ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C 135 Volume 42 of the European Communities 14 May 1999
English edition Information and Notices
Notice No Contents Page
I Information
European Parliament
Written Questions with answer
(1999/C 135/001) E-0251/98 by Marco Cellai to the Commission Subject: Taxation of companies’ net assets (Supplementary Answer) ...... 1
(1999/C 135/002) E-0941/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the Commission Subject: Swingeing taxation on used lorries imported into Greece (Supplementary Answer) ...... 2
(1999/C 135/003) E-1406/98 by Luciano Vecchi to the Commission Subject: The co-financing of Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) projects in Cuba ...... 3
(1999/C 135/004) E-1445/98 by Pierre Lataillade to the Commission Subject: Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery ...... 4
(1999/C 135/005) E-1447/98 by José Barros Moura to the Commission Subject: Community funding of hydraulic projects in Spain ...... 5
(1999/C 135/006) P-1452/98 by José Barros Moura to the Commission Subject: Community funding of hydraulic projects in Spain ...... 5
Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-1447/98 and P-1452/98 ...... 6
(1999/C 135/007) E-1859/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz to the Commission Subject: Safeguards and the cost of inspecting nuclear plants ...... 7
(1999/C 135/008) E-1979/98 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke to the Commission Subject: Appointment of the director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives ...... 8
(1999/C 135/009) E-2033/98 by Philippe Monfils to the Commission Subject: Duration of the ECVAM director’s contract ...... 8
(1999/C 135/010) E-2064/98 by Anne André-Léonard to the Commission Subject: ECVAM (European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods) ...... 8 EN Price: EUR 39,50 (Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents (continued) Page (1999/C 135/011) E-2079/98 by Magda Aelvoet to the Commission Subject: European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives ...... 9 (1999/C 135/012) E-2134/98 by Philippe De Coene and Anne Van Lancker to the Commission Subject: Length of the ECVAM Director’s term of office ...... 9 (1999/C 135/013) E-2452/98 by Paul Lannoye to the Commission Subject: ECVAM ...... 9 Joint answer to Written Questions E-1979/98, E-2033/98, E-2064/98, E-2079/98, E-2134/98 and E-2452/98 ...... 10 (1999/C 135/014) E-1990/98 by Mary Banotti to the Commission Subject: Measures in favour of the family and children ...... 10 (1999/C 135/015) E-2017/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Genetic engineering in organic foodstuffs (Supplementary Answer) ...... 10 (1999/C 135/016) E-2026/98 by Ian White to the Commission Subject: Self-regulation of banking − Petition No 1227/95 ...... 12 (1999/C 135/017) E-2056/98 by Felipe Camisón Asensio to the Commission Subject: Prospects for reform of the Structural Funds ...... 13 (1999/C 135/018) E-2097/98 by Freddy Blak to the Commission Subject: EU resources for the trade sector ...... 14 (1999/C 135/019) E-2100/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz to the Commission Subject: EU Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC ...... 15 (1999/C 135/020) P-2120/98 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Violations, omissions and shoddy workmanship in connection with the implementation of projects in Greece under the Second CSF and the Cohesion Fund and responsibility for these failings (Supplementary Answer) 16 (1999/C 135/021) E-2124/98 by Klaus Lukas to the Commission Subject: Cadmium ...... 17 (1999/C 135/022) E-2125/98 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Enlargement − justice and home affairs ...... 18 (1999/C 135/023) E-2126/98 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Enlargement − external border controls ...... 19 (1999/C 135/024) E-2674/98 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Assistance to enable applicant countries to meet the Schengen criteria ...... 20 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2126/98 and E-2674/98 ...... 20 (1999/C 135/025) E-2140/98 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: World Cup soccer violence ...... 22 (1999/C 135/026) E-2145/98 by Laura González Álvarez and Pedro Marset Campos to the Commission Subject: Planned forestry biomass incinerator power station at Salinas de Pisuerga (Palancia, Spain) ...... 23 (1999/C 135/027) E-2148/98 by Ursula Schleicher and Horst Schnellhardt to the Commission Subject: Availability of veterinary medicinal products − crisis regarding treatment ...... 24 (1999/C 135/028) E-2151/98 by Ingo Friedrich to the Council Subject: Illegal placement of foreign workers in the German construction industry ...... 25 (1999/C 135/029) E-2162/98 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: Relations with Cuba ...... 26 (1999/C 135/030) E-2164/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso to the Commission Subject: Consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1998 (C-106/96) ...... 27 (1999/C 135/031) E-2194/98 by Outi Ojala to the Commission Subject: Treatment of animals for slaughter in the EU ...... 