considerably within one single variety depending on meteorological and climatic conditions.
Given the impossibility of distinguishing varieties on the basis of morphological and botanical features, the Italian court of cassation laid down the rule, in the absence of any specific legislation, that, for criminal purposes, Indian hemp is hemp whose THC content is greater than 0.3 %, referring to the relevant EEC regulation under which aid may be granted only in respect of areas of hemp which have been sown with the varieties of seed listed in the annex to Regulation (EEC) 1164/89 (1) and whose hemp content is no more than an average of 0.3 %.
This ruling given by the Italian Supreme Court of Appeal (which takes no account of the fact that Italian fibre varieties may, in certain meteorological and climatic conditions, have a THC content of up to 1 %), has been enforced by the police, thereby causing hemp-growing to be abandoned, most Italian varieties to be lost and the hemp sector and related techniques to be destroyed, with serious economic and environmental repercussions.
It is universally acknowledged that the reintroduction of fibre hemp in Italy and, in particular, fibre hemp belonging to traditional Italian varieties is of vital importance in terms of environmental protection and the economic livelihood of vast areas of Italy.
Will the Commission state what measures should be taken to prevent Community law from being improperly used in assessing, for the purposes of criminal proceedings, crops deriving from seeds certified as belonging to traditional Italian fibre varieties?
(1) OJ L 121, 29.4.1989, p. 4.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 1998)
Community legislation on the conditions for granting aid for hemp comprises strict requirements on various grounds.
It limits the grant of assistance to certified seeds of varieties whose intoxicating substances content ensures that the level of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) does not exceed 0.3 %. To this end, a Community list of varieties which respect this criterion and for which there is a Community method of chemical quantification has been drawn up. This list currently comprises 18 varieties including the Italian varieties ‘Carmagnola’, ‘CS’ and ‘Fibranova’. In addition, the official labels of the seeds used must be supplied and harvesting must take place after seed formation.
The Commission has stated in the past that a national ban on hemp cultivation is incompatible with the existence of the common organisation of the market. However, a Member State is free to take any measures that it considers necessary for penal purposes in so far as they do not make cultivation impossible.
According to the information available to the Commission, not much hemp has been sown in Italy recently: 3 hectares in 1994, 20 hectares in 1995 and 10 hectares in 1996. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/31
(1999/C 31/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1291/98
by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: EU funds for the construction of a road through the planned Monte Epomeo nature reserve on Ischia
Last weekend, the municipality of Serrara Fontana on the Mediterranean island of Ischia, near Naples, started to build a wide access road right across Monte Epomeo, the highest point on the island. According to a current draft decree put forward by the national Minister of the Environment, Mr Ronchi, Monte Epomeo is shortly to be designated a Riserva Naturale dello Stato, partly because of its great significance as a resting-place for European migratory birds. The process of declaring it a protected area, however, has been dragging along for months, partly because local hunters fear for the future of hunting for migratory birds on Ischia. The construction work is being supported by EU funding amounting to Lit 1 billion. This funding is actually supposed to have been approved for the creation and maintenance of footpaths, as a tourism measure.
1. Is it correct that the municipality of Serrara is to receive EU funding for building footpaths? If so, what is the precise amount involved?
2. Does the Commission consider that it is permissible for this funding also to be used for building a wide access road right across an area which is to be designated a nature reserve?
3. What possibility does the Commission see of demanding the repayment of funds which may have been put to improper use?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(25 June 1998)
According to the information in the Commission’s possession, which has still to be confirmed, the Italian authorities have granted public aid of ITL 1 175 000 000 (approximately ECU 600 000), 50 % of which is European Regional Development Fund assistance, to a project for the creation of footpaths on Monte Epomeo, Serrara Fontana, under the ‘Tourism’ operational programme for the Italian Objective 1 regions. Of course, this project has to be in accordance with the Community legislation concerning in particular the environment, as well as with the programme in question. The aid cannot be used for other purposes such as the construction of a broad access road to the area concerned.
It is useful to recall that Monte Epomeo is inside the site ITA 370300005 ‘Corpo centrale dell’Isola di Ischia’ that Italy has proposed as a site of Community interest liable to be designated as a special conservation area under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). According to Article 6 (3) of the Directive, ‘any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon ... shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site ... the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public ’.
Part-financing of the project by the Structural Funds is therefore allowed provided that Directive 92/43/EEC (transposed into Italian legislation by Presidential Decree No 357 of 8 September 1997) is complied with. The Commission underlines in addition that Article 24 of the Regulation on coordination of the Structural Funds (2) envisages the reduction, suspension or cancellation of assistance from the Funds in the presence of an irregularity or a significant change which affects the nature or the conditions of implementation of an operation or measure and for which the Commission’s approval has not been sought.
The Commission will contact the Italian authorities concerned in order to obtain clarification concerning this project.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) Regulation (EEC) 4253/88 (OJ L 193, 31.7.1993) C 31/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/038) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: EU-South Africa fisheries agreement
The launch is expected in the near future of negotiations between the Commission and the South African authorities for the signing of a fisheries agreement. This agreement will fall within the framework of a global cooperation convention under which South Africa will obtain significant tariff concessions on its exports to the EU. At the same time, the Community freezer-trawler fleet will have to find alternative fishing-grounds, especially for hake. Can the Commission provide information on its guidelines and negotiation points for the talks, with a view to ensuring access for Community hake-fishery freezer-trawlers and guaranteeing that access for such vessels to the fishing-grounds will be granted, as a matter of priority, to those flying Community flags?
Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission
(8 June 1998)
In September 1995, the Council gave the Commission a negotiating brief which leaves it plenty of room for manoeuvre as regards the type of fisheries agreement to seek with South Africa.
At a meeting on 8 April 1998, the Commission expressed to South Africa its wish to conclude a fisheries agreement combining several elements, such as traditional licences, the creation of joint ventures and the financing of joint enterprises.
Negotiations are still in their initial stages and it is premature to speculate on the final content of the agreement.
(1999/C 31/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1309/98 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: Applications by Spanish ‘Ingenieros Técnicos’
With regard to applications for the open competitions for recruitment to the A/LA category,
1. Why did the Commission include the requirement of a ‘university’ degree in the Spanish version of the competition notice COM/A/1047 (OJ C 145, 13.5.1997.) and not include this requirement in the German version of the same notice?
2. Why did the Commission include the requirement of a ‘higher’ degree in the Spanish version of the competition notices COM/A/720 and COM/A/721 (OJ C 52, 28.2.1991, and not include this requirement in the other language versions of the same notices?
3. As the ‘Ingeniero Técnico’ degree certainly entitles the holder to proceed to a doctorate in some Member States, why does the Commission state that ‘Ingenieros Técnicos’ cannot follow courses leading to a doctorate?
4. Is it true that the Commission indicated to the Spanish authorities that it fears that if Spanish ‘Ingenieros Técnicos’ are admitted to the A/LA category, this will open up access to people from other Member States with qualifications gained after three years of study? Is this a proper reason for rejecting applications from Spanish ‘Ingenieros Técnicos’?
5. Why are applications accepted from holders of the British Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Engineering degrees, which are all gained after a three-year course, while applications from holders of the Spanish ‘Ingeniero Técnico’ degree are not accepted? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/33
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 1998)
The correct translation of ‘diploma universitario’ into German is ‘abgeschlossenes Hochschulstudium’, and that is the term used in the notice of competition COM/A/1047 (97/C 145 A/02) published in the Official Journal (1)
With regard to Competition COM/A/720 and COM/A/821, the Commission would refer the Honourable Members to the judgment given on 3 March 1994 by the Court of First Instance in Case T82/92 Cortés Jiménez v Commission (2)
The Spanish diploma of ‘technical engineer’ is a diploma obtained on completion of a short university course which does not give access to doctoral studies in Spain (3) The Commission decision as to whether a diploma is acceptable for access to the European civil service has to be based on the legislation of each Member State where the candidate has studied; in this case the Honourable Members’ question concerns Spain.
For the rest, the Commission refers the Honourable Members to its answers to written questions E-2749/97 by Ms Garcia Arias (4) E-4186/97 by Ms Dührkop Dührkop (5) E-640/98 to E-645/98 by Mr Hernández Mollar, E- 724/98 to E-727/98 by Mr Méndez de Vigo, and E-674/98 to E-678/98 by Mr Gutiérrez Díaz (6) among others, relating to the same subject.
(1) .OJ C 145, 13.5.1997. (2) .OJ C, 52, 28.2.1991. (3) . Ley General de Ordenación del Sistema Educativo, 1990. (4) ,OJ C 82, 17.3.1998. (5) ,OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 15. (6) ,OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 12.
(1999/C 31/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1315/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: EURO 1999
As a result of the Pact for Stability and Growth adopted by the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997, the Member States’ medium-term budgetary objective will be to achieve ‘positions close to balance or in surplus’. If the Member States continue their budgetary adjustments in subsequent years, their public finances will be in the best position to tackle the budgetary consequences of a possible downturn in the economy.
But what does the Commission think would be the current situation in France if the Stability Pact had been applied during the period 1992-1997?
Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission
(2 June 1998)
The stability and growth pact is constituted by a resolution of the European Council of 7 June 1997 (1) and by Council Regulation (EC) 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (2), and Council Regulation (EC) No 1467 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure2. The pact aims at fiscal discipline in the economic and monetary union (EMU) thus creating the appropriate stability conditions for sustained growth. It provides a powerful system of incentives for a Member State not to incur an excessive deficit and to correct it rapidly if such a situation should occur.
In 1992, France had a general government deficit equal to 3.9 % of gross domestic product (GDP). This situation led to a Council decision of 26 September 1994 on the existence of an excessive deficit in France (Article 104c (6) of the EC Treaty). In the period covered by the Honourable Member’s question, i.e. 1992 to 1997, France budgetary policy was mainly geared towards convergence, i.e. to correct the excessive deficit situation and thus C 31/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
to meet the convergence criteria on the budgetary position. Moreover, paragraphs 9 and 11 of Article 104c, which deal with sanctions, did not apply during stage two of EMU.
(1) OJ C 236, 2.8.1997. (2) OJ L 209, 2.8.1997.
(1999/C 31/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1316/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: EURO 1999
As a result of the Pact for Stability and Growth adopted by the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997, the Member States’ medium-term budgetary objective will be to achieve ‘positions close to balance or in surplus’. If the Member States continue their budgetary adjustments in subsequent years, their public finances will be in the best position to tackle the budgetary consequences of a possible downturn in the economy.
But what does the Commission think would be the current situation in Ireland if the Stability Pact had been applied during the period 1992-1997?
Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission
(2 June 1998)
The stability and growth pact is constituted by a resolution of the European Council of 7 June 1997 (1), Council Regulation (EC) 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (2), and Council Regulation (EC) No 1467 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure2. The pact aims at fiscal discipline in the economic and monetary union (EMU) thus creating the appropriate stability conditions for sustained growth. It provides a powerful system of incentives for a Member State not to incur an excessive deficit and to correct it rapidly if such a situation should occur.
In 1992, Ireland had a general government deficit of 2.5 % of gross domestic product (GDP). The deficit was 2.7 % of GDP in 1993. Ireland was never considered by the Council as having had an excessive deficit.
(1) OJ C 236, 2.8.1997. (2) OJ L 209, 2.8.1997.
(1999/C 31/042) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1326/98 by Rolf Berend (PPE) to the Commission
(24 April 1998)
Subject: Mutual recognition of teaching diplomas in the EU
Is a German teaching diploma recognised as a full qualification in the EU and are the holders of such diplomas entitled to work as teachers in other EU Member States?
Does this also apply to teachers working in the new German Federal Länder who acquired their diplomas in the former GDR and have decades of practical experience to draw on?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(22 June 1998)
A number of legal instruments concerning the recognition of diplomas have been adopted at Community level so as to facilitate effective exercise of freedom of movement as enshrined in the EC Treaty. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/35
Depending on the level of qualifications certified by the diploma, one of two Directives applies: either 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) or Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system, (2) which covers diplomas, certificates and other evidence of education and training of a lower level than those covered by Directive 89/48/EEC. The Directives apply to all the regulated professions not covered by a specific Directive (doctors, dentists, veterinary surgeons, midwives, pharmacists, nurses, architects). Accordingly, the teaching profession, which is a regulated profession in most of the Member States (at least in the state sector), is covered by the ‘general system’ Directives.
The fundamental principle underpinning these Directives is that the authorities of the host Member State must authorise Community nationals who have obtained the requisite diploma to take up and pursue a given profession in their home Member State to exercise that same profession in the host Member State. Such recognition thus constitutes a right to pursue a given profession under the same conditions as persons holding national qualifications, but it does not mean that the diploma is deemed equivalent to a national diploma for other purposes.
Accordingly, Community nationals who are fully qualified as teachers under the legislation of the Member State in which they obtained their qualifications and who wish to exercise their profession in another Member State are covered by the mechanisms for the recognition of diplomas set up by the aforementioned Directives.
In the case of teaching diplomas awarded by the new German Länder, to which the Honourable Member refers, the persons holding them may benefit under the Directives, in so far as the diplomas automatically entitle them to take up employment as teachers in Germany and in so far as such persons apply for recognition in order to work as teachers in another Member State.It should be noted that, under the recognition system set up by the Directives, the interested party must submit to the appropriate authority an individual application clearly specifying the profession he or she wishes to take up. This is because the Directives have not established a system of automatic equivalence between diplomas and there are always certain formalities to be complied with.
The Honourable Member will find further information on this subject on the Internet (http:\\citizens.eu.int) and in the guide ‘Working in another country of the European Union’, which has been sent to him direct and to Parliament’s Secretariat. This guide is accompanied by factsheets; the one entitled ‘Recognition of diplomas and qualifications: Teachers’ contains information on the recognition systems established by Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC and a list of useful addresses at national level.
(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. (2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
(1999/C 31/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1340/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission
(29 April 1998)
Subject: The euro and 1999
On page 110 of the Commission’s report of 25 March 1998 (state of convergence and recommendations for the transition to the third stage of EMU), it is stated: ‘over recent years governments cut their extension of loans and accelerated the reimbursement of outstanding loans [and] also reduced their liquid working balances held on bank accounts and increased operations which allow for the consolidation of claims and liabilities within the government sector’.
Can the Commission explain what type of operations it is referring to?
Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission
(3 June 1998)
The definition of debt retained for the monitoring of budgetary convergence is that of general government gross debt, consolidated between and within the sectors of general government. C 31/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Thus, only government indebtedness towards the rest of the economy is taken into consideration, while those government liabilities which correspond to financial assets held within the government sector are excluded. To establish figures for government debt in accordance with this definition, government debt held within the government sector itself is netted out.
In recent years, Member States have limited their government debt through recourse to increased consolidation, by inducing those government agencies which hold significant portfolios of financial assets to invest a growing proportion of their assets into government paper. For example, social security funds in Denmark and Finland have been restructuring their portfolio towards increased holdings of government debt over recent years. In Finland, such consolidation operations amounted to 4.5 % of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 1995.
(1999/C 31/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1356/98
by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission
(7 May 1998)
Subject: Proposed USDA standards for organic foods
What action does the Commission intend to take with regard to proposals by the United States Department of Agriculture setting out new standards for all organic agriculture in the USA?
Is the Commission concerned about the extension of foods which can be classified as organic, in particular the inclusion of foods which have been genetically modified? Has the Commission considered the impact these rules could have in the European market and any implications under GATT which could mean that European consumers are no longer able to chose traditional organic foods?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(18 June 1998)
Under the arrangement provided under the World trade organisation (WTO) agreement on technical barriers to trade (TBT), the Commission submitted comments to the United States on their proposed regulation for organic farming taking into account the experience on the application of Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (1) and scientific and technological progress.
The Community has well developed rules for the production and labelling of organic products. Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 provides in Article 11 for a regime of equivalency for products imported from third countries. This regime is managed either by the Commission (Article 11.1) or, as is currently the case for products from the United States, by the Member States (Article 11.6). The Community requirements provide that before products from third countries are placed on the market in the Community as organic products, it must be demonstrated that the products were produced in accordance with production standards and inspection arrangements equivalent to those applied to Community production. Similarly, the draft United States regulations on organic farming include provision for equivalency for imports of organic products from other countries, including the Community, into the United States.
As for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), their acceptance in organic products was in the initial draft American national organic programme and the Community expressed its concern in its comments on the American notification under the TBT. As a result of the comments received, on 8 May 1998 the American agriculture secretary announced that the American department of agriculture would make fundamental changes in their proposed rules for national organic food standards. The inclusion of the products of biotechnology, the use of irradiation in food processing and the application of biosolid will not be included in the revised rules and will not bear the organic label. Such a change will be in line with the Codex guidelines on organic farming which are currently under discussion which provide for a prohibition of the use of GMOs in organic farming.
(1) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/37
(1999/C 31/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1381/98
by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission
(7 May 1998)
Subject: Revision of Directives 92/46/EEC and 92/47/EEC
The implementation of Directives 92/46/EEC (1) and 92/47/EEC (2) has been causing increasing concern in the French regions where cheese is made from unpasteurized milk, especially since 1 January 1998.
1. Will the Commission, which is aware of this agricultural, economic and cultural problem, undertake to address the particular problems these directives pose for the production of cheese from unpasteurized milk when it carried out its planned revision of Directives 92/46/EEC and 92/47/EEC in 1998?
Does the Commission not think that in particular the extension of the derogations set out in Article 8(2) of Directive 92/46/EEC in respect of cheeses with traditional characteristics could be a solution to the problem?
2. Does the Commission intend to take any action in response to the letter on this subject sent by the author of this written question to Commissioner Fischler on 29 January 1998 and which to date has not been answered.
(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1. (2) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 33.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(16 June 1998)
1. Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products, as last amended by Directive 96/23/EC (1) has been in force since 1 January 1994. However, Council Directive 92/47/EEC allowed Member States, subject to certain conditions, to give establishments until 1 January 1998 to bring their structure and equipment into line with the requirements.
In accordance with Article 1 of Directive 92/47/EEC, all establishments now have to comply with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/46/EEC. However, to take account of establishments whose production is limited, the Commission adopted a decision under Article 11 of Directive 92/46/EEC which authorises Member States to grant exemptions to establishments processing a small quantity of milk each year.
Also, in order to allow for the manufacture of milk-based products with traditional characteristics, Article 8(2) of Directive 92/46/EEC stipulates that Member States may be authorised to grant exemptions from certain of the Directive’s requirements in so far as the latter are likely to affect the manufacture of those products. The Commission is, of course, happy to examine exemption requests and has already approved some. For example, it authorised Member States to grant exemptions for maturing cellars and for utensils coming into contact with milk products.
These exemptions − which apply both to the structure of establishments and to the manufacture of milk-based products, in particular cheeses made from raw milk, provided that the latter satisfy the conditions subject to which the Member States granted the exemptions − address the specific problems posed by the manufacture of cheeses from raw milk.
Lastly, since the Commission does not plan to revise the above-mentioned Directives during 1998, the exemptions based on various articles of Directive 92/46/EEC − in particular Article 8(2) − remain valid.
2. Yes.
(1) ,OJ L 125, 23.5.1996. C 31/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1391/98 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Council
(6 May 1998)
Subject: High-Level Disability Group
What progress can the Council report following the first meetings of the High-Level Group on Disability set up after the adoption of the Council Resolution on Equality of Opportunity for People with Disabilities?
Given the UK Presidency’s priority for employment, can the Council give its preliminary assessment of how far Member States have ensured integration of disabled people in their employment plans drawn up after the Luxembourg Summit?
Given the existence of discrimination against disabled people in other spheres of life outside employment, will the Council welcome a proposal from the Commission for a new disability programme on the basis of the non- discrimination clause in the unratified Amsterdam Treaty?
Reply
(6 October 1998)
The High-Level Disability Group comprises experts from the Commission, which is therefore best placed to provide information on the Group’s progress.
At the Cardiff European Council meeting on 15 and 16 June 1998, during which the Commission’s and the Council’s initial assessments of the employment action plans were presented, the Heads of State and of Government added to the list of guidelines laid down for future discussions on employment the need to tackle discrimination against disabled people in the labour market.
The Council will also examine any proposal from the Commission on measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people.
Furthermore, following the Council’s adoption on 20 December 1996 of a Resolution on the social and occupational integration of people with disabilities (1), the Council General Secretariat is endeavouring − in terms of its own policies and practices − to play its part in implementing the principles contained in this Resolution. Accordingly, it now applies an interinstitutional code of good conduct to the recruitment of disabled persons.
(1) OJ C 12, 13.1.1997.
(1999/C 31/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1398/98 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission
(7 May 1998)
Subject: Agriculture
Can the Commission state its views on the outlook for agriculture in the outermost regions and on how it intends to reduce the imbalances linked to farming in such remote areas?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(10 June 1998)
The Commission has always been anxious to take into account the specific characteristics of certain regions or activities in the definition or implementation of Community policies and also to answer the requests expressed by certain Member States. Thus the Council adopted the three decisions instituting the ‘Posei’ in 1989 and 1991, which recognise the specific characteristics of these regions, and the Commission proposed the Community initiative REGIS (isolated regions) as a response to the specific characteristics of these regions within the framework of the Structural Funds. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/39
Since in these regions the importance of the agricultural sector is obvious, special arrangements for the supply of basic or processed agricultural products were adopted, as well as justified exemptions from the rules of the common agricultural policy (CAP) and aid supplements, in order to consolidate or develop agriculture.
Aware of the fact that, despite this aid, remoteness and insularity always constitute an additional cost, the Commission started a debate relating to all sectors in these regions, including agriculture.
With Agenda 2000 (1), the Commission stressed in particular simplification in the granting of aid both in the agricultural field and in other sectors of activity (CAP and Structural Funds) for all the regions of the Community. Moreover, the situation of the most remote regions will be taken specifically into account under the Structural Funds. Indeed, these regions will be classified, independently of the criterion adopted for the other less-developed regions, in Objective 1.
Taking account therefore of the proposals contained in Agenda 2000, and in the light of Article 299 of the Treaty of Amsterdam (new drafting of Article 227 of the EC Treaty), the debate undertaken within the Commission should make it possible, with the experience of almost 10 years of special programmes, to draw up proposals for these regions in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.
(1) COM(97) 2000.
(1999/C 31/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1410/98 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(11 May 1998)
Subject: Opening of a quarry in Pieria
With the consent of the local government authorities, a private company is about to open a marble quarry in the Pieria mountains at a place known as Kteni-Koutoulos, more or less in the centre of the area marked out for proposed inclusion in the Natura 2000 network, coded GR-1250002. In June 1995, when the area had already been proposed for inclusion in the network, a licence was granted to prospect for marble over an area of some 5.5 hectares and to open a quarry on a 26-year lease without prior planning permission being obtained.
The opening of the quarry directly affects the communities of Vria, Ritini and Elatokhorio, the population of which (approximately 2500) is dependent on tobacco-growing as their only source of income. Moreover, at the request of the community of Vria, the ancient quarry located in the vicinity is to be designated an archaeological site and included, together with a number of other projects, in the Leader 2 Programme so that the area can become a centre for mountain environmental tourism.
What is the Commission’s view of the forthcoming opening of a quarry in this area which forms part of Natura 2000 and is protected under Directive 92/43/EEC (1)? How does it justify the investment in tourism through the Leader programme if, at the same time, a quarry is being opened which will bring about considerable changes to the landscape and what contribution will it make, in consultation with the relevant Greek authorities, towards revising the plan to open a quarry?
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(1999/C 31/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1533/98 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission
(18 May 1998)
Subject: Destruction of ‘Nature 2000’ biotope at Pieria
Three communities in the Pieria area claim that a biotope in the Pieria mountains is at risk of being destroyed by the opening of a marble quarry. Moreover, the Greek authorities have nominated the same area for inclusion in the ‘Nature 2000’ network, code GR-1250002, pursuant to Directive 92/43/EEC (1). C 31/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
What measures will the Commission take to prevent the destruction of the above biotope which contains seven species endemic to Greece, 13 types of protected habitat and plant and animal species (fish, reptiles and birds) which are protected under the above Directive?
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1410/98 and E-1533/98 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(18 June 1998)
The site in question, known as ‘Pieria Ori’ and coded GR-1250002, is indeed on the list of sites proposed by the Greek authorities, in accordance with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, for inclusion in the Natura 2000 ecological network. Once it has been selected by the Commission as a site of community importance (SCI), the Greek authorities will have to designate it a Special Area of Conservation and apply the management and protection measures provided for in Article 6 of the said Directive.
The said Article 6 stipulates that any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a SCI must be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. However, this site has not yet been selected as a SCI. The provisions of Article 6 do not yet apply to it. Nonetheless, the site hosts priority natural habitat types and will therefore be selected on the basis of the criteria set out in Annex III to the Directive. The Commission will ask the Greek authorities how they intend to prevent the site deteriorating given its future designation.
The problem the Honourable Member refers to of the compatibility of the investments proposed under Leader II with the opening of the quarry should normally be dealt with in the course of the procedure outlined above. In other words, if the site is included in the list of sites proposed in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC, the quarry must be the subject of an impact assessment, which must take into consideration all the effects it might have on the other features of the site, including developments financed from other Community sources.
(1999/C 31/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1456/98
by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission
(11 May 1998)
Subject: Hop-growing in the province of Leon (Spain)
It is widely known that since 1985 the area given over to hop-growing in the province of Leon (Spain) has been drastically reduced, to the point where only half of the original area of 2000 hectares is under production.
This situation has brought serious social consequences as a result of the job losses caused in an area with serious unemployment problems and the attempt to reduce the area under production still further will irreparably worsen this terrible social scourge.
In addition, it has been amply demonstrated that there are no reasonably viable alternative crops which might offer a solution to the deepening problem that any further reductions in hop-growing would create.
In the light of this disturbing situation, will the Commission consider using as a reference point for any possible reductions the surface area under crops in 1985, bearing in mind that sufficient and substantial reductions have been made since that date? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/41
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(23 June 1998)
In reply to the Honourable Member’s question, the temporary special measures for the hops sector adopted by the Council on 25 May 1998 with a view to the temporary resting or grubbing up of hops are entirely optional for the producer Member States, which can decide whether to apply them or not.
1997 was taken as the base year for the measures because the prices on the open market, especially for German hops (which account for 80 % of the Community’s production), have fallen to very low levels that are appreciably below the average for the last 20 years.
(1999/C 31/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1461/98 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(13 May 1998)
Subject: Additional information concerning the EPAC restructuring and financial reorganization plan
In December 1997 the Portuguese Government notified the Commission of the measures contained in the EPAC restructuring and financial reorganization plan [EPAC = Agri-food and Cereals Company].
On receiving that notification the Commission asked the Portuguese Government to provide eleven additional pieces of information which it felt it needed in order to be able to analyse the plan in question and, therefore, to be able to assess the degree of compliance thereof with the EU Treaty.
Did the Commission consider the eleven additional pieces of information provided by the Portuguese authorities to be sufficient? What exactly was the substance of the information?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question no. P-1423/98 by Mr Novo (1).
(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998.
(1999/C 31/052) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1471/98 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission
(13 May 1998)
Subject: EU assistance to NGOs working with street children in Honduras
Many European Union citizens are concerned about the plight of homeless ‘street children’ in Honduras and other countries. What action is the Commission taking, both financially and politically, to support NGOs working in Honduras and other countries to improve the situation of these ‘street children’?
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(26 June 1998)
The Commission is aware of the plight of street children in Honduras and other countries. C 31/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
It has been supporting projects carried out by NGOs working with street children in Honduras since 1993.
These projects have focused on various fields, the main ones being:
− an information project designed to raise children’s awareness of their rights and how to uphold them;
− preventive actions, the aim of which is to help reintegrate street children into their family. The projects involve working with children but also with their family and people close to them;
− support for NGOs that manage shelters for street children. These projects take a comprehensive approach to children and include training schemes for young people to facilitate their reintegration into Honduran society.
The Commission also assists governmental bodies in finding solutions to the specific problems of street children.
The Commission finances large-scale projects in other central and south American countries with the collaboration and participation of local NGOs in almost all Latin American countries.
(1999/C 31/053) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1495/98
by Heinz Kindermann (PSE), Jan Mulder (ELDR), Jan Sonneveld (PPE) and Robert Sturdy (PPE) to the Commission
(13 May 1998)
Subject: Availability of equine medicines
1. The Commission is surely aware that equine practitioners are confronted with an increasingly limited number of veterinary medicinal products authorised for use in horses and that therefore the quality of treatment is impaired and animal welfare is compromised.
As a result, the Commission is also surely aware that, when no product is authorized in their own Member States, equine practitioners have, if they still want to treat the horses under their care, no other alternative but to use products imported from third Member States or to use products authorized in their own Member States but not for horses. Which in both cases is illegal.
What is the Commission prepared to do to restore the therapeutic arsenal of equine practitioners?
2. Does the Commission share our opinion that given the limited number of recreational horses which are slaughtered each year in the Community, such horses should not be regarded as food-producing animals and that, should they nonetheless be slaughtered and enter the food-chain, public health could be protected by means of a set, conservative pre-slaughter waiting period, (e.g. 3 months)? Such a period would give enough confidence that any residues of products used throughout the life of the animal would have decreased below levels of any concern to the consumer.
Under such conditions, is the Commission prepared to make a distinction between recreational horses and those bred for meat production and to accept that veterinary medical products could be used in recreational horses when no maximum residue limits have been established for horses?
3. Despite the existing measures to increase the number of veterinary medicinal products available for minor species or minor uses, veterinary practitioners are confronted with a limited number of products authorized for such uses or such species. Is the Commission prepared to investigate what further measures could be taken to increase the number of such products and to develop a policy modelled on the measures taken for Orphan Drugs necessary for the treatment of rare human diseases? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/43
(1999/C 31/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1537/98 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission
(18 May 1998)
Subject: Equine medicines
The EU classification of horses as food producing animals is causing problems in the United Kingdom where there are a large number of recreational horses, and where many of the drugs used do not currently have the maximum residue levels necessary in the case of use for food producing animals. The costs of establishing an MRL is prohibitively high in such cases, given the relatively small turn-over of drugs for horses. Concern is being expressed at the effects of the withdrawal from sale of many drugs widely used for horses in Britain, as a consequence of EU legislation.
Can the Commission state whether it is prepared to introduce a derogation from Community legislation which would allow Member States to authorise the use of certain veterinary medical products for recreational horses, despite the absence of maximum residue levels for these?
(1999/C 31/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1725/98 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission
(5 June 1998)
Subject: Marketing authorization for veterinary medicinal products used for horses
Under Council Directive 81/851/EEC (1), in order to obtain marketing authorization, veterinary medicinal products used for food-producing animals must be listed in Annexes I, II or III to Council Regulation 2377/90 (2).
The British Equine Veterinary Association (BEVA) asserts that, because of the approaching expiry date for applications for the establishment of maximum residue limits (MRL), the welfare and health of horses and ponies is now under serious threat, since most drugs used for horses do not have an MRL and the cost of establishing one is, in many cases, prohibitively high.
BEVA further asserts that the application of this regulatory regime to veterinary medicinal products used for horses is inappropriate, since the vast majority of horses will never enter the human food chain.
What comments does the Commission have to make on this matter?
(1) OJ L 317, 6.11.1981, p. 1. (2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1.
(1999/C 31/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1921/98 by Lutz Goepel (PPE) to the Commission
(18 June 1998)
Subject: Use of medicinal products for horses used for sport
In the European Community, horses are currently deemed to be animals which are a source of food. Consequently, when equidae are treated with medicinal products Regulation (EEC) 2377/90 (1) and subsequent amending Regulations, most recently Regulation (EC) 613/98 (2), laying down maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, apply.
Since more than 90 % of all horses are kept for sports and leisure purposes, the needs regarding the level of medical care are correspondingly high. Medicinal products are used which, on account of the maximum residue limits (MRLs) which must be laid down by 2000, rule out their use as food. C 31/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
In this context, will the Commission answer the following questions:
1. Is it possible for individual owners to declare their horses to be not a source of food, either permanently or for the duration of treatment with medicinal products?
2. Can a horse be approved as a source of food after a qualifying period (to be determined) between the last application of a medicinal product and slaughter?
3. Does the Commission see opportunities for EU-wide harmonization and simplification of the authorization requirements for veterinary medicinal products?
4. How can the veterinary medicinal products industry be induced, by improvements in the authorization situation, to retain as many long-established products as possible and thereby prevent treatment gaps arising?
(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1. (2) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998, p. 14.
(1999/C 31/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1948/98 by Liam Hyland (UPE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: EU regulations on equine medicines
Council Regulation No 2377/90 (1) stipulates that maximum residue limits must be established for any substance intended for use in food producing animals. In this regard, no distinction is made between horses bred for food production and recreational or sport horses.
Is the Commission aware that, as a result, the number of products/medicines which have been granted a marketing aurhorization for use in horses is severely restricted?
Has the Commission considered the option of introducing traceability for horses through the use of methods such as micro-chips for identification and medication passports to ensure that:
− the consumer is guaranteed protection with regard to horse meat in the food chain, and
− a wider range of the best possible treatments is available for recreational and sport horses?
(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p.1.
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1495/98, E-1537/98, E-1725/98, E-1921/98 and E-1948/98 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(20 July 1998)
Horses (and other domestic solipeds like donkeys, ponies etc.) are used as ‘food-producing animals’ in the Community. If they are slaughtered and their meat is intended for human consumption the rules of Council Directive 64/433/EEC (1), which regulates health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat, have to be applied.
The marketing of a veterinary medicinal product has to be authorised according to the requirements of Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products (2). Before a marketing authorisation can be issued for a veterinary medicinal product for use in animals that will subsequently be used as food, a positive evaluation must be carried out to see what residues from any pharmacological active substance will remain in the food products that will be produced from the animal. This evaluation has to be carried out according to Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (3).
It has been suggested that horses kept for sporting purposes should be excluded from these requirements. However, many horses enter the meat production chain at the end of their lives, irrespective of whether they were kept for meat production or recreational purposes. This is also the case with horses in Member States where 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/45
horsemeat is not usually consumed since these horses are often exported to other countries where they are slaughtered for human consumption. Separation of sporting or recreational animals from meat-producing animals is not easily achieved. Any system of control would need to be both straightforward and reliable. However, simply relying on documentation (especially if such documentation just takes the form of a declaration by the horse’s owner) will not fulfil these requirements. Indelibly marking with microchips, branding and tattooing have all been suggested and discussions are still under way as to whether such marking systems are likely to be feasible and effective. It is clear that any solution will have to be valid for the whole Community and not for specific Member States.
The Commission is also considering various options to facilitate the authorisation of veterinary medicinal products in certain circumstances. Any solutions will also have to consider products, which were on the market before Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90 came into force.
Before maximum residue limits were introduced to enforce consumer protection, a system of ‘withdrawal periods’ was used. This was abandoned as general strategy because it was difficult to control and to enforce.
The Commission is seeking a solution to the problems, which takes the principles of consumer protection into account.
(1) OJ L 121, 29.7.1964. (2) OJ L 317, 6.11.1981. (3) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.
(1999/C 31/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1499/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission
(13 May 1998)
Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion
When she appeared before Parliament’s Committee on Regional Policy on 23 January 1997 in connection with the presentation of the Commission Communication on cohesion and the information society (COM(97) 7 final of 22 January 1997), Mrs Mathies, Commissioner, said that the information society should form an integral part of Community structural policy. On this subject the Committee on Regional Policy, by means of report A4-0399/97, has expressed its concern at the fact that only 2 % of expenditure under the Structural Funds goes to investment in the telecommunication sector. It puts forward the view that expenditure on the information society should be included in the ‘mainstreaming’ of the Structural Funds and it calls on the Commission to secure close cooperation and coordination between the different programmes and activities in the area of information and communication technologies (ICTs).
Could the Commission say how it has incorporated these requests into its final proposals on the reform of the Structural Funds for the new 2000-2006 period (proposals which were adopted by the College of Commissioners on 18 March 1997), with particular reference to the configuration of Objectives 1 and 2, the establishment of the selection criteria and funding under those objectives?
(1999/C 31/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1503/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission
(13 May 1998)
Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion
In its Communication on cohesion and the information society (COM(97) 7 final of 22 January 1997) the Commission states that ‘the information society also offers a great potential for the development of new forms of employment and high-skilled jobs, especially by providing SMEs, as the main dynamic source of employment creation, growth and competitiveness, with the instruments to innovate and adapt to a rapidly changing economic environment’ (page 4). According to the Communication the access of SMEs to such potential should be facilitated, since SMEs represent the backbone of regional economic structures, especially in least-favoured regions (page 4). This should make it possible to prevent the establishment of a technocratic elite which would C 31/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
considerably reduce social and regional equality within the EU and, in general, a two-speed information society. Parliament’s Committee on Regional Policy has also expressed similar views in its report A4-0399/97.
Could the Commission say how this consideration has been incorporated into its final proposals on the reform of the Structural Funds for the new 2000-2006 period (proposals which were adopted by the College of Commissioners on 18 March 1998), with particular reference to SMEs and, in general, less-favoured (i.e. rural, island and outlying) regions?
(1999/C 31/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1506/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission
(13 May 1998)
Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion
The Commission Communication on cohesion and the information society (COM(97) 7 final of 22 January 1997) describes (on page 17) the greater difficulty experienced by the more backward regions in securing access to, and exploiting the potential of, the information society. At the same time a sound telecommunications infrastructure can restrict or even do away with the need for people to travel and for goods to be transported, which would have less impact on the environment and be less demanding in terms of financial and energy resources.
Can the Commission say whether this consideration has been incorporated into its final proposals concerning the reform of the Structural Funds for the new 2000-2006 period, proposals which were adopted by the College of Commissioners on 18 March 1998?
(1999/C 31/061) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1507/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission
(13 May 1998)
Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion
In its report A4-0399/97 of 9 December 1997, Parliament’s Committee on Regional Policy called on the Commission to take due account of the specific needs of the less-developed regions, the cohesion requirements of the existing Member States and the challenges arising from enlargement when formulating its policy on the information society.
Could the Commission say to what extent it has taken this request into account in its final proposals for reform of the Structural Funds during the new 2000-2006 planning period, proposals which were approved by the College of Commissioners on 18 March 1998?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1499/98, E-1503/98, E-1506/98 and E-1507/98 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(13 July 1998)
In the Commission’s proposal for new regulations for the structural funds (1), technological innovation (in particular the dissemination of information and communication technologies) is listed among the objectives of the funds’ intervention. More specifically, Article 2, paragraph 2 of the proposal for a Council regulation of the European regional development fund (ERDF) clearly states that the development of the information society is considered as a priority area. Such priority is supported by investments in telecommunications, assistance towards services for enterprises and technological development with a view to introducing new technologies and innovation in firms.
The guidelines that the Commission is due to produce after the entry into force of the new regulation (current article 9, paragraph 4 of the Commission’s proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the structural funds) will elaborate and provide additional details on how to integrate the information society into the funds’ intervention. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/47
The guidelines will be based − among other things − on the continuing evaluations of the different initiatives financed by the structural funds and of the mid-term review of structural interventions. For example, the current evaluation of the structural funds’ impact on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) will provide elements concerning the typology of information society − related expenditure. This will help to focus the orientations and future action of the Commission in supporting SMEs to fully integrate information and communication technologies.
Similarly, the evaluation of the IRISI programmes − the information society regional strategies developed by the six regions precursors of the current RISI pilot projects on the basis of Article 10 of the current ERDF Regulation − is giving important insights concerning the regional perception of the information society and the institutional and procedural problems arising from investments of an intangible nature such as those associated with the information society.
Furthermore, as a follow-up to the communication ‘Living and working in the information society − people first’, the Commission is examining issues related to changes in the organisation of work − following among other things the diffusion of information and communication technologies − in order to extract examples of best practices.
(1) COM(98) 131 final.
(1999/C 31/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1500/98
by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission
(13 May 1998)
Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion
In her appearance before Parliament’s Committee on Regional Policy on 23 January 1997 in connection with the presentation of the Commission Communication on cohesion and the information society (COM(97) 7 final of 22 January 1997), Mrs Mathies, Commissioner, mentioned that budget resources under Article 10 of the ERDF had been made available to a certain number of regions with a view to the drawing up of a strategy and an action programme for transition to the information society.
Could the Commission provide information regarding all the projects relating to the information society which have so far been co-financed by the Commission under Article 10 of the ERDF and also those which will be co- financed between now and the end of the current planning period, specifying the regions concerned, the total cost of implementation and the extent of Community co-financing?
(1999/C 31/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1502/98
by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission
(13 May 1998)
Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion
In her appearance before Parliament’s Committee on Regional Policy on 23 January 1997 in connection with the presentation of the Commission Communication on cohesion and the information society (COM(97) 7 final of 22 January 1997), Mrs Mathies, Commissioner, mentioned that ten information society projects would be financed under interregional cooperation.
Could the Commission provide information regarding all the projects relating to the information society which have so far been co-financed by the Commission under the Community initiatives and also those which will be co-financed between now and the end of the current planning period, specifying the regions concerned, the total cost of implementation and the extent of Community co-financing? C 31/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1500/98 and E-1502/98 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(22 June 1998)
A list of the information society projects launched as part of the innovative measures referred to in Article 10 of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Regulation (1) for the 1994-99 programming period is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
The ‘information society’ aspect comprises two types of measure:
− RISI 1: regional strategies for the information society
− RISI 2: multiregional pilot applications.
These measures have been launched in collaboration with the European Social Fund, which part-finances eight RISI 1 projects and two RISI 2 projects.
The nine (and not ten) pilot projects cited in the Honourable Member’s written question 1502/98 are the so-called RISI 2 applications financed under Article 10 of the FEDER Regulation. They do not concern Community initiative (CI) activities. However, an estimate of information society-related measures within the framework of the 1994-99 CI is given in the following table, expressed in million ecus.
Member States Community Total Structural Funds Private Public Telecoms (1) 6 41 41 88 Telematics (2) 66 112 166 344
(1) Priorities or measures covering telecommunications infrastructure and services. (2) Telematics applications in several fields such as health, transport, education. This includes e.g. teleworking, telemedicine and multimedia applications.
(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
(1999/C 31/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1505/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission
(13 May 1998)
Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion
In her appearance before Parliament’s Committee on Regional Policy on 23 January 1997 in connection with the presentation of the Commission Communication on cohesion and the information society (COM(97) 7 final of 22 January 1997), Mrs Mathies, Commissioner, said that there would be greater support for information and communication technologies (ICTs), particularly in relation to the current Objectives 1 and 2, on the basis of their contribution to the transition to the information society.
Could the Commission provide information regarding all the ICT projects which have so far been co-financed by the Commission under the current Objectives 1 and 2, and also those which will be co-financed between now and the end of the current planning period, specifying the regions concerned, the total cost of implementation and the extent of Community co-financing?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(22 June 1998)
The data contained in the Commission’s communication on ‘Cohesion and the information society’ resulted from an internal study by the Commission and represent an estimate of the actions related to telecommunications co- financed by the structural funds. The estimate is based on the programmes submitted by the Member States at the beginning of the current 1994-1999 structural funds programming period. An evaluation ex-post will be launched at the end of the programming period. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/49
Over the current programming period, the structural funds (European regional development fund) are expected to co-finance actions in the area of telecommunications involving a total contribution of MECU 1 741 in objective 1, 2 and 5b regions.
The results of a tentative analysis of the above amount in terms of infrastructures and applications as well as a table with indicative details concerning the main beneficiary Member States are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament.
Since these calculations were made, the mid-term review of the Community support frameworks and the annual distribution of the amounts resulting from the indexation of the structural funds have taken place. Several Member States have also proposed re-allocations of programming priorities. This has had an impact on the investments related to the information society. In some cases, for example in Spain, a new programming priority for the information society has been created, while in other cases, for example in Portugal, the existing telecommunications priority has been reinforced to address advanced applications and services.
A complete view of information society-related expenditure will therefore only be obtainable through the ex-post evaluation.
(1999/C 31/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1509/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission
(13 May 1998)
Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion
In the transition to the information society the difficulties which have to be resolved are not just technical ones; there are also political issues such as the legal determination of the use and exploitation of the information available.
Could the Commission say what measures it has adopted (or is intending to adopt) with regard to controls on the use and exploitation of information within the information society, with particular reference to the protection of minors?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(25 June 1998)
As far as illegal and harmful content and protection of minors on the Internet is concerned, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s answers on recent questions on this topic, in particular: E-4225/97 by Mrs Muscardini (1), P-0572/97 by Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel (2), E-2582/97 by Mrs Maij-Weggen (3), E-2024/97 by Mrs Matikainen-Kallström (4), E-3041/96 by Mr Kaklamanis (5), P-2792/96 by Mr Hallam (6), E-2663/96 by Mr Amadeo (7), E-2550/96 by Mr Amadeo (8), P-2479/96 by Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel (9) and P-2458/96 by Mrs Crepaz (10).
The Commission is aware of the problems raised by the Honourable Member, and shares his concern. The Commission has been working actively on these issues for over two years and has recently adopted a proposal for an action plan on promoting safe use of the Internet (11) and a proposal for a Council recommendation for the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services (12). These are currently being examined by the Parliament and the Council.
The action plan will provide a basis for Community co-funding of a European network of hotlines for reporting illegal content such as child pornography, for European filtering and rating systems and for actions to promote awareness. It will also provide support for action under the Council Recommendation for European co-ordination of actions at national level in the field of self-regulation. International co-operation will also be reinforced under these two measures.
The Commission has further been actively engaged in the discussions of the Council under the third pillar, and in discussions of the Eight most industrialised nations (including the United States, Canada, Japan and Russia) to develop legal and technical mechanisms that allow for timely international law enforcement response to C 31/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
computer-related crimes. The Commission is involved in the implementation of the action plan to combat organised crime endorsed by the European Council in Amsterdam and which includes a recommendation to combat the criminal use of new technologies.
These actions will contribute substantially to discouraging the circulation of child pornography on the Internet.
(1) OJ C 223, 17.7.1998, p. 74. (2) OJ C 217, 17.7.1997. (3) OJ C 102, 3.4.1998. (4) OJ C 60, 25.2.1998. (5) OJ C 91, 20.3.1997. (6) OJ C 83, 14.3.1997. (7) OJ C 83, 14.3.1997. (8) OJ C 83, 14.3.1997. (9) OJ C 60, 26.2.1997. (10) OJ C 60, 26.2.1997. (11) COM(97) 582 final. (12) COM(97) 570 final.
(1999/C 31/066) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1516/98 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission
(13 May 1998)
Subject: Euro campaign and women
At the 1997 meeting of the Commissioners’ Working Party on Equal Opportunities, President Santer announced that women would be a priority target group in the euro information campaigns.
Can the Commission say how the President’s words have been put into action and to what degree specific campaigns for women have been created as part of other information campaigns under the Prince programme (Citizens first, Building Europe together, etc.)?
Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission
(3 September 1998)
The Commission reaffirms that women are one of the priority targets of the information campaign on the euro. However, women have not been targeted by a specific communication plan in the initial stage of the campaign, which has been mainly directed at business circles.
Women are represented in all the segments of the population targeted by the communication on the euro, and it was accordingly felt that women should be addressed in all sections of the communication. Thus projects presented by civil society organisations with a female bias or involving communication tools geared to a female audience have been supported or cofinanced. Such projects have reached out to women in their professional life as well as in their family and social lives.
This dimension will be emphasised in the new stage of the campaign, which now focuses very much on the general public. Member States with which partnership agreements have been concluded have been requested to include information strategies for women in the communication plans. The Commission is working on a quantitative and qualitative analysis to identify the best ways of communicating information on the euro to women. The Commission follows a coordinated strategy to put all its tools at the service of this objective. A special issue of the September edition of the ‘Women of Europe’ newsletter will be devoted to the euro.
The two other components of the Prince programme (‘Citizens first’ and ‘Building Europe together’) have likewise supported women-oriented initiatives. Of the six themes developed by ‘Citizens first’, one dealt specifically with the matter of equal opportunities in the Community in a brochure and descriptive leaflets. As in 1997, the call for proposals with regard to ‘Building Europe together’ provides an opportunity for organisations presenting projects devoted to women to ask for financial contributions. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/51
(1999/C 31/067) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1524/98 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission
(11 May 1998)
Subject: The environmental impact of PVC and the proposal for a Council Directive on end- of-life vehicles
Will the Commission state how it has satisfied itself that the proposal for a Council Directive on end-of-life vehicles contained in COM(97) 0358 (1) is based on the latest data and research?
In particular, how was it calculated that 1 kg of PVC waste incinerated generates 2-5 kg of flue gas treatment residue, as stated in the proposal? What percentage of the total amount of flue gas treatment residue generated as a result of waste incineration does PVC waste account for?
What research forms the basis for the assertion made in the proposal that PVC waste generates dioxin emissions? What volumes of dioxins are emitted respectively by the steel industry, the cement industry and as a result of the incineration of waste containing PVC?
The main reason for disposing of flue gas treatment residue as hazardous waste is that it contains heavy metals. What percentage of the heavy metals in flue gas treatment residue does PVC waste account for?
Will the Commission also furnish evidence to show that the overall level of pollution is certain to fall if PVC is replaced with any other material?
(1) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997, p. 3.
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(17 July 1998)
When adopting the proposal for a Council Directive on end-of-life vehicles (1) on 9 July 1997 the Commission stipulated the following: ‘Whereas PVC is a material commonly present in end-of-life vehicles; whereas the Commission will consider the evidence regarding the environmental aspects relating to the presence of PVC in waste streams; whereas, on the basis of this evidence, the Commission will review its policy regarding the presence of PVC in waste streams and will come forward with proposals to address problems which may arise in this regard; where this is justified on environmental or health grounds’.
In the explanatory memorandum to the abovementioned proposal for a Directive, several aspects of PVC incineration are mentioned. When PVC is incinerated acid fumes are generated and must be neutralised. Where flue gases are subject to dry treatment, generally with lime, that neutralisation leads to the formation of large quantities easily-soluble residues which are classified as dangerous, and in particular calcium chloride contaminated by heavy metals. Many sources have been used to demonstrate those problems − more especially the study carried out by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency in 1996. A study to the order of the Commission will examine this problem of the quantity and harmfulness of PVC-incineration residues in more detail.
The abovementioned explanatory memorandum to the proposal for a Directive states, with regard to dioxin formation during the incineration process, that the combustion of chlorine produces hydrochloric acid which is likely to result in dioxin formation as a result of the combustion conditions. This aspect is not challenged by the scientific community. A recent inventory drawn up by the Nordrhein Westfalen Environment Agency in Germany has shown that the incineration of all wastes together in incinerators accounts for more than 40 % of total dioxin emissions within the Community. The Commission is currently at work on defining a horizontal strategy to be adopted to deal with the impact of PVC on the environment and human health.
The Commission has begun work on PVC and is currently acquiring information on the problems linked to the life cycle of PVC products; In order to gain a knowledge of other aspects of PVC waste management a study will shortly be launched on, in particular, the behaviour of dumped PVC.
(1) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997. C 31/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1540/98
by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission
(18 May 1998)
Subject: Antibiotics
To what extent has the Commission considered the animal and public health implications of the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry?
Can the Commission confirm whether any of the Member States have taken steps to encourage the use of records on antibiotic use and doses?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(17 July 1998)
Several scientific committees have drawn the attention of the Commission to the potential risk to public health arising from increased antimicrobial resistance and to the multi-disciplinary nature of the problem, involving food, animal nutrition as well as human and veterinary medicinal practice. In the light of these concerns, the Commission asked the scientific steering committee to examine the question of antimicrobial resistance and a working group with representatives of various scientific committees has been established. The Commission has also initiated and co-ordinated a surveillance programme in some Member States, for which the industry producing additives is paying. The Commission is thus giving this matter considerable priority.
For every authorisation of an antibiotic to be used in feedingstuffs, the Commission examines, in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs (1), that the substance does not adversely affect human or animal health nor harm the consumer by altering the characteristics of livestock products. A dossier is established by the applicant for authorisation of the antibiotic according to Council Directive 87/153/CEE fixing the guidelines for the assessment of additives in animal nutrition (2). The authorisation conditions specify the species and category of animal, maximum age, minimum and maximum content in feedingstuffs, and possibly a withdrawal time. Under Article 11 of Directive 70/524/EEC, authorised feed additives can be temporarily suspended by a Member State, if there are grounds indicating that their use constitutes a danger to human health. The Commission examines the grounds, consults the Member States within the standing committee for feedingstuffs and takes the appropriate measures. This was the case for the provisional ban by the Commission from April 1997 for avoparcin, following a national ban in Denmark in 1995 and in Germany in 1996. At present, the grounds provided by Denmark for banning virginiamycin are being examined by the Commission.
Under Council Regulation 81/851/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products (3), products are only authorised if documentation shows that the requirements on safety, quality and efficiency have been met.
These requirements are laid down in Council Directive 81/852/EEC on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to analytical, pharmatoxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing of veterinary medicinal products (4). For substances in products to be used in food producing animals the residues are evaluated according to Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90 (5) and a withdrawal time is established, which determines how long after the treatment food products may be taken from the treated animals. Veterinary medicinal products may be dispensed only on a vet’s prescription.
When an antibiotic is authorised as an additive in feedingstuffs, the authorisation conditions include a minimum and a maximum content. Levels beyond these contents are forbidden. These levels are set in order to ensure efficacy as well as to meet safety criteria and they are enforced by the Member States.
The Commission does not have figures for the overall quantities of antibiotics used as additives in feedingstuffs. However, these data will be in the possession of the Member States from 1 April 1998. Indeed under Directive 95/ 69/EEC of 22 December 1995 laying down the conditions and arrangements for approving and registering certain establishments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector and amending Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/ 63/EEC, 79/373/EEC and 82/471/EEC (6) establishments have to hold a register in order to ensure traceability of the quantities of antibiotics used, specifying the nature and quantity of additive bought or produced and of 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/53
product sold, with dates and batch numbers. This register is at the disposal of the authorities of the Member States which ensure, by means of appropriate checks, that the requirements established by the Directive are met.
Retailers of veterinary medicinal products are required to keep detailed records of their quantities and to ensure traceability.
The information to be recorded in respect of each transaction includes the date, precise identity of the veterinary medicinal product, manufacturer’s batch number, quantity received or supplied, name and address of the supplier or recipient where relevant, name and address of the prescribing vet and a copy of the prescription. At least once a year a detailed audit has to be carried out, and incoming and outgoing products have to be reconciled with products currently held in stock, any discrepancies being recorded.
(1) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970. (2) OJ L 64, 7.3.1987. (3) As amended by Council Directive 90/676/EEC and 93/40/EEC (OJ L 317, 6.11.1981, 90/676/EEC, OJ L 373, 31.12.1990, 93/40/EEC, OJ L 214, 24.8.1993.). (4) OJ 317, 6.11.1981. (5) Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 224, 18.8.1990. Amended by Council Regulation (EC) 434/97 of 3 March 1997 amending Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 67, 7.3.1997.). (6) OJ L 332, 30.12.1995.
(1999/C 31/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1542/98 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission
(19 May 1998)
Subject: Crucifixion of a dove at Whitsun ceremony in Orvieto
It is a popular tradition in Orvieto that on Whit Sunday a dove, symbol of the Holy Spirit, is crucified on a wheel of fireworks and made to run along a wire from the church of Saint Francis (patron saint of animals) to the doors of the cathedral. With the cries of the crows and the explosions of the fireworks and fire-crackers attached to the wheel, it is not unusual for the dove to be dead or dying by the time it arrives. The condition in which the bird reaches the doors of the cathedral is taken as a good or bad omen for the future of the city.
This barbaric ceremony has the blessing of the city’s bishop and comes under the patronage of the Region of Umbria and the European Union, according to the brochure publicizing the ceremony.
Despite repeated protests by various animal welfare organizations in the country (Friends of the Earth, LAV, ENPA, WWF), this year again a dove will be sacrificed on the altar of superstition.
Does the Commission feel that ceremonies of this kind are consistent with the need to protect animal welfare, as recognized moreover during the IGC, which led to the Treaty of Amsterdam? What led the EU to lend its name to this event? Does it not consider that this is an improper use of the EU flag symbol and how will it seek to prevent this?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(19 June 1998)
As it has stated on several occasions, the Commission deplores all forms of cruelty to animals and has, in its proposals concerning the welfare of animals, consistently sought to provide for the highest possible standards of welfare.
The Community has animal welfare legislation concerning farm animals (farm practices, transport and slaughter) and laboratory animals. This legislation has been up-dated from time to time, taking into account new developments and the latest scientific knowledge.
A protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam requires the Commission and the Member States to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in the areas of agriculture, transport, internal market and research. However, the protocol stresses that religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage should continue to be respected. C 31/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1544/98
by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission
(19 May 1998)
Subject: Zoonoses
Directive 92/117/EEC (1) lays down requirements for the monitoring and control of a series of zoonoses, excluding control of salmonella enteritidis and typhimurium in fowl breeding flocks, but does not provide for any standardized procedure for the monitoring and gathering of data on other diseases. This situation is adversely affecting the attainment of one of the Directive’s main objectives, namely the collection in individual Member States of epidemiological information on zoonoses, since data that can be collected in this context cannot otherwise be brought together and monitored.
Will the Commission devise a uniform monitoring system at Community level for individual diseases, laying down clearly and unequivocally which epidemiological unit should serve as a reference and defining uniform and standard diagnostic procedures for all Member States?
(1) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 38.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(19 June 1998)
Directive 92/117/EEC lays down general rules for collecting epidemiological information on various zoonoses, and specific measures to combat salmonella in poultry breeding flocks. In addition, there are Community rules regarding the control and monitoring of certain other zoonoses such as tuberculosis due to mycobacterium bovis, brucellosis and trichinosis which are covered by the appropriate trade and hygiene directives.
The Commission recognises the problems related to the epidemiological reporting system on trends and sources of zoonoses provided in Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 92/117/EEC. Member States’ experts have been invited to several working groups to discuss these problems. In addition, the Community reference laboratory for the epidemiology of zoonoses, BgVV Berlin, has organised workshops where this issue has been addressed. As a result of these consultations certain guidelines and uniform data collection sheets for reporting have been agreed. The quality of the data reported from the Member States has been gradually improving although, because of the different surveillance systems, it still does not allow comparisons of the epidemiological situation between the Member States. However, the annual Community report in its current form still offers useful information on the details of surveillance systems in the Member States and it allows, to a certain extent, for monitoring of the trends of zoonoses within individual Member States even if not between different Member States.
Further efforts to improve the reporting system will be made in the context of the review of Directive 92/117/EEC by introducing certain fixed criteria for data collection and reporting. However, the development of a fully harmonised reporting system would be an extremely comprehensive exercise requiring, for example harmonisa- tion of case definitions, monitoring, surveillance, sampling, analytical methods and notification of zoonoses and zoonotic agents in feed, in domestic animals and wildlife, in food and in humans. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that in most Member States several authorities share competence for the various epidemiological aspects of zoonoses. In addition, the degree of reporting of most food borne infections will always be influenced by differences in national and local traditions, including how frequently and how quickly medical assistance is sought. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/55
(1999/C 31/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1545/98 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission
(19 May 1998)
Subject: Promotion of plants and flowers
With reference to Regulation (EC) 832/97 (1) on the promotion of floricultural products, it would seem that during the implementation of the first stage of the measure, the programmes submitted and carried out have suffered from the fact that only one body in the European Union possessed sufficient resources to cover the difference between the total costs of the promotional campaigns and the Community contribution.
1. Is this true?
If so
2. Should the Commission not consider seriously whether this instrument is efficient, fair and impartial?
3. Does it not believe that the EU’s acceptance of the Dutch law imposing a parafiscal levy on flowers (Community and other) in transit through its territory will in all probability exacerbate the imbalance in future years between the capacity of the Dutch Flower Bureau to provide financial support in this sector and that enjoyed by the flower sector in other Member States?
4. Does it not consider that the omission of floriculture from Agenda 2000 is unjustified and will have adverse effects in future years?
(1) OJ L 119, 8.5.1997, p. 17.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 1998)
In response to the Honourable Member’s first point, the Commission’s practical experience has been that many professional and interprofessional organisations have had the resources to co-finance the promotional measures selected. Co-financing of this type parallels existing practice in other sectors.
As regards the Dutch levy, it should be pointed out that the use of funds raised from obligatory charges on operators in the sector can facilitate the implementation of programmes. For this reason their use was permitted by Commission Regulation (EEC) 803/98 of 16 April 1998 laying down detailed rules for 1998 for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 2275/96 introducing specific measures for live plants and floricultural products (1).
Under Council Regulation (EC) 2275/96 of 22 November 1996 (2) Community aid is granted for promotional programmes lasting up to three years. The Commission must wait to assess the results obtained from the scheme before deciding what further action is required for the sector.
(1) OJ L 115, 17.4.1998. (2) OJ L 308, 29.11.1996.
(1999/C 31/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1548/98 by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission
(19 May 1998)
Subject: Nuclear waste transported to Scotland from Georgia
1. Is the Commission aware that there is a secret agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom on the processing and storage of nuclear waste from Georgia at Dounreay in Scotland? C 31/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
2. Is it true that the Dounreay plant is the subject of controversy and that only last year it was severely criticised by the international inspectorate for nuclear installations?
3. How can the Commission influence this decision to ensure safer processing and storage of nuclear waste from Georgia?
Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission
(3 July 1998)
The Commission was informed by the British authorities in April 1998, before the transport of the nuclear material from Georgia to Scotland took place, that an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom was being concluded. It was also explained that this was a non-commercial deal, done on non- proliferation grounds. It is intended to use the nuclear material concerned for the production of medical isotopes.
The Commission in not able to trace information concerning criticism of the Dounreay plant by an international inspectorate for nuclear installations during last year. However, the Commission is aware of an investigation ordered recently by the British Nuclear installations inspectorate following a power cut to key plants at the Dounreay site in early May 1998.
The Commission will continue to ensure the application of Chapter III of the Euratom Treaty and of the relevant legislation for its implementation.
(1999/C 31/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1552/98 by Rainer Wieland (PPE) to the Commission
(19 May 1998)
Subject: Motor-vehicle number-plate requirement
From 1 June 1998 drivers whose vehicles carry the blue EU emblem on the number-plate, will no longer be required to display indications of nationality such as ‘D’, ‘SF’, etc., when travelling within the Union.
On what legal basis was this negotiated?
To what extent did the Commission link Switzerland into the negotiating process?
Was Switzerland actually involved in any way in the above negotiations, or was it merely consulted or notified before or during the negotiating process?
Did the Commission ever intend to involve Switzerland in this outcome?
What were the reasons for not involving Switzerland?
Does the Commission have any plans to involve Switzerland in future?
If not, why not?
If so, when does it expect this to take place?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(1 July 1998)
The Commission’s proposal for a Council regulation on the recognition in intra Community traffic of the distinguishing sign of the Member State in which motor vehicles and their trailers are registered (1) is based on Article 75(1)(d) of the EC Treaty. The proposal concerns intra-Community traffic only.
Following Parliament’s first reading, the Commission has submitted a modified proposal (2) and the Council’s common position can be expected in June 1998. The regulation is not expected to be adopted before autumn 1998. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/57
It would therefore be premature to negotiate with third countries on the content of the forthcoming regulation. However, the Commission will take up the issue of recognition of the registration signs with the Swiss authorities at the earliest opportunity.
(1) OJ C 290, 24.9.1997. (2) OJ C 159, 26.5.1998.
(1999/C 31/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1566/98
by Marie-Thérèse Mutin (PSE) to the Commission
(20 May 1998)
Subject: Recognition of the training and status of French psychiatric nurses
In order to comply with the European directives, the decision (Decree of 30 March 1992) to merge the training of state registered nurses and psychiatric nurses led to the abolition of the psychiatric nursing qualification, which has not been issued since 1995, and a change to the conditions under which a holders of psychiatric nursing qualifications can obtain a state nursing qualification (DEI). The order of 26 October 1994 provided that psychiatric nurses should be awarded the DEI and should only be required to take a training course if they changed to a job involving ‘general care’, to use the European terminology. On 30 December 1996 an order of the Conseil d’Etat overruled this provision on the grounds that it failed to take account of the objectives of the European Directive of 27 June 1997 making the issuing of the DEI subject to conditions regarding training, which the Commission considered had not been met.
The French Government sought to make contact with the Commission to find a solution which would reconcile compliance with Community law on the one hand and the legitimate interests of psychiatric nurses on the other.
Could the Commission tell me what stage the negotiations with the French Government have reached, and what solutions the Commission proposes in order to restore the status of mental health care professionals and permit them to move freely within the European Union?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(13 July 1998)
The French legislation adopted in 1992 stipulated that someone who held a diploma in psychiatric nursing could, on request, obtain a state nursing qualification (DEI) in general care. The Commission considered that this legislation was contrary to Council Directive 77/453/EEC of 27 June 1977 concerning the coordination of provisions in respect of the activities of nurses responsible for general care, (1) which lays down minimum training criteria. The curriculum for psychiatric nursing training did not meet those criteria. Infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty were consequently initiated against France. The Council of State subsequently revoked the French legislation and confirmed the Commission’s position.
No Community directive obliges Member States to issue specialist nurses with a diploma in general nursing care. It is only because France wishes to adopt legislation conferring the DEI in general care on psychiatric nurses and because training in general nursing care is itself subject to binding Community provisions on the minimum conditions it must meet (Directive 77/453/EEC) that the Commission has to ensure that the training meets those conditions.
The French authorities have submitted a new draft with this aim in view. In the context of administrative cooperation with the French authorities, the Commission will examine whether the proposed measures, once in force, will allow the authorities to ensure that professionals issued with state nursing qualifications in general care meet the minimum training requirements. The draft is soon to be discussed with Member States within the Committee of Senior Officials on Public Health.
(1) OJ L 176, 15.7.1977. C 31/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1568/98
by Andrea Manzella (PSE) to the Commission
(20 May 1998)
Subject: Assassination of Bishop Juan Gerardi
With reference to the assassination of Bishop Juan Gerardi, would the Commission state what urgent measures it considers the European Union should take to urge the Government of Guatemala to conduct an efficient and searching investigation to identify both those who carried out the crime and those who commissioned it for political reasons, as the bishop’s murder confronts Guatemala with the terrible prospect of a return to civil war?
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(18 June 1998)
The Commission welcomes the Guatemalan Government’s statement that it will do all within its power to identify and bring to justice those responsible for the assassination of Bishop Juan Gerardi. It will also monitor closely the work of the high-level committee set up to keep under constant review the ongoing proceedings of the judicial enquiry.
The Commission is well aware that the deficient structure and functioning of the legal system, particularly where the security forces and administration of justice are concerned, may seriously jeopardise a satisfactory conclusion of the enquiry.
The Honourable Member may rest assured that, while respecting the sovereignty of Guatemala and the spirit of the peace agreements, the Commission will do all it can to see these deficiencies overcome and ensure that effective instruments are available to the Guatemalan authorities with a view to enforcing the Government’s expressed intention to pinpoint those responsible for the commission and the commitment of the crime and to create the right conditions so that community life can carry on peacefully.
It is with this objective that the Commission recently signed an important financing agreement involving support for the constitution of a new national civil police force. This operation, which is an integral part of the peace programme and will be the largest cooperation project ever financed by the Community in Latin America (almost ECU 32 million), will be followed this year by a substantial contribution towards reforming and consolidating the legal system.
(1999/C 31/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1577/98
by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Council
(25 May 1998)
Subject: Funding for the elderly
A Commission proposal for a new Action Programme for the Elderly has been languishing in the Council with no immediate prospects for approval due to objections from one Member State − Germany.
In marked contrast, the UN Year of the Elderly will be launched in a few months time and the European Parliament is sponsoring its own Senior Citizens Conference in October.
What message does this send to the citizens of Europe, whose population is ageing rapidly? What are the objections of this Member State? If the Council cannot accept the Commission’s proposal, what alternative action does the Council intend to take? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/59
Reply
(6 October 1998)
Council proceedings on the Commission proposal for a new Action Programme for the Elderly have indeed been suspended since November 1995 and there are, for the time being, no plans to resume them.
There has been no opportunity for the Council to hold a general debate on the subject.
(1999/C 31/077) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1601/98 by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission
(25 May 1998)
Subject: Protection of laying hens
The Spanish Association of Egg Producers believes that the Commission’s proposal for a directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in various systems of rearing will increase the market price of a dozen eggs by more than 400 pesetas, which could lead people to stop buying this product.
Does the Commission believe that the opinion of the Spanish Association of Egg Producers is correct?
If not, does it believe that there will be no increase in the price of a dozen eggs as a result of the application of this directive?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(25 June 1998)
The Commission proposal for a Council directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in various systems of rearing (1) is based on a report from the scientific veterinary committee.
The proposed new standard for the space of laying hens kept in battery cages is 800 cm2 for newly built or rebuilt cages. The transition period after which all holdings have to comply with the new standards as foreseen in the proposal is 10 years.
The Commission’s communication with the proposal indicates that the requirements may lead to an increase of the cost of eggs of about 10-15 %. Furthermore, the communication indicates that the additional expenditure for the consumer is estimated to amount to only about ECU 1.12-1.56 per head per annum, which the Commission does not believe will stop people buying eggs.
(1) COM(98) 135 final.
(1999/C 31/078) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1604/98 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission
(25 May 1998)
Subject: Infringement of the principle of transparency of Community acts
The Giffoni Film Festival is an international film festival for children and young people which has been staged in Giffoni Valle Piana (Salerno, Italy) since 1971. The event is internationally famous and of great cultural value. In the last five years alone, it has enabled as many as 54 European films made by young directors to be distributed in Europe. The festival organizers also work all the year round to educate film-goers.
Notwithstanding these merits and the fact that over 80 000 film-goers attended the last festival, the Giffoni Film Festival has not received any aid from the Commission for four years, even though it has explicitly applied for C 31/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
support. The festival is regularly involved in the share-out of funds for cooperation in the film and television industries and fully satisfies the requisite conditions of eligibility, since it is aimed at a young audience, takes place in southern Italy, that is to say, a region suffering from particularly severe problems, and shows films made in Europe.