28 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (1999/C 135/032) E-2201/98 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the Commission Subject: Insurance of German cars in Sweden ...... 29 (1999/C 135/033) E-2209/98 by Christoph Konrad to the Commission Subject: Infringement of European law by the Federal Republic of Germany, in particular through Article 60 of the Strassenverkehrszulassungsordnung (StVZO) ...... 30 (1999/C 135/034) E-2210/98 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the Commission Subject: Use of support funds in Italy ...... 31 (1999/C 135/035) E-2211/98 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Europartenariat ...... 32 (1999/C 135/036) E-2215/98 by David Thomas to the Commission Subject: Payments for intervention storage ...... 33 (1999/C 135/037) E-2219/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso and Juan Colino Salamanca to the Commission Subject: Olive oil and blends ...... 34 (1999/C 135/038) E-2220/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso and Juan Colino Salamanca to the Commission Subject: Number of bovine animals eligible for premiums in Spain ...... 34 (1999/C 135/039) E-2231/98 by Magda Aelvoet to the Commission Subject: Environmentally sound cotton production ...... 35 (1999/C 135/040) E-2246/98 by Allan Macartney to the Commission Subject: Horse registration scheme ...... 36 (1999/C 135/041) P-2266/98 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the Commission Subject: Ban on exports of textile waste for recycling ...... 37 (1999/C 135/042) E-2275/98 by Glyn Ford to the Council Subject: Criminal financial assets ...... 37 (1999/C 135/043) E-2278/98 by Robert Evans to the Commission Subject: Waste returned to product producers and sellers ...... 38 (1999/C 135/044) E-2296/98 by Patricia McKenna to the Commission Subject: Compliance with the Euratom Directive ...... 39 (1999/C 135/045) E-2304/98 by Frédéric Striby to the Commission Subject: Mutual recognition of driving licences by Member States ...... 40 (1999/C 135/046) E-2306/98 by Helwin Peter, Hiltrud Breyer and Doris Pack to the Commission Subject: Marriage, family, parentage and divorce law in the EU Member States ...... 40 (1999/C 135/047) E-2311/98 by Monica Baldi to the Commission Subject: Schengen Agreement and airport safety ...... 41 (1999/C 135/048) E-2326/98 by Franz Linser to the Commission Subject: Brenner toll 1 ...... 42 (1999/C 135/049) E-2327/98 by Franz Linser to the Commission Subject: Brenner toll 2 ...... 42 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2326/98 and E-2327/98 ...... 43 (1999/C 135/050) E-2334/98 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Payments from the Structural Funds by region in Ireland ...... 43 (1999/C 135/051) E-2352/98 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke to the Commission Subject: Safety of agricultural vehicles ...... 44 (1999/C 135/052) E-2357/98 by Graham Watson to the Council Subject: Presidential elections in Togo ...... 45 (1999/C 135/053) E-2367/98 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: Foreign prisoners held in French jails under Article 752 ...... 46 EN (Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents (continued) Page (1999/C 135/054) E-2368/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Reform of the FIFG and assistance for joint ventures ...... 46 (1999/C 135/055) E-2381/98 by Florus Wijsenbeek to the Commission Subject: Failure to clarify conditions applicable to cabotage ...... 48 (1999/C 135/056) E-2396/98 by Laura González Álvarez and Pedro Marset Campos to the Commission Subject: Radiation leak in Algeciras (Spain) ...... 48 (1999/C 135/057) E-2401/98 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the Commission Subject: Compulsory use of winter tyres in Finland and road safety ...... 50 (1999/C 135/058) E-2402/98 by Olivier Dupuis to the Council Subject: Financial transactions carried out by Mr Karadzic ...... 50 (1999/C 135/059) E-2405/98 by Leonie van Bladel to the Council Subject: Plans to halve Britain’s nuclear strength ...... 51 (1999/C 135/060) P-2410/98 by Guido Podestà to the Commission Subject: Trans-European transport networks: opening of Malpensa airport ...... 51 (1999/C 135/061) E-2413/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the Commission Subject: Taxation on passenger vehicles imported into Greece ...... 53 (1999/C 135/062) E-2416/98 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Damage to agriculture caused by heatwave in Crete ...... 54 (1999/C 135/063) E-2595/98 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Disastrous effects on agriculture caused by heat wave in Crete ...... 54 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2416/98 and E-2595/98 ...... 54 (1999/C 135/064) E-2421/98 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Parkinson’s disease and the EU’s Fifth RD Framework Programme ...... 55 (1999/C 135/065) E-2427/98 by Concepció Ferrer to the Commission Subject: Construction of high-speed rail links ...... 56 (1999/C 135/066) E-2430/98 by Frédéric Striby to the Commission Subject: Road transport − harmonisation of conditions of competition ...... 