Furthermore, the few Italian festivals which have secured Community backing are based almost without exception in the centre and north of the country, in spite of the Community Directives seeking to develop and support activities in the most seriously depressed areas.
In addition, when the relevant decision-makers were formally requested to say why no Community funds had been allocated to the Giffoni Film Festival, the answer given was that the decisions in question were a matter of collective responsibility and completely confidential.
1. As regards the last point, is it not the case that the principle of transparency has been infringed, departing from the rule that all European citizens are free to acquaint themselves with Community acts?
2. Is it not the case that Community funding for film and television events for 1998 has at any rate been awarded in an arbitrary way contrary to the legislation and criteria giving higher priority to Europe’s less developed regions?
Answer given by Mr. Oreja on behalf of the Commission
(6 July 1998)
The film festival of Giffoni, to which the Honourable Member refers, has on three occasions received a financial contribution from the Commission in the context of European Commission support for cooperation schemes between European audiovisual events and festivals carried out in partnership. ECU 20 000 was given in 1993, ECU 15 000 in 1994 and ECU 9 880 in 1995. This festival was not selected for a financial contribution in 1996, 1997 or 1998.
The Commission does not have the means to support all projects submitted in response to its call for proposals; the budget is limited and the number of applications is very high. A rigorous selection process must be carried out by an independent board of experts, which is responsible for examining projects on the basis of the criteria indicated in the call for proposals. Many applications have to be rejected, although this does not reflect on their interest or quality. Furthermore, the fact that a financial contribution has been given for several years does not necessarily mean it will automatically be renewed thereafter.
The principle of transparency requires the Commission to provide applicants with full information on the outcome of the call. The organisers of the Giffoni festival have received the relevant information pertaining to their proposal, both by telephone and by post. Nevertheless, according to the terms of the call for proposals (1) there are restrictions in relation to the deliberations of the independent board of experts, whose opinion is collective and confidential.
In the context of its support for cooperation schemes between European audiovisual events and festivals carried out in partnership 1998, the Commission has made an objective selection based on the opinion of the independent board, after careful and detailed analysis of the proposals. Objective criteria, relating mainly to cost effectiveness and based on parameters drawn from the files, are considered by the board members in their deliberations.
It must be emphasised that Italy submitted 11 % of all eligible requests in 1998 and accounted for 10 % of the selected projects. Numerous Italian festivals have secured Community backing since the beginning of this scheme, and have always been representative of the geographical distribution of applications submitted.
(1) ,OJ C 176, 10.6.1997. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/61
(1999/C 31/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1610/98
by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission
(25 May 1998)
Subject: Impact of GATT/WTO on animal protection
There is growing concern that the GATT Agreement is making it increasingly difficult for the EU to introduce enhanced standards of animal welfare protection, as import bans may not be imposed on products, even if their production has involved substantial animal suffering. This in turn discourages the introduction of tighter restrictions within the EU because of a fear of competition from cheaper imports produced using production methods which are more cruel.
Given the Commission’s Agenda 2000 proposal that CAP policies should be redirected to take animal welfare into account, what measures will the Commission be taking to ensure a higher profile for this problem, with a view to preventing a future possible conflict with CAP reform, during the forthcoming WTO Ministerial Conference?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(2 July 1998)
Under World trade organisation (WTO) rules as currently interpreted there is a conflict between WTO agreements and Community animal welfare provisions if the Community’s welfare-based production standards are made a condition for imports from third countries.
Such possible conflicts can effectively be avoided through the adoption of international welfare-based standards in the framework of bilateral or multilateral agreements. Furthermore, given the fact that animal welfare is becoming an increasingly relevant issue in terms of international trade, this issue may be raised in the WTO context in the future. The possibility of amending WTO rules to address welfare concerns will be addressed in the context of the determination of the Community negotiation objectives for the next stage of the WTO negotiations.
(1999/C 31/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1623/98
by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission
(27 May 1998)
Subject: Fifth framework programme for RTDD (budget for implementation)
With regard to the amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision concerning the Fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) and to the amended proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Fifth framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training activities (1998-2002) (COM(97) 439 final − 97/ 0119 COD − 97/0120 CNS) (1), will the Commission ensure consistency between the requirements of an integrated approach by the Fifth framework programme and the concentration and interoperability of generic research activities, activities in support of major infrastructures and the key actions on which the new Community architecture is based, and identify, for this purpose, a series of qualitative and quantitative criteria for the guidance and monitoring of the activities of key actions, such as improvement in the employment sector, the potential take-up rate, their high profile and European dimension, the level of interaction between Community, European and national action, the presence of SMEs in the sector, the level of potential economic activity created in terms of new undertakings, new jobs and new skills?
(1) OJ C 291, 25.9.1997, pp. 15-16. C 31/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1624/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission
(27 May 1998)
Subject: Fifth framework programme for RTDD (budget for implementation)
With regard to document COM(97) 439 final − 97/0119 COD-97/0120 CNS (1), and with reference to ‘key actions’ can the Commission:
1. Retain in every key action an appropriate margin of resources for demonstration activities, innovations and SMEs to support the impetus to the market given by research and innovation;
2. Integrate and, as a result, rationalize the contents of the proposed key actions by adjusting them appropriately, where possible, within the thematic programmes indicated by the Commission;
3. Identify ten key actions relating to the Community framework RTDD programme and one for the Euratom framework programme and give them financial resources of a sufficient critical mass, absorption capacity, and a high level of scientific research and a high profile;
4. Make the allocation of financial resources to key actions dependent upon the results obtained and verified so as to avoid five years of stagnation and the ‘forced’ financing of RTDD activities at a low standard of technology and innovation;
5. Provide modern, simple and transparent administrative machinery ensuring that administrative expenditure and time spent are restricted by assignment of specific responsibilities, restricted levels of bureaucracy and decision-making, and reserving joint decision-making only for the highest levels of the Commissioners concerned?
(1) OJ C 291, 25.9.1997, pp. 15-16.
(1999/C 31/082) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1625/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission
(27 May 1998)
Subject: Fifth framework programme for RTDD (budget for implementation)
With regard to the amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision concerning the Fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) and to the amended proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Fifth framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training activities (1998-2002) (COM(97) 439 final − 97/ 0119 COD − 97/0120 CNS) (1), will the Commission make the allocation of financial resources conditional upon a percentage shift in balance towards action involving exchanges between the academic and industrial spheres, universities and SMEs, major research centres, industrial laboratories and SMEs?
(1) OJ C 291, 25.9.1997, pp. 15-16.
(1999/C 31/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1626/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission
(27 May 1998)
Subject: Fifth framework programme for RTDD (budget for implementation)
With regard to the amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision concerning the Fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) and to the amended proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Fifth framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training activities (1998-2002) (COM(97) 439 final − 97/ 0119 COD − 97/0120 CNS) (1). 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/63
Can the Commission redraft and strengthen the action aimed at innovation and participation by the SMEs, refining the measures already provided for in the fourth framework programme but supplementing them with innovative, specific features aimed at promoting an entrepreneurial spirit amongst researchers and scientists and at creating an ad hoc mechanism to support the establishment of technological joint ventures to utilize the results of Community research in industry and commerce?
(1) OJ C 291, 25.9.1997, pp. 15-16.
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1623/98, E-1624/98, E-1625/98 and E-1626/98 given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(8 July 1998)
The Commission’s proposals for the 5th framework programme for research (1) and for the specific pro- grammes, (2) involve an integrated, multidisciplinary, multisectoral approach, where efforts are concentrated on a limited number of themes and actions and activities are geared towards major Community objectives such as employment, quality of life and making businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), more competitive.
The four activities, the specific programmes and the key actions of the fifth framework programme relate to specific objectives. The third activity focuses solely on innovation, the exploitation of results and SMEs. SME participation will also be encouraged in all the specific programmes.
The key actions are designed to address a number of major issues and problems facing the Community today, following a multidisciplinary, integrated approach geared towards results. They are designed to encourage the research and innovation dynamic, inter alia by means of demonstration activities and with significant SME participation.
Scientific and technological excellence is one of the basic priniciples underpinning Community research policy. Under the 5th framework programme calls for research proposals will be open to all individuals and organisations such as companies, SMEs, research institutes and universities.
Assessment of the programmes, provided for in Article 5 of the fifth framework programme, will take account of the general objectives and the most appropriate performance and impact indicators for each specific programme.
The Commission would reassure the Honourable Member that the fifth framework programme will be implemented and run in an efficient and transparent manner, in accordance with the established rules and criteria.
(1) COM(97) 142 final, amended by COM(97) 439 final, amended by COM(98) 8 final. (2) COM(98) 305 and 306.
(1999/C 31/084) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1628/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission
(27 May 1998)
Subject: Twenty-sixth report on competition policy
With regard to the Twenty-sixth report on competition policy (1996) (SEC(97) 628 final, CES 1381/97), can the Commission take appropriate measures with regard to the CEEC countries and Cyprus to ensure that before accession all the candidate countries are implementing the policies of the Union with regard to competition and State aids?
Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission
(15 July 1998)
The Europe agreements with nine of the ten Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic) and the interim agreement C 31/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
with Slovenia contain competition rules that apply where trade between the Community and a CEEC is affected. In particular, the following are deemed to be incompatible with the proper functioning of the agreement: (i) agreements between undertakings which have as their object or effect the restriction of competition; (ii) abuses by undertakings which have a dominant position on the market; (iii) any public aid which distorts or threatens to distort competition. These competition rules are to be interpreted in accordance with the criteria arising from the application of Articles 85, 86 and 92 of the EC Treaty.
The association council has adopted the necessary rules for the implementation of the above competition rules applicable to undertakings for Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic. Identical rules in relation to the other CEECs are currently passing through the legislative process. According to these implementing rules, cases are dealt with by the Commission on the Community side, and by the national competition authorities of each CEEC in accordance with the respective legislation of the Community and each CEEC.
However, the national competition legislation of the CEECs must be made compatible with Community competition law. The Europe agreements provide that a major pre-condition for the CEECs’ economic integration into the Community is the approximation of their existing and future legislation to that of the Community. The rules on competition are expressly mentioned as a particular area for approximation. The Commission is closely following and supporting, in particular through various technical assistance and training actions, the process of approximation of legislation.
In the field of state aid, the process for the final adoption of implementing rules by the association council is underway. According to these rules, the Commission checks the compatibility of state aid granted by the Member States on the basis of the existing Community rules on state aid. For each CEEC, a national monitoring authority has to monitor and review any public aid granted by the same CEEC, on the basis of the same substantive rules.
The Community or a CEEC may take appropriate measures after consultation within the association council, if it considers that a particular practice is incompatible with the competition rules of the Europe agreement, and is not adequately dealt with under the implementing rules, or in the absence of such rules, and if such practice causes or threatens to cause serious prejudice to the interest of the other party or material injury to its domestic industry. In the field of state aid, such measures must be adopted in accordance with the procedures and under the conditions laid down by the General agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT).
The Protocol laying down the conditions and procedures for the implementation of the second stage of the agreement establishing an association between the Community and Cyprus and adapting certain provisions of the Agreement (1) contains the main substantive competition rules that apply concerning trade between the Community and Cyprus. They cover agreements between undertakings which restrict competition; abuses by undertakings having a dominant position on the market and any state aid which distorts competition. These provisions are to be interpreted in accordance with the principles set out in Articles 85, 86 and 92 EC Treaty. No detailed rules have yet been adopted for the application of the competition principles in relation to Cyprus. In case of anti-competitive behaviour or practices applied in Cyprus, the Community may take appropriate measures after consultation within the association council.
The Protocol does not provide as clear a legal base for the requirement of approximation as that found in the Europe agreements. However, it is clear from the conclusions of the Luxembourg European Council of 12 and 13 December 1997 that the requirement that Cyprus approximate its competition law to Community competition law is a major precondition for Cyprus’ integration into the Community.
(1) OJ L 393, 31.12.1987.
(1999/C 31/085) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1631/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission
(27 May 1998)
Subject: Annual Report of the Cohesion Fund (1996)
With regard to the Annual Report of the Cohesion Fund (1996) (COM(97) 302 final), can the Commission ensure:
1. greater diversification and better balance in the allocation of appropriations to the various types of transport infrastructure so as to favour rail and maritime transport, which make a greater contribution to the protection of the environment; 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/65
2. that greater attention is paid, in the environmental field, to the protection and conservation of natural resources and countryside of great ecological value and to the quality of life of citizens/town dwellers;
3. greater support for the creation of environmental and transport infrastructures in the outermost regions?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(8 July 1998)
1. The Commission agrees that the balance of funding should be shifted away from road projects and can assure Parliament that the share of rail projects will increase in the future. The 1997 annual report will confirm this trend. However, it is important to note that road remains the best way to ensure accessibility to the outermost continental regions.
2. In the Commission’s experience, greater involvement for the Cohesion fund in the area of protection and conservation of natural resources and the countryside would imply the need to manage a large number of projects costing less than 10 MECU. However, the rules provide that projects in this category can only be approved if duly justified. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that it should continue to give priority to the most urgent environmental deficiencies in the beneficiary Member States, in particular to those affecting human health. There has been so far no shortage of large environmental projects. In any case, the Commission does not have the staff resources to deal with a large number of small projects.
It remains possible, however, to make exceptions to this general rule if a Member State submits suitable nature conservation projects.
It may also be noted that projects for the protection and conservation of natural resources and the countryside can be financed within the framework of European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) measures, including Council Regulation (EEC) 2078/92 (1) on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside.
3. The Cohesion fund can co-finance such investments provided that appropriate fundable projects, justified on economic or environmental grounds, are presented.
(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
(1999/C 31/086) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1657/98 by Stéphane Buffetaut (I-EDN) to the Commission
(18 May 1998)
Subject: Compulsory bottling in the region of production
Since the early 1990s, on the initiative of Spain, a number of Member States in the south of the European Union (Portugal, Greece and Italy, in particular) have begun to adopt national legislation making it compulsory for certain quality wine products to be packed in their region of production. The current French agricultural guideline bill and Italian draft legislation prohibiting the reference to the Italian origin of olive oil that has not been packed in Italy are part of a trend which is spreading throughout the countries south of the European Union and affecting all quality agricultural products.
Instead of playing its proper role by monitoring respect for EU legislation, in particular Articles 34 and 85-90 of the Treaty, and despite a large number of formal complaints against such abuses, to which no reply has been given, the Commission (DG VI) has endorsed them by proposing a reform of Regulation No. 823/87 (1), which would validate them in the case of quality wines.
All the countries in the north of the European Union, which are heavily involved in processing and packing of quality agricultural products and are net contributors to the European agricultural budgets, are less and less in favour of such abuses which are liable to cause a north/south divide in the Union. They have shown their opposition by refusing to allow the reform of Regulation No. 823/87 by DG VI to proceed any further until the Court of Justice confirms the ruling it gave in Case C47/90 Delhaize Le Lion v. Promalvin. C 31/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
What practical measures does the Commission plan to take to prevent such national abuses in the southern part of the Union and to avoid the consequences, namely increasing protest from countries in the northern part of the Union?
(1) OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 59.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(11 June 1998)
The adoption of national measures making it compulsory to bottle quality wines produced in specified regions (quality wines psr) in the region of production and/or the specified region is not confined to the southern Member States.
In 1972, France adopted such a measure for the registered destination of origin (AOC) Alsace. Since then, numerous decisions along these lines although in slightly different forms have been taken in all the Member States which produce wine.
A thorough analysis of this situation and the conviction that in certain cases and under certain conditions this measure could be justified, for reasons of quality, and in order to strengthen control and the protection of intellectual property, led the Commission to submit a proposal for a Regulation to the Council in order to provide a basis for the measure at Community level.
The proposal submitted (1) aims to enable the Member States to make it compulsory to bottle certain quality wines psr within the specified region under certain rather restrictive conditions:
− bottling in the specified region has to give the wines their special characteristics or to constitute a major factor in conserving their acquired special characteristics;
− almost the whole of the trade has to decide in favour.
The proposal also envisages a five-year transitional period, after its entry into force, to make it possible for bottlers who have bottled wine outside the specified region for at least three years to adapt to the measure.
In the Commission’s view, compliance with these conditions should limit the number of specified regions which can make use of the proposed provision.
The Commission maintains in substance this same position in the comments formulated in the statement in intervention that it submitted to the Court of Justice in Case C-388/95 between Belgium and Spain on the same subject.
(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.
(1999/C 31/087) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1658/98 by Edouard des Places (I-EDN) to the Commission
(18 May 1998)
Subject: Powers of interprofessional bodies regarding management of markets
Under Article 47 of the agricultural guideline bill, which will shortly be submitted to the National Assembly, the French Government has provided for specific regulatory powers to be allocated to agricultural interprofessional organizations relating to products subject to a common organization of the market (COM).
The bill specifies that
measures taken by an interprofessional organization specific to an officially designated quality product aimed at bringing supply into line with demand shall, if unanimously adopted by sectoral bodies, be deemed to comply with the 2nd paragraph of Article 10 of Order No 86-1243 of 1 December 1986 on freedom of prices and competition. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/67
Such measures may include no competition restrictions other than the following:
− a coordinated forward plan of production based on outlets,
− a plan to improve product quality leading directly to a limitation of production volume,
− a restriction on production capacities.
Will the Commission state whether, in its view:
1. such provisions relating to the management of markets are the responsibility of the European Union or Member States?
2. on this basis, national authorities may delegate their powers in this area to national or regional interprofes- sional organizations?
3. such provisions comply with the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Communities?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(15 June 1998)
The French authorities notified to the Commission on 13 May 1998 the general agricultural bill that they plan to present to Parliament in the next few weeks.
The Commission is at present examining the entire bill with reference to Community law, including the provisions on interprofessional organisations to which the Honourable Member refers.
Given the short time that has elapsed since notification the Commission has not yet formulated its views on this wide-ranging bill. When it has done so the Honourable Member’s individual questions will be answered.
(1999/C 31/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1661/98 by Rainer Wieland (PPE) to the Commission
(29 May 1998)
Subject: Subsidies for the Stuttgart region and for Germany
What subsidies and amounts from all programmes and funding from the European Union, with a break-down by year, type and district, have been allocated since 1990 to the districts of Rems-Murr, Göppingen, Ludwigsburg, Böblingen, Esslingen and the urban district of Stuttgart?
What subsidies and amounts from all programmes and funding from the European Union, with a break-down by year, type and Land, have been allocated since 1990 to the Federal Republic of Germany and the Land of Baden- Württemberg?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(29 September 1998)
Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. C 31/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1667/98 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission
(29 May 1998)
Subject: Compatibility of the criteria for aid under the Commission’s milk programme with Article 129
The Commission’s milk subsidy programme, the basic principle of which is to subsidise full-fat milk products to a greater extent than low-fat ones, is not sensible from a public health point of view.
That being so, does the Commission consider that the criteria for subsidy under the milk programme, which favour full-fat milk products at the expense of low-fat ones, are in accordance or are compatible with the objectives of Article 129 of the Treaty?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(15 July 1998)
The Commission is convinced that the Community aid scheme for school milk, to which the Honourable Member is presumably referring, is entirely beneficial to public health. Accordingly, it considers that the programme is fully in line with the objectives set out in Article 129 of the EC Treaty.
(1999/C 31/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1685/98 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission
(29 May 1998)
Subject: Monitoring of the EMU information fund
A considerable amount of money from the EU budget has been earmarked for campaigns to inform citizens about EMU.
How does the Commission intend to monitor the proper utilization of these appropriations? How have these funds been allocated, firstly to the EU institutions’ campaigns, and secondly to campaigns by citizens’ organizations?
Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission
(18 September 1998)
From the budget for the Information Programme for European Citizens (Prince), ECU 30 million has been earmarked for the priority information campaign ‘The euro, a currency for Europe’ in 1997 and in 1998. The Commission, in its Communication on the information strategy for the euro, (1) estimated that the overall cost of this campaign for the period between 1999 and 2001 would be ECU 100 million.
The campaign is based on partnership, decentralisation and subsidiarity, which is why, apart from a number of information products produced (e.g. Internet site on the Europa server, brochures) or communication activities carried out by the institutions, priority is given to partnerships with the Member States set up through agreements to cofinance euro communication plans (two thirds of the appropriations, or around ECU 20 million). Sums are allocated to Member States on the basis of their communication plans. For 1998, partnerships are in place with eleven Member States. To supplement them, partnerships have also been agreed for a total of around ECU 5 million, mainly with citizens’ organisations, to finance cross-border campaigns.
The proper utilisation of these funds is monitored by means of the mechanisms normally used to monitor financial contributions paid out of the Community budget. Such mechanisms include the audit activities assigned to the Financial Controller by the Financial Regulation and the external audit activities carried out by the Court of Auditors.
Nevertheless, as part of the management of the programme, an internal audit mechanism is in place, comprising three types of audit: (1) systematic audit of the file when payment of the balance of the contribution is requested 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/69
after the campaign has been carried out; the audit is based on documents provided by the party concerned, namely an activity report, a report on the financial implementation of the projects, an analysis of any discrepancies between the actual and estimated budget and the list of all accounting documents connected with the projects; (2) audit of documents from sample files and from all files which require particular attention or involve a certain element of risk; (3) on-the-spot audit of sample cases or cases in which the two preceding stages suggest the need for it.
For campaigns undertaken in cooperation with the Member States, there are also all the audit procedures inherent in each Member State¢s own national rules on the management of public funds. Furthermore, in those Member States with which agreements have been concluded, a coordination unit made up of representatives of the Member State, the Commission and the Parliament meets regularly to coordinate and monitor the euro information campaigns.
Parliament is involved in drawing up the broad guidelines for the programme in an informal advisory group.
(1) COM(98) 39 final.
(1999/C 31/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1686/98 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission
(29 May 1998)
Subject: Position of business organizations in social dialogue
Representatives of workers and employers’ organizations participate, in a spirit of dialogue, in the formation of EU social legislation. With regard to employment in Europe, however, small and medium-sized enterprises have a key position and their point of view on the reform of employment legislation is therefore an important one, though one which is often neglected. It is particularly short-sighted to adopt legislation which is likely to make it more difficult for firms to create jobs.
How does the Commission intend to ensure that European business organizations are regarded in future as a fourth full partner in the dialogue?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(23 July 1998)
All organisations listed in Annex I of the Commission communication ‘Adapting and promoting the social dialogue at European level’ (1), have a full right to participate in the main fields of social dialogue: information, consultation and negotiation. As for participation in the standing committee on employment, the Commission has suggested to the Council that it extends participation to the Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations of Europe (UNICE), Conseil européen des entreprises publiques (CEEP), European Union of Crafts and small and medium-sized entreprises (UEAPME), Comité intersyndical des organisations professionnelles du personnel agricole (COPA), EUROCOMMERCE, European trade union confederation (ETUC) and Centre européen du Commerce (CEC) in order to have a political dialogue with the appropriate level of participants.
Among the 29 organisations which fulfil the necessary representativeness criteria, there are several representing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), including UEAPME, UNICE, EUROCOMMERCE and COPA. All these organisations have the possibility to enter into negotiations inside or outside the framework of the agreement on social policy (ASP) annexed to the EC Treaty. The Commission emphasises in the new communication the need to respect the autonomy of the social partners in their choice of negotiating partner and it cannot therefore force anybody to the negotiating table. This approach has recently been confirmed by the Court of first instance in its judgement of 17 July 1998 in case T-135/96, dismissing a legal challenge against the parental leave directive negotiated and adopted under the ASP process.
In the above-mentioned communication, however, the Commission has again urged the social partners to find a compromise in order to ensure the best possible representativeness of European agreements. The Commission is well aware of the importance of SMEs for employment and their role in job creation. Their specific concerns and the opportunities they provide must be taken into account.
(1) COM(98) 322. C 31/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1687/98 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (29 May 1998)
Subject: Substance of enlargement negotiations
On 27 April the first stage of negotiations between the EU and the candidate countries began, in the form of a screening process covering the various aspects of the candidate countries’ legislation, political life and economy.
What is the relationship between the Commission’s DG1 and the task force set up for the purpose of screening, what dialogue is there between them and how is their work divided up?
(1999/C 31/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1688/98 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (29 May 1998)
Subject: Substance of enlargement negotiations
On 27 April the first stage of negotiations between the EU and the candidate countries began, in the form of a screening process covering the various aspects of the candidate countries’ legislation, political life and economy.
It would have been most logical to begin the Commission’s screening process of the first group of candidates together with the screening of the same sectors in the other six candidate countries.
Why was it decided to begin the screening in respect of different sectors in different countries?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1687/98 and E-1688/98 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1998)
The European Council of December 1997 in Luxembourg decided to begin negotiations with six candidates. At the same time it decided that the preparation of negotiations with the five other candidates ‘will be speeded up in particular through an analytical examination of the Union acquis’.
The process with the six candidates also begins with an analytical examination of the acquis, but as the first stage of actual negotiations. The two processes therefore have a different objective and timetable and must therefore be conducted separately.
For this reason the screening with the ‘Six’ was attributed to the Task Force ‘Accession Negotiations’ and the screening with the ‘Five’ to the directorate general responsible for External relations: Europe and the New independent States (NIS), common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and external service. Both services maintain close contact to ensure a coherent approach and an appropriate link between the screening, the progress reports and the Phare assistance programmes. The outcome of the screening exercise will also help the Commission in developing further the pre-accession strategy to speed up the preparation of the candidate countries.
The different order of examination of the acquis in the two groups results from the fact that the same experts cannot be present in the two separate processes at the same time.
(1999/C 31/094) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1706/98 by Stéphane Buffetaut (I-EDN) to the Commission (29 May 1998)
Subject: Joint-trade organizations and restriction of competition
In Case C-249/91 concerning decisions taken by the CIVDN (Comité Interprofessional des Vins Doux Naturels − Joint-Trade Committee for Natural Sweet Wines), the Commission brought an action before the European Court of Justice against the French Republic for failure to comply with the basic rules set out in the Treaty on European Union. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/71
The Advocate General, Mr Otto Lenz, took the French authorities to task particularly in respect of the following three practices (see conclusions, ECR [1994] I-813 and 814):
− fixing the price of vins doux naturels (natural sweet wines) on the French market,
− fixing a marketing quota for vins doux naturels beyond which a producer may not market wines produced within the limits of the statutory yield per hectare but must allocate them to a strategic and ageing stock,
− making withdrawals of wines from producers’ cellars conditional upon prior production of a document issued by the CIVDN certifying that the contract has been registered, thus making it impossible to dispose of any quantities outside the marketing credit system.
The French authorities undertook to abandon these practices, and the Commission consequently discontinued the proceedings.
In fact, at least two of the three practices in respect of which proceedings were instituted have been maintained or restored in different forms, and the Commission recently received a formal complaint on this issue, backed up with appropriate evidence. To date, it has taken no action whatsoever thereon.
Does the Commission feel that these practices, which constituted an infringement of the Treaty in 1991, no longer do so? Can it indicate the developments resulting from the Treaty or Community case-law which would justify a change in its assessment? If not, how and when will it tackle the French authorities about this matter?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(14 July 1998)
In response to a further complaint (registered as No 98/4361) the Commission has again looked at this matter.
Certain further information is needed but the complainants, contacted on the subject, have not yet transmitted this to the Commission.
As soon as this has been done the Commission will complete its assessment of the situation and inform the Honourable Member accordingly.
(1999/C 31/095) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1708/98 by Edouard des Places (I-EDN) to the Commission
(29 May 1998)
Subject: Official symbols and logos for AOCs and IGPs
Annex II, entitled ‘Provisions to be notified to the European Commission and to be inserted in a subsequent bill’, to the Agriculture Bill which the French Government is preparing to submit to the French National Assembly lays down that the following Article L115-6 − 1 shall be inserted into the Consumer Code:
Within the meaning of Article 6b of the Paris Convention on Industrial Protection, an official ‘registered designation of origin’ (’appellation d’origine contrôlée’ − AOC) symbol and an official ‘protected geographical ascription’ (’indication géographique protégée’ − IGP) symbol are hereby created. The official AOC symbol must be used for every presentation of agricultural products and foodstuffs granted an AOC. The official IGP symbol must be used for every presentation of agricultural products and foodstuffs granted an IGP.
Can the Commission confirm that the creation of ‘official symbols’ or ‘logos’ for AOCs and IGPs is the exclusive prerogative of the European Union and not a prerogative of the Member States?
Does not the Commission feel that a plethora of ‘logos’ and ‘official symbols’ for AOCs and IGPs is likely to cause confusion among consumers?
Does not the Commission feel that the affixing of any national ‘official symbols’ or ‘logos’ should remain optional and not become obligatory? C 31/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(9 July 1998)
Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1) provides for the use of the words ‘protected designation of origin ’ (PDO), ‘protected geographical indication’ (PGI) or equivalent traditional indications (for example: appellation d’origine contrôlée (AOC) in France) on the labels of products with a registered name. It also stipulates that these indications may be placed only on agricultural products or foodstuffs which are in conformity with the Regulation.
A distinction should be made between what the legislator calls ‘indications’, on the one hand, and ‘logos’, on the other.
The Commission considers that it is obligatory to include the indications on labels. This obligation arises, on the one hand, from Article 4(2)(h) of the Regulation referred to above and, on the other, from the objectives of the Regulation and its desired effectiveness. It follows from the fourth and fifth recitals of the Regulation that consumers should be provided with clear, brief and precise information. The use of these indications makes it possible, for example, to distinguish a ‘protected designation of origin’, which applies to a product whose characteristics are connected with a particular locality (including natural and human factors), from a simple indication of provenance. Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 has for consequence that only names registered at Community level can be protected as a registered designation of origin or geographical indication.
With regard to logos, the Commission is working, at the request of the trade and of several Member States, on the creation of a single Community logo (PDO/PGI) which would make it possible to add more value to products with a registered name. The use of this logo by producers would be optional.
The draft agricultural law that the French government is on the point of submitting to the national parliament seems, on the other hand, to make the use of the national logo (official symbol) compulsory. The Commission reserves the right to give an opinion on this provision of the draft law as soon as it is notified to it officially.
(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
(1999/C 31/096) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1709/98 by Edouard des Places (I-EDN) to the Commission
(29 May 1998)
Subject: Packing and bottling in the region of production
A large proportion of the wine produced in Europe is bottled in the regions of consumption in both producer and non-producer Member States.
We are obliged to note that, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, a number of Member States are tending to enact legislation making it compulsory for certain quality wines psr to be bottled in the region of production.
Does the Commission consider that such provisions comply with primary Community law, in particular with Articles 34 and 85 to 90 of the Treaty and with the case-law of the Court of Justice?
What measures will the Commission take in this respect and, more particularly, with regard to the measures to reform the common organization of the market in wine which it intends to submit shortly to the Council?
Given the plethora of false vineyard and château names being criticized increasingly by consumer organizations, does the Commission intend to harden its stance in order to improve consumer protection?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(19 June 1998)
With regard to the questions concerning compulsory bottling in the region of production, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s answer to written question P-1657/98 by Mr Buffetaut (1). 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/73
With regard to the use of the words ‘domaine’ and ‘château’ to describe vineyards, the Commission regrets that it is currently unable to reply, since it lacks the information required for carrying out the necessary research into the multiplication of false names. It therefore asks the Honourable Member to provide further details.
However, the use of these terms in the designation of wines is provided for in Community legislation, i.e. Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EEC) 3201/90 of 16 October 1990 laying down detailed rules for the description and presentation of wines and grape musts (2), and in the judgement of the Court of Justice in case C-403/92.
(1) See page 65. (2) OJ L 309, 8.11.1990.
(1999/C 31/097) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1710/98 by Edouard des Places (I-EDN) to the Commission
(29 May 1998)
Subject: Packing and bottling in the region of production
Annex II, entitled ‘Provisions to be notified to the European Commission and to be inserted in a subsequent bill’, to the Agriculture Bill which the French Government is preparing to submit to the French National Assembly lays down that the following third paragraph shall be added to Article 115-6 of the Consumer Code:
It (the National Institute for Designations of Origin − Institut National des Appellations d’Origine) may, at the request of the local organization concerned, provide that the product must be packed in a specific area. A Council of State decree shall lay down the implementing provisions in respect of this paragraph.
Is this article which, as worded, enables it to be made obligatory for wine to be packed, i.e. bottled, in the region of production, compatible with Articles 34, 85 and 86 of the Treaty and with the case-law of the Court of Justice established in Case 647/90, Delhaize Le Lion v. Promalvin?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(19 June 1998)
The Commission has not so far received any notification from France on the bill mentioned by the Honourable Member.
On the question of whether a law allowing the Institut national des appellations d’origine, on request by the local organisation concerned, to stipulate that a product must be packed in a specific area is compatible with Articles 34, 85 and 86 of the Treaty and with the decisions of the Court of Justice, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission’s reply to Written Question P-1657/98 by Mr Buffetaut (1).
(1) See page 65.
(1999/C 31/098) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1715/98 by Antonio Tajani (PPE) to the Commission
(29 May 1998)
Subject: Infringement proceedings brought by the European Union against Italy concerning the sale of the Rome Milk Centre
Has the Commission received any new information from the Italian State and the Rome City Council concerning the sale of the Rome Milk Centre, which is the subject of infringement proceedings initiated by the European Union?
What further representations does the Commission intend to make to the Rome City Council? C 31/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(24 June 1998)
The Commission has not received any new official information from Italy or from the city of Rome on the sale of the Centrale del Latte di Roma. It should be noted, however, that the Commission decision initiating the procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty as regards the aid for Centrale del Latte di Roma gave the Member State until 8 June 1998 to submit its comments.
The Commission still awaits these comments on the decision, and also those of interested third parties and other Member States. Once they are received and considered, the Commission will take a final decision on the aid in question in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty.
(1999/C 31/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1716/98 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission
(29 May 1998)
Subject: Long distance rail links
Is the Commission aware that there is no mention whatsoever, in the documentation concerning the financing of the German railway infrastructure, of the share of the programme promised by Germany for the Betuwe line and the HSL-East (Warnemunde Convention of 31 August 1992, Article 2(1b) and 2(2b))? This fact is causing some concern in the Netherlands given the fact that it is essential to know the requisite rail capacity at a later stage of the construction of both the Betuwe line and the HSL-East. As the Commission is aware, the two long-distance connections are essential lines in trans-European networks, as set out in the Treaty of Maastricht.
Does the Commission realise that if these investments are not made promptly or in full this will jeopardise the progress of construction on the routes in question and the speedy completion of the TEN?
Does the Commission also realise that the Netherlands and Belgium are pushing for the construction of the TEN, and in particular the long-distance links, as a means of improving the European economy? The assumption that these improved links for the Benelux countries could be a threat to the national economies is not a consideration that should be taken into account in achieving the objectives which have been set, in particular with regard to the freedom of movement of goods, services and persons on which the functioning of the internal market depends.
Is the Commission prepared to make representations to Germany with regard to the further course of the Betuwe line and the HSL-East on German territory?
If so, in what way?
If not, why not?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(8 July 1998)
The German-Dutch intergovernmental agreement of 31 August 1992 concerning the improvement of the German-Dutch rail freight and passenger traffic foresees a series of co-ordinated infrastructure measures which shall be implemented by both Member States in accordance with their relevant responsibilities. The agreement covers the construction of the Betuwe line in the Netherlands and relevant measures to assure necessary increases in freight capacity provision in Germany, as well as the upgrading of the Amsterdam − Utrecht − Emmerich − Oberhausen line for speeds of up to 200 kilometres per hour for passenger traffic.
The measures concerning Germany, which are laid down in the 1992 intergovernmental agreement, are under preparation and will be gradually implemented, according to capacity requirements. Infrastructure improvements at the Oberhausen junction are already under construction. The German five-year infrastructure investment programme, covering the period 1998-2002, foresees investments of 54 million DM for the Emmerich − 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/75
Oberhausen line which is considered to be sufficient to meet the needs during this period, and which constitutes the first step of a comprehensive medium and long-term investment plan.
Given this situation, the Commission does not see any reason for intervening in the German case. It is confident that the appropriate measures to implement the trans-European transport network in Germany will be carried out with the same commitment as has been demonstrated in the Benelux countries.
(1999/C 31/100) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1721/98 by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission
(29 May 1998)
Subject: Limits on noise emitted by airports in the European Union: closure at night
In its resolution of 10 June 1997 (A4-0183/97) (1) on the Commission’s Green Paper on future noise policy (COM(96) 0540), Parliament called on the Commission ‘to lay down and standardize obligatory standards ... to limit aviation noise’ (paragraph 29) and was of the opinion that ‘flight movements, particularly at night, are a source of nuisance to people and that they should be reduced’ (paragraph 31).
What specific action has the Commission taken, or does it intend to take, in response to Parliament’s call for a coordinated limit on noise nuisance resulting from flight movements at night at certain airports in the European Union?
(1) OJ C 200, 30.6.1997, p. 28.
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(8 July 1998)
As part of its 1998 work programme, the Commission is preparing a communication on air transport and environment which is intended to include an assessment of the scope and contents of a possible future Community framework on operating restrictions, in particular relating to night flights at noise constrained airports. In the meantime the Commission has submitted a proposal which builds upon previous Community legislation (1) to limit the registration and use in the Community of hushkitted aircraft (2).
(1) Council Regulation 92/14/CEE, OJ L 76, 23.3.1992., amended by Council Directive 98/20/EC, OJ L 107, 7.4.1998. (2) OJ C 118, 17.4.1998.
(1999/C 31/101) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1738/98 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission
(20 May 1998)
Subject: Report on the COM in olive oil
On 19 March 1998 the Court of Auditors adopted a report on the proposals for reform of the COM in olive oil, containing a number of severe criticisms and observations relating to the ‘aid per tree’ and ‘improvement’ options, i.e. the two options examined in the Commission’s preparatory documents.
Is the Commission aware of this report? Does it intend to amend its existing proposal for reform to take account of the Court of Auditors’ comments?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(9 June 1998)
The Court of Auditors has issued its report on the Commission’s discussion paper on the olive oil sector (1). C 31/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
The Commission proposal adopted on 18 March 1998 (2) does not conflict with the Court of Auditors’ opinion on this discussion paper. In fact, the Commission took account of all the opinions expressed by the various institutions and its proposal is neither the ‘improvement of the existing system’ option nor the ‘aid per tree’ option.
(1) COM(97) 57 final. (2) OJ C 136, 1.5.1998.
(1999/C 31/102) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1746/98 by Dominique Souchet (I-EDN) to the Commission
(27 May 1998)
Subject: Driftnets and Special Fishing Permits
In its reply of 21 April 1998 to written questions E-0503/98, E-0505/98, E-0507/98, E-0509/98 and E-0511/98 (1), the Commission states that it continues to take the view that it is not desirable to allow oceanic driftnet fishing to continue because of alleged ecological and socio-economic risks.
As regards the ecological aspect, what reliable scientific basis does the Commission have for calling for a general ban on the use of driftnets?
To enable North Atlantic long-finned tuna stocks to be fished optimally, why does not the Commission adopt more widely the system of Special Fishing Permits introduced in France, which makes it possible to limit and adapt to the state of fish stocks the number of vessels using driftnets?
As regards the socio-economic aspect, does not the Commission agree that a general ban on the use of driftnets would result in significant job losses and render fishing zones using the technique more vulnerable (particularly the Island of Yeu)?
As to the acceptability of Community fisheries management measures, does not the Commission consider that a decision taken without a reliable scientific study is liable to be rejected by fishermen and by the fishing industry more generally, and to damage the credibility of the Common Fisheries Policy?
Apart from driftnets, does the Commission intend similarly to call into question the legitimacy of other fishing gear without any sound scientific basis?
(1) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998.
Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission
(2 July 1998)
The ecological disadvantages of fishing for highly migratory species with oceanic driftnets have been clearly demonstrated by studies validated by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries. The report (1) of the meeting of the Committee in autumn 1995 is perfectly clear in this respect. The Commission therefore in no way shares the Honourable Member’s view regarding the scientific basis for the decision to ban oceanic driftnets.
The introduction of special fishing permits should be seen in the context of the Council decisions taken on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) 1627/94 of 27 June 1994 laying down general provisions concerning special fishing permits (2). The Council has in fact decided to strictly limit the list of fisheries in the Atlantic and neighbouring waters for which special fishing permits would be compulsory (deep-water fisheries, edible crabs, spider crabs, scallops). Pelagic fisheries have been excluded. The French measure is therefore a purely national one. It is different in kind from the decision of principle to authorise or ban certain fishing techniques.
The Commission has always acknowledged the short-term economic disadvantages for the netter fleets and for the areas dependent on these fisheries. However, as the Commission’s communication to the Council (3) pointed out, failure to ban driftnets would have had even more serious socio-economic consequences. While the ban is necessary overall, those who will suffer from it must be able to count on collective solidarity. Conversion measures will be required and, in accordance with the undertaking it gave at the March 1998 Council meeting, the 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/77
Commission has studied this matter very carefully. It will be making appropriate proposals to the Council, in line with the conclusions of the Council meeting of 8 June.
To reiterate, the Commission cannot agree with the Honourable Member when he states that the decision on driftnets was taken without any scientific basis. It refers him again to the Commission communication and to the report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee mentioned above. No fishing technique has been or will be called in question without scientific evidence being analysed by the appropriate bodies, starting with the Committee.
(1) SEC(95) 1960. (2) OJ L 171, 6.7.1994. (3) COM(94) 50.
(1999/C 31/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1748/98 by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission
(5 June 1998)
Subject: Illegal supply of temporary labour
1. Does the Commission have information about Court of Justice judgments on the illegal supply of temporary labour in the building industry? Are any proceedings still pending?
2. Is the Commission also aware of judgments in this area in Germany? If so, does it have any information concerning the penalties imposed and the back payment of social security contributions?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(11 September 1998)
Generally speaking, Community legislation does not contain any provisions prohibiting or allowing the hiring out of employees. This matter falls within the responsibility of the Member States, where some important legal precedents have been set.
The Court of Justice has delivered a number of judgments on the freedom to provide services in the construction sector. Examples include the Seco/Evi judgment of 3 February 1982 (1), the Rush Portuguesa judgment of 27 March 1990 (2) and the Vander Elst judgment of 9 August 1994 (3). However, these judgments do not relate to the illegal supply of temporary labour; nor is the Commission aware of any cases pending before the Court of Justice concerning this problem.
In its communication on undeclared work (4), the Commission noted that an effective strategy for dealing with undeclared work would need to be comprehensive, involving a mix of both sanctions and prevention.
(1) Judgment of 3.2.1982 − Joined Cases 62 and 63/81. (2) Judgment of 27.3.1990 − Case C-113/89. (3) Judgment of 9.8.1994 − Case 43/93. (4) COM(98) 219 final.
(1999/C 31/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1751/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission
(5 June 1998)
Subject: CAP reform and job creation
Has the Commission produced any calculations to quantify the number of jobs which could be created in the following areas:
1. maintenance of landscapes and protection of habitats, wetlands and other high value nature areas
2. sustainable forestry C 31/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
3. development of new crops in the non-food sector
4. organic farmingand, if so, will it itemise them, preferably by country?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(1 July 1998)
The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member that quantifying the creation of jobs in the different areas mentioned in her question would be worthwhile. Although the Commission itself has made no calculations for these areas, figures are sometimes available through other channels.
1. Maintenance of landscapes and protection of habitats, wetlands and other high value nature areas. Non- governmental organizations (NGOs) have produced some figures.
2. Sustainable forestry. Useful information can be found in several publications, notably in research programme reports. The Commission has recently made available information from the final report on COST action E3 (Forestry in the context of rural development) published by the Danish forest and landscape research institute (ministry of Environment and Energy). Another source is the study ‘Europe and the forest’ published by the Parliament.
3. Development of new crops in the non-food sector. In the white paper on energy for the future published (1) by the Commission, it is stated that in the Community between 500,000 and 900,000 jobs should be created by the year 2010 in the sector of renewable energies as a whole. A detailed breakdown showing the figures for new crops in the non-food sector was not, however, produced.
4. Organic farming. The Commission did not quantify the job creation effects. But at first sight, it seems logical to assume that organic farming needs more manual labour. However, organic farming uses fewer fertilizers and so can cost jobs in this industry.
(1) COM(97) 599.
(1999/C 31/105) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1760/98 by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission
(29 May 1998)
Subject: ERDF financing of the EMAHL (Liège Art and History Museum Grouping) project
In 1996 the Commission approved a Liège-based Walloon Region (Belgium) project designated EMAHL (Ensemble Muséal d’Art et d’Histoire de Liège) and aimed at federating various Liège museums for tourism purposes (ERDF Objective 2).
The project was approved in two stages:
− Stage 1 (1994-1996): Bfrs 100m in European financing allocated for the construction of a contemporary building as the link between the different museums;
− Stage 2 (1996-1997): to have been devoted to restoring old buildings.
The stage-1 deadline for invitations to tender was fixed as 31 December 1996 and the deadline for submitting invoices as 31 December 1998. The stage-2 deadline for invitations to tender was fixed as 31 December 1999.
In January 1997 the Belgian State Council withdrew building permission from stage 1. A new building permit was also withdrawn in December 1997. Early in 1998, DG XVI announced a new deadline of 31 December 2001 for submitting invoices in respect of all stages. The project has since been suspended, even although demolition work had already begun, thereby jeopardizing both buildings and art collections. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/79
Can the Commission state:
1. What was approved by the ERDF, and in what amounts, in respect of stage 1 (construction) and stage 2 (restoration)?
2. Whether stage-2 subsidies (restoring old buildings) could be awarded without waiting until stage 1 (construction) had been started, with stage-1 subsidies being maintained subsequently (the original stage- 1 tendering deadline of 31 December 1996 notwithstanding)?
3. Whether the two stages are financially independent or whether − if stage-1 financial allocations were exceeded − transfers to stage 1 of appropriations originally earmarked for stage 2 might be possible?
4. What stage-2 (restoration) projects have been submitted by the Walloon Region to the Commission, and in what amounts?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(24 June 1998)
1. The work relating to the EMAHL complex aimed at combining the resources of various museums is described in two Objective 2 ‘Meuse-Vesdre’ single programming documents (SPDs):
− the project described in the Objective 2 SPD for the period 1994-96 provides for the clearance of the site by carrying out the necessary demolitions, the acquisition of an adjoining building, the construction of a building intended to house the reception services of a modern tourist centre as well as multipurpose rooms, and the creation of access. Its public cost is estimated at BEF 285 million and includes funding of BEF 114 million from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
− the project described in the Objective 2 SPD for the period 1997-99 will permit the renovation of the listed buildings (museums as well as empty buildings or buildings occupied currently for other purposes), the creation of access and the construction of new buildings in Féronstrée. Its public cost is put at BEF 275 million, the ERDF contribution amounting to BEF 110 million.
2. In view of the scope and diversity of the planned measures, it is conceivable that work on the two projects described above cannot be started simultaneously. Subsidies for the first project have been maintained in view of the fact that contracts were awarded within the prescribed limits.
3. The two projects are included in different operational programmes. Consequently, funds cannot be transferred from one project to the other.
4. In the implementation of operational programmes part-financed by the ERDF in Wallonia, the monitoring committee is responsible for the approval of projects. The second project was submitted to the monitoring committee by the Walloon Region on 18 November 1997 and was approved by the committee.
(1999/C 31/106) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1761/98 by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission
(29 May 1998)
Subject: Liquid biofuels
Liquid biofuels (for example biodiesel) are an area of alternative fuels that have been promoted by the Commission via various R&D initiatives (for example the Altener and Life programmes). The expansion of the pilot project scheme to 2 % of the liquid fuels market is one of the recommendations contained in the White Paper on renewable energy resources, which was adopted by the European Commission on 26 November 1997.
It shows that the reductions in compulsory set-aside to 5 % have led to a lack of raw material supplies, putting in jeopardy the survival of the factories already producing biofuels. In addition the absence of specific measures for non-food crops in Agenda 2000 results in lack of confidence for further investment and development in biofuels by the private sector.
Will the Commission therefore consider emergency support measures in the June discussions on set-aside? What will the Commission propose as a long-term solution with the Agenda 2000 reforms? C 31/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(26 June 1998)
The Commission confirms what it has already indicated in its reply to Written Question E-1055/98 by Mr Santini, Mr Azzolini and Mr Scapagniru (1), namely that it is fully aware of the problems of raw material supply currently confronting the biofuels industry and the challenge posed by the adoption of the White Paper (2) on renewable energy sources.
Regarding the future development of the biofuels industry, the Commission will have to examine, in the negotiations on Agenda 2000 (3), all the possibilities likely to ensure a stable raw material supply and consider a harmonised approach concerning the tax measures currently applied at national level.
Within the framework of Agenda 2000 voluntary set-aside should play an important role, in view of the possibility, for Member States, to allow producers to freeze up to 100 % of their arable land. This can then be used to grow raw materials for non-food purposes, for example biofuel production.
Moreover, the Commission proposals provide for market policy to be supplemented by a new rural development policy which could also offer prospects in the field of renewable raw materials. Thus Member States can obtain Community aid for their national programmes aiming at the promotion of investments concerning non-food products.
(1) See page (à compléter svp). (2) COM(97) 599 final. (3) COM(97) 2000 final.
(1999/C 31/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1778/98 by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission
(5 June 1998)
Subject: Analytical studies and cooperation on Agenda 2000
1. Could the Commission state which outside experts or scientists provided the Commission with analytical studies or models in connection with the drawing up of Agenda 2000?
2. Which of those studies were incorporated in the Commission’s proposals?
3. Does the Commission have at its disposal any concrete micro-economic studies concerning the con- sequences of Agenda 2000 for agricultural holdings and the various regions and if so, what are they?
4. Which sections of DG VI were involved in the formulation of agricultural policy?
5. Were those responsible for the various market sectors involved in the relevant preparations, analytical studies and policy planning?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(10 July 1998)
1. To prepare the agricultural part of Agenda 2000 (1), a series of preparatory studies were carried out by the Commission:
− on the long term outlook for key agricultural markets in the Community and worldwide;
− an in-depth analysis of the situation in the sectors directly concerned by the reform and in the case of arable crops including a first assessment of the impact of the 1992 reform;
− an analysis of the main trends to be observed in rural society;
− a first assessment of agri-environmental measures and afforestation programmes; 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/81
− an analysis of the agricultural economies in the Central and Eastern European countries, development before and possible evolution after accession and their potential impact on agricultural markets of the enlarged Community.
To carry out this work, numerous contacts took place with experts from the academic and the professional world. Further, the Commission analyzed and used the results of other studies and forecasts, in particular studies financed under the Community’s agricultural research programme (FAIR) and forecasts published by the Food and agriculture organization (FAO), World Bank, Organization for economic cooperation and development (OECD), General agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT), World trade organization (WTO), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and agricultural policy research institute (FAPRI) and the Australian bureau of agricultural research (ABARE).
On specific aspects, the Commission consulted outside experts. This was in particular the case for the work on Central and Eastern European agriculture and on rural development. A study on world beef markets and prospects for Community exports was carried out. In addition, the Commission was able to benefit from studies carried out in the framework of the FAIR programme, namely the projects FAIR 1 − CT95-0029 on ‘Agricultural implications of CEEC accession to the EU’ and FAIR 3 − CT96-1849 ‘Common agricultural policy regional impact analysis (CAPRI)’.
2. The essential results of the analyses carried out by the Commission have been published as communications and reports, or in the form of Directorate general for agriculture working documents. Most of these documents contain a list of references, indicating the main sources which have been used.
3. To assess the impact of the Agenda 2000 proposals, the Commission has used a sectoral model called SPEL- MFSS developed by the University of Bonn and now run by Eurostat. This is the most complete policy simulation model for Community agriculture and allows the medium term impacts of policy changes to be assessed. Past experience, for example in the context of the 1992 reform, has confirmed the capability of this model.
Micro-economic analyses based on the farm accountancy data network (FADN) have been used to examine specific questions during the preparation of the proposals. Their methodology has been presented and discussed with experts from Member States in the FADN committee, together with studies carried out in some Member States on the basis of FADN.
As far as the analysis of the overall impact is concerned, the Commission did not rely on micro-economic calculations linked to so-called representative or model farms and based on FADN. Due to their static character and depending on the working hypotheses which are entered, such calculations can easily deliver quite misleading results, as experience has shown in the context of the 1992 reform.
However, the Commission is aware of the numerous static micro-economic calculations which have been carried out and presented in particular by some professional organizations.
4. and 5. As far as the work to prepare policy formulation is concerned, all relevant services of the Directorate general for Agriculture − which does not necessarily mean all officials − have been involved, including the various market sectors. The work was co-ordinated and monitored by the Director general. Based on the analytical work, the arguments and the preparatory work for policy formulation, final policy choices were made by the Commission on proposal of the member in charge of agriculture and rural development.
(1) COM(97) 2000 final.
(1999/C 31/108) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1782/98 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission
(11 June 1998)
Subject: Operational programmes (Interreg II)
Spain is currently participating in various operational programmes involving Community financial support which are cross-border or transnational in nature (Interreg II programme).
Will the Commission say which of all the projects concerned are currently benefiting under the Spain-France operational programmes and the operational programmes for the Mediterranean area? C 31/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(15 July 1998)
The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of Parliament a list of Spanish projects in receipt of part-financing as part of the cross-border cooperation between Spain and France under Interreg II A.
The projects in question have been chosen by the cross-border working parties introduced during the last meeting of the Interreg monitoring committee in October 1997, in the Aragon, Catalonia and Navarre regions. In the Basque Country, cross-border projects are funded under the ‘Euskadi-Aquitaine Cooperation Fund’. Provided they meet the eligibility requirements and rules of the programme, these projects will be part-financed under Interreg II A.
As for the projects involved in transnational cooperation under Interreg II C, and more particularly in the operational programmes for the Mediterranean area, the Commission cannot anticipate in the preparatory phase which projects will be involved, as these programmes have not yet been submitted for approval.
(1999/C 31/109) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1799/98 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission
(11 June 1998)
Subject: Financing of Spain’s water supply scheme from Community funds
The (written) answer to my Oral Question H-0466/98 (1) at least represents a step forward by comparison with the Commission’s previous replies, since it now recognizes the existence of a Spanish ‘National Water Supply Scheme’ financed by the ERDF, albeit only in part. However, the Commission answer restricts the scope of this approach to the truth by going on to conceal the fact that ERDF funding in Alqueva amounts to only ECU 96.6 million and not ECU 300 million. This amalgamation of ERDF funding with other Community funding in the Alentejo region clearly makes it more difficult to compare ERDF funding for water supply projects in Portugal and in Spain.
Given that, as part of the Spanish National Water Supply Scheme, the Commission intends to invest 13 times more through the ERDF than the amount which the ERDF is investing in Alqueva, and without questioning the volume of funding but merely the different conditions applied to funding in the two countries.
I should like once again to put the following questions:
1. Does the Commission believe that it used balanced and impartial methods of analysing the conditions for investment in the above two Member States?
2. Did it investigate the environmental impact of work linked to Spain’s National Water Supply Scheme in the Guadiana basin in particular? What preventive measures did it take?
3. Can it provide a list of major projects involving diversions and dams financed under the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund in the Guadiana basin, together with the respective budget?
(1) Debates of the European Parliament (May 1998).
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(25 September 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-1447/98 (1).
(1) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/83
(1999/C 31/110) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1800/98
by Friedhelm Frischenschlager (ELDR) to the Commission
(11 June 1998)
Subject: Export premiums − transport of live animals
1. When will Commissioner Fischler propose to the Council of Ministers the abolition:
a) of the export premium on the transport of live animals
b) of the calf processing premium (for the slaughter of newborn calves in order to avoid beef surpluses),
as he has already promised to do in the media?
2. Does the Commission expect these proposals to be approved, and if so, when?
3. If not, which countries are known by the Commission to oppose these reforms and what are their reasons for rejecting them?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(17 July 1998)
1. The Community does not subsidise the transport of live cattle but it grants export refunds for exports of cattle and beef. There is no proposal to abolish the export refunds for cattle.
As expressed in the media, the Commission is of the opinion that in the long run it is not acceptable to solve the problem of over-production by slaughtering young calves a few days after birth. This is one of the reasons which lead the Commission to present in Agenda 2000 (1) its proposals for the beef sector in which the calf processing premium is no longer foreseen (2). Furthermore, in December 1997, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) 2502/97 of 15 December 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) 3886/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes for beef and veal (3) stipulating that the eligibility to the calf processing premium shall be subject to compliance with the Community rules on the protection of animals during transport.
2 and 3. On 18 December 1997 the Council unanimously adopted Regulation (EC) 2634/97 of 18 December 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (4) stipulating that in the case of exports of live animals, the payment of the export refund shall be subject to compliance with the provisions of Community legislation concerning animal welfare and, in particular, the protection of animals during transport. The Parliament gave its opinion on this Regulation generally supportive of the Commission proposal. On 17 February 1998 the trade mechanisms management committee gave a favourable opinion to Commission Regulation (EC) 615/98 of 18 March 1998, laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (5).
The Agriculture Council in October 1996 required Member States, for a period of two years beginning on 1 December 1996, to implement at least one of the two premium schemes, the calf processing premium or the early marketing premium. Thus, as from 1 December 1998, the application of the processing premium becomes optional to Member States, as it was until December 1996. In this respect, until now, no Member State has indicated to the Commission what will be their decision.
(1) COM(97) 2000 final. (2) OJ C 170, 4.6.1998. (3) OJ L 345, 16.12.1997. (4) OJ L 356, 31.12.1997. (5) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998. C 31/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/111) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1807/98
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(11 June 1998)
Subject: Operation of European Studies Centres in Greece
Provision has been made under the National Programme for Foreign Language teaching, which is funded via subprogramme 1 ‘General and Technical Education’ of the programme for ‘Education and Basic Vocational Training’, in particular measure 1.1.c ‘Foreign Languages’, for the establishment and operation in Greece of European Language Centres (ELC).
1. How many Centres are involved and what is the timetable for bringing them into operation?
2. Bearing in mind that private schools for teaching foreign languages − known as frontisteria − also operate in Greece, will their students be able to take part on an equal footing with the ELCs’ students in the procedures for awarding language-proficiency certificates which the ELCs are to organize in accordance with the technical description of the measure?
(1999/C 31/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1946/98
by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(18 June 1998)
Subject: European Language Centres
Two years ago the Monitoring Committee of the Second Community Support Framework approved the establishment of European Language Centres within the framework of the Operational Programme for Education and Initial Vocational Training (EPEAEK). This institution, which will not only promote the learning of foreign languages among young people, but also help disseminate the less widely-spoken languages of the EU and thus foster multiculturalism, has yet to become operational.
Will the Commission say why this institution has not yet got off the ground and what measures it intends to take to change this state of affairs?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1807/98 and E-1946/98 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(3 September 1998)
Measure 1.1c of the operational programme for ‘Education and initial training’ − which was approved by the programme’s monitoring committee in May 1996 − pertains to the establishment and operation of European language centres (ELC) in Greece.
The initial planning referred to the establishment of 33 ELCs which should have been put into operation progressively starting in 1997. However, because of numerous problems encountered during the implementation (e.g. lack of a suitable institutional framework, absence of a body responsible for the establishment and operation of the ELCs), the measure never got off the ground. Therefore, the ministry of education intends to propose a drastic reduction of the measure.
As the ELCs are not yet operational, the issue of procedures for awarding language proficiency certificates has not been addressed. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/85
(1999/C 31/113) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/98 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission
(11 June 1998)
Subject: Structural Fund
Could the Commission please state its opinion as to the likely breakdown of the share of structural funding between the proposed new Objectives 2 and 3?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(20 July 1998)
Appropriations cannot be allocated to Objectives 2 and 3 until the Council has agreed on financial guidelines for the period 2000-06. As in 1989 and 1993, a Commission decision on allocation will follow adoption of the Structural Fund Regulations.
The Commission’s decision would have to be taken in line with Article 7 of the proposed Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1).
This stipulates that:
− the resources available for commitment for Objective 1 regions shall be about two-thirds of the total Fund appropriation;
− the Commission shall, using transparent procedures make indicative breakdowns by Member State of 90 % of the commitment appropriations available for programming;
− 5 % of the commitment appropriations for the Funds will be devoted to the Community Initiatives and 1 % to innovative measures and technical assistance.
(1) COM(98) 131 final.
(1999/C 31/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1810/98 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission
(11 June 1998)
Subject: Structural Fund
Could the Commission please state to what extent projects under the new Objective 3 will be required to meet criteria for sustainable development, especially in terms of environmental sustainability?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(3 September 1998)
Article 1 of the proposed general regulation on the structural funds (1) and Article 1 of the proposed European social fund (ESF) regulation1 set out the mission of the ESF and make specific reference to sustainable development as well as to protection and improvement of the environment, alongside other policy concerns, as part of the policy context in which the ESF must operate.
The guidelines on objective 3, which are required under Article 9.4 of the general regulation, will therefore take this legal requirement into account. The precise form which this requirement will take will be determined once the regulations have been adopted and in the light of the exact provisions laid down in those regulations.
(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998. C 31/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/115) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1821/98 by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission
(3 June 1998)
Subject: Ban on use of silicone breast implants
1. Does the Commission believe that the use of silicone breast implants is dangerous?
2. If so, what measures will it take to control the use of such implants?
3. Which Member States have banned the use of silicone breast implants or are preparing measures to do so?
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(1 July 1998)
1. and 2. The Commission is aware that the use of silicone and other breast implants presents certain risks.
With a view to controlling these risks as well as possible, the Commission is finalising guidelines for conformity assessment procedures for breast implants within the framework of Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (1).
The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answer to question P-1793/97 by Mrs Hautala (2).
3. France authorises the use of breast implants filled with physiological saline and other types of breast implant bearing the EC mark, provided that they have been specifically assessed in France in accordance with French rules.
France has invoked the safeguard clause included in Directive 93/42/EEC for the products in question. The Commission is examining the case.
The Commission has discussed the subject several times with all the Member States and as far as it is aware none of the other countries have taken restrictive measures similar to those taken by France.
(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993. (2) OJ C 76, 11.3.1998, p. 55.
(1999/C 31/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1829/98 by Klaus Rehder (PSE) to the Commission
(12 June 1998)
Subject: Cultivation of hemp
Hemp is playing an increasingly important role in the European Union, both as a renewable raw material and in environmental protection: it is being grown on set-aside land and is being used, for example, in attempts in Greece to ‘decontaminate’ contaminated land by cultivating hemp. EU funds are currently used to support the cultivation of renewable raw materials.
1. Does the Commission intend to continue paying premiums for renewable raw materials?
2. Will it continue to pay premiums for set-aside areas?
3. Are there special premiums for the cultivation of hemp and, if so, how much are they?
4. How large are the areas currently under hemp cultivation in the EU and how much is it expected to expand?
5. What trials are being carried out in the EU, with scientific support, for the cultivation of hemp? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/87
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(16 July 1998)
1. The compensatory payment for land set aside under the arable crops scheme is granted to farmers growing eligible non-food products on that land.
2. As part of its Agenda 2000 reform package (1), the Commission proposed that the principle of compulsory set-aside be retained while allowing for voluntary set-aside. Land withdrawn from production in this way may be used under certain conditions for the production of raw materials not intended for direct human consumption.
3. Council Regulation (EEC) 1308/70 of 29 June 1970 on the common organisation of the market in flax and hemp (2) introduced per-hectare aid for hemp produced in the Community. The Council fixed the rate of aid for hemp production at ECU 716.63 per hectare in 1997/98. It decided to reduce this amount by 7.5 % in 1998/99. Aid for hemp is granted only if it is produced from certified seeds of varieties with an intoxicating substance (tetrahydrocannabinol-THC) content of not more than 0.3 %. This limit will be reduced to 0.2 % with effect from 2001/02.
4. The information communicated by the Member States for 1997/98 gives the following areas:
(hectares)
Germany: 2 766 Spain: 4 282 France: 10 980 Ireland: 23 Luxembourg: 13 Netherlands: 1 322 Austria: 938 Finland: 53 United Kingdom: 2 293 Total: 22 670
Between 35 000 and 40 000 hectares will be under hemp cultivation in 1998/99.
5. A research project is currently being part-financed by the Community under the FAIR programme for the period 1994-1998, with the aim of developing improved cultivars with almost no THC content, culture management systems and harvesting and fibre extraction technologies, identifying optimum fibre quality for specific end uses and developing new innovative products.
(1) COM(97) final 2000. (2) OJ L 146, 4.7.1970.
(1999/C 31/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1831/98 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission
(12 June 1998)
Subject: Structural support in Austria
Austria receives EU structural assistance primarily within the framework of support for Objective 5b regions. Under the reform of structural assistance in the EU the current Objective 5b regions are to be incorporated into the new Objective 2.
This gives to the following questions for Austria:
1. What is the impact of this reform on Austria and on its nine federal provinces?
2. Will the reform result in a loss of support for regions in the individual Austrian provinces?
3. Is the total amount of assistance available for the provinces to be reduced? C 31/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(30 June 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question no 1116/98 by Mr Linser (1).
(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999.
(1999/C 31/118) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1836/98
by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission
(12 June 1998)
Subject: Subsidies for tobacco growers
During the European Parliament’s sitting in Strasbourg on 12 May 1998 Padraig Flynn, the Commissioner responsible for social affairs and employment, said that he had always been opposed to giving subsidies to tobacco growers. Furthermore, he added that he longed for the day when they could be discontinued. He explained that so far he had been unable to achieve full agreement but that some progress had been made in that direction.
He also fervently hoped that in the not-too-distant future the issue would be raised again and tobacco subsidies as an integral part of the Union’s policy would be discontinued. In view of these categorical statements can the Commission say whether Mr Flynn has realized that if he achieved his desired purpose, it would considerably damage employment in the most disadvantaged regions of the Union, such as Extremadura?
Is he not worried about such serious consequences, as the Commissioner responsible for job creation?
Is he also aware that even if tobacco is no longer produced in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, this will by no means lead to a reduction in smoking in the European Union?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(10 September 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its report to the Council on the common organisation of the market on raw tobacco (1), and to its proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) 2075/92 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco (2).
As regards the employment situation in disadvantaged regions of the Community, in the current programming period for the European social fund (ESF) almost 50 % of resources have been allocated to objective 1 regions. The new structural fund regulations, in the framework of the European employment strategy, will allow Member States to focus ESF support on these regions.
As regards policy on smoking prevention, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its communication of December 1996 (3).
(1) COM(96) 554 final. (2) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998. (3) COM(96) 609 final. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/89
(1999/C 31/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1850/98 by Carlos Pimenta (PPE) to the Commission
(12 June 1998)
Subject: Financial support granted in connection with the closing down of the Chernobyl plant and for the completion of the K2 and R4 reactors in Ukraine
1. In view of public concern about nuclear safety and the financial commitments being made in relation to the closing down of the Chernobyl plant and the completion of the K2 and R4 reactors, how does the Commission justify the apparent abandonment of the conclusions of the two 1997 EBRD-financed reports which indicated that the K2/R4 alternative should be rejected? Does the Commission have available the new study in favour of the alternative? Is it prepared to organize an open debate on the conclusions of this study and on those presented in 1997?
2. What guarantees has Ukraine given concerning the closing down of Chernobyl in exchange for the completion of the two reactors and concerning the refund of costs granted for the completion work?
3. Does the Commission consider the estimates concerning investment and the deadlines for completion of K2/R4 to be reliable? To what extent has the experience of what appears to be a more favourable example of completion of a plant in the Czech Republic been taken into account?
4. What answer can the Commission give to Parliament’s recent question concerning the use of the Ukrainian part of the Community funding already granted for Chernobyl? What guarantees does the Commission have concerning the future management of the funds allocated? What is the total amount (donations and loans) already allocated to the Chernobyl plant and the completion of K2/R4 since the accident at Chernobyl?
5. The completion and closing down with full security measures of Chernobyl and of K2/R4 involves a further 2.4 billion dollars of financing from the West, most of which will come from the EU. Will the mobilization of these funds exclude all other allocation of funding to strengthen energy efficiency in Ukraine, which is generally considered to be a top priority?
6. Given that the principal financial commitment lies with the EU, does the Commission have any information about the degree of participation of companies in the EU and elsewhere towards the completion of the projects?
Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(8 July 1998)
1. The European bank for reconstruction and development (EBRD) has recently completed a new compre- hensive study on the economic aspects of Khmelnitsky 2 and Rovno 4 (K2R4). This report will be made available as part of the public consultation process that will be performed by the Ukrainian authorities.
2. The closing down of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) has been agreed by the Ukrainian government in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed with the Group of seven most industrialised countries (G7) and the Commission in 1995. Chernobyl closure will be part of the conditionality attached to the implementation of Euratom and EBRD loans. The lenders will take the necessary securities (state guarantee and others) to secure proper servicing of their loans.
3. As for any project of this type, the estimates concerning investment cost and time frame for the completion of K2R4 are subject to continuous improvements, on the basis of available information and studies.
4. The management of the grant funds allocated to Chernobyl projects depends on the source of funding (EBRD nuclear safety account, EBRD shelter fund, TACIS) The management of the loan funding which is envisaged will be in line with applicable procedures for Euratom loans and for EBRD loans. The Community funds allocated under the TACIS programme to Ukraine for the implementation of the MoU amount to MECU 100, excluding the contribution to the shelter fund.
5. The funding of Chernobyl related projects does not exclude all other allocation of funds for the strengthening of energy efficiency in Ukraine. TACIS continues to support such projects in the framework of the Ukrainian national action programmes. C 31/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
6. Under TACIS funded projects, only companies from the Community and from the TACIS beneficiary countries are eligible for contracts. Under the EBRD special funds, the Community will receive regular information on the allocation of contracts. It must be considered however that many of these contracts are likely to be given to consortia of companies from Community and non-Community origin.
(1999/C 31/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1851/98 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission
(12 June 1998)
Subject: Barriers to the single market in cars
Earlier this year, the Commission fined Volkswagen ECU 102 million for prohibiting its dealers in Italy from selling its cars to buyers from Austria and Germany.
Nevertheless, across the European Union, trade barriers which restrict the freedom of EU consumers to purchase cars in any Member State persist. In particular, consumers from the United Kingdom are put at a disadvantage because they are not able to purchase right-hand drive cars in other Member States.
Moreover, the free market in cars across the EU is further impeded by widely divergent prices in the Member States, as the Commission’s latest report on this matter acknowledges. (Commission Press Release IP/98/154 of 13 February 1998).
1. Does the Commission share my concern that EU consumers in general, and UK consumers in particular, are being denied the benefits that the single market would otherwise offer them in this sector?
2. Does the Commission believe that any competition rules or single market legislation are being breached by the practices of car manufacturers?
3. Is the Commission currently investigating any specific complaints relating to this issue?
4. Is the Commission investigating this issue in general terms, over and above its monitoring of and twice yearly report on car prices in the Union?
5. What action does the Commission propose to take to resolve this unacceptable situation?
Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission
(15 July 1998)
The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member that open market conditions should lead to more competition and, in fact, make it easier for consumers to buy vehicles within the Community wherever they find it most advantageous.
The Commission in its Regulation (EC) 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the EC Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (1) reinforces this freedom. A dealer within the common market may not reject a consumer’s offer to buy, or ask for a higher price simply because the consumer is a resident of another Member State. However, since it is normally in a dealer’s interest to maximise sales, the consumer’s right is not accompanied by an obligation imposed on dealers to sell.
1. The Commission would certainly share the Honourable Member’s concern if it were the case that the benefits of the single market were being denied to European citizens. While it is true that the some consumers, particularly from the United Kingdom, have encountered difficulties in purchasing a car abroad, it is also true that many such sales are effected.
2. In the Volkswagen/Audi Commission Decision 98/273/EC of 28 January 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (2) cited by the Honourable Member the Commission demonstrated that there was a breach of Community law. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/91
3. The Commission has been dealing with many complaints from individual consumers related to the purchase of right-hand-drive (RHD) cars. Regarding the question of parallel trade in general, an investigation was carried out in December 1996 at the premises of Mercedes-Benz in Belgium, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands, and at Opel in the Netherlands. These cases are still under consideration.
4. In addition to producing the bi-annual report on car prices, the Commission is continually monitoring the implementation of Regulation (EC) 1475/95.
5. Under Regulation (EC) 1475/95 the Commission undertook to draw up a report on the functioning of the Regulation before the end of 2000. This report will form a basis for a decision on the future of the block exemption. Certain car manufacturers in Europe are aware of the problems in the market-place and have consequently designated telephone lines for people who experience problems trying to buy a car abroad.
In addition to the Volkswagen/Audi decision, the Commission has adopted two decisions condemning obstacles to the purchase of new RHD-cars (3) outside the United Kingdom. Also, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission’s earlier answers to written question P-1957/97 by Mr Skinner and written question E-2874/91 by Mr Megahy (4).
(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995. (2) OJ L 124, 25.4.1998. (3) Commission Decision of 25/9/1986, OJ L 295, 18.10.1986, p. 19; Commission Decision of 2.7.1984, OJ L 107, 2.8.1987, p. 11. (4) OJ C 162, 29.6.1992.
(1999/C 31/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1868/98 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission
(16 June 1998)
Subject: Apparent illegality of the ban imposed by Campania on private consortia receiving Community funding
Measure 2.2 of the Campania regional operational programme provides for European Regional Development Fund assistance to public investment in industrial zones. Written Question E-1009/98 (1) dealing with this issue was answered by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission.
1. Is it true that measure 2.2 of the POP approved by the regional council and the Commission enabled both public and private consortia to receive 100 % funding and, if so, is it true to say that Campania can propose an amendment allowing private consortia access to the measure?
2. Has Campania ever asked the Commission in writing for authorization to make such a change?
3. Is the ban autonomously imposed by Campania on having recourse to funds provided for under national law to cover 50 % of the co-funding nonetheless legal?
(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998.
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(20 July 1998)
Measure 2.2 (industrial areas) of the Campania Region Operational Programme for 1994-1999 stipulates that the beneficiaries of assistance must be public bodies and consortia. The measure’s financing plan proposed by the Region and approved by the Commission provides for 100 % public funding, implying that only public bodies and consortia may receive assistance. If a share of public funding is to be allocated to private consortia, the Region must modify its financing plan in advance to include private financing.
The Region proposed a change to the financing plan to the programme’s Monitoring Committee at its meeting on 11 December 1997 to allow a private contribution of 50 % of the total in 1996. This change has not yet been notified to the Commission. C 31/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
The Campania Region is required to abide by and enforce the financing plan approved by the Commission for the programme. For this reason, even if the financing plan is modified, the Commission cannot accept that the share of private financing be covered by other public resources.
(1999/C 31/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1869/98
by Luigi Caligaris (ELDR) and Eolo Parodi (PPE) to the Commission
(16 June 1998)
Subject: Construction of the Lyon-Turin-Milan-Venice-Trieste link and connection to the port of Genoa
The Italian, Slovenian and Hungarian authorities recently signed an undertaking to create an ‘authority’ to find the funding needed for the construction of the V corridor linking Trieste with Kiev via Ljubljana and Budapest.
It will not however be possible fully to exploit the V corridor unless the Lyon-Turin-Milan-Venice-Trieste trans- European link, of which it is the natural extension, is properly developed. An adequate land link between the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean countries of the European Union (Spain, France and Italy) and their respective ports (particularly Barcelona, Marseilles, Genoa, Venice and Trieste) will in fact be possible only if that link is properly developed.
1. How far has work progressed on the Lyon-Turin-Milan-Venice-Trieste link and when is it scheduled for completion?
2. Does the Commission not think that long delays in completing that link compared with the east-west trans- European links north of the Alps would hamper balanced development of intermodal transport at European level and limit the possibilities of access to the European subcontinent from the Mediterranean and its ports?
3. What measures should be adopted by the authorities of the Member States through which the link passes?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(31 July 1998)
The Commission recognises the importance of the high speed line Lyon-Trieste for the development of a balanced trans-European transport network, as specified in 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 transport network (1). The project is expected to improve substantially the competitive position of railway freight services. The high speed line will be able to accommodate both passenger and freight services of high quality and the new axis will free capacity on existing railway lines. This capacity could be used to improve freight as well as local and urban services.
According to Article 129c of the EC Treaty, responsibility for the implementation of the projects of common interest lies mainly with the Member States. While there has been some slippage in the project due to its complexity and to constraints on the availability of public finance, the project is at an advanced stage of preparation. The draft summary plan has been finalised for the Lyon-Montmélian section; works have started on some major connecting points in Italy; public funding has been secured for some sections in Italy; and, for the international section, France and Italy have agreed to finance the study phase until 2000. The Community has already granted 95 MECU to the project (until 1997) in support of studies and preparatory works.
It is difficult to assess precisely what impact the slippage may have on the development of combined transport services and on the role of the ports affected by the Lyon-Trieste link. In this respect it is worth mentioning that investments are under way in Italy to improve the Genoa/Voltri − Novara − Domodossola, the Pontebbana, and the Brenner railway lines. These investments will mainly benefit freight services and have received Community support. In addition the French and Italian governments have agreed to undertake investments on the existing lines to increase capacity in the medium term, mainly for freight services, while in Italy the existing Turin-Trieste line is being improved. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/93
Further information on this project, including progress and the timetable for planned implementation, can be found in the document ‘Trans-European Transport Network: report on progress and implementation of the 14 Essen projects, 1998’ (2) and its accompanying fact sheets which are being sent direct to the Honourable Members and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
(1) OJ C 228, 9.9.1996. (2) COM(98) 356 final.
(1999/C 31/123) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1871/98 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(8 June 1998)
Subject: Action plan for the introduction of advanced television services in Europe
The Council Decision of 22 July 1993 on an action plan for the introduction of advanced television services in Europe (93/424/EEC) (1) established an action plan to ensure the accelerated development of the market for advanced television services in 16:9 format for a period of four years which expired at the end of June 1997. The total sum necessary to achieve the objectives of the action plan was ECU 405 million; the Community contribution amounted to ECU 228 million.
Will the Commission say which Greek television channels benefited from the Community funding referred to above, exactly how much funding they received, to what extent funding in Greece produced the desired results and whether any irregularities were noted?
(1) OJ L 196, 5.8.1993, p. 48.
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(9 July 1998)
Tables sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament show which Greek broadcasters received funding under the action plan for the introduction of advanced television services. The tables also indicate how much funding Greek broadcasters were allocated from both the action plan budget lines − broadcasting (B3-2014) and programme production (B3-2013) − over their four year life. These allocations are shown in terms of amount of funding and of hours of transmission and programming.
The Commission will launch an evaluation study on this action plan next year, at the end of its implementation, once all the transmission and broadcasting contracts have come to an end. This will provide detailed information and analysis regarding the action plan’s impact on all Member States, including Greece.
The Commission is not aware of any irregularities in connection with Greek broadcasters’ contracts relating to transmission or programme production. The Honourable Member should note that the Court of auditors investigated the action plan in 1996. The resultant report (1) did not mention any irregularity in Greece.
(1) OJ C 340, 12.11.1996.
(1999/C 31/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1877/98 by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission
(16 June 1998)
Subject: Agri-environmental measures in Ireland
In view of the failure of the Irish Government to utilize all the payment appropriations allocated to it from the Regional Funds for transport projects, has the Commission considered the possibility of redistributing these C 31/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
payments to the Control of Farmyard Pollution Scheme, a very successful scheme which had applications for amounts far in excess of the available funds!
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Responsibility for the reallocation of savings of funding under the Transport operational programme lies with the monitoring committee for the Community support framework. While the suggestion made by the Honourable Member has been considered, it was decided at the monitoring committee meeting of 26 June 1998 to re-allocate this funding for the most part in the same sector in order to take account of the needs for investment in transport in the Dublin region and for infrastructural deficits (road, rail) in Ireland as a whole.
(1999/C 31/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1878/98 by Bernie Malone (PSE) to the Commission
(16 June 1998)
Subject: Zero VAT-rate for phosphate-free fertilizers
Given that the phosphate run-offs are having a very detrimental impact on the quality of water in lakes in Ireland, could the Commission indicate if it plans to bring forward proposals to remove the anomaly whereby fertilizers containing phosphates are zero VAT-rated, while those that do not contain phosphates are not? If it is not planning to bring forward such proposals, could it indicate why not?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(23 July 1998)
Pursuant to Article 28(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC), (1) the Member States may, subject to certain conditions, maintain certain exemptions with refund of the tax paid at the preceding stage. Ireland applies a zero rate to fertilisers under certain conditions. However, according to the information in the Commission’s possession, no distinction is made between fertilisers containing phosphates and those which do not.
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
(1999/C 31/126) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1885/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission
(16 June 1998)
Subject: Convergence report
The Commission’s document COM(98) 1999 (report on progress towards convergence and recommendation with a view to the transition to the third stage of economic and monetary union) states that on 23 October 1995 the Council adopted Regulation 2494/95 (1) setting the legal base for the establishment of a harmonized methodology for compiling consumer price indices in the Member States.
This regulation proposed a two-stage harmonization:
1. the production of a set of interim indices of consumer prices (IICPs), based on existing national CIPs, adjusted so as to make the coverage of goods and services as similar as possible;
2. the construction of harmonized indices of consumer prices (HICPs).
The same report states that the HICPs may be used for drawing up the following aggregate indices at European level: the European Index of Consumer Prices (EICP), the European Economic Area Index of Consumer Prices (EEAICP) and the future Monetary Union Index of Consumer Prices. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/95
Can the Commission provide information on the EEAICP for 1997?
(1) OJ L 257, 27.10.1995, p. 1.
(1999/C 31/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1886/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (16 June 1998)
Subject: Convergence report
The Commission’s document COM(98) 1999 (report on progress towards convergence and recommendation with a view to the transition to the third stage of economic and monetary union) states that on 23 October 1995 the Council adopted Regulation 2494/95 (1) setting the legal base for the establishment of a harmonized methodology for compiling consumer price indices in the Member States.
This regulation proposed a two-stage harmonization: 1. the production of a set of interim indices of consumer prices (IICPs), based on existing national CIPs, adjusted so as to make the coverage of goods and services as similar as possible; 2. the construction of harmonized indices of consumer prices (HICPs).
The same report states that the HICPs may be used for drawing up the following aggregate indices at European level: the European Index of Consumer Prices (EICP), the European Economic Area Index of Consumer Prices (EEAICP) and the future Monetary Union Index of Consumer Prices.
Can the Commission provide information on the EICP for 1997?
(1) OJ L 257, 27.10.1995, p. 1.
(1999/C 31/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1887/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (16 June 1998)
Subject: Convergence report
The Commission’s document COM(98) 1999 (report on progress towards convergence and recommendation with a view to the transition to the third stage of economic and monetary union) states that on 23 October 1995 the Council adopted Regulation 2494/95 (1) setting the legal base for the establishment of a harmonized methodology for compiling consumer price indices in the Member States.
This regulation proposed a two-stage harmonization: 1. the production of a set of interim indices of consumer prices (IICPs), based on existing national CIPs, adjusted so as to make the coverage of goods and services as similar as possible; 2. the construction of harmonized indices of consumer prices (HICPs).
Can the Commission state what goods and services have been included in the interim indices of consumer prices (IICPs)?
(1) OJ L 257, 27.10.1995, p. 1.
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1885/98, E-1886/98 and E-1887/98 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1998)
The Commission has calculated the European economic area index of consumer prices (EEAICP) since January 1995 and the requested information for 1997 is available on a monthly basis via both electronic (New Cronos database) and printed (Statistics in Focus: Economy and Finance) media.
Mutatis mutandis the Commission has calculated the European index of consumer prices (EICP) also since January 1995 and the requested information for 1997 is available on a monthly basis in precisely the same manner as for the EEAICP. C 31/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
As regards the goods and services covered by the interim indices of consumer prices (IICPs) the Commission is forwarding direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat the detailed information (No 15 of Eurostat news release ‘New way of comparing EU inflation’ of 29 February 1996).
(1999/C 31/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1888/98
by Gianni Tamino (V), Fausto Bertinotti (GUE/NGL), Carlos Carnero González (GUE/NGL), Luciana Castellina (GUE/NGL), Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL), Luciano Pettinari (PSE), Luciano Vecchi (PSE) and Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(16 June 1998)
Subject: Human rights in Mexico
In the past few days more than a hundred Italian citizens forming part of a delegation made up inter alia of members of Parliament, journalists and members of the ‘Ya Basta’ organization have been expelled from Mexico ( 40 for life and the rest for ten years ), as have other European citizens in the past, for having established, in their capacity as observers in Chiapas, that the human rights situation there was serious ( particularly in Taniperlas, where the lives of 140 women and children are in danger ).This fact has been noted many times in resolutions adopted by the European Parliament.
Does the Commission believe that a trade agreement with Mexico is appropriate when measures of this kind are being taken which, on the one hand, infringe the civil rights of Mexicans and on the other, preclude European citizens from free movement within that state, especially since the trade agreement contains a clause providing for the safeguarding of democracy?
What measures does it intend to adopt to guarantee freedom of movement for European citizens in Mexico and thus to ensure the revocation of the expulsion orders, some of them for life, adopted by the Mexican Government?
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(22 July 1998)
The Commission has taken note of the recent decisions by the Mexican government to expel Italian nationals and other Community citizens. Though disquieting, these decisions were adopted in accordance with Mexican law.
The Commission and the Member States’ ambassadors to Mexico have conveyed their concern to the relevant authorities in an effort to establish the grounds for these expulsion orders. Contacts will be pursued to verify, in the event of further incidents of this nature, that such measures are well-founded and see that the rights of European citizens are respected.
As for the new agreements signed by the Community and the Member States with Mexico on 8 December, including the interim agreement to which Parliament gave its assent in May, they, like every other agreement concluded by the Community with a non-member country, are based on respect for the democratic principles and human rights that inspire the parties’ policies and constitute an essential element of their relations.
The Commission considers the entry into force of these agreements important because their clauses on respect for human rights provide a legal framework for the Community to exercise a more effective and constructive influence on the situation in Mexico. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/97
(1999/C 31/130) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1890/98
by Vincenzo Viola (PPE) to the Commission
(9 June 1998)
Subject: Importation into Sicily of lemons from outside the Community
There have been instances in Sicily where lemons from Argentina have been unlawfully imported via Spain, Austria and Portugal. Once on the internal market, this citrus fruit is sent to Italy without any restrictions despite the fact that Italy has been declared a ‘ protected area ’, under the terms of which citrus fruit from countries outside the Community cannot be imported into Italy for plant protection reasons.
Is the Commission aware of the health risk caused by marketing these citrus fruits,which have been grown in countries which permit the use of extremely toxic pesticides and are subsequently offered for sale in places where these pesticides are illegal?
What measures does the Commission intend to take to control such unlawful imports, which endanger the health of European consumers?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(8 July 1998)
The current phytosanitary regime applicable to the import of citrus fruit into the Community is specified in Council Directive 77/93/EEC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products (1) and against their spread within the Community, as last amended by Commission Directive 98/2/EC (2).
As for the recognition of Italy as a protected zone for citrus fruit originating in third countries, to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, by Commission Directive 96/15/EC of 14 March 1996 amending Directive 92/76/EEC recognizing protected zones exposed to particular plant health risks in the Community, the said protected zone, which aimed at protection against unspecified harmful organisms and for which a ban on the introduction of third country citrus fruit was introduced, was not extended beyond 1 April 1996 on the grounds that a protection against unspecified organisms was considered inappropriate under internationally established principles and cannot be justified scientifically. Thus, in order to comply with the Community’s international obligations under the World trade organization (WTO), the said phytosanitary regime for the import of citrus fruit into the Community covering, amongst others, protective measures against citrus canker, citrus leaf spot and citrus black spot, became applicable to all parts of the Community.
The Commission would emphasise that these measures have recently been improved by Directive 98/2/EC to ensure continued adequate protection to all citrus production areas of the Community, and that, within the phytosanitary responsabilities of the Commission, activities are carried out for the purpose of ensuring the correct and uniform application of the provisions of Council Directive 77/93/EEC.
Moreover, the non-application of Community legislation by Italy and the action taken by Italy to continue to ban the introduction of the relevant citrus fruit originating in third countries is at present subject to detailed examination by the Commission in order to determine the appropriate steps to be envisaged.
The Commission is aware that the presence of residues of highly toxic non-authorised pesticides in or on food products may present a risk to consumers. Monitoring of pesticide residues in food products is the responsibility of the authorities of the Member States. The Commission has so far not been informed by the Italian authorities of the detection of any unacceptable residues or levels of residues of pesticides on lemons coming from third countries.
(1) OJ L 26, 31.1.1977. (2) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998. C 31/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/131) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1892/98 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Commission
(9 June 1998)
Subject: System for the award of licences under the new COM in bananas
In the context of its amendment of the Common Organization of the Market in bananas (Regulation (EEC) 404/ 93 (1)), can the Commission specify the technical arrangements for award of licences which it intends to introduce in its implementing regulation, particularly with a view to guaranteeing the existing quantities for non-traditional ACP countries?
(1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(22 July 1998)
As part of the procedure for the adoption of the amendments to Council Regulation (EEC) 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, it was agreed, with regard to the arrangements for import licences, that the traders who would obtain the licences would be those who had actually been importing bananas over a recent reference period. The detailed rules will have to be adopted before the end of 1998.
The quantities of non-traditional bananas from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries which have been exported in the past will therefore confer entitlement also to import in the future, thereby enabling the traders in question to continue their imports.
(1999/C 31/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1897/98 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission
(16 June 1998)
Subject: Pollution of the town of Chania through the expansion of an electricity plant
The Medical Association of Chania, Crete, alleges that the planned expansion of the electricity plant at Xylokamara, located a mere three kilometres from the town centre, will have a particularly adverse effect on the health of local inhabitants, owing to the aggravation of atmospheric pollution caused by fumes from the plant. The sea in the vicinity of Chania will undoubtedly also be affected, as effluent from the plant will be discharged into Soudha Bay without being treated in any way. Tourism in the region − which is the mainstay of the local economy − will certainly be affected.
Will the Commission say whether it is aware of this state of affairs, whether the planned expansion is in keeping with Community environmental and public health protection legislation and what measures it intends to take should this not be the case, in order to prevent any aggravation of atmospheric and marine pollution and any health risk to local inhabitants and the thousands of tourists who visit the town annually?
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(15 July 1998)
The Commission had not been informed of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers.
Under Community law, the extension of an electricity plant must first be assessed on the basis of Council Directive 88/609/EEC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion 1 plants ( ) which sets limit values for emissions of SO2, NOx and dust. It applies to plants with a thermal input exceeding 50 megawatts. Where a combustion plant is extended by at least 50 megawatts, the emission limit value to be applied to the new part of the plant must be fixed in relation to the thermal capacity of the entire plant. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/99
Power plants of at least 300 megawatts must also be made subject to an environmental impact assessment, in accordance with Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) (amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC) (3) Less powerful industrial plants for the production of electricity, steam and hot water must be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. The Court of Justice has held that any project transforming or extending this type of plant liable to have major ecological consequences must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Furthermore, the discharge of dangerous substances into surface waters, including coastal waters, is governed by Council Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (4). whatever the pollution source.
From the end of 1999, new combustion plants with a thermal input exceeding 50 megawatts will also be subject to Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. (5) This Directive stipulates that, applying the best available techniques, authorities must fix limit values for emissions into air, water and land which will ensure a high level of protection for the environment as a whole. As regards existing installations in this category, the authorities must ensure that they meet the requirements of the Directive not later than eight years after the date on which it is brought into effect.
Any plan to modify a plant must be communicated to the authorities, who must take the necessary steps to ensure that no substantial changes are made without a permit issued in accordance with the Directive.
In the absence of information on the plant’s capacity and its planned extension, the date on which the authorisation procedure is due to be initiated and construction to begin and the types of dangerous substance it is thought will be discharged into the sea, it is not possible to say which of the abovementioned Directives apply to this particular case.
(1) ,OJ L 336, 7.11.1988. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (3) .OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. (4) ,OJ L 129, 18.5.1976 (5) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.
(1999/C 31/133) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1899/98 by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Commission
(16 June 1998)
Subject: Purchase of duty-free goods after 1999
Is it true that some EU citizens will be able to purchase duty-free goods within the EU after the existing facility for travellers is abolished in 1999?
If so, which citizens, and why?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(13 July 1998)
Pursuant to the decision taken by the Council in 1991 to abolish duty-free sales within the Community, the suitability of which was confirmed by the Ecofin Council on 19 May 1998, travellers will only be able to purchase duty-free goods until 30 June 1999. After that date, the exemption from VAT and excise duty which in the past relied on the concept of tax exemption for export followed by taxation at import by the traveller will cease to exist.
The decision to abolish duty-free sales has no bearing on the tax exemption granted to diplomatic and consular missions, international organisations and NATO forces. This exemption is based on international agreements, in the case of diplomats the Vienna Convention. This convention applies only to those with diplomatic status, for example ambassadors or diplomatic staff. Within the Community, this convention does not apply to European officials. C 31/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1909/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission
(16 June 1998)
Subject: Powers of the Commission for the coordination of EU policy on economic and social cohesion and regional planning
In its recent report A4-0206/98, Parliament pointed out that, despite the absence of any specific provision in the Treaty attributing powers in the field of regional planning, it may be concluded from certain elements of the Treaty that the Commission is empowered to monitor and coordinate the regional effects of the Community policies (see Articles 129b, 130a, 130b, 130r and 130s) in the context of its powers of legislative initiative and implementation. The same report also recalls that, following the informal Council of Noordwijk, the Commission undertook a series of internal consultations of its departments, as a result of which it was concluded that it should be possible to set up permanent mechanisms for the monitoring, assessment and coordination of the regional effects of the various fields of Community activity.
Can the Commission state what measures it has taken or intends to take to fulfil this mandate, specifying, where applicable, the characteristics and mode of operation of these mechanisms?
Can the Commission state to what extent this mandate was taken into account in the drawing-up of the proposals for the reform of the Structural Funds adopted by the Commission on 18 March 1998?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(15 July 1998)
The Commission is currently preparing a report on spatial planning and Community policies. Its objective is to clarify the mechanisms by which Community policies take into account spatial planning-related issues, to assess whether the policy aims set out in the first draft of the European Spatial Development Perspective can constitute a useful set of guidelines to integrate territorial differences better in sectoral policies, and to consider co-operation models and institutional mechanisms for improving the spatial consistency of Community policies.
The report is being prepared in the framework of the interdepartmental work of the Commission on spatial planning. It is due to be discussed by the Commission early next year and will constitute one of the key inputs to the Forum on spatial planning scheduled for February 1999.
In addition, the Commission departments responsible for each Community policy are closely associated in the preparation of the thematic transnational seminars on spatial planning.
The proposals for the Regulations to govern the Structural Funds, approved by the Commission on 18 March 1998 (1), provide among other things that one of the three planned Community initiatives will concern crossborder, transnational and interregional cooperation and will seek to encourage the harmonious and balanced development and spatial planning of the European territory. In addition, a number of studies and innovative projects dealing with issues linked to regional development planning may be launched at the instigation of the Commission.
(1) COM(98) 131 final.
(1999/C 31/135) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1920/98 by Lutz Goepel (PPE) to the Commission
(18 June 1998)
Subject: Registration of horses
The main significance of existing EU rules on the registration of equidae (Directives 90/426/EEC (1) and 90/427/ EEC (2) and Decision 93/623/EEC (3)) is for health controls in national and intra-Community trade.
For the purposes of consumer protection, it makes sense to divide horses into the categories of ‘horses used for leisure or sport’ and ‘horses for slaughter’. Medicinal products might be permitted for the first group that may not be used for an animal intended to be used for food. Reliable registration of the animals is a prerequisite for categorizing them. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/101
1. Can the current field tests on cattle, sheep and goats, involving electronic identification and registration systems, be extended to include horses, or can the results thereof be applied to horses?
2. Does the Commission plan to introduce new European rules on the electronic registration of horses?
3. Will there be separate identification of stud and sports horses, and horses for slaughter?
4. What role will be played in future by the equine passport?
(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 42. (2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 55. (3) OJ L 298, 3.12.1993, p. 45.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(5 August 1998)
1. The current field tests involving electronic identification are performed within the framework of the IDEA project. The scope of this project does not provide for horses and there is currently no such intention. The results of this project will not be available before the end of the year 2000. It is only then that any exploitation of the results can be contemplated.
2. The Commission currently has no plans to introduce Community legislation for the electronic registration of horses as priority is given to other species (such as cattle, sheep and goats) where field trials are already scheduled (IDEA project).
3. Registered horses are identified in the Community by means of a passport as established by Commission Decision 93/623/EEC of 20 October 1993 establishing the identification document (passport) accompanying registered equidae. This passport has also been recognised at international level by the International office of epizootics (OIE) for movement of competition horses. With regard to slaughter horses, Community rules require that such horses imported into the Community are clearly and indelibly marked by a hot branded ‘S’ of not less than 3 centimetres in size of the hoof of the left front leg.
4. It is expected that in the future the equine passport laid down by Decision 93/623/EEC for registered horses will replace the health information necessary for trade of registered horses within the Community.
(1999/C 31/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1928/98 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission
(18 June 1998)
Subject: Aid for businesses in the earthquake-hit areas of the Umbria and Marche regions
Italian law provides for special sliding scales governing access to the Structural Funds for businesses based in earthquake-hit areas. It also allows the Ministry for Industry to order the extension of the deadlines for submitting applications for businesses in this category, which is an important opportunity for companies in Umbria and the Marche.
The text of the legislation, which might provide the legal basis for extending access to the funds to include areas not normally covered, increasing the level of aid to the maximum, and using the reserved funds, in a way consistent with Objective 1, was forwarded on 19 December 1997 to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in order for it to notify the EU.
In view of the above: Is it true that the EU has not yet given its approval because it considers that the financial aid requested cannot be extended beyond earthquake-hit areas in Umbria and the Marche so as to cover other areas damaged in previous years and on repeated occasions in other parts of Italy, as outlined by the Italian Authorities? C 31/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission
(11 September 1998)
The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it held a meeting with the Italian authorities on 7 July 1998 to discuss Italy’s proposal on investment aid for firms based in earthquake-hit areas. At the meeting, it expressed concern at the very high levels of aid intensity envisaged, since what is involved is not aid to reimburse damage suffered, but actual investment aid.
The Italian authorities took note of these difficulties. The Commission trusts that a solution can be found soon so that all the necessary instruments to assist reconstruction and recovery can be made available to these areas.
The Commission would emphasise that, at all events, these difficulties regarding approval of the proposed aid scheme do not apply to the reconstruction and regeneration measures provided for in the single programming documents for the areas eligible under Objective 5b in the two regions which will soon receive additional aid from the Structural Funds amounting to almost ECU 500 million.
(1999/C 31/137) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1940/98 by Wilfried Telkämper (V) to the Commission
(11 June 1998)
Subject: Joint declaration on EU-New Zealand relations
1. Is Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan prepared to instruct his services to present to the Council a draft of a joint declaration on EU-New Zealand relations, as he promised to do in February under pressure from the President of the Council and the New Zealand Foreign Minister?
2. If not, is the Commission’s failure to take action in this area an indication that it intends to leave its right of initiative to others in the future?
3. Does the Commission see any reason why New Zealand should be treated differently from Australia with which a joint declaration was signed in mid-1997?
Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission
(25 June 1998)
1. The Commission has never promised to submit a draft Community-New Zealand joint declaration to the Council.
2. In any event, the Commission does not possess an exclusive right of initiative to table draft joint declarations to the Council. There are therefore no grounds for inferring that the Commission is surrendering any of its rights.
3. In general terms, the Commission considers that each separate relationship between the Community and a third country should be developed on its own merits and according to the particular needs in question and not merely in comparison to other relationships with other third countries.
(1999/C 31/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1949/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: WTO
What is the view of the Commission on the present permitted exclusion of patents on plants and animals from the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/103
Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission
(3 September 1998)
Article 27.3(b) of the trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) agreement creates an option for World trade organisation (WTO) members to exclude plants and animals from patentability.
At European level, the Member States are legally bound by Article 53(b) of the Munich Convention, which expressly excludes plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals from patentability.
At Community level Council Regulation (EC) 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (1) provides Community intellectual property rights protection for new plant varieties, as an effective sui generis system within the meaning of Article 27.3(b), second sentence of the TRIPs agreement. Moreover, Directive 98/ 44/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 6 July 1998 (2) on the legal protection of biotechnology inventions has recently been adopted. Article 4 of the Directive states that inventions which concern plants and animals shall be patentable if the technical feasibility of the invention is not confined to a particular plant or animal variety.
It is the view of the Commission that both Community instruments are in full conformity with Article 53(b) of the Munich Convention and with Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPs agreement.
The provisions of Article 27(3) of TRIPs will be reviewed no later than 1 January 1999, but the Commission does not have a firm position on this issue at this stage.
(1) OJ L 227, 1.9.1994. (2) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.
(1999/C 31/139) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1952/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Tropical forest budget line
Since the tropical forest budget Regulation is due to come to an end in the next year or so, will the Commission produce a comprehensive review of all the projects undertaken under this Regulation so as to inform the debate about the future of this action?
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(22 July 1998)
In 1997 the Commission published a mid-term report on cooperation activities financed under budget line B7- 6201 covering the period 1992-1995 (1). An updated report to include 1996 should be published later this year. Both reports include a comprehensive list of all projects financed under the tropical forest budget line, as well as descriptions of some of the highlights of the programme. In addition, the Commission is currently preparing the annual report foreseen in Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) 3062/95 of 20 December 1995 on operations to promote tropical forests (2), with an assessment of the implementation of this Regulation in 1997. This report will be submitted to the Parliament and the Council together with similar reports concerning a number of other budget lines.
Since 1996 the Commission has been preparing and financing an evaluation of all tropical forestry actions financed from 1992-1996, in compliance with the tropical forest regulation, and including Asian and Latin America countries (ALA), European development funds (EDF) and non-governmental organisations (NGO) budget lines. This process, which consisted of a desk study, field evaluations, and final synthesis, will be completed shortly.
At the same time the Commission is preparing a communication on tropical forest development cooperation to set out an operational strategy for the Community to help solve tropical forestry problems in the future through its various development programmes.
(1) ISBN 92 28 0004 0. (2) OJ No 327, 30.12.1995. C 31/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/140) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1953/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: European patent application for meningitis bacteria
Is the Commission aware of the applications filed with the European Patent Office by Human Genome Sciences who are seeking to be the first to ‘own’ the whole genetic sequence of the bacteria which causes meningitis and does it have a view on scientists fears that, if granted, this could lead to royalties having to be paid on every treatment?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(4 August 1998)
The Commission is aware of the patent applications that have been filed by Human Genome Sciences Inc. It would note that they have not yet been examined by the European Patent Office and that it is not for the Commission to assess the supposed patentability of inventions which are still at the application stage. If necessary, it is up to the European Patent Office to decide whether the criteria for patentability have been met and to what extent the invention may be protected.
The Commission would, however, point out that methods of therapy and diagnosis are not patentable in Europe. This being the case, it does not consider that fees would have to be paid on every treatment using the patented invention.
(1999/C 31/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1960/98 by Antonio Tajani (PPE) and Claudio Azzolini (PPE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Freedom of education
It is a well-known fact that Italy is the only European Union country that continues to practise serious discrimination with regard to freedom of education, which is detrimental to its citizens as they are consequently unable to choose freely between state and private education, mainly due to the expense of the latter and the lack of funds available either for the private education sector or for Italian or Union citizens who wish to have access to it.
In view of:
1. fundamental human rights, as upheld in the Treaty of Amsterdam in particular,
2. the principles on which the Community Treaties are based,
3. the European Parliament’s resolution no. 1-1456/83 (1) on freedom of education in the Community (paragraph I(1), (2), (3), (4),(7) and (9) and paragraph II (3)),
4. the freedom of movement and right of residence of individuals and of families, and the consequent right of access to educational services;
would the Commission state whether it regards this situation as infringing the rights of Community citizens, and what action could be taken to ensure that Italy puts a stop to this form of discrimination
(1) OJ C 104, 16.4.1984, p. 69.
Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(21 September 1998)
The Community according to Article 126 of the EC Treaty does not have any basis for intervention in the definition of the organisation of educational systems and of curricula. Such decisions remain under Member States’ competence. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/105
(1999/C 31/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1963/98 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Trans-European high-speed network
Portugal’s location on the periphery of the European Union is in itself sufficient justification for heavy investment in the rail network so as to mitigate this situation. Nevertheless, the investment currently being made or scheduled in other countries − in particular Spain, as part of the trans-European high-speed network − will exacerbate this peripheral situation unless rapid and well-structured progress is made towards extending that network to Portugal.
Given that there appears to be no plan which might indicate that such extension of the network is intended, can the Commission say to what extent it is envisaged that Portugal will be integrated into the high-speed trans-European network? By what date? How will it be linked to the work being done in other countries? Why has there been such a delay in taking this situation into account? Has the Portuguese Government submitted any applications in this connection?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Portugal is included in the high-speed rail network in the guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (1). Two lines are shown, one North-South connecting Lisbon and Porto, the other linking the North-South route with the Spanish system via Madrid.
The inclusion of these lines in the high-speed network indicates that they will be built for a maximum speed of at least 250 kilometres per hour. However, the Commission does not have any other technical details concerning their construction or design. It is understood that the Spanish authorities are planning to open their section of the new route from Madrid to France around 2004.
For the Lisbon to Porto route the Community is providing support notably for the feasibility studies that should be completed by the year 2000.
(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
(1999/C 31/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1966/98 by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Education programmes
In its opinion on the communication from the Commission entitled ‘Towards a Europe of knowledge’ (COM(97) 0563) the European Parliament strongly advocated a distinction between the objectives and promotional measures of the education programmes and those of the Structural Funds, especially the Social Fund.
How will the Commission ensure this distinction is made in the new generation of programmes, thus taking account of the European Parliament’s concern?
In the document it has submitted the Commission says that the procedures need to be simplified, made user- friendly and brought closer to the citizen.
The Erasmus programme, however, has undergone no more than a minor modification with a view to increasing decentralization. A general examination of the proposal in fact leads to the conclusion that the programme has become more centralized and so again slightly more detached.
How does the Commission explain this development, which contrasts with the desire of the majority for greater decentralization? C 31/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(20 July 1998)
Article 9, which is common to the proposals for Decisions concerning the new education, training and youth programmes (1), stipulates that the Commission and the Member States shall ensure, as part of the implementa- tion of the coordinated employment strategy, that there is complementarity between the activities of the programmes and Community action under the Structural Funds.
As regards the second part of the question concerning decentralisation, it should be noted that many actions under the current Socrates/Erasmus programme are already decentralised.
In its proposals for Socrates II, the Commission plans further decentralisation by having all mobility actions (student and teacher mobility) managed by the national agencies.
The Commission cannot agree therefore with the opinion expressed by the Honourable Member that the programme is becoming more centralised and more remote. On the contrary, the decentralised nature of the current Socrates/Erasmus programme will be further enhanced in its next phase.
(1) COM(98) 329, 330 and 331.
(1999/C 31/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1968/98 by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Control of major accident hazards
Recent accidents at a waste treatment plant at Killamarsh in my constituency, owned by SARP UK, a subsidiary of Vivendi, have aroused widespread concern both in the village itself and in the neighbouring conurbation of Sheffield. Local people wish to know how the plant in question could be brought to relocate, removing potentially hazardous operations away from any centre of population.
What legal instruments exist to facilitate such a removal?
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(3 September 1998)
Community legislation on waste does not contain any provisions concerning the minimum distance between a waste installation and residential areas. Such a provision might be introduced for landfills by a new directive (1) which is at present being discussed in Council and in the Parliament.
However, Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (2) (so-called Seveso II Directive), which will enter into mandatory application from 3 February 1999, contains a new provision on land-use planning (Article 12). This provision reflects the need, following the Bhopal accident in India in 1984, for the land-use planning implications of major-accident hazards to be taken into account in the regulatory process. The inclusion of this provision can be regarded as a major step forward in the process of major accident mitigation.
The Directive aims, firstly to prevent major accidents and secondly to limit consequences for man and the environment through controls on the siting of new establishments, modifications to existing establishments and new developments such as transport links, locations frequented by the public and residential areas in the vicinity of existing establishments. In the long term, land-use planning policies will ensure that appropriate distances between hazardous establishments and residential areas are maintained. Where such establishments already exist in the vicinity of residential areas, the Seveso II Directive calls for consideration of additional technical measures so as not to increase the risks to people, in the context of application of the above mentioned controls.
The Commission, in close co-operation with the Member States, has started developing guidance for the practical implementation of this provision in the Member States. The guidance is likely to be published during 1998.
(1) OJ C 156, 24.5.1997. (2) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/107
(1999/C 31/145) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1970/98 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Serious irregularities in Commission competition procedures
A notice of competition for assistant administrators at the Commission was published in the Official Journal of 31 March 1998, and 4 May 1998 was given as the deadline for submitting applications. Some potential applicants asked the Commission’s offices in Rome and Milan for further information on how to complete the application forms and were told that, on the basis of specific reports received direct from Brussels, the deadline would probably be extended until 15 May 1998. This information subsequently proved to be completely without foundation, so that many of those who applied late were excluded from the selection procedure.
1. Does the Commission intend to conduct an inquiry to ascertain who was responsible for spreading this false information?
2. What will it do to make up for these serious procedural irregularities?
3. Does it not think there is sufficient reason to reopen the competition, whose validity could otherwise be seriously questioned?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(3 August 1998)
On 31 March 1998 the Commission did indeed publish notices of five Category A open competitions stipulating 4 May 1998 as the closing date for applications. The Commission did not decide to defer the closing date. Had it done so, a notice to this effect would have been published in the Official Journal in all official languages and all Member States.
It is true that erroneous information to the effect that the closing date might be extended circulated within the Commission’s office in Rome on the afternoon of Thursday, 30 April 1998 and the morning of Monday, 4 May 1998. The information was discovered and officially denied on the morning of Monday, 4 May 1998. Since Friday, 1 May was a public holiday in Italy, a small number of potential applicants who consulted the Commission office in Rome on the afternoon of 30 April 1998 or the morning of 4 May 1998 may have been erroneously informed as to the closing date for applications. However, none can adduce any official notice, which, as stated above, would have had to take the form of a correction published in the Official Journal in all official languages and all Member States. An immediate investigation revealed that the false information was the result of a computer error in Brussels.
As in the case of other competitions, some of the applications received were posted after the closing date laid down in the notices of competition. Various reasons were given for the delays, including circumstances beyond the applicants’ control. As with all competitions, the Commission will examine each case on its own merits in accordance with the standard procedures for such matters.
The decisions on admittance to the preliminary tests will be taken in mid-July 1998.
The Commission has received around 30 000 applications for all five competitions, some 30 % of which have come from Italy.
(1999/C 31/146) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1972/98 by Antonio Trizza (NI) to the Commission
(15 June 1998)
Subject: Italian bill on the marketing of virgin and extra-virgin olive oil
Italian bill No. 4698 (approved by the Standing Committee on Agriculture of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and Senate on 26 May 1998), containing measures for the marketing of extra-virgin olive oil, virgin olive oil and olive C 31/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
oil, implements the Community directives on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (Directives 89/395/EEC (1) and 89/396/EEC (2)).
The legislation is intended to protect consumers so that they are not misled as to the place of origin or provenance of a product.
For reasons which are unclear, the Commission has requested notification of the bill to the Member States, on the basis of provisions which may be regarded as ‘technical standards’ within the meaning of Directive 83/189/ EEC (3).
A ‘technical standard’ is understood within the meaning of Directive 94/10/EEC (4) to govern production methods and processes.
The Commission has, perhaps mistakenly, requested the suspension of the measure, failing to take into account that it is intended solely to define standards to ensure that products are marketed correctly as regards their origin and place of production.
How can the Commission’s communications to the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, which virtually amount to ultimatums, be justified in the light of the Common Agricultural Policy which is designed to protect consumers and promote and protect typical local products?
(1) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 17. (2) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 21. (3) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8. (4) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994, p. 30.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(3 July 1998)
The bill to which the Honourable Member refers introduces specific labelling requirements for virgin and extra- virgin olive oil to be marketed in Italy that go beyond the requirements of the relevant Community Directives. Such requirements are classifiable as ‘technical specifications’ as defined in Article 1 of Council Directive 83/ 189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and the Italian authorities in line with the Directive’s requirements formerly notified the bill to the Commission on 4 May 1998.
Under Article 9(1) of the Directive the Italian authorities are required to delay adoption of the bill for a period of three months, expiring in this instance on 5 August, so that the Commission and the other Member States can formulate any objections they may have and the erection of barriers to inter-Community trade can be avoided.
Failure to comply with this procedural guarantee would mean, given the Court of Justice’s judgment of 30 April 1996 in the Securitel Case (C-194/94; 1996 Reports, p. 2201), that the provisions adopted could not be invoked against third parties.
(1999/C 31/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1975/98 by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Discriminatory charging for higher education
The United Kingdom authorities wish to charge tuition fees for the full four years of university courses in Scotland to students who come from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Students from Scotland and other European Union countries will be charged fees for only three years.
Do these discriminatory charges contravene any European directives, particularly those on freedom of movement and the single European market. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/109
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(3 September 1998)
Article 6 of the EC Treaty prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality.
This principle also extends to the free movement of services as enshrined in Article 59 of the EC Treaty, which covers not just persons providing services but also the persons for whom the services are intended.
However, the situation described by the Honourable Member does not constitute discrimination that is incompatible with Article 59 of the EC Treaty. Students from other Member States wishing to study at a Scottish university would not seem to be disadvantaged in relation to students from the United Kingdom. The difference in treatment between Scottish students and students from other UK regions is a purely internal matter for the United Kingdom and is not covered by Community law.
(1999/C 31/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1976/98 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Reduced rats of VAT under the Sixth VAT Directive
Under the Sixth VAT Directive, the Member States may, exceptionally, apply reduced rates of VAT of not less than 5 % to certain goods and services which should be specified in an Annex to the Directive.
The General Synod in the UK is currently seeking to have a reduced rate of 5 % applied to church maintenance and repair work, particularly for church schools and historic buildings.
The British Government has quoted the fact that such services do not appear in the list annexed to the Directive as the principal reason why the chances of such a reduced rate being introduced are remote.
Given that the case for applying a reduced rate of VAT in these circumstances is a strong one, not least in terms of the benefits it would bring for the preservation of cultural heritage.
1. Does the Commission consider that a reduced rate of VAT for repair work carried out on church buildings could, in principle, be added to the relevant Annex to the Sixth VAT Directive?
2. Does the Commission envisage doing so in the coming months?
3. Does the Commission have any other comments to make on this matter?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(17 July 1998)
The situation under current Community VAT legislation is that category 9 of Annex H of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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 (1) covers the ‘supply, construction, renovation and alteration of housing provided as part of social policy’. Member States may therefore allocate a reduced VAT rate of no less than 5 % to these services. Church building work is not listed for the application of a reduced VAT rate but the United Kingdom is entitled to keep, for a transitional period, the existing zero-rate on some work in this area.
It would be premature at this stage to comment on the future treatment for VAT of maintenance and repair of churches. A Commission proposal on the harmonisation of VAT rates will, however, be tabled by the end of 1998 at the earliest and it will inter alia tackle this question.
The Commission has also released a communication (2) relating to the experimental and optional application of reduced VAT rates to selected labour-intensive services. It is generally believed that this experiment should only encompass a strictly limited number of services which are best suited to meet the criteria set out in the C 31/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
communication. Maintenance and repair of churches and historic buildings are, at least partly, taken into account in the Commission communication. This communication is still under discussion in Council and discussion so far has been inconclusive.
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. (2) SEC(97) 2089 final.
(1999/C 31/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1978/98 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Radioactive waste disposal in Italy
Further to my Written Question No 1948/97 and the answer thereto, (1) can the Commission say what progress has been made to date as regards radioactive waste disposal in Italy, with particular reference to the Caorso nuclear power-station in Piacenza province?
(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 128.
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(3 September 1998)
Radioactive wastes resulting from the use of radioisotopes in medicine, industry and research are collected, treated and stored by Nucleare-Ecologia (Nucleco) S.p.A.. At the nuclear sites, low-level radioactive waste is treated and conditioned by the Italian national electrical energy agency (ENEL) and the European nuclear energy agency (ENEA).
Disposal of short-lived radioactive waste in surface or near-surface repositories is planned, and a list of possible sites has been transmitted to the ministry of Industry. Recently, a parliamentary bill has been introduced dealing with the setting up of a new agency responsible for the description, design, construction and operation of a final repository for low-level waste, as well as for the final decommissioning of nuclear power plants and pilot sites.
Deep disposal of long-lived waste in a clay formation is still under investigation. The option of a centralised interim storage facility for spent reactor fuel, vitrified reprocessing waste and long-lived intermediate-level waste is under study. The particular situation regarding the fuel stored at the Caorso reactor was covered in the Commission’s reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question 1948/97 (1).
The selection of options and timing for dismantling of installations and for storage and disposal of radioactive waste is a matter of national policy.
(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998.
(1999/C 31/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1997/98 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Passenger listing
In view of the recent tragic ICE train disaster at Eschede, and all the doubts this casts on the safety of modern railway technology, will the Commission now review its decision not to require the listing of passengers in the Channel Tunnel? This decision was justified by the belief that modern technology would prevent the possibility of any railway accident; this belief has now been cast into serious doubt. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/111
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (3 August 1998)
It would be premature to attempt to draw conclusions relating to the tragic railway accident at Eschede, Germany, until the enquiries being undertaken into the accident have been completed.
(1999/C 31/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2008/98 by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (30 June 1998)
Subject: Infringement of the principle of equal access to employment in the fisheries industry in Albufera de Valencia
Albufera de Valencia, one of Europe’s principal wetlands, which is classified as a special protection zone under Directive 79/409/EEC (1) (the ‘birds ’directive) and is therefore part of the ‘Nature 2000’ network created under Directive 92/43/EEC (2) (the ‘habitats’directive), has had a special fisheries regime since King James I the Conqueror granted it as a right to various fishermen’s associations in Catarroja, El Palmar and Silla in 1250. The rights of succession of the association’s members pass by tradition, but not as a condition of the association, from father to son although there have been three exceptions to this custom since three women have been able to exercise the privilege.
The distribution of fishing plots on the lake is traditionally carried out on the second Sunday of July each year and the plots are known as redolins.
Since 1994, five women have been attempting to acquire the right to fish on the lake, which has repeatedly been denied to them by the fishermen’s associations. The women have now appealed to the courts.
This situation violates the principle of equal treatment for men and women and contravenes Directive 76/207/ EEC (3) on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, and flouts Articles 2, 3 and 114 of the new Treaty of Amsterdam which set equal rights and opportunities policies as an objective.
1. Is the Commission aware of these facts?
2. Does the Commission not consider that this situation violates Directive 76/207/EEC and contravenes Articles 2, 3 and 114 of the new Treaty of Amsterdam?
3. Can the Commission, by virtue of the above-mentioned directive and as guardian of the Treaty on European Union, enforce the directive and thereby promote the principle of equality and its policy of ‘main-streaming’ in this case?
4. What action will the Commission be taking on this matter?
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. (2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (3) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (11 September 1998)
1. The Commission was not aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member.
2. On the basis of the information provided, it appears that fishing by the members of fishermen’s associations in the Valencia wetlands constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of the EC Treaty. However, the fishermen probably pursue this activity on a self-employed basis outside the framework of any contractual relationship. Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as referred to by the Honourable Member, would therefore not be applicable. Furthermore, the Commision would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that the Treaty of Amsterdam has not yet entered into force, which means that the question of a possible violation does not arise. At any rate, the Court of Justice has consistently ruled (1) that the provisions of Articles 2 and 3 do not grant to individuals rights which they may assert through court action at national level. The future Article 141 of this Treaty does not lay down rules relating to self-employed persons. C 31/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
However, Directive 86/613/EEC of 11 December 1986 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture, in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood (2) places a requirement on the Member States to observe the principle of equal treatment for self-employed persons as regards access to an economic activity.
3 and 4. The Commission invites the Honourable Member to provide more detailed information on the situation in question so that it can assess whether the practices criticised are compatible with Community law.
The Commission would also like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that Article 169 of the EC Treaty does not give the Commission the right to institute infringement proceedings against the Member States in cases where Community law has been violated by private bodies. On the basis of the information currently available to the Commission, it appears that the Spanish authorities cannot be accused of any infringement. Persons who consider themselves victims of a violation of the principle of equal treatment should themselves bring an action before the national courts. If there are any doubts as to how provisions of Community law should be interpreted, the national courts may apply to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, as provided for in Article 177 of the EC Treaty.
(1) Case 126/86 Giménez Zaera [1987] ECR 3697 (Article 2); Case 78/90 Sociétés Compagnie Commerciale de l’Ouest, ECR I-1847 (Article 3). (2) OJ L 359, 19.12.1986.
(1999/C 31/152) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2015/98 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Support for the creation of an energy agency in the Algarve region
In the context of the project for creating an energy agency in the Algarve region, and given the existence in the past of operational obstacles to the realization of this project, can the Commission explain what possibilities exist for supporting this initiative in the Algarve?
Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission
(3 September 1998)
In the context of the action to set up regional and urban energy agencies under the SAVE II programme, the Commission received a proposal to set up an agency in the Algarve. The proposal was put forward jointly with the Spanish Province of Huelva. All the proposals sent in were evaluated in accordance with the SAVE II Committee’s procedures, ensuring maximum transparency and discipline. Unfortunately, this particular project did not make it onto the list of energy agencies to receive funding in 1998.
(1999/C 31/153) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2020/98 by Edith Müller (V) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Democracy and Civil Society Awards
On 18 May 1998 the EU and the US announced a series of Democracy and Civil Society Awards. Fifty winners, including associations and individuals from 26 countries, received $20 000 each.
Who nominated candidates for these awards, and who selected the winners? How much of the total prize money of $1 000 000 came from the EU budget, and from which budget heading? Was this a one-off initiative, or will it become a regular event?
Why were there no prizewinners from Kosovo? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/113
Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission
(20 July 1998)
The democracy and civil society awards are a highly successful and visible example of transatlantic co-operation in support of democracy and civil society around the world.
Nominations were made jointly by the United States and Member State embassies and Commission delegations in the eligible countries. Following examination by officials of the Commission, the Member States and the American administration, the recommendations were considered and endorsed by the senior level group meeting in the framework of the new transatlantic agenda. The Community and United States summit on 18 May 1998 gave the formal endorsement of the selection.
Half the prize money was from the Community budget (ECU 209,510 from budget line B7-701, and ECU 245,946 from budget line B7-700).
There are no plans for the event to be repeated, since it was conceived as a way of celebrating events which themselves are not annual, namely 50 years of the Marshall Plan and 40 years of the EC Treaty.
There was a prize winner from Kosovo and indeed there were three award winners from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, with one of them, Mr. Gazmend Pula, an outspoken advocate of human rights in Kosovo. Mr. Pula has played a valuable role in attempting to widen the debate and open up the possibilities for dialogue between Serbs and ethnic Albanians, at a real risk to himself. On 18 May 1998 Mr. Pula and five other prizewinners participated in the summit, where they received their awards from the Presidents of the United States and the European Commission, and from the British Prime Minister.
(1999/C 31/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2025/98 by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Commercial imports of used cars
In Sweden it is practically impossible to import used cars on a commercial basis for sale to the consumer.
This is surely a breach of the principles of free movement.
Is the Commission aware of this situation? What steps does it intend to take to remove the obstacles and facilitate such imports?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(3 August 1998)
Complaints have been lodged with the Commission concerning obstacles to the registration in Sweden of used cars which have been previously type-approved and registered in other Member States. These obstacles were a result of requirements under Swedish rules for exhaust emission certificates in order for cars which had been previously registered and type-approved in other Member States to be registered in Sweden. Discussions have taken place between the Commission and the Swedish authorities concerning the compatibility of these Swedish rules with the rules on the free movement of goods in Articles 30 to 36 EC Treaty and the case-law of the Court of justice as explained in the Commission’s interpretative communication on procedures for the type-approval and registration of vehicles previously registered in another Member State (1). The Commission has been informed that the Swedish rules have been modified in order to allow for the registration in Sweden of some of the vehicles in question without requiring any additional Swedish emission certificates. For certain year models of cars produced before 1993, discussions continue between the Commission and the Swedish authorities so that certain modifications of the relevant Swedish rules can be introduced.
Furthermore, complaints have been lodged with the Commission concerning other requirements in Sweden with regard to the road safety of vehicles and limitations to the number of cars which may be registered per person and year. In the Commission’s view, such limitations would have effects on the possibilities to import used cars on a commercial basis for sale to consumers in Sweden. These complaints have been discussed with the Swedish authorities and are currently being examined by the Commission to assess the compatibility of the Swedish rules with Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty. C 31/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Outside the scope of these complaints, the Commission is unaware of any other obstacles to the import and registration of used cars.
(1) OJ C 143, 15.5.1996.
(1999/C 31/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2037/98 by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann, North Rhine- Westphalia
Regarding the allocation of EU resources to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann in North Rhine-Westphalia, can the Commission indicate:
1. the sum of EU structural resources received and their breakdown by Funds and the various Community programmes and initiatives and of EU resources allocated to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann from other budget lines since 1994 for pilot projects, measures or − as direct allocations − universities, research establishments, undertakings and other bodies,
2. the number of jobs created or preserved with the aid of these resources?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(25 September 1998)
Further to its answer of 6 July 1998 (1), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2036/98 (2).
(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 129. (2) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998.
(1999/C 31/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2038/98 by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the city of Oberhausen, North Rhine-Westphalia
Regarding the allocation of EU resources to the city of Oberhausen in North Rhine-Westphalia, can the Commission indicate:
1. the sum of EU structural resources received and their breakdown by Funds and the various Community programmes and initiatives and of EU resources allocated to Oberhausen from other budget lines since 1994 for pilot projects, measures or − as direct allocations − universities, research establishments, undertakings and other bodies,
2. the number of jobs created or preserved with the aid of these resources?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(25 September 1998)
Further to its answer of 6 July 1998 (1), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/115
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2036/98 (2).
(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 130. (2) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998.
(1999/C 31/157) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2039/98 by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the city of Wuppertal, North Rhine-Westphalia
Regarding the allocation of EU resources to the city of Wuppertal in North Rhine-Westphalia, can the Commission indicate:
1. the sum of EU structural resources received and their breakdown by Funds and the various Community programmes and initiatives and of EU resources allocated to Wuppertal from other budget lines since 1994 for pilot projects, measures or − as direct allocations − universities, research establishments, undertakings and other bodies,
2. the number of jobs created or preserved with the aid of these resources?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(25 September 1998)
Further to its answer of 6 July 1998 (1), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2036/98 (2).
(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 130. (2) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998.
(1999/C 31/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2040/98 by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the city of Remscheid, North Rhine-Westphalia
Regarding the allocation of EU resources to the city of Remscheid in North Rhine-Westphalia, can the Commission indicate:
1. the sum of EU structural resources received and their breakdown by Funds and the various Community programmes and initiatives and of EU resources allocated to Remscheid from other budget lines since 1994 for pilot projects, measures or − as direct allocations − universities, research establishments, undertakings and other bodies,
2. the number of jobs created or preserved with the aid of these resources?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(25 September 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2036/98 (1).
(1) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998. C 31/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2041/98 by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the city of Solingen, North Rhine-Westphalia
Regarding the allocation of EU resources to the city of Solingen in North Rhine-Westphalia, can the Commission indicate:
1. the sum of EU structural resources received and their breakdown by Funds and the various Community programmes and initiatives and of EU resources allocated to Solingen from other budget lines since 1994 for pilot projects, measures or − as direct allocations − universities, research establishments, undertakings and other bodies,
2. the number of jobs created or preserved with the aid of these resources?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(25 September 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2036/98 (1).
(1) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998.
(1999/C 31/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2044/98 by James Moorhouse (ELDR) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: Trade agreement between the EU and Mexico
Does the Commission agree with the view of the European Parliament, as expressed in its report dated 27 April 1998 (A4-0156/98), that the proposed trade agreement between the EU and Mexico should include an operational, rather than merely formal, content for the democracy clause?
What steps will the Commission take to ensure that the agreement contains the mechanisms necessary to monitor respect for human rights and guarantee the involvement of NGOs in this process?
(1999/C 31/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2045/98 by James Moorhouse (ELDR) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: Human rights violations in Mexico − Chiapas massacre
Is the Commission not concerned that, five months after the horrific massacre in Acteal, in the state of Chiapas, Mexico, the instigators of the crime have not yet been brought to justice and, furthermore, that this failure could lead to other atrocities occurring in the region?
Will the Commission urge the Mexican Government to fulfil its avowed commitment to prosecute the instigators of the crime and ensure an end to the paramilitary presence in Chiapas, as called for by the European Parliament resolution of 15 January 1998 (B4-0056/98)? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/117
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2044/98 and E-2045/98 given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(7 September 1998)
The Commission took careful note of the report which accompanied Parliament’s assent to the Interim Agreement with Mexico in May of this year.
The provisions which for the first time explicitly label adherence to democratic principles and human rights ‘essential elements’ are regarded by the Commission as key components of the new Agreement, which marked a milestone when it entered into force on 1 July. With it, the Community has acquired a clear, contractual and legal foundation for giving greater consideration to these matters and for contributing more effectively and constructively to improving Mexico’s situation in this regard.
Where monitoring of respect for human rights and involving non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is concerned, the political weight of this principle was translated into action even before the Agreement was signed. An exchange of views on the situation in Chiapas was the major focus of the meeting held with the Mexican Foreign Minister in Panama City in February. Moreover, at Parliament’s initiative, a public hearing was organised in Brussels in March to provide representatives of civil society in Mexico (including a wide range of NGOs) with an opportunity to put their points of view over to the public.
Independently of these considerations, the Commission will continue to use all available means to remind the Mexican authorities of the importance which the Union attaches to ensuring that all those responsible for the massacre are identified and brought to justice.
(1999/C 31/162) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2049/98 by Jan Sonneveld (PPE) and Petrus Cornelissen (PPE) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: Imports of third country citrus fruits into Italy and Greece
The plant health system in the EU was harmonized in 1993. Since then imports of citrus fruits have been permitted into 13 Member States of the EU (including Spain and Portugal). However, for a three-year transitional period Greece and Italy were to be allowed to enjoy protected zone status. On 14 March 1996 the Commission published a directive removing the protected zone status of these Member States. Italy and Greece have not implemented this directive.
In November 1997 the Standing Committee on Plant Health adopted the legislation relating to the new EU/Third country import arrangements for citrus fruit. Even before these arrangements came into effect the two Member States in question should have started to implement the Commission directive removing their protected zone status. Today, five years after the harmonization of the EU’s plant health system Greece and Italy should implement this forthwith.
1. Is the Commission aware that despite directive 96/15 of 14 March 1996 (1) it is still not possible to import citrus fruit from third countries into Italy and Greece?
2. What action will the Commission take to ensure the immediate opening up of these markets and the implementation of directive 96/15?
(1) OJ L 70, 20.3.1996, p. 35.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(3 September 1998)
The Commission is aware that the import of citrus fruit originating in third countries is still not possible in Greece and Italy.
The non-application of the relevant Community legislation by Greece and Italy is at present subject to detailed examination by the Commission in order to determine the appropriate steps to be envisaged. C 31/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/163) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2065/98 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: Reform of fine arts academies to convert them into higher education institutes
In the countries of the European Union, with the apparent exception of Italy, a diploma from a fine arts academy is equivalent to a degree. In April 1989, in response to this anomaly, the Italian Chamber of Deputies approved a programme commiting the government to reform these academies and to bring them into the university sector so as to bridge the gap between Italian and European legislation in this area. Finally, in March 1997, the Chamber of Deputies unanimously adopted Decree Law 2881, converting the academies into higher educational institutes. Since then, the law has been pending before the Senate’s committee on culture, while Article 21(11) of Law 59/97 (known as the Bassanini Act after its sponsor) relegates the academies to the status of secondary education institutes, in breach inter alia of Article 33 of the Constitution.
The Commission:
1. Is the it aware of this anomaly, which penalizes students of these academies?
2. What is its opinion on this de facto discrimination which prevents Italian graduates from these academies securing recognition of their diplomas in other EU countries as equivalent to the qualifications of their European counterparts?
3. What measures will it take vis-à-vis the Italian authorities to speed up the passage of the bill through the Senate so as to bridge the gap once and for all between Italian and European legislation on this matter (as was done for students of the ISEF)?
4. Does it not consider that the trade union action undertaken over a number of weeks by students of the fine arts academies is a legitimate attempt to uphold rights which should be enjoyed under the newly-established European citizenship?
(1999/C 31/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2341/98 by Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE), Ombretta Colli (PPE), Cristiana Muscardini (NI), Maria Colombo Svevo (PPE), Carlo Secchi (PPE), Guido Podestà (PPE), Marco Formentini (NI), Claudio Azzolini (PPE), Monica Baldi (PPE), Umberto Scapagnini (PPE), Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE), Biagio De Giovanni (PSE) and Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Reform of the Academies of Fine Art in Italy and recognition at European level of the diplomas they award
Students at Academies of Fine Art in Italy have set up a National Committee and started a campaign aimed at obtaining recognition for their diploma as equivalent to a university degree, as is the case in all the other countries of the European Union. The current regulations in this area discriminate against Italian students compared with their European colleagues because at the end of their studies they can only be awarded a diploma, which effectively penalizes them in the pursuit of their profession within and outside their country.
The most recent law passed by the Italian state (Law 59/97) on the autonomy of secondary schools effectively confirms this situation. This law includes Academies of Fine Art in Article 21(11) thereby denying them the status of post-diploma schools and consequently also funding that reflects their role. Furthermore, a bill granting university status to Academies of Fine Art (No 2881) has been blocked by the senate’s committee on culture since last year.
What is the Commission’s opinion of the fact that Italian Fine Art students are penalized in relation to their European colleagues as regards participation in public-sector open competitions and in the pursuit of their profession because their qualification has less ‘currency’ in Italy and the rest of Europe?
Does the Commission not think it would be advisable to approach the Italian government and to press for the adoption of Bill No 2881 in order to ensure the full recognition of the right of students at Academies of Fine Art to have their qualification accepted as equivalent to a university degree, thereby ending the disparity between national and European law? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/119
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2065/98 and E-2341/98 given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(7 September 1998)
Article 126 of the EC Treaty states that the Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.
It follows that each Member State is responsible for the content of its teaching and for the organisation of its own education system. There are no Community provisions making the mutual recognition of diplomas compulsory, except for certain regulated professions.
With regard to education in the arts, the situation varies considerably within the Community, or even within Member States. Some schools are considered part of the higher secondary education sector, while others are part of higher education establishments.
Italy does not appear to be an exception to this rule, as the government has identified, among the vast range of establishments providing education in the arts, 44 which rank as higher education establishments capable of participating in the Erasmus programme.
(1999/C 31/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2073/98 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: Non-ionizing radiation in the communes of Orte and Gallese
A cellular telephony satellite station is to be built in the commune of Orte, in the province of Viterbo, with a radiation frequency of 5 GHz. The station is to be built in an area of outstanding natural beauty and archeological interest which is protected under Italian law and where major discoveries have been made during the construction work.
The scheme is also causing considerable public anxiety in the area affected, particularly in the neighbouring commune of Gallese, about possible health risks to residents and damage to the environment.
On 25 March 1998, the Regional Administrative Tribunal (TAR) of Lazio received an application from the commune of Gallese and several consumer associations asking for the planning permission for the scheme to be suspended. On 15 May 1998, the State Council granted the appeal lodged by the construction firm (Elsacom s.p.a. − IRI Finmeccanica Group), thereby revoking the TAR’s suspension, as it perceived no immediate danger to health since the satellite station had not been built.
In the light of these facts and the answer previously given to the author by the Commission to Question E-2630/ 97 (1) on 23 October 1997, will the Commission say whether:
1. it agrees that the Italian authorities should be asked to stop the construction of the station in order to protect the natural and archeological heritage of the area?
2. new directives have been passed or new documentation produced in the meantime on this matter?
3. it considers the construction of the station to be in breach of public health legislation?
4. in the absence of a study proving the danger of electromagnetic waves (non-ionizing radiation) but in the absence also of a study which proves the opposite, public health should not always be given priority?
5. it can state its general position on the matter?
(1) OJ C 102, 3.4.1998, p. 78. C 31/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(11 September 1998)
1. Measures in relation to construction project authorisations are for the Member States to consider. Community provisions in relation to the protection of natural and archaeological heritage, and the impact of installations on the environment must nevertheless be respected.
2. Legislation on the matter remains as described in the Commission’s answer to Written Question E-2630/97 by Mrs Angelilli (1). As for scientific documentation on potential health effects from electromagnetic fields, the Commission has since supported a study on possible health implications of subjective symptoms and electromagnetic fields. The study was published by the Swedish National institute for working life. A copy is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s secretariat.
3 and 4. As regards Community health and safety at work legislation, the Commission has presented a proposal (2), based on Article 118A of the EC Treaty, concerning the minimum requirements for the protection of workers against exposure to physical agents, including non-ionising radiation. This proposal is still under negotiation in the Council.
There is no Community public health legislation concerning exposure to non-ionizing radiation. Binding provisions in this area are a matter for the Member States.
Since there is clear evidence of adverse thermal effects resulting from exposure to electromagnetic fields, the Commission has presented proposals based on Article 129 of the Treaty, on the limitation of exposure of the general public (3). This proposal for a Council recommendation provides a framework of reference levels and basic restrictions for the prevention of established adverse health effects. It is based on guidance issued by the International commission on non-ionizing radiation protection (ICNIRP). The Commission’s scientific steering committee endorsed ICNIRP’s advice in this matter. As regards other effects, such as cancer causation or promotion, there is currently no scientific basis on which recommendations can be made. For this reason, the scientific steering committee recommends to keep ongoing research activities under review. The Commission, for its part, has included activities in this area in its proposals on the 5th research and technological development programme.
(1) OJ C 102, 3.4.1998. (2) Commission proposal for a Council directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks aring from physical agents (OJ C 77, 18.3.1993) (3) Proposal for a Council recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields O Hz to 300 GHz (COM(98) 268 final)
(1999/C 31/166) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2074/98 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: Restricted access to commercial buildings
In various parts of Rome buildings are designed in such a way that access to them is impossible for disabled and elderly people. This is not only the case in public buildings but also in a great many private buildings used for commercial purposes which are frequented by so many people that in some cases they actually constitute public facilities.
In the light of the above, will the Commission say whether:
1. there are any directives stipulating that access to buildings must be provided for the disabled?
2. such directives also apply to private buildings used for commercial purposes?
3. Italy has transposed them?
4. it will state its general position on the matter? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/121
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(3 September 1998)
There are no Community directives concerning access to public buildings for people with disabilities.
In its communication on equality of opportunity for people with disabilities (1), the Commission noted that many public buildings continue to be inaccessible or accessible only with difficulty for disabled people. At the same time, the Commission noted that the principles of ‘design for all’ and universal access would have cross-sectoral benefits for people with disabilities as well as other groups. The Commission remains committed to those principles.
(1) COM(96) 406 final.
(1999/C 31/167) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2080/98
by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Residue testing on poultrymeat
Can the Commission confirm which Member States have implemented a surveillance programme of residues of veterinary medicines in the poultry sector in accordance with Directive 96/23/EC, how many checks on residues have been carried out on poultry originating outside the EU and the results of these controls? Will the Commission publish the results of on-the-spot controls carried out by their own inspectors?
Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission
(23 July 1998)
All Member States have included examinations of poultry meat in their monitoring programmes for residues submitted to the Commission for approval according to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1).
Data on checks on residues on poultry originating outside the Community are not yet available to the Commission as such controls were not obligatory before the entry into force of Directive 96/23/EC. Third countries which want to export poultry meat to the Community have to put into place a monitoring plan according to Directive 96/ 23/EC for the exported goods. Additional controls are also made at border inspection posts, but these controls are under the responsibility of Member States and are not harmonised at the European level.
The Commission has already started an evaluation of the implementation of Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists and repealing directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC1 and Council Directive 96/23/EC on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products, in Member States and third countries. The results of this evaluation once finalised will be published on the Directorate general for consumer protection website.
(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996. C 31/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/168) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2081/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: The URBAN programme in Greece
The basic aim of the URBAN programme is to help find viable solutions in areas with severe social problems.
One of the areas selected under the programme in Greece (Subprogramme 1) is Drapetsonas-Keratsiniou. Perama, which is geographically a continuation of the Drapetsonas-Keratsiniou area and has identical and even more acute social problems (severe unemployment, large numbers of small and medium-sized businesses that meet the programme’s criteria etc) has not been included in the programme.
Does the Commission know why this area was not included in the above programme? Can it be incorporated and by what procedure?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(5 August 1998)
The Commission is aware that there are blighted urban areas in Greece that are not covered by the Urban Community Initiative. As the budget for the Initiative is limited, a choice had to be made from among the possible areas. The Greek authorities chose other urban areas in difficulty over Perama. It could only now be included if the Greek authorities asked for it, if the Urban budget allowed it (which currently is not the case) and if there were already a concrete action plan for implementation before the end of 1999.
(1999/C 31/169) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2092/98 by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: Upsurge in computer-related repetitive strain injury (RSI)
Is the Commission aware of the new complaint of repetitive strain injury (RSI)?
Can the Commission state what the precise cause of this complaint is and what treatment and preventive measures are available?
Can the Commission state how many cases of RSI were reported in the European Union in 1997?
Does the Commission agree that if the cause is not quickly identified, together with preventive measures, the upsurge in the incidence of this complaint, in conjunction with the ever more important part played by the computer in modern society, is likely to have an enormous economic impact?
What action does the Commission propose to combat and prevent this complaint?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(11 September 1998)
The Commission is aware of musculoskeletal disorders and, in particular, of repetitive strain injury.
With regard to the prevention of and the granting of compensation for occupational diseases, Annex I of Commission Recommendation 90/326/EEC of 22 May 1990 concerning the adoption of a European schedule of occupational diseases (1) contains, among the diseases caused by physical agents, eight different diagnostic groups of mulculoskeletal disorders.
In the context of the harmonisation of statistics on occupational diseases (the ‘European Occupational Diseases Statistics’ (EODS) project), the Commission collected data during the reference year 1995. The preliminary results of this project, not yet published, show that approximately 3 400 cases of nerve paralysis due to pressure 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/123
were recognised in the Community in 1995. The majority of these cases are carpal tunnel syndrome, often linked to repetitive hand and arm movements. However, owing to disparities between the Member States, these figures only cover a minimum number of cases and should be read with caution.
According to information on the proportion of people exposed, 26 % of the active Community population report exposure to work involving short repetitive tasks, while 46 % reported exposure to work involving repetitive hand or arm movements. Tasks of this type would be linked, for example, to personal computers.
The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (Bilbao) is collecting data on this subject. The current situation is that the Commission has requested that these data should also cover work and activities involving a high risk of such disorders. The Agency plans to publish the results in 1999.
(1) OJ L 160 of 26 June 1990.
(1999/C 31/170) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2108/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: Reopening of centre for rehabilitation of torture victims in Turkey
The International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT) has announced that the Turkish authorities have closed the centre for the rehabilitation of torture victims at Diyarbakir, which was opened on the initiative of the IRCT.
The centre had been opened only five days previously, the official justification for closing it down being the lack of the necessary operating permits.
As there are at least 100,000 Kurdish victims of torture in the Diyarbakir region and human rights violations are a continual occurrence, what representations will the Commission make to the Turkish authorities to secure the immediate reopening of the centre?
Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(14 September 1998)
The Commission is aware of the events described by the Honourable Member. The Commission representative in Turkey and a number of ambassadors from the Member States were present when the centre for torture victims in Turkey was opened in June. The Commission has monitored developments carefully and is pleased to note that the director-general for foundations in Turkey authorised the reopening of the centre on 15 June.
(1999/C 31/171) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2111/98 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: EC milk subsidy for schools
With regard to its answer to E-1368/98 (1), can the Commission confirm that, in the refusal to bring the EC semi- skimmed school milk subsidy into line with the whole milk subsidy by the slight amendment to the legislation (Regulation (EC) 3392/93 (2) Article 4.1b), full consideration was given to child health and consumer choice issues and that this refusal was not based merely on agricultural budgetary expediency, which would not, according to EU principles, be an acceptable reason for refusal? C 31/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Will the Commission provide a summary of the documentation regarding child health and consumer consultation, the evidence on which the decision not to amend was based and state on what grounds this argument was rejected?
(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998. (2) OJ L 306, 11.12.1993, p. 27.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(8 September 1998)
An amendment to Commission Regulation (EC) 3392/93, to bring the semi-skimmed milk subsidy in line with that of whole milk would require a prior amendment of Council Regulation (EEC) 1842/83 (1) that lays down criteria for the fixing of the aid levels for different dairy products.
Under the existing rule, the amounts of aid are fixed taking into account the milk content of the products concerned. Therefore, this is a strictly technical matter in which no budget considerations are involved. The consequence of applying the existing rule is that the selling price to the pupils of whole milk and semi- skimmed milk should be reduced down to the same level and, consequently, not influence their choice for the one or the other. On these grounds, the Commission believes that the existing rule is neutral vis-à-vis consumer choice and health considerations.
(1) OJ L 183, 7.7.1983.
(1999/C 31/172) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2130/98
by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: Implementation of the Ecos-Ouverture programme in Extremadura
Does the Commission believe that it would be worth considering a request for regional cooperation under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, based on an exchange of experience or transfers of working techniques in the field of cynegetic development between the Spanish region of Extremadura and Hungary or Romania?
When could a formal proposal in that regard be expected?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(10 September 1998)
On 13 June 1998 (1) the Commission published the last call for proposals under Ecos-Ouverture for the current programming period. The fields of cooperation envisaged concern only the following: improvement of local authorities’ working methods and tools; improvement of the support services for modernisation and development of small and medium-sized enterprises; the safeguard and stewardship of the environment with a view to sustainable development, and exploiting the economic potential of the cultural heritage of the regions for the purpose of maintaining or creating long-term employment.
Hunting as such is not financed within this framework but measures which connect this topic to, for example, sustainable development or environmental protection could be eligible, subject to scrutiny by the Commission. The final date for submitting projects is 15 November 1998.
(1) OJ C 183, 13.6.1998. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/125
(1999/C 31/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2131/98 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: Abolition of duty-free sales
The abolition of duty-free sales from 1 July 1999 will have short-term implications similar to those experienced when internal customs duties within the Community were eliminated. The response then was to introduce various programmes and measures to cushion the negative impact of the elimination of duties, particularly on the employment sphere.
Given that the 140 000 jobs generated by the duty-free sector in the Union will be lost with the impending abolition of duty-free sales, does the Commission intend to undertake similar action to minimize the adverse effects on the duty-free sector?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(8 September 1998)
The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the implications of the abolition of intra- Community duty-free sales played a prominent part in the discussions on the completion of the internal market to which she refers. Recognising that there could be social repercussions if abolition was immediate, the Council granted the duty-free sector an extension of nearly eight years so that it could adapt and prepare for the situation after abolition. Compared to the programmes and measures adopted for other trade sectors, this was a very favourable outcome for the duty-free sector.
Nevertheless, the Commission is of course still concerned about the possible repercussions on jobs as a result of abolition. At the Ecofin Council on 19 May 1998, ministers acknowledged the Commission’s position that if abolition should cause any specific, regional or transport-related problems, then existing Community provisions might well be available to alleviate those problems. To that end, ministers called on the Commission to prepare a working document, which would clarify the instruments available to Member States to address any undesirable consequences of abolition. Work has started on that document and it will be made available to the Ecofin Council in the near future. Parliament will of course be kept informed of progress on this issue.
Finally, the Commission does not accept the validity of the figure for job losses that the Honourable Member says will result from abolition. The figure comes from studies sponsored by the duty-free lobby, which are based on worst-case scenarios and which take no account of the possibility for duty-free operators to exploit alternative forms of retailing, or of existing sales being retained, albeit at reduced margins. They also take little or no account of the employment gains that will arise in domestic markets where replacement purchases will be made, or of the employment potential that the increased revenue from replacement sales will generate. Government-sponsored studies in Denmark, Ireland and Sweden have all shown that the figures used by this lobby are gross exaggerations of what may occur in reality.
(1999/C 31/174) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2135/98 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Searches of the premises of Austrian banks
According to the Commission’s press release IP98/556 of 23 June 1998, the premises of four Austrian banks have been searched without warning.
1. What press reports were primarily responsible for the decision to open an investigation, what specific information did they contain, and how did the Directorate-General learn of them?
2. More than a year passed between the launching of the investigation and the searches on 23 June 1998. What were the main reasons for not carrying out the searches before this date? C 31/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
3. What information does the Commission have about the members, meeting places and agendas of the Lombard Club?
4. How does the Commission account for the fact that a complaint from an Austrian party is not sufficient to secure the opening of an investigation, and yet the Commission is willing to act in response to press reports?
5. How will the investigation proceed now, and how long will it take to complete?
6. Did the banks concerned provide full information in response to a simple request from the Commission, or, as the Commission had their premises searched, should one assume that the information they provided was incomplete?
7. If so, which banks provided full information? If not, which banks did not and what reasons did they give?
8. Who has been invited to use the Lombard hotline, and what has been done to ensure that the invitation only reached those for whom it was intended?
9. How many calls have been received on the hotline, and how useful was the information received over it?
Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission
(3 August 1998)
With regard to item 8 of the Honourable Member’s request, the Commission would like to confirm that the ‘Lombard Hotline’ has been established for the submission of information by third parties. The telephone number mentioned in the press release has subsequently been reported in the Austrian media.
With regard to the remaining items of the request, the Honourable Member will appreciate that as a matter of principle, the Commission is not in a position to comment on pending proceedings.
(1999/C 31/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2150/98 by Irene Soltwedel-Schäfer (V) to the Commission
(13 July 1998)
Subject: Child labour and protection of young people
In connection with the Global March to the meeting in the European Parliament on 20 May 1998, can the Commission indicate how observance of Council Directive 94/33/EC (1) of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work is monitored in the European Member States?
To what extent are the necessary measures taken in the Member States to prohibit child labour and to guarantee compliance with the necessary protection measures for young people?
Which countries have already produced reports documenting compliance?
(1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(18 September 1998)
Member States must communicate to the Commission the texts of their national provisions implementing Council Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young people at work (1). On the basis of these communications, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaty, has to examine the national legislation and assess its conformity with Community law. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/127
Since communications from several Member States were late in arriving or incomplete, the Commission has not yet been able to prepare the report on the transposition of Directive 94/33/EC. Several infringement proceedings for ‘non-communication’ have been brought against the Member States concerned. If, after having received all the necessary particulars, the Commission considers that a Member State has not correctly transposed the Directive, it may commence the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
Generally the Member States have already outlawed child labour, and hence they are obliged to police compliance with this ban and to impose effective sanctions in the event of infringements.
Pursuant to Article 17 (4), Member States must report to the Commission every five years on the practical implementation of the provisions of the Directive.
(1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.
(1999/C 31/176) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2157/98
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(13 July 1998)
Subject: Long delays affecting the payment of pension entitlements
According to press reports, long delays are occurring in the payment of pension entitlements by certain funds in Greece, one example being a delay of six years in the payment of pension entitlements by the Metallurgical Industries Fund from the date of application. However, Article 24 of the Community Charter of Fundamental Rights of Workers categorically states that every worker in the European Union in retirement must be able to enjoy resources affording him or her a decent standard of living, while Article 5(3) states that wages and salaries may be withheld, seized or transferred only in accordance with national law.
What steps will the Commission take to remedy matters? What legal channels are open to members of pension schemes within the European Union to ensure that they can secure their entitlements immediately on retirement? Does the Commission find it acceptable that, in view of the high rate of inflation in Greece, no interest should be paid on the pension arrears accumulated over six years?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(11 September 1998)
The organisation, functioning, awarding and payment of pensions fall within the sphere of responsibility of the Member States.
The only binding Community provisions which may have a bearing on pension schemes are the Regulations on social security for migrant workers (1) and the Directives on equal treatment for men and women (2).
Given that these provisions have no bearing on the case referred to, the delay in pension payments should be looked into from the viewpoint of national law. Here the Commission is unable to intervene in what is an internal matter.
It should also be noted that the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers referred to by the Honourable Member does not lay down legally binding requirements.
(1) Regulations (EEC) 1408/71 and 574/72. The updated versions of these Regulations were published in OJ L 28, 30.1.1997. (2) Directives 79/7/EEC (OJ L 6, 10.1.1979.), 86/378/EEC (OJ L 225, 12.8.1986.) and 96/97/EC (OJ L 46, 17.2.1997.). C 31/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/177) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2159/98 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission
(13 July 1998)
Subject: Danger facing the oldest monastery in the world situated in Turkey
The Mar Gabriel Syrian Orthodox monastery, the oldest monastery in the world, is situated in an area of southern Turkey affected by the Kurdish conflict. The local authorities are preventing the training of novices at Mar Gabriel and refusing to allow any conservation work to be carried out, with the result that the historic monastery, which is already suffering from neglect, is falling into a state of total disrepair.
Can the Commission make representations to the Turkish authorities with a view to ending the deterioration of this sixteen-hundred-year-old Christian monastery and the infringements of the rights of the very few monks remaining there?
Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(14 September 1998)
According to the Commission¢s information, the Turkish Minister of the Interior was recently questioned by a member of the Turkish parliament concerning the matter raised by the Honourable Member. In his reply, the Minister stated that the Government had no intention of prohibiting religious instruction by the Syrian Orthodox community, or of interfering with or restricting its freedom of worship. With regard to the building renovations, they must receive prior approval from the Ministry of Culture and be in accordance with the prevailing regulations on historic monuments.
The Luxembourg European Council in December 1997 stated that closer ties between the EU and Turkey would depend on the continuation of political and economic reforms undertaken by Turkey, particularly with regard to aligning its human rights standards and practices on those in the EU. The Council added that closer links also depended on Turkey¢s respect for and protection of minorities.
Despite Ankara¢s decision to suspend all political dialogue with the EU, the Commission intends to continue to share its concerns regarding such matters with its Turkish interlocutors, including the matter raised by the Honourable Member.
(1999/C 31/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2160/98 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission
(13 July 1998)
Subject: Discrimination concerning the parents of large families
It is a known fact that the European Union is facing serious demographic problems, particularly in certain Member States, for example Greece, a European country characterized by an ageing population and falling birth rates. Despite this, little is being done to provide incentives to resolve the problem. On the contrary, large families are actually being affected by a particular form of discrimination directed against single fathers.
The mother of a large family receives allowances until her youngest child is 23 years of age and from then on receives a pension for life. However, a father who is widowed or divorced and has custody of a large number of children is not entitled to a pension.
Does such discrimination not infringe the principle of equal treatment for men and women, all the more so when, as in the present case, it affects those generally belonging to the less affluent sections of society?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(11 September 1998)
The Commission is unable to intervene in the case described by the Honourable Member concerning unequal treatment for fathers of large families in the event of the death of, or separation from, their spouse, compared with mothers in the same situation. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/129
Such discrimination is actually tolerated by Community law on equal treatment for men and women, in particular Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (1) (statutory schemes).
Article 7(1)(b) of this Directive authorises Member States to exclude from the scope of the Directive the advantages granted to persons who have brought up children.
This means that Member States may limit these advantages to one of the parents, as is the case in Greece.
A proposal for a Directive (2) tabled in 1987 includes a solution to this problem, but is still pending at the Council.
In accordance with its fourth medium-term action programme on equal opportunities for men and women (1996- 2000) (3) and the social action programme (1998-2000) (4), the Commission intends to present a new proposal for a Directive to replace the 1987 proposal, taking account of Court of Justice case law and changes in family and social structures.
(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1979. (2) OJ C 309, 19.11.1987. (3) OJ L 335, 30.12.1995. (4) COM(98) 259 final.
(1999/C 31/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2166/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission
(13 July 1998)
Subject: Aid to European businesses investing in Cuba
May one deduce from the agreement concluded between the European Union and the United States to solve the problem of the extraterritorial applicability of US laws (the Helms-Burton law) that European businesses investing in Cuba will not be sanctioned by the United States but that, on the other hand, they will not be able to obtain any kind of aid, co-financing or loan from the European Union?
Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission
(4 September 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to written questions E-1343/98 and E- 1344/98 by Mr Sanchez-Neyra (1), to the replies it gave to oral questions H-0573/98 by Mr Marset Campos during question time at Parliament’s June 1998 part-session (2) and to its reply to oral question H-0664/98 by Mr Lannoye during question time at Parliament’s July 1998 part session (3) for a detailed explanation of the main elements of the agreement reached between the Community and the United States at the summit in London on 18 May 1998.
The Commission’s objective in its contacts with the United States leading to both this understanding and that of April 1997 was to ensure that Community companies are not subject to the extraterritorial provisions of the Helms-Burton Act. The Commission has always made clear that any application of those provisions of the Act would lead to a resumption of WTO dispute settlement proceedings.
Regarding the understanding with respect to disciplines for the strengthening of investment protection, its objective is to inhibit and deter future investment in property illegally expropriated by a third country, by means of a set of investment disciplines.
It is clear that legal certainty concerning the illegality of the expropriation is the key element for these disciplines to be applied. That is why the specific disciplines enumerated in the understanding will only apply to investment in specific properties if either an international arbitral tribunal or a local court of the expropriating state, in a final decision, have ruled that an expropriation has been in contravention of international law; or in cases where an expropriating state does not offer any legal remedy, it has been concluded that there is a claim well-founded in law and fact that the expropriation was illegal under international law; or in case of mass expropriations, a C 31/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
participant comes to the view that an individual property for which an investor has applied for government commercial assistance was expropriated in contravention of international law.
Only under these circumstances is it envisaged that the participating governments will make joint or co-ordinated diplomatic representations to the expropriating state; deny government support for covered transactions in illegally expropriated properties; deny governmental assistance for covered transactions in illegally expropriated properties; and publish an enumeration of illegally expropriated properties and make public statements discouraging covered transactions in the properties enumerated. Investments made before 18 May 1998 will not be affected by the agreed disciplines.
The full implementation of this understanding depends, inter alia, on the support of the American Congress. The Community and Member States as well as the United States will, however, implement the deal once the presidential waiver authority under Title IV of the Helms-Burton Act is adopted and exercised allowing European companies to operate without the threat of sanctions under the Helms-Burton Act.
(1) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998. (2) Debates of Parliament (June 1998). (3) Debates of the Parliament (July 1998).
(1999/C 31/180) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/98
by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: Exclusion of AEK football team from UEFA Cup
On 19 May 1998, the Executive Committee of UEFA met in Amsterdam and decided that it was not possible for two clubs with the same owner to take part in the same cup competition ‘on grounds of credibility’. This decision has caused problems for AEK Athens and Slavia Prague, whose majority shareholder is ENIC, as one of the two teams will have to be excluded, even though they have qualified. Subsequently, UEFA took another arbitrary decision and opted to exclude AEK Athens.
The supporters of this historic club, AEK, are not remotely interested in who owns their team and are deeply aggrieved by UEFA’s arbitrary, retroactive decision. If this decision ultimately applies for the 1998-1999 season, it will be a disaster for this historic club.
How will the Commission intercede with UEFA to resolve this situation so that the decision applies from the 1999-2000 season for all the European cup competitions organized by UEFA?
Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission
(15 September 1998)
It is not for the Commission to express an opinion on this matter.
The Commission assumes, however, that the Honourable Member is aware that on 17 July 1998 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), a body primarily concerned with settling disputes between sports organisations, decided to suspend the decision taken by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) to exclude AEK Athens for the 1998/99 season.
The Honourable Member is also referred to the answer which the Commission gave to Oral Question H-661/98 put by Mr Monfils at Question Time during the July 1998 part-session. (1)
(1) Parliamentary Debate (July 1998). 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/131
(1999/C 31/181) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2181/98 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: BSE and the adverse consequences for exports of animals and animal products from the countries affected
The occurrence of BSE in some EU Member States has marked adverse consequences with regard to export opportunities for animals and animal products from the countries affected. The Netherlands is an example of this situation, where the two cases of BSE in 1997 are still preventing the traditional exports to certain countries from being resumed.
1. Can the Commission indicate what policy it is following to help the countries concerned to resume their traditional exports and possibly to develop new export opportunities?
2. Can it indicate its policy in international bodies with regard to establishing provisions which take a clear risk analysis into account if trade restrictions are to be applied?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(7 September 1998)
The Commission is aware that many third countries are currently imposing unjustified import restrictions on animals and products from Member States, claiming the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) as a reason. The Commission is making every effort, both in bilateral discussions with the countries concerned and in relevant international organisations, to ensure that Community exports are not subject to such restrictions.
In particular, the Community position was put forward vigorously in the meeting of the International office for epizootics (OIE) in Paris in May 1998. As far as BSE is concerned, the OIE is the reference organisation for the adoption of standards, guidelines and recommendations, recognised by the World trade organisation (WTO) agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS agreement), which affect international trade in animals and animal products. The SPS agreement requires health measures affecting international trade to be based on scientific principles. An important role is played by the assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal or plant life or health, as outlined in article 5 of the SPS agreement.
The Commission will continue to press for the respect of the SPS agreement by countries importing animals and animal products from the Community.
(1999/C 31/182) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2183/98 by Sirkka-Liisa Anttila (ELDR) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: Protection of the conditions for oilseed production in Finland in connection with the Agenda 2000 reforms
In Finland 95 % of oilseed crops are spring-sown, i.e. oilseed rape which requires only a short growing season. It was only in the 1970s, when reliable spring-sown varieties came on the market, that oilseed production began to take off rapidly. The areas of rapeseed cultivation were at their greatest extent at the end of the 1980s and in 1995, the first year of EU membership, when the total area exceeded 85 000 ha. With EU membership, Finland’s oilseed production too had to comply with the quotas laid down in the Blair House agreement. At the higher levels of CAP subsidies, Finland is permitted to have only 63 000 ha under oilseed.
The Blair House agreement meant a reduction in oilseed growers’ production opportunities in Finland and clearly weakened the economic competitiveness of this sector in relation to the alternatives. In connection with EU membership Finland was authorised for a transitional period to pay a top-up price to farmers producing bread cereals and malting barley which compete with oilseed rape in this area. On arable farms in southern Finland (an A-subsidy area) rapeseed became less profitable for this reason and the areas in production in this principal C 31/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
growing region plummeted. In the area eligible for LFA subsidies production has risen, but the total area has clearly fallen during the period since EU accession to below our national quota, standing at 60 200 ha in 1997. The reduction in rapeseed production is depriving the two oil-crushing cooperatives operating in Finland of their source of raw materials, to the extent that they are having to import, which in turn reduces the profitability of processing. Finnish production is still burdened with high production costs and the need for drying of the crop after threshing.
The Agenda 2000 reforms would, if implemented, certainly mean the beginning of the end for oilseed production at least in Finland. If doing away with the quotas in the Blair House agreement means going without the higher- rate CAP subsidies, the price is too high for Finland to pay.
What measures does the Commission propose to take to protect the conditions for oilseed production in Finland in connection with the Agenda 2000 reforms?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(5 August 1998)
The Blair House agreement imposes restrictions on the area sown with oilseeds in the Community. A standstill of the policy for arable crops would not guarantee a stable production of oilseeds. As the Commission has demonstrated in its long-term study of prospects, continuation of the present policy would lead to unacceptably high levels of intervention stocks for cereals which could only be avoided by an ever increasing set-aside rate. The Blair House agreement further requires that each percentage rate above 10 % involves a corresponding reduction of the maximum guaranteed area for oilseeds.
Under the current scheme for arable crops, oilseeds production cannot reach its full potential because of the Blair House restrictions. The reference for an evaluation of the proposals should therefore be the potential area which is much higher than the guaranteed area of maximum 4 933 800 hectares in the Blair House agreement, given the current high world prices for vegetable oils. This is confirmed by the overshoot of the maximum guaranteed area despite the reduction of compensatory payments in the past, the high prices for cereals and different national measures that have been taken in order to respect the Blair House restrictions (Germany, Spain and France).
Furthermore, a comparison of the situation before and after Agenda 2000 (1) should be made by reference to the real compensations paid to producers. Since the reform of 1992, there has always been a reduction of the provisional compensation varying from 4 to 14.45 % at the European level.
One should also bear in mind that oilseeds are part of a good crop rotation guaranteeing higher cereal yields in the following years, and that oilseeds allow farmers to organize and distribute their work better.
Therefore, the Commission does not share the view that the Agenda 2000 proposals will lead to a significant reduction in oilseed production in general. The Commission is however, aware that problems may arise in some specific local situations. Any difficulties that might arise should be examined on a case by case basis with a view to a specific solution depending on the nature of the problem.
(1) COM(97) 2000 final.
(1999/C 31/183) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2207/98
by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: Destruction of woodland greenbelts in Attica
The Commission is known to be concerned about the destruction of the environment in Europe, notably in areas such as the Attica Basin where the environment is already under particular pressure. A plan is currently afoot to 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/133
destroy a large area of the Hymettos forest, the densest woodlands around Athens; this is one of the few remaining greenbelts around this European capital which faces particularly severe environmental problems. The destruction of 30 hectares of forest is planned in order to make way for a surface ring road. One solution to this problem would be to open a tunnel: the Athens Polytechnic has already drawn up a realistic study for such a project, but it has been rejected on cost grounds. Local municipalities have mobilized in order to avert this destruction. Given that the European Union is helping to fund this project through the Community Support Framework, will the Commission say whether it intends to intervene in good time in order to save the woodlands and, if so, how?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(3 September 1998)
The Greek authorities have informed the Commission that the final study for the Imitos ring road, connecting the new Spata airport to the southern part of Athens, envisages the construction of an underground 4.5 km section, i.e. 37.5 % of the overall length (12 km). The Greek authorities confirm that they have examined all the alternative tunnel solutions and have chosen the optimum solution from the point of view of transport and the environment.
According to the information received from the Greek authorities, an environmental impact study was carried out for the project in question and environmental conditions were approved by a ministerial decision, in accordance with national and Community provisions. The contents of this decision were incorporated in the law voted by the Greek Parliament for Spata international airport (1).
(1) Greek law No 2338 (Greek OJ No 2002a of 14.9.1995).
(1999/C 31/184) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2212/98
by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(16 July 1998)
Subject: Health and safety: monitoring of persistent enquirers
Is the Commission aware that the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive is subjecting ‘persistent enquirers for information’ to ‘Special Monitoring’?
What entitlement to health and safety information is specified in European Directives? What does the Commission recommend should be done in response to such treatment of concerned specialists working in this important field?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(11 September 1998)
This is a matter for the Member State concerned.
Nevertheless, the obligations laid down for employers in the ‘health and safety’ Directives include providing information for workers.
In any case, one of the main objectives of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work is to provide interested parties with useful technical, scientific and economic information relating to safety and health at work. C 31/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/185) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2237/98
by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: Hunting of goosander
If in the near future the Bavarian Parliament adopts the proposal for a decision from its Environment Committee of 25 June 1998, it will soon be possible to hunt goosander again in Bavaria. According to ornithological reports there are, however, only 300 breeding pairs of this species in Bavaria. Mergus merganser appears on the Red List in Germany as a particularly endangered species.
1. Under the provisions of Annex II of the Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) (1) the EU leaves authorization to hunt goosander to the discretion of the Member States. Does the Commission consider the goosander population in Bavaria to be really large enough and the reasons for the authorization to hunt these rare birds sufficient to be able to justify this step by the Bavarian Land government?
2. Is the Commission aware of the population trends for goosander in Germany, and in Bavaria in particular? If so, what information is available and how is it assessed by the Commission?
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p.1.
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(30 July 1998)
1. According to Article 7 (3) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, bird species listed in its Annex II/2, which include mergus merganser, can only be hunted in those Member States in respect of which they are indicated. As this species is not indicated for Germany its hunting there could only therefore be allowed as a derogation in accordance with the conditions of Article 9 of this Directive.
2. The Commission is aware of the conservation status of mergus merganser which is considered to be favourable at the European level. However, this is not the situation in each Member State where it occurs as a breeding species and according to the published scientific literature it has decreased in Germany. The German authorities should consider this fact in any measures they take which may affect mergus merganser.
(1999/C 31/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2240/98
by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Commission
(16 July 1998)
Subject: Staffing policy in the EU institutions
Do the four categories of EU staff have the same entry grade and step and the same career profile irrespective of whether they are employed by the Commission, Parliament or other EU institutions?
What percentage of staff at the Commission information offices in the European capitals are officials, temporary staff and local staff?
What is the entry grade of heads of information offices and how long on average do they occupy their posts? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/135
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(22 September 1998)
The system of staff categories laid down in Article 5 of the Staff Regulations of officials applies to all the Community institutions. The conditions governing access to each category are therefore the same for every institution.
At the time of writing the Commission offices in the Member States employ 178 officials, 5 temporary staff and 185 local staff.
The heads of these offices are appointed at grade A3 for a period of between three and six years, depending on the rules in force.
(1999/C 31/187) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2243/98 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission
(16 July 1998)
Subject: SOCRATES: Occupational Travellers (Comenius Action II)
Given the success of the Socrates programme in providing innovative educational projects aimed at youngsters from the Occupational Travellers’ community, can the Commission offer assurances that specific funds will be designated within the new Socrates programme (2000-2005) to maintain and develop support for the education of Occupational Travellers?
Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(8 September 1998)
The Commission fully shares the positive assessment in regard to the contribution made by Comenius to the educational provision of occupational travellers.
Occupational travellers, as well as other groups with specific educational needs, will remain an important target group of the future Socrates programme.
The Commission proposal on the Decision for Socrates II (1) specifically refers to occupational travellers in the annex to the decision by outlining under action 1.1, paragraph 3 c in regard to school partnerships that activities eligible for Community assistance may include cooperation projects meeting the specific needs of the children of migrant workers, gypsies, travellers and itinerant workers, mentioning under action 1.2, paragraph 3 d, aspects of specific training relating to the integration of the children of migrant workers, gypsies and travellers and itinerant workers as possible eligible activities in the area of staff development.
It is the intention of the Commission to implement the above provisions − and formulate future applicant guidelines − in a way not only to ensure that projects targeting the specific needs of occupational travellers − be they school partnership projects or educational staff training projects − will remain eligible but also that a sufficient number of such projects will receive Community funding.
The Commission will furthermore encourage one of the networks to be established under the future Comenius action (see action 1, second paragraph of Annex to the Socrates Decision) to exclusively target the educational needs of occupational travellers. Taking into account the important contribution made by the European federation for the education of the children of the occupational travellers (Efecot) in this area, the Commission is convinced that Efecot should play the key role in regard to these networking activities.
(1) COM(98) 329. C 31/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/188) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2245/98 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission
(16 July 1998)
Subject: Horse medication and welfare
Is the Commission aware that under legislation banning the use of certain medicines widely used to treat horses which comes into effect in January 2000, horses used solely for sports and leisure purposes will be subject to exactly the same regulations as horses bred for food purposes?
Has the Commission considered that no alternative medicine is available for certain afflictions common in horses used for sport and leisure and that the implementation of the new legislation could pose a significant threat to the welfare of these animals?
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(25 August 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question no E-1495/98 by Mr Kindermann (1).
(1) See page 42.
(1999/C 31/189) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2273/98 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission
(22 July 1998)
Subject: ’Presidency of the Union’
The publication ‘The Week in Europe’ of the European Commission’s London office on 25 June refers to Austria taking over ‘the EU Presidency’.
Could the Commission explain what this new position is? Since when does the EU have a President? Which article of the Treaty provides for this? What happened to the old system whereby each Institution had its own President (Presidency of the Council, President of the Commission, President of Parliament etc.)?
Or is this just an indication that the Commission services know as little as the press about the structure of the European Union and attribute to the Presidency of the Council a wider responsibility, which it does not have?
Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission
(14 September 1998)
The week in Europe is intended to be an informal publication, setting out in brief fashion some of the more notable events in the Community over the past week. In this context shorthand versions of terms and titles are often used, not least because readers are familiar with them.
Member State governments themselves use similar terms: in Britain the government referred to the ‘UK Presidency of the European Union’ in many documents. During the Austrian Presidency, the official media handbook produced by the Federal Chancellery and Federal ministry for Foreign Affairs refers to the ‘Austrian EU Presidency’ on the front cover. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/137
(1999/C 31/190) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2316/98 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission
(22 July 1998)
Subject: Introduction of the euro
With the advent of monetary union, the Member States are preparing for the introduction of the single currency, the euro, which will replace national currencies. This process will involve banks, public institutions, economic players and individual citizens and at all levels a considerable effort will have to be made to implement the changeover. In Italy, the Bank of Italy is responsible for issuing banknotes whereas the Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato [state printing institute and mint] is responsible for minting coins. However, it has not yet been made possible for the latter to start scheduling the production of the euro, in contrast with the situation in other countries, such as France and the Netherlands, where a timescale for distribution has already been decided on. This fact is alarming given that for the introduction of the euro the Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato would have to produce around 10 million coins a day, and that current production is running at two or three million coins a day with two shifts. At the same time, the regulation of demonetization has not even been taken into consideration yet: this will involve the destruction of 15 billion of lira-denominated coins, probably by melting them down. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato is likely to be restructured and privatized, which is causing concern among its employees.
In the light of the above:
1. Can the Commission check that the Italian Authorities are complying with the rules on the implementation of the single European currency in order to ensure that the introduction of the euro can be properly scheduled and carried out on time.
2. Are there any technical reasons relating to the restructuring and change in status of the Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato that prevent scheduling for the production of the euro going ahead as normal?
3. Is it possible for a state mint responsible for minting a country’s coins, which is an essentially public function, to continue to operate as such when it is part of a printing institute that has been privatised and become a public limited company?
4. What is the Commission’s overall view on this matter?
Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission
(16 September 1998)
The Italian mint director is very closely involved in all the preparations for the future euro coins. He is the chairman of the mint directors working group (MDWG).
The Commission regularly participates in meetings of the MDWG. From information obtained in that framework it appears that the Italian mint is among those planning to start production soonest. Italy is committed, as are all participating Member States, to put euro coins into circulation on 1 January 2002.
It has to be pointed out that the detailed technical specifications necessary for production are currently being finalised by the mint directors working group. Up to now only one Member State has started production.
Discussions are underway in all Member States with all concerned in order to define the logistical arrangements for the removal of national coins from currency in 2002.
As for the possible transformation of the Italian mint into a private company, it has to be pointed out that this is already the case in other Member States, notably in the Netherlands.
(1999/C 31/191) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2325/98 by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission
(22 July 1998)
Subject: Peace process in the Middle East
1. How does the Commission assess the prospects for achieving peace in the next two years between Israel and its neighbours? C 31/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
2. Is the European Union still of the opinion that only a return by Israel of the territories occupied since 1967 or 1982 on the West Bank, the Golan Heights and in southern Lebanon can lead to a lasting peace with its Arab neighbours?
3. How can the EU support the peace process more effectively than in the past? What is an appropriate role for it alongside the USA?
4. Does the Commission intend to extend the mandate of the special envoy for the peace process? How much has this mandate cost the European tax payer since its start in early 1997? Are these costs reasonable in terms of the results achieved and what concrete results have been achieved in the last two years?
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(11 September 1998)
1. The interim period foreseen in the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo agreements signed in 1993 comes to an end on 4 May 1999. In principle, bilateral negotiations on the most difficult issues − Jerusalem, refugees, water, borders − should have started on 4 May 1996 so that they could be completed by the scheduled ending date of the interim period. Despite all international efforts to date, the permanent status negotiations have not resumed after their formal launching on 4 May 1996, under the previous Israeli government. Against this background any assessment of what will happen after 4 May 1999 is very difficult and would depend on the results of the ongoing United States − mediating efforts to broker a long-awaited breakthrough on the issue of further re-deployment.
2. The Cardiff European Council reaffirmed the Union’s attachment to the principles underlying the peace process as it was launched at the 1991 Madrid Conference, notably the principle of ‘land for peace’ enshrined in United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. It is a well-established view of the Union that for it to be lasting and provide long-term stability to the region a negotiated solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be just and therefore respect the principle of land for peace in a comprehensive manner.
3. In its Communication of January 1998 on the Union role in the peace process (1) the Commission voiced its views on the issue. It should be noted that on 23 February 1998 the Council of General Affairs endorsed the general guidelines of the Commission’s Communication. The Commission continues to believe that the Union should maintain its high levels of economic aid to the Palestinian Authority, in the belief that despite all the political and economic difficulties, such aid has played an instrumental role in keeping the peace process alive. Nevertheless, it is also the view of the Commission that the renewal of the Union’s aid programme should come under a different framework that addresses most of the Union’s concerns, among which its role regarding the co- ordination of international assistance. Also, the Commission believes that the Union should continue to play a full political role in the process, alongside the United States. Although peace in the Middle East largely depends upon strong United States leadership, the Commission believes that the current situation makes it difficult to attain peace without a full European Union political involvement in the negotiations.
4. The Commission has indeed supported the view that the Council should renew the mandate of the Union Special Envoy Ambassador Moratinos for one more year. The cost of the Joint Action under which the Special Envoy operates is of around MECU 2 per year, which come out of the Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) budget-reserve. The Commission believes that these costs are reasonable given the Union strategic interest in achieving peace in the Middle East and playing an enhanced role in contributing to it taking place. It is clear that the Special Envoy’s activities are helpful to the peace process and good for the visibility of the Union’s role in the region.
(1) COM(97) 715 final. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/139
(1999/C 31/192) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2330/98 by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Agency accommodation in Grange
Can the Commission state whether contracts have yet been finalised for the accommodation in Grange for the Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection and Control Agency and when the move is expected to take place from the temporary accommodation so that the agency can begin to undertake its full work programme properly?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(17 September 1998)
First of all the Commission would underline that the Food and veterinary office (FVO) is an integral part of its services and forms a directorate of the Directorate General for consumer policy and consumer health protection.
As far as the Grange project is concerned the contracts between the Commission and the Irish authorities (Office of public works) for the accommodation of the FVO have not been yet finalised.
The contracts are however in an advanced state of progress and they are planned to be signed before the end of 1998. The time requested for the completion of the buildings in Grange is 18 months. It is therefore reasonable to think that the FVO will be operational in the new premises by the end of the year 2000 at the latest.
(1999/C 31/193) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2346/98 by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission
(13 July 1998)
Subject: Night flying and noise abatement measures
At Parliament’s request (resolution of 10 June 1997 on the Green Paper on future noise policy (1)), the Commission is to take specific steps in order to limit noise levels around airports in the European Union (limits on aircraft noise, reduction in night flying). People living near airports are especially concerned and indeed exasperated by aircraft flying at night and are becomingly increasingly active throughout Europe.
Has the Commission already taken restrictive measures, and if so what do they entail? What types of airport will be affected?
(1) A4-183/97 − OJ C 200, 30.6.1997.
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(27 July 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question no E-1721/98 by Mrs Beres (1).
(1) See page 75.
(1999/C 31/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2349/98 by James Moorhouse (ELDR) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Situation in Mauritania
What means are being used by the Commission to encourage the Mauritanian authorities to combat slavery, which is still widely practised in that country? C 31/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission
(15 September 1998)
Among the objectives of cooperation between Mauritania and the Community are the consolidation of democracy and the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Over the last few years Mauritania has made very serious efforts to improve on the previous situation in these respects, and there has been substantial progress towards democratisation.
Under the country’s laws and constitution, slavery has been abolished, even if it must be acknowledged that through the persistence of certain old customs, in certain areas if not slavery, a form of labour which very closely resembles it, is still practised.
Under the Lomé Convention and the national indicative programme for Mauritania, financing is provided specifically to consolidate the rule of law, and a support programme for reform of civil status and a general census will shortly be submitted to the relevant decision-making bodies of the Community.
(1999/C 31/195) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2355/98 by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Commission
(13 July 1998)
Subject: Financial transactions carried out by Mr Karadzic
According to a report which appeared in the Banja Luka weekly Nezavisne Novine and was taken up in the Corriere della Sera of 22 June 1998, DM 17 million (the equivalent of Lire 17 March 1997 from the National Bank of the Republika Srpska (the Serb Republic) to the Nuova Banca di Credito di Trieste (also known under the Slovene name of Trzaska Kreditna Banka); this transfer of funds seems to have been carried out by henchmen of the war criminal Radovan Karadzic shortly before they were obliged to hand over the government of the Serb Republic to the ‘moderates’ of the current Prime Minister, Milorad Dodik. The enormous capital sum transferred is assumed to consist either of the proceeds of the looting carried out by the Bosnian Serbs in the course of their ‘ethnic cleansing’ drive or of funds misappropriated from the Serb Republic.
In view of the foregoing, what information can the Commission obtain concerning the activities of the Liechtenstein-based company Sarnos Establishment, which seems to be used by the ‘Karadzic clan’ as a cover for capital transfers?
What information can the Commission obtain concerning the activities of the Rome-based International institute for political and economic research on cooperation and development (Ispeco), headed by Mr Gianfranco Oliverio, which appears to have emerged in June 1995 as a political and economic pressure group lobbying on behalf of Radovan Karadzic in Italy?
What action does the Commission intend to take to prevent, in future, any direct or indirect collusion or connivance with the war criminal Radovan Karadzic and to strengthen the European institutions’ cooperation with the ad hoc Tribunal dealing with war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia?
Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(14 September 1998)
The Commission has been informed of the articles that have appeared in the Italian press regarding the financial transactions said to have been effected by Mr Karadzic. It has, unfortunately, no further information nor the resources to investigate the truth of the acts that are alleged.
Nevertheless, the Commission would like to recall that it suspended in 1997 its assistance operations in Republika Srpska, following similar accounts involving suspected war criminals. It has from the outset taken the view and repeatedly made it well known that those suspected of war crimes should be held accountable and answer for their deeds and be brought to justice in order to ensure lasting peace and stability in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Through its budget the Community is supporting the activities of the International Criminal Court. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/141
(1999/C 31/196) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2358/98 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Presidential elections in Togo
Following the visit to Togo by observers from the EU, the EU Presidency expressed deep concerns about the legitimacy of the Presidential elections held in that country. As the European Union has serious doubts about the credibility of the election results announced by the Togolese Minister of the Interior on 24 June, what action is the Commission taking to ensure democracy in Togo?
Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission
(15 September 1998)
Following the EU statement of 26 June 1998 that it seriously doubted the credibility of the election results announced on 24 June 1998 by the Togolese Minister of the Interior, the Commission proposed that the Council invite Togo to hold consultations under Article 366a of the revised Lomé Convention to assess the situation in detail and, if necessary, to remedy it. Such consultations may be requested where a party to the Lomé Convention considers that another party has failed to fulfil an obligation in respect of one of the essential elements referred to in Article 5, in this case a failure to respect human rights or democratic principles and the rule of law. An invitation to such consultations, signed by the President of the Council and by the Commission was addressed to Togo on 13 July 1998. The consultations began on 30 July 1998.
By initiating the procedure provided for in Article 366a of the Convention, the Union has shown the importance it attaches to the essential elements (Article 5) which are the basis of its relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. The objective of the consultations is not to suspend cooperation, but to engage in real, in- depth dialogue to help find a way to restore the rule of law and respect for democratic principles. If, despite all efforts, no solution has been found by the end of the consultations, the party which invoked the failure to fulfil an obligation may take appropriate measures including, if necessary, the partial or total suspension of the application of the Convention.
(1999/C 31/197) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2360/98 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Emissions of greenhouse gases from cattle farming
1. Does the Commission have any data on emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances from cattle farms, in particular emissions of laughing gas (N20), and can it say to what extent laughing gas produced by cattle farms is contributing to the greenhouse effect and depletion of the ozone layer? If not, does it plan to investigate this matter in the future?
2. Has the Commission already taken action to reduce laughing gas emissions from cattle farms? If so, what action? If not, does it plan to do so in the future?
3. What are the Commission’s views on the possibility of making cattle farming more extensive given the positive effect that such a policy might have on greenhouse gas emissions and the Union’s plans, as set out in the Fifth action programme on the environment, to take the environment into account in other policy areas?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(7 October 1998)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible. C 31/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/198) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2373/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(15 July 1998)
Subject: Inadmissible actions by the Head of Representation of the Commission in Ankara
The Greek press has published lengthy extracts from a report by Mr Michael Lake who has, for eight years, been the Head of Representation of the European Union in Ankara. While all European Union representatives are undoubtedly entitled to draw up reports on their work containing their opinions, the substance of the document in question shows that he has, on the one hand exceeded his terms of reference and, on the other, directly challenged decisions taken by European Union institutions concerning their position regarding Turkey.
The fact that Michael Lake exceeded his terms of reference was revealed when he admitted to having ‘drafted’ a speech by Mr Demirel, who was then Prime Minister and is now President of Turkey, and that he influenced newspapers such as the Financial Times in favour of Turkey. In addition, he challenged the European Union institutions by adopting positions diametrically opposed to the decisions of the European Council and Parliament.
1. In accordance with what criteria was Michael Lake appointed to his post as Head of Representation of the Commission in Ankara and kept there for eight years?
2. Was the Commission aware of the activities of its Head of Representation?
3. What action will the Commission take following his admissions?
Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(3 September 1998)
Mr Lake was nominated and executed his function in Ankara according to standing criteria and procedures. His stay in Ankara was prolonged in the interest of the service.
It is not unusual for departing Heads of Delegation to express their personal views in an informal report upon departure from a posting.
Mr Lake’s report falls into this category and its contents do, therefore, not necessarily have to confirm in all aspects with the positions of the Community.
After the publications in the Greek press the responsible Commissioner called the Greek Foreign Minister Pangalos in order to ensure that there was no misunderstanding about the nature of the report.
(1999/C 31/199) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2389/98 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Car prices: disparities in car prices among Member States
A new survey drawn up by accountants KPMG and highlighted in two BBC television programmes ‘Top Gear’ and ‘Panorama’ confirm that car prices in the UK are on average 6.6 % higher than in other parts of the European Union.
Given that the Commission was previously convinced that disparities in car prices among Member States were largely caused by the relative strength of individual currencies and fiscal policies in Member States, what steps is the Commission now considering with a view to investigating the claims made in these broadcasts and subsequent press reports that some manufacturers are operating ‘price-fixing strategies’? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/143
Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission
(14 September 1998)
The Commission is aware of the claims made recently in the British media that some car manufacturers or dealers are operating price fixing strategies in the United Kingdom.
In view of the national character of the alleged strategies, and in the light of the subsidiarity principle, it would seem primarily to be for the United Kingdom authorities to verify whether these allegations are correct and, if so, to take appropriate steps to deal with them.
(1999/C 31/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2418/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Monsanto and the terminator gene
What legal avenues are open to the EU to persuade or force Monsanto not to use its terminator gene?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(28 September 1998)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(1999/C 31/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2433/98 by Bartho Pronk (PPE) and Petrus Cornelissen (PPE) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Exclusion of merchant seamen from EU directives
Merchant seamen are excluded from a large number of directives in the social security field, particularly those concerning employment."
The following directives are some of those involved:
77/187/EEC (1) Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings
80/987/EEC (2) Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (certain national exemptions where crews are covered by other forms of guarantee)
75/129/EEC (3) Collective redundancies
94/45/EC (4) European Works Councils in Community-scale undertakings and groups of undertakings (option for Member States not to apply the Directive to Merchant Navy crews).
In the Working Time Directive, a special procedure is followed in order to include merchant seamen within the scope of that Directive.
They all prompt the following questions:
1. Does not the Commission feel that it is unfair to exclude merchant seamen from social security directives?
2. What are the reasons for their exclusion?
3. Would the Commission be prepared to take action, similar to the procedure in the Working Time Directive, to put an end to the exclusion of merchant seamen from other Directives? C 31/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
4. In this connection, does the Commission see any possibility of making use of the Social Protocol?
(1) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977, p. 26. (2) OJ L 283, 20.10.1980, p. 23. (3) OJ L 48, 22.2.1975, p. 29. (4) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(11 September 1998)
The crews of sea-going vessels are excluded from the scope of certain directives owing to the very special nature of the maritime sector.
As regards Directive 77/187/EEC on the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, the Commission is of the opinion that the benefits of Community law should apply as broadly as possible to workers on sea-going vessels. In its initial (1) and amended (2) proposals to amend Directive 77/187/ EEC, the Commission therefore considered that there was no justification for excluding the crews of sea-going vessels from the protection provided by the Directive and proposed that only the consultation procedure should not be imposed in respect of sea-going vessels, thus ensuring the flexibility needed by undertakings in the maritime sector.
On 29 June 1998 the Council adopted Directive 98/50/EC amending Directive 77/187/EEC (3). The amended Directive still does not apply to sea-going vessels, but the Council recorded a statement in the minutes, expressing the importance it attached to allowing all workers to benefit from appropriate minimum standards of employment protection which take account of the specific requirements of the different branches and industrial activities and calling on the Commission to reexamine the situation and present a suitable proposal to take account of the nature of sea transport.
Directive 80/987/EEC (insolvency) does not contain any general exclusions of employee categories. However, it does allow Member States to exclude from its scope, by way of exception, claims by certain categories of employee, by virtue of the special nature of employment contracts or employment relationships or the existence of other forms of guarantee offering protection equivalent to that resulting from the Directive. The categories of employee whose claims may be excluded are listed in the Annex to the Directive. Three Member States (Greece, Italy and the United Kingdom) have made use of this possibility to exclude crews of sea-going vessels. The possibility of exclusion from the scope of Directive 80/987/EEC is thus dependent on specific conditions.
Article 1(5) of Directive 94/45/EC (European works councils) allows Member States not to apply the Directive to merchant navy crews. To date, only Sweden and Italy (and Norway, as part of the European Economic Area) have made use of this possibility. Throughout the discussions leading up to the adoption of this Directive, the Commission had always opposed this option, but it was adopted as part of the final compromise. Nevertheless, it will be the subject of new discussions in connection with the revision of Directive 94/45/EC.
Directive 75/129/EEC (collective redundancies) excludes from its scope, in accordance with Article 1(2)(c), the crews of sea-going vessels. Some Member States (including Spain, France and the Netherlands) apply all national measures transposing the Directive to crews of sea-going vessels. However, in the other Member States, these workers are not completely protected against collective redundancies, as special legislation applies. When the Directive was reviewed in 1992, the Commission wanted the crews of sea-going vessels to be included in the scope of the Directive, but this was not included in the final compromise.
Regarding exclusion of sea transport and sea fishing from the scope of Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (4), the Commission, in the second document addressed to the social partners, announced its plans to extend the scope of the Directive to cover non-mobile workers, to apply certain provisions of the Directive to mobile workers, and, if necessary, to guarantee mobile workers adequate protection in terms of daily and weekly rest periods.
(1) COM(94) 300 final. (2) OJ C 124, 21.4.1997. (3) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998. (4) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/145
(1999/C 31/202) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2441/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Disposal of sludge from the Psyttaleia sewage treatment plant
Sludge from the Psyttaleia sewage treatment plant is provisionally being transported to the Ano Liosia waste tip, until a special site can be set up to bury it in accordance with the relevant health regulations. Owing to suspensions in the operation of the waste tip over the last few years, the sludge has been dumped at sea, a practice which creates an unbearable and suffocating atmosphere in the region of Perama; in addition the Psyttaleia plant is not hidden from view by any ‘optical barrier’.
What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the disposal of the sludge from the above plant complies with Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment, and in particular Article 14 thereof?
(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(14 September 1998)
Article 14(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC (1) of 27 February 1998, requires the competent authorities or appropriate bodies in the Member States to ensure that, before 31 December 1998, the disposal of sludge from urban waste water treatment plants is subject to general rules or registration or authorisation.
Paragraph 3 of that Article requires Member States to ensure that, by 31 December 1998, the disposal of sludge to surface waters is phased out.
From the start of 1999, the Commission will ask for the necessary information on the disposal of sludge from urban waste water treatment plants, including the plant located on the island of Psyttalia which treats waste water from the Athens urban area. After examining the information received, the Commission will, if necessary, initiate infringement proceedings against any Member States which have failed to comply with the abovementioned Community legislation.
(1) OJ L 67, 7.3.1998.
(1999/C 31/203) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2478/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission
(23 July 1998)
Subject: Proceedings against France for infringement of Community tax legislation
Will the Commission provide a list of the subject areas and substance of proceedings instituted against France for infringement of Community rules laying down the basic principles of a common taxation system?
(1999/C 31/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2505/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Progress of actions brought against France for violations of Community environmental law
In view of the importance of environmental considerations, would the Commission list and state the content of the actions initiated against France for failure to comply with Community legislation in the area of the environment? C 31/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/205) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2506/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Actions to be brought against France in the area of the environment
In view of the large number of actions currently being brought against France for failure to comply with European legislation in the area of the environment, would the Commission give a list of the proceedings it intends to initiate against France for failure to comply with Community rules on the environment?
(1999/C 31/206) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2507/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Progress of actions initiated against France for violations of the Community rules establishing the single market
Could the Commission list and state the content of the actions initiated against France for failure to comply with Community legalisation concerning the completion of the single market?
(1999/C 31/207) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2508/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Actions to be brought against France for violations of the rules establishing the single market
In view of the large number of actions currently being brought against France for failure to comply with European legislation relating to the establishment of the single market, would the Commission list the proceedings it intends to initiate against France for failure to comply with the Community rules relating to the completion of the single market?
(1999/C 31/208) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2509/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Actions to be brought against France for violation of the rules on European taxation
In view of the large number of actions currently being brought against France for failure to comply with European legislation on compliance with tax regulations, would the Commission list the actions it intends to bring against France for violation of the Community rules on taxation?
(1999/C 31/209) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2510/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Progress of actions initiated against France for violations of Community competition rules
Could the Commission list and give the content of the proceedings initiated against France for violation of Community rules on competition? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/147
(1999/C 31/210) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2511/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Actions envisaged against France for failure to comply with competition rules
In view of the large number of actions currently being initiated against France for failure to comply with European legislation on compliance with the rules of competition, could the Commission list the actions it intends to initiate against France for failure to comply with the Community competition rules?
Joint answer to Written Questions P-2478/98, E-2505/98, E-2506/98, E-2507/98, E-2508/98, E-2509/98, E-2510/98 and E-2511/98 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(14 September 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the 15th report on the monitoring of the application of Community law (1) which describes its activities in this area.
(1) ,COM(98) 317 final.
(1999/C 31/211) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2495/98 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Article 169
How many registered complaints are there under Article 169 on:
(a) no decision to act has been taken,
(b) a reasoned opinion has been issued but the matter remains unresolved and
(c) are current before the Court?
Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(11 September 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the 15th Annual report on monitoring the application of Community law (1)
(1) .COM(98) 317 final.
(1999/C 31/212) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2497/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Phthalates in baby toys
When does the Commission think scientists will have available a standard, verified method for testing for the leaking of phthalates in baby toys and does it not believe that, in the view of the risk, it ought to be employing the precautionary principle and banning these products now? C 31/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission
(25 September 1998)
Work that should provide the basis for a standardised and validated test method on phthalate release is under way. Various activities in this field are in progress, in Europe and elsewhere. In particular, at the initiative of the Dutch government, RIVM (the Dutch national institute of public health and the environment) has set up a group to develop a method to assess the phthalate release into saliva during sucking and biting from plasticised soft polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which is used in certain child care articles and toys. The work includes in vivo tests with volunteers and collaborative laboratory in vitro testing by the Joint research centre in Ispra and Dutch, British and German laboratories. A progress report was given to Member States experts and interested parties at the meeting on 14 July 1998 of the emergencies committee of Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety (1). The Commission intends to seek the opinion of the scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment on the results of this study in September 1998.
The Commission has already decided to put forward urgently a proposal for permanent Community legislation ensuring a high level of safety and health under harmonised conditions with regard to certain child care articles and toys in soft PVC containing phthalates. A proposal based on the advice of the scientific committee to restrict the marketing and use of certain phthalates in certain toys and child care articles is under preparation in the framework of Directive 76/769/EEC on restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations (2). The proposal will soon be finalised also taking into account the results of the studies mentioned above. Pending the adoption and application of Community legislation in this field, the Commission has invited in its Recommendation adopted on 1 July 1998 (3), the Member States to take measures in order to ensure a high level of child health protection with regard to child care articles and toys intended to be put into the mouth in soft PVC containing phthalates. Restrictive measures must be notified to the Commission. Particular attention should be drawn to the two phthalates DINP and DEHP because they are the most commonly used. Member States should inform the Commission about testing methods used, the levels of migration found and the conclusions drawn from the findings. Member States are invited to co-operate in the development of a common Community testing method to measure the release of phthalates from these products.
(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992. (2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. (3) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998.
(1999/C 31/213) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2499/98 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Spanish mediation to remove obstacles to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process
The request made to Spain by the Israeli Prime Minister to mediate and bring its influence to bear with a view to providing the extra impulse necessary to get the process moving again and achieve peace, security and reciprocity in the region should bring the Union’s common foreign and security policy into play so as to support the request and provide backing for possible Spanish action geared to the objectives sought by the Israeli Prime Minister.
Given the fragile state of the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis, it appears vital that all possible ways of bringing effective peace about should receive wide support, so that the agreements signed in Madrid and Oslo can be put into practice and unilateral measures considered by the EU to be affecting the peace process can be abandoned.
Can the Commission say whether, on the basis of its competence in the field of foreign policy, it might contribute an initiative in order to support Spain in responding to the request from the Israeli Prime Minister?
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(11 September 1998)
The Commission is prepared to support any feasible international initiative aiming to unblock the long-standing stalemate in the peace process. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/149
Nevertheless, for the time being the Union has unanimously chosen to give its support to the on-going United States mediating efforts to bring the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations back on track, in the belief that the United States proposal is the best way out of the present impasse.
It is a fact that despite its initial reservations the Palestinian Authority accepted the American proposal some time ago. The Commission is of the opinion that no efforts should be spared to convince Israel to do likewise and accept what constitutes a compromise proposal in its own interest and in that of peace in the region.
It goes without saying that the American mediation has a limited time span and that the Union would be forced to re-evaluate the situation in the event that it fails to achieve a long-awaited breakthrough.
(1999/C 31/214) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2537/98 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: The Crédit Mutuel and state aid
How does the Commission envisage the future of public savings promotion products which are used to finance social, industrial and local development projects?
In the absence of any such plans, notably as regards the necessary harmonization measures, will these products, for instance the ‘A Booklet’, the ‘Codevi’ or the ‘Blue Booklet’ in France, simply be allowed to disappear in the face of the imperatives of economic competition?
Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission
(11 September 1998)
Public savings promotion products which are used to finance social, industrial and local development projects do not pose any problems in terms of the Community’s interest and may of course continue to exist.
In some instances, however, problems may be posed by the way in which the collection of savings is organised if an incidental effect of such organisation might be ultimately to confer an indirect advantage on the body responsible for carrying out the task.
In one instance, Crédit Mutuel’s ‘Blue Booklet’ in France, the Commission has initiated proceedings under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty in order to examine this aspect.
(1999/C 31/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2554/98 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE), Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) and Jyrki Otila (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Equal treatment in respect of certain services
The Commission quite rightly pays close attention to the issue of the equal treatment of persons. In that connection, the advantages granted to shareholders in telephone companies have been declared invalid on the grounds that they represent a breach of the directive.
However, in Finland different policies are applied to summer and permanent residents as regards postal services, real estate taxes and refuse collection charges. An additional charge is levied for the delivery of mail to summer residents, whose monthly refuse collection charges may be as much as the annual costs paid by permanent residents.
Does the Commission not regard this as a breach of the legislation on equal treatment? If so, what measures does it plan to take to remedy the situation? C 31/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(14 October 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to written question no 3942/97 by Mr. Ilaskivi. (1)
(1) OJ C 223, 17.7.1998
(1999/C 31/216) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2577/98
by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Car prices
What is the Commission doing to reduce the discrepancy in car prices in the Member States given that a recent survey has shown that cars in the UK can be anything from 7 to 40 per cent more expensive than in other Member States?
Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission
(14 September 1998)
Since 1993, the Commission has monitored car price differences in the Community in its bi-annual report on car prices (1). This publication is based on the recommended retail prices, which the manufacturers submit as of 1 May and 1 November respectively, to the Commission for their best selling models across the Community.
As regards the United Kingdom, the Commission has found that the high price discrepancies registered in the recent reports have been partly due to the strength of the Pound Sterling, rather than to changes in recommended list prices. Furthermore, pricing policies pursued by the manufacturers in the individual Member states take into account taxes to be paid with the car purchase. As a result, list prices before taxes tend to be lower in Member States with high taxes than in those with no particular tax on car purchase, eg the United Kingdom. Manufacturers also determine their list prices under economic considerations, such as demand patterns and pursued market strategies. Finally, a certain price supplement may arise from the equipment with right-hand drive of vehicles destined for the British market.
The Commission does not intervene in manufacturers’ pricing policies, except in cases of infringement of Community competition rules, nor is it its aim to have equal car prices across the common market. However, a growing price transparency, as promoted inter alia by the Commission’s regular car price reports, is increasingly inducing customers to acquire their vehicles in those Member States where prices and other sales conditions are most favourable. This freedom, as assured by the according provisions of the group exemption Regulation on motor vehicle distribution (Commission Regulation (EC) 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 (2)), is, in fact, an important market-related factor contributing to a better harmonization of prices throughout the Community. For the members of the euro zone, the introduction of the single currency, as provided for in the Treaty on European Union, would avoid currency movements, which have been in the past one of the grounds for price discrepancies.
(1) IP/98/652 of 10.7.1998,and IP/98/154 of 13.2.1998 and IP/97/640 of 11.7.1997. (2) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995. 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/151
(1999/C 31/217) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2585/98 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission
(29 July 1998)
Subject: Human rights in Bahrain
Would the Commission inform me of what action it is considering in the light of the continued human rights abuses taking place in Bahrain, highlighted by several international human rights organisations?
Of particular pressing concern is the dissolution and possible court case against the Bar Association, the banning of several journalists and the continued imprisonment of opposition leaders, held for over two years without trial?
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(10 September 1998)
The Commission does not have any bilateral contractual arrangement with Bahrain providing a framework for dialogue on human rights issues. However, in the joint council the Community and the Gulf co-operation council (GCC) concluded in 1989 (1), questions concerning human rights and democracy are raised. The Commission encourages Bahrain and the other GCC countries to promote democracy and to become signatory parties to and fully apply international instruments in relation to human rights.
The reinforced political dialogue between the Community and the GCC practised since 1996 has provided a new forum for raising questions of human rights and democracy with the GCC authorities.
The negotiation of a free trade agreement can also be used as a vehicle for raising concerns on human rights and democracy.
(1) Council Decision of 20 February 1989; 89/147/EEC (OJ L 54, 25.2.1989)
(1999/C 31/218) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2592/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Compliance with quality standards in public works in Greece
A report drawn up by the body responsible for the quality control of public works in Greece (ESPEL) concerning regional development projects jointly funded by the 2nd CSF identified breaches of quality standards so serious in some cases that there was a risk of requiring the work to be carried out again.
Since failure to comply with quality standards gives rise to major problems in terms of duly completing projects on time and within the approved budget, will the Commission say:
1. whether the Commission or the Member State has made any claims against contractors responsible for the works who were found to be in breach of the quality standards, and
2. whether there are procedures whereby the names of the firms (contractors) held responsible for such breaches can be made known and whether they can be excluded from tendering for contracts in future?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(7 October 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question no P-2120/98 by Mr Trakatellis (1).
(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 131. C 31/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
(1999/C 31/219) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2601/98 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Violence and sexual harassment at the workplace
A recent report by the International Labour Organization reveals that threats, physical violence and sexual harassment are the main causes of insecurity among workers. The ILO report states that, in Europe, the percentage of women who are subjected to physical assault at the workplace is almost twice the corresponding figure for men, while, in the UK, the number of workers who receive threats is over 53 %. In particular, psychological harassment has assumed alarming proportions in the western world, especially in Austria, Denmark, the UK, Germany and Sweden. As regards sexual assault, France is the world leader, with 20 % of working women having been victims of sexual harassment. In what ways does the Commission intend to intervene and what measures does it propose to take to deal with this serious problem?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(17 September 1998)
The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member on the disastrous consequences of sexual harassment. The Commission considers that sexual harassment at the workplace may infringe certain provisions of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (1).
The Commission has long sonce taken several supplementary measures to combat harassment. Thus in 1991 the Commission adopted Recommendation 92/131/EEC of 27 November 1991 on the protection of the dignity of women and men at work (2) and, in 1993, it published a guide on implementing a code of practice to combat sexual harassment.
In 1996 and 1997, the Commission consulted the social partners and invited them to negotiate a European-level agreement on the possibility of designing a global policy at Community level to combat sexual harassment at work. Unfortunately the social partners did not respond positively to the Commission’s invitation.
At the same time the Commission commissioned two in-depth reports on sexual harassment in all the Member States (definition, persons concerned, victim profile, consequences of harassment, legislation, anti-harassment measures) from two research institutes. These two studies corroborate the points raised in the Honourable Member’s question.
Following the social partners’ refusal to negotiate at European level, the Commission intends, as an initial step, to publish these two studies once they have been translated. These studies highlight in particular the need to alert people to the significance of the phenomenon of sexual harassment and to work more actively to combat it. The Commission is already considering other supplementary awareness-raising measures, including the possibility of organising or subsidising a conference on this problem.
(1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976. (2) OJ L 49, 24.2.1992.
(1999/C 31/220) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2610/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Infringement procedures in the social and employment spheres
How many infringement procedures has the Commission brought since 1996 for the failure to comply with transposed Community directives relating to social and employment affairs?
Which directives and Member States have been involved? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/153
What mechanisms have been employed to ascertain the non-implementation of Community legislation?
What sanctions have been imposed?
In which cases have infringement procedures led the Member States concerned to rectify their failure to comply?
Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(11 September 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the 15th report on the monitoring of the application of Community law, (1) which contains all the information requested.
(1) COM(98) 317 final.
(1999/C 31/221) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2659/98 by Riccardo Garosci (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Protection of consumers from phthalates in soft toys made of PVC
Babies and small children are constantly at risk of swallowing harmful substances called phthalates, which are added to plastic toys to make them soft and flexible, since children often put these toys in their mouths and suck or chew them. Since at present parents cannot ascertain whether or not toys contain phthalates, they cannot protect their children from a potential danger. Article 153 of the Treaty establishing the European Community obliges the European institutions to give priority to the interests of consumers, in particular the most vulnerable ones, such as children. On 24 April last the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment expressed concern about two phthalates in particular, DINP and DEHP, for which the safety margin is very narrow. The recommendation adopted by the Commission on 1 July last is inadequate. Can the Commission therefore draw up as soon as possible a proposal for a directive and, if necessary, adopt emergency measures?
Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission
(25 September 1998)
As regards the Commission’s general approach concerning problems associated with the presence of phthalates in certain childcare articles and toys of soft PVC (polyvinyl chloride), the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer given by the Commission to the following written questions: E-755/98 from Mrs Díez de Rivera Icaza, E-830/98 from Mrs González Álvarez and Mr Marset Campos, E-996/98 from Mrs Sornosa Martínez, E - 1536/98 from Mr Kaklamanis, E-1806/98 from Mr Alavanos and E-2055/98 from Mr Camisón Asensio (1).
Apart from the recommendation which it adopted on 1 July 1998 (2), the Commission intends presenting as soon as possible a proposal for a directive concerning the products in question. The preparatory work for this is already under way.
(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999. (2) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998.
(1999/C 31/222) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2755/98 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission
(10 September 1998)
Subject: Commission personnel
Can the Commission please provide a breakdown by nationality of all officials at the level of Director or higher in the Commission? C 31/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 5.2.1999
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(28 September 1998)
The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
(1999/C 31/223) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2756/98 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission
(10 September 1998)
Subject: Commission personnel
Can the Commission please provide a breakdown by nationality of all ‘A’ grade officials working in the Commission?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(28 September 1998)
The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
(1999/C 31/224) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2761/98 by Xaver Mayer (PPE) to the Commission
(3 September 1998)
Subject: Breeding game on farms
Breeding game has become a major commercial activity in EU agriculture. It often enables land to be used where there is no alternative use for it. Against a background of different production processes in the EU and the Community’s low level of self-sufficiency, farmers who breed game face serious problems due primarily to cheap imports from non-EU countries and also to the fact that the authorization and veterinary legislation is not harmonized.
The Commission is requested to answer the following questions:
1. Does the Commission believe that adequate account is taken of the protection of animals in the legislation on the breeding of game on farms in Europe? Is it aware of differences among the various Member States that distort competition? Is it necessary, in the Commission’s view, to require imports from third countries to satisfy certain production and breeding conditions?
2. Does the Commission believe that the designation ‘meat of game bred on farms’ should be dependent on the satisfaction of certain breeding and production conditions so that a distinction is made between such products and the meat of agricultural livestock?
3. Does the Commission believe that the use of genetic engineering, artificial insemination, embryo transfer, the keeping of animals in sheds and the amputation of antlers should be prohibited in the breeding of game on farms throughout Europe and in the case of imports from third countries?
4. Does the Commission believe that imported meat of game bred on farms in third countries should be subject to the tariff on the meat of agricultural livestock rather than the tariff on game?
5. Is the Commission aware that John’s disease has occurred in stocks of game in New Zealand, Australia and other overseas countries? 5.2.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/155
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 September 1998)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(1999/C 31/225) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2833/98 by Niall Andrews (UPE) to the Commission (28 September 1998)
Subject: School leaving age Will the Commission give details of the legal school leaving age in each Member State of the EU?
Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (6 October 1998)
The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.