57 (1999/C 135/067) E-2432/98 by Leonie van Bladel and James Janssen van Raay to the Council Subject: Suspension of payments from budget items devoted to organizations caring for the elderly ...... 57 (1999/C 135/068) E-2443/98 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Sea turtle ...... 58 (1999/C 135/069) E-2461/98 by Honório Novo to the Commission Subject: Construction of quays at the mouth of the river Douro ...... 60 (1999/C 135/070) E-2464/98 by Daniela Raschhofer to the Commission Subject: Anti-dumping tariffs for steel producers ...... 60 (1999/C 135/071) E-2471/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso to the Commission Subject: The European Parliament and Parkinson’s disease ...... 61 (1999/C 135/072) E-2485/98 by Johann Kronberger to the Commission Subject: ‘Corridoio Adriatico’ project ...... 62 (1999/C 135/073) E-2488/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz and Edith Müller to the Commission Subject: EU aid and improved nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe ...... 63 (1999/C 135/074) E-2489/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz and Edith Müller to the Commission Subject: EU aid and improved nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe ...... 63 (1999/C 135/075) E-2490/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz and Edith Müller to the Commission Subject: EU aid and improved nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe ...... 64 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2488/98, E-2489/98 and E-2490/98 ...... 64 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (1999/C 135/076) E-2504/98 by Astrid Lulling to the Commission Subject: Single market and exclusive distribution contracts ...... 65 (1999/C 135/077) P-2521/98 by Sirkka-Liisa Anttila to the Commission Subject: Agenda 2000 deprives Finnish farming of its spirit of enterprise, leading to ‘virtual agriculture’ .... 66 (1999/C 135/078) P-2523/98 by Doeke Eisma to the Commission Subject: Granting of subsidies to animal welfare organization ...... 67 (1999/C 135/079) E-2524/98 by Niels Kofoed and Jan Mulder to the Commission Subject: Low producer prices for pigmeat ...... 68 (1999/C 135/080) E-2526/98 by Graham Watson to the Council Subject: Political oppression in Burma ...... 69 (1999/C 135/081) E-2536/98 by André Fourçans to the Commission Subject: Operation of European financial markets ...... 69 (1999/C 135/082) E-2546/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Shipments of nuclear waste ...... 70 (1999/C 135/083) E-2547/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Shipments of nuclear waste ...... 71 (1999/C 135/084) E-2548/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Shipments of nuclear waste ...... 71 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2547/98 and E-2548/98 ...... 72 (1999/C 135/085) E-2565/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz to the Commission Subject: Shortcomings in the transposition of Directive 79/409/EEC in the Lombardy region and the Brescia Province in Upper Italy ...... 72 (1999/C 135/086) E-2566/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the Commission Subject: Recruitment to the European Environment Agency (EEA) ...... 73 (1999/C 135/087) E-2568/98 by Graham Watson to the Council Subject: Human rights in Tunisia ...... 74 (1999/C 135/088) E-2571/98 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Headage payments in Ireland ...... 75 (1999/C 135/089) E-2575/98 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Cohesion and Structural Funds payments to Ireland ...... 75 (1999/C 135/090) E-2576/98 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Pigmeat sector ...... 76 (1999/C 135/091) E-2581/98 by Philippe Monfils to the Commission Subject: Rape and sexual abuse of children at a European Union crèche ...... 77 (1999/C 135/092) E-2609/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso to the Commission Subject: Promoting quality meat ...... 78 (1999/C 135/093) E-2619/98 by Sören Wibe to the Commission Subject: Salaries of officials ...... 79 (1999/C 135/094) E-2626/98 by Fernando Fernández Martín to the Commission Subject: Financial support for the projects of the ACP National Chambers of Commerce Association ...... 80 (1999/C 135/095) E-2627/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Commission Subject: Minority languages and cultures: Community funding ...... 81 (1999/C 135/096) E-2629/98 by Arie Oostlander to the Commission Subject: Quality of milk products of the Netherlands dairy industry that qualify for subsidies under the EU school milk scheme ...... 82 EN (Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents (continued) Page (1999/C 135/097) E-2633/98 by Otto von Habsburg to the Council Subject: EU-Croatia relations ...... 82 (1999/C 135/098) E-2634/98 by Otto von Habsburg, Hiltrud Breyer, Charles Goerens, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Claudia Roth, Wilmya Zimmermann and Karl Habsburg-Lothringen to the Council Subject: Visa requirements for Bulgaria and Romania − expert reports ...... 84 (1999/C 135/099) E-2636/98 by Hiltrud Breyer, Otto von Habsburg, Charles Goerens, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Claudia Roth, Wilmya Zimmermann and Karl Habsburg-Lothringen to the Council Subject: Visa requirement for Bulgaria and Romania ...... 84 (1999/C 135/100) E-2650/98 by Friedhelm Frischenschlager to the Commission Subject: Unauthorised subsidies for nuclear energy ...... 85 (1999/C 135/101) E-2654/98 by Friedhelm Frischenschlager to the Council Subject: European burden-sharing relating to refugees and displaced persons ...... 86 (1999/C 135/102) E-2665/98 by Ilona Graenitz to the Commission Subject: Framework directive on foodstuffs ...... 87 (1999/C 135/103) E-2668/98 by Gerhard Hager to the Council Subject: Extension of the Eurodac Convention ...... 87 (1999/C 135/104) E-2669/98 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Extension of the Eurodac Convention ...... 89 (1999/C 135/105) E-2672/98 by Gerhard Hager to the Council Subject: Assessment of transposition of the acquis communautaire in the applicant countries ...... 90 (1999/C 135/106) E-2675/98 by Gerhard Hager to the Council Subject: Transparency and openness in the sphere of justice and home affairs ...... 91 (1999/C 135/107) E-2678/98 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Environmental crime ...... 92 (1999/C 135/108) E-2680/98 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Judicial cooperation ...... 93 (1999/C 135/109) E-2681/98 by Gerhard Hager to the Council Subject: Threatened flood of refugees from Kosovo ...... 94 (1999/C 135/110) P-3049/98 by Mihail Papayannakis to the Council Subject: Kosovo refugees and the EU ...... 94 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2681/98 and P-3049/98 ...... 94 (1999/C 135/111) E-2687/98 by Ursula Schleicher to the Commission Subject: Discharge of untreated sewage in Lisbon ...... 95 (1999/C 135/112) E-2691/98 by Joan Vallvé to the Commission Subject: EU relations with Turkey and their impact on the trade in hazelnuts ...... 96 (1999/C 135/113) E-2696/98 by Frédéric Striby to the Commission Subject: European definition of heavy goods vehicles ...... 97 (1999/C 135/114) E-2697/98 by Amedeo Amadeo to the Commission Subject: Flight safety ...... 97 (1999/C 135/115) E-2698/98 by Amedeo Amadeo to the Commission Subject: Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care ...... 98 (1999/C 135/116) E-2699/98 by Amedeo Amadeo to the Commission Subject: Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care ...... 98 (1999/C 135/117) E-2700/98 by Amedeo Amadeo to the Commission Subject: Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care ...... 99 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2698/98, E-2699/98 and E-2700/98 ...... 99 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (1999/C 135/118) E-2706/98 by Angela Billingham to the Commission Subject: EU subsidy for school milk ...... 100 (1999/C 135/119) E-2709/98 by Françoise Grossetête to the Commission Subject: Assessment of the risks of biocidal products ...... 101 (1999/C 135/120) E-2714/98 by Leonie van Bladel to the Council Subject: Threat to the peace process in Angola caused by an arms build up ...... 102 (1999/C 135/121) E-2718/98 by Leonie van Bladel to the Council Subject: Questions concerning human rights violations in the Netherlands Antilles ...... 103 (1999/C 135/122) E-2722/98 by Leonie van Bladel to the Council Subject: Doubts about the safety of a nuclear power plant in Cuba ...... 104 (1999/C 135/123) E-2724/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Protection of cultural monuments of Kosovo ...... 104 (1999/C 135/124) E-2726/98 by Mary Banotti to the Commission Subject: Soap containing mercury ...... 105 (1999/C 135/125) E-2730/98 by Jessica Larive to the Commission Subject: DG XIII’s failure to pay a subsidy promised to the Netherlands Film Festival ...... 106 (1999/C 135/126) E-2732/98 by Christine Oddy to the Commission Subject: Religious persecution in Sudan ...... 106 (1999/C 135/127) E-2734/98 by Christine Oddy to the Commission Subject: Battery cages ...... 107 (1999/C 135/128) E-2736/98 by Christine Oddy to the Commission Subject: Asbestos ...... 108 (1999/C 135/129) E-2738/98 by James Moorhouse to the Council Subject: Lebanese prisoners in Syria ...... 109 (1999/C 135/130) E-2741/98 by Glyn Ford to the Commission Subject: Inward investment agreements with car manufacturers ...... 109 (1999/C 135/131) P-2745/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Novel Foods Regulation (EC) 258/97 − authorisation of varieties ...... 110 (1999/C 135/132) E-2748/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Council Subject: European volunteer year for young people ...... 112 (1999/C 135/133) P-2767/98 by Antonios Trakatellis to the Commission Subject: Cohesion Fund − sewage treatment projects in Thessaloniki ...... 112 (1999/C 135/134) E-2771/98 by Johanna Maij-Weggen to the Commission Subject: The ca. 3 000 Europeans detained in foreign jails ...... 113 (1999/C 135/135) E-2776/98 by Johanna Maij-Weggen to the Commission Subject: The imprisonment of Petrus Hariyanto in Indonesia ...... 114 (1999/C 135/136) E-2780/98 by Johanna Maij-Weggen to the Commission Subject: Political detainees in Vietnam ...... 115 (1999/C 135/137) P-2785/98 by Jean-Antoine Giansily to the Commission Subject: Presidential elections in Togo ...... 115 (1999/C 135/138) E-2790/98 by Graham Watson to the Commission Subject: European-wide leagues ...... 116 (1999/C 135/139) E-2795/98 by Leonie van Bladel to the Commission Subject: Financing of the UCK ...... 116 (1999/C 135/140) E-2799/98 by Leonie van Bladel to the Commission Subject: Refugees in Kosovo ...... 117 EN (Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents (continued) Page (1999/C 135/141) E-2800/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Unsuitable methods used by the British Museum to conserve the Elgin Marbles ...... 118 (1999/C 135/142) E-2804/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the Commission Subject: Disastrous fires in Greece ...... 119 (1999/C 135/143) E-2807/98 by Leo Tindemans to the Commission Subject: Phare policy: protection of the interests of European experts ...... 120 (1999/C 135/144) E-2809/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Council Subject: Gender mainstreaming at meetings of the Council ...... 121 (1999/C 135/145) E-2811/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Salary of the President of the ECB ...... 122 (1999/C 135/146) E-2815/98 by Fernando Fernández Martín to the Commission Subject: Floods in China ...... 122 (1999/C 135/147) E-2816/98 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza to the Commission Subject: Sun screens ...... 123 (1999/C 135/148) E-2821/98 by Umberto Bossi to the Commission Subject: Repayment by the Italian Government of the ‘Europe Tax’ ...... 124 (1999/C 135/149) E-2822/98 by Umberto Bossi to the Council Subject: Measures to tackle the crisis in Russia ...... 125 (1999/C 135/150) E-2828/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Deposits of caesium-137 exceeding 40 Kbq/m2 in areas of Greece following the Chernobyl disaster . . 125 (1999/C 135/151) E-2829/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the Commission Subject: The millennium bug and its impact in the EU ...... 126 (1999/C 135/152) E-2836/98 by Niall Andrews to the Commission Subject: East Timor independence ...... 127 (1999/C 135/153) E-2837/98 by Niall Andrews to the Commission Subject: Asylum seekers ...... 128 (1999/C 135/154) E-2842/98 by Hedy d’Ancona to the Council Subject: Trial against representatives of the Greek Rainbow Party ...... 128 (1999/C 135/155) E-2850/98 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Reappraisal of energy-based medical techniques ...... 129 (1999/C 135/156) P-2861/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the Council Subject: Arrangements envisaged by the Council for the project shared amongst European cities of culture in 2000 129 (1999/C 135/157) E-2866/98 by Clive Needle to the Council Subject: Code of conduct on arms control ...... 130 (1999/C 135/158) E-2867/98 by Clive Needle to the Commission Subject: Code of conduct on arms control ...... 131 (1999/C 135/159) E-2870/98 by Patricia McKenna to the Commission Subject: Phosphorous pollution from detergents ...... 131 (1999/C 135/160) E-2879/98 by Panayotis Lambrias to the Commission Subject: Infringement of Directive 91/674/EEC concerning insurance undertakings ...... 132 (1999/C 135/161) E-2886/98 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the Commission Subject: Trade with Russia ...... 133 (1999/C 135/162) E-2888/98 by Carlos Robles Piquer to the Commission Subject: Works of art as debt payments to the Community ...... 133 (1999/C 135/163) E-2889/98 by Bernard Lehideux to the Commission Subject: Possible resumption of EU accession negotiations with Malta following the change of government there 134 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (1999/C 135/164) E-2891/98 by Johanna Maij-Weggen to the Commission Subject: Human rights violation in Colombia ...... 135 (1999/C 135/165) E-2898/98 by Ursula Schleicher to the Commission Subject: Access to universities in Portugal ...... 135 (1999/C 135/166) E-2905/98 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann to the Commission Subject: Creation of an international therapeutic solidarity fund ...... 136 (1999/C 135/167) E-2916/98 by Jean Baggioni to the Commission Subject: Missions by Community officials and representation of the Commission ...... 137 (1999/C 135/168) E-2925/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Failure by Greece to implement Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Natura 2000) ...... 137 (1999/C 135/169) E-2929/98 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza to the Commission Subject: European Tourism Agency ...... 138 (1999/C 135/170) E-2930/98 by Heidi Hautala to the Commission Subject: Secondary occupations of EU officials ...... 139 (1999/C 135/171) P-2933/98 by Gerhard Hager to the Council Subject: Secondary law in the field of immigration and asylum policy ...... 140 (1999/C 135/172) P-2934/98 by José Pomés Ruiz to the Council Subject: The crisis in Albania ...... 141 (1999/C 135/173) E-2936/98 by David Martin to the Commission Subject: Reduction of VAT on certain labour-intensive services ...... 142 (1999/C 135/174) E-2945/98 by Umberto Bossi to the Council Subject: Delays on the part of the Italian Government in setting up a guarantee fund for SMEs ...... 142 (1999/C 135/175) E-2947/98 by Antonio Tajani to the Commission Subject: The privatisation of Società Autostrade S.p.A. in Italy ...... 143 (1999/C 135/176) E-2950/98 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: Recognition of academic qualifications ...... 144 (1999/C 135/177) E-2952/98 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Notification requirement ...... 145 (1999/C 135/178) E-2959/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Social security rights of workers in the tobacco industry in Greece ...... 145 (1999/C 135/179) E-2969/98 by Cristiana Muscardini and Gianfranco Fini to the Commission Subject: Europol and the Internet ...... 146 (1999/C 135/180) P-2973/98 by Anna Karamanou to the Commission Subject: Role of the media in the increased sexual exploitation of women ...... 147 (1999/C 135/181) P-2975/98 by Umberto Bossi to the Commission Subject: Italian proposal to promote job creation in the south with exemptions from contributions ...... 148 (1999/C 135/182) E-2980/98 by David Martin to the Commission Subject: The purchase of cars in the European single market ...... 149 (1999/C 135/183) E-2983/98 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland ...... 149 (1999/C 135/184) E-2984/98 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Derogations in motor insurance in Ireland ...... 149 Joint answer to Written Questions E-2983/98 and E-2984/98 ...... 149 (1999/C 135/185) E-2994/98 by Roberto Mezzaroma to the Council Subject: Reform of the law on representation in the armed forces in Italy ...... 150 EN (Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents (continued) Page (1999/C 135/186) E-2998/98 by Renate Heinisch to the Commission Subject: Information on the level of EU aid paid to universities and research institutes in Baden-Württemberg in 1997 (Supplementary Answer) ...... 150 (1999/C 135/187) P-3014/98 by Paul Lannoye to the Commission Subject: Echelon system ...... 151 (1999/C 135/188) P-3017/98 by Luigi Florio to the Council Subject: Israel’s request to join the group of Western European and other States in the UN ...... 151 (1999/C 135/189) E-3020/98 by José Barros Moura to the Commission Subject: Meda-Democracy Programme ...... 152 (1999/C 135/190) E-3025/98 by Phillip Whitehead to the Commission Subject: Gas and fire liability ...... 153 (1999/C 135/191) E-3029/98 by Miguel Arias Cañete to the Commission Subject: Obstacles to the free movement of products containing precious metals ...... 153 (1999/C 135/192) E-3035/98 by Jan Mulder to the Commission Subject: Imports of flowers from Latin American countries ...... 154 (1999/C 135/193) P-3036/98 by María Izquierdo Rojo to the Commission Subject: Joint EU-Algeria education programmes ...... 156 (1999/C 135/194) E-3037/98 by John Iversen to the Commission Subject: Television without frontiers ...... 156 (1999/C 135/195) E-3038/98 by Astrid Thors to the Commission Subject: Spread of resistant MDR-TB in Russia ...... 157 (1999/C 135/196) E-3042/98 by W.G. van Velzen to the Commission Subject: Developments with regard to the European Energy Charter ...... 158 (1999/C 135/197) E-3044/98 by José Apolinário to the Commission Subject: EU-funds for the trade sector ...... 159 (1999/C 135/198) P-3050/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Dutch study of phthalates ...... 159 (1999/C 135/199) E-3054/98 by John Cushnahan to the Commission Subject: Manchester United ...... 161 (1999/C 135/200) E-3056/98 by John Cushnahan to the Commission Subject: Breakaway super soccer league ...... 162 (1999/C 135/201) E-3065/98 by Werner Langen to the Commission Subject: Plans to make lotteries subject to European competition law ...... 162 (1999/C 135/202) E-3067/98 by Werner Langen to the Council Subject: Negotiating mandate for a European Union free-trade agreement with the Mercosur States and Chile . 163 (1999/C 135/203) E-3074/98 by José Pomés Ruiz to the Commission Subject: Corruption in Russia ...... 164 (1999/C 135/204) E-3077/98 by Gerhard Hager to the Council Subject: Fines for road traffic offences ...... 165 (1999/C 135/205) E-3078/98 by Gerhard Hager to the Commission Subject: Fines for road traffic offences ...... 165 (1999/C 135/206) E-3088/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission Subject: Danube development project ...... 166 (1999/C 135/207) E-3098/98 by Umberto Bossi to the Council Subject: Professional relations among professional soccer players ...... 167 EN Notice No Contents (continued) Page (1999/C 135/208) E-3099/98 by Umberto Bossi to the Commission Subject: Professional relations among professional soccer players ...... 167 (1999/C 135/209) E-3110/98 by Viviane Reding to the Commission Subject: Discrimination against Luxembourg firms in the crafts trades sector by virtue of the German law on the posting of workers ...... 168 (1999/C 135/210) E-3118/98 by Winifred Ewing to the Commission Subject: Vessel modernisation and rebuilding ...... 169 (1999/C 135/211) E-3123/98 by Gianni Tamino to the Commission Subject: Definition of rejection ...... 169 (1999/C 135/212) E-3137/98 by Ernesto Caccavale to the Commission Subject: Market prices for training activities cofinanced under the ESF ...... 170 (1999/C 135/213) E-3141/98 by Ana Miranda de Lage and Jesús Cabezón Alonso to the Commission Subject: Situation in Haiti ...... 171 (1999/C 135/214) P-3147/98 by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission Subject: Vladivostok psychiatric hospital ...... 172 (1999/C 135/215) E-3148/98 by Rainer Wieland to the Council Subject: Proposal for a directive concerning the prohibition of the advertising of cars and other products .... 173 (1999/C 135/216) E-3150/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the Commission Subject: Renewable energy sources and wind farms ...... 173 (1999/C 135/217) E-3155/98 by Felipe Camisón Asensio to the Council Subject: Natural gas consumption ...... 174 (1999/C 135/218) E-3167/98 by Anita Pollack to the Commission Subject: Safety checks on amusement park attractions ...... 174 (1999/C 135/219) E-3179/98 by Herbert Bösch to the Commission Subject: Social clauses for PHARE ...... 175 (1999/C 135/220) E-3190/98 by Arthur Newens to the Commission Subject: Trade between the EU and certain Asian countries ...... 176 (1999/C 135/221) P-3204/98 by Anita Pollack to the Commission Subject: Incitement to murder in Pakistan ...... 176 (1999/C 135/222) P-3210/98 by Werner Langen to the Commission Subject: Consequences of the abolition of duty-free arrangements ...... 177 (1999/C 135/223) E-3214/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Operating licence for quarry in area protected by Natura 2000 ...... 178 (1999/C 135/224) E-3215/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the Commission Subject: Data on fires in Greece ...... 178 (1999/C 135/225) E-3218/98 by John McCartin to the Commission Subject: Treatment of Irish third-level students ...... 179 (1999/C 135/226) E-3225/98 by Roberto Mezzaroma to the Commission Subject: Russian submarines ...... 180 (1999/C 135/227) E-3229/98 by Edith Müller to the Commission Subject: Competitions ...... 181 (1999/C 135/228) E-3244/98 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the Commission Subject: Action to preserve the Monastery of St Andrew in occupied Cyprus ...... 181 (1999/C 135/229) E-3254/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the Commission Subject: Recruitment to the European Environment Agency (EEA) ...... 182 (1999/C 135/230) E-3278/98 by Eva Kjer Hansen to the Commission Subject: Application of Article 171(2) ...... 182 EN (Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents (continued) Page (1999/C 135/231) P-3281/98 by José Barros Moura to the Commission Subject: Transfer of Macao to Chinese administration − death penalty ...... 183 (1999/C 135/232) E-3299/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the Commission Subject: Construction of a golf course in wetlands in Greece ...... 184 (1999/C 135/233) E-3328/98 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor to the Commission Subject: European guarantee fund for pensions ...... 185 (1999/C 135/234) E-3396/98 by Marco Cellai to the Commission Subject: Commission competition held on 14 September 1998 ...... 185 (1999/C 135/235) E-3408/98 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission Subject: Retirement provisions for pilots and flight attendants ...... 186 (1999/C 135/236) E-3425/98 by Dietrich Elchlepp to the Commission Subject: Breakdown of EU subsidies for Baden-Württemberg ...... 187 (1999/C 135/237) E-3428/98 by Hugh McMahon to the Commission Subject: Budget Item A-3029 ...... 187 (1999/C 135/238) E-3537/98 by Richard Corbett to the Commission Subject: Budget line 3029 ...... 188 (1999/C 135/239) E-3555/98 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission Subject: St. Teresa di Lerici sailing school ...... 188
EN 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/1
I
(Information)
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER
(1999/C 135/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/98
by Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission
(13 February 1998)
Subject: Taxation of companies’ net assets
In compliance with the principle that capital contributions or the raising of capital may not be taxed more than once in the European Community so as not to create barriers to the free movement of capital, Article 1 of Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 requires harmonization of taxation of contributions of capital to capital companies. The directive stipulates that Member States may not apply taxes on the raising of capital by such companies apart from capital duty, the rate of which, following the amendment introduced by Article 1 of Directive 73/80/EEC (2) of 18 April 1973, may not exceed 1 % (Article 10 of Directive 69/335/EEC).
Under Italian regulations, capital duty (the only tax allowed by the Community legislation referred to above) is represented by the registration tax on capital contributions other than contributions of property rights: this tax is charged at the rate of 1 %. The tax on the net assets of companies thus comes on top of this registration tax and has been applied at the rate of an additional 0,75 % to the equity capital at the financial year end, year after year despite the fact that it is neither exceptional or temporary in nature.
The tax thus has an equivalent effect equivalent to that of the ordinary capital duty and as such is in breach of the provisions of Article 10 of Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969.
The approach consistently adopted under national and Community case law on non-compliance of this kind would require the regulations on the tax on the net assets of companies to be repealed immediately and with retroactive effect, without any need for intervention by the legislator. On these grounds, many Italian companies have applied to the Ministry of Finance for the refund of amounts wrongly paid in respect of the tax on net assets of companies together with accrued interest.
Does the Commission not consider that it should remind the Italian Government of its duty to amend the relevant legislation and introduce new provisions without delay?
(1) OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25. (2) OJ L 103, 18.4.1973, p. 13. C135/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Supplementary answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(16 December 1998)
The question of the compatibility of the Italian tax on business assets with amended Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital was the subject of a question for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court of Justice by an Italian court.
In its decision of 27 October 1998 (Case C-4/97 Manifattura italiana Nonwoven SpA), the Court of Justice ruled that the tax on net business assets was neither a capital duty nor a tax possessing the characteristics of such a duty and that, consequently, the Directive did not prohibit the collection of the tax from corporate enterprises.
Finally, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that this tax has now been abolished.
(1999/C135/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0941/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission
(30 March 1998)
Subject: Swingeing taxation on used lorries imported into Greece
The Greek authorities intend to impose swingeing taxes on used lorries imported into Greece, even recent models fitted with EURO II-type engines. The new high level of taxation which is proposed (‘special registration tax’) will mean an excessive increase in the cost of used vehicles and in particular of lorries over 3,5 tonnes in weight.
The Greek Government calculates the value of imported vehicles taking into account not the import invoice, but the retail sale value of a new lorry, subject to an annual depreciation which reaches 52 % after six years.
Will the Commission give its official views on this new swingeing taxation for used lorries and on the fact that the Greek authorities seem unwilling to accept import invoices for lorries (which are clearly official Community tax documents) but intend to take the retail sales price of new lorries as a basis for their calculations?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(5 October 1998)
While not having been officially informed, the Commission is aware of the substance of the planned taxation of lorries (both new and used) in Greece. Under the plan, the special tax will be raised from 5 % (Law No 2093/1992, Greek Official Gazette A/181 of 25 November 1992, as currently applicable) to 7 % for lorries with a gross weight of more than 3,5 tonnes, from 10 % to 13 % for open lorries with a gross weight of up to 3,5 tonnes and from 8/15/20/25/30 % to 10/18/24/31/37 % respectively on closed lorries with a gross weight of up to 3,5 tonnes.
In the case of fully finished vehicles released onto the Greek market, the tax will apply to both new and used lorries. However, the actual situation on the Greek market is that most lorries are released onto the market as unbodied lorries (including chassis, engine and driver’s cab), to which is later added the proper body for a fully finished vehicle. New lorry bodies are not taxed whereas used ones are, and no change is envisaged in this respect in the draft legislation. This would lead to tax discrimination between new and used bodies. The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, if the examination it is currently conducting confirmed the existence of tax discrimination detrimental to lorry bodies imported from other Member States, it would be prepared to utilise all the means available to it under the Treaty to remedy the situation. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/3
As regards the tax base for the planned tax, it is true that, according to the draft legislation, it would be calculated in the case of used lorries on the basis of the retail selling price of the new vehicle, with a reduction fixed by reference to the year of construction and ranging from 20 % (one- to two-year-old vehicles) to a maximum of 65% (vehicles more than eight years old). In its judgments of 9 March 1995( 1) and 23 October 1997, (2) the Court of Justice held that it is incompatible with Article 95of the Treaty for a Member State to levy on second-hand cars from other Member States a tax which, calculated without taking the vehicle’s actual depreciation into account, exceeds the residual tax incorporated in the value of similar second-hand motor vehicles already registered in the national territory, which, having been taxed at the time of such registration, are not taxed when sold second-hand. Consequently, it should be examined to what extent the table of annual rates of depreciation proposed in the draft Greek legislation corresponds to the actual depreciation observed on the market; it would be contrary to the case law of the Court only if it contained rates of depreciation lower than market depreciation.
As regards the planned tax incentives for anti-pollution vehicles, currently applied to lorries in Greece in the form of a 30 % increase in the aforementioned taxes for non-anti-pollution cars, the Court ruled in the above case Commission v Hellenic Republic that national legislation which excludes anti-pollution technology cars from the benefit of the reduced rates of special consumer tax applicable to that type of vehicle is contrary to Article 95.
Since this judgment was given as part of proceedings for failure to comply with an obligation, Greece was required under Article 171(1) of the EC Treaty to comply with it within a reasonable period. Since this has not happened, the Commission has decided to initiate the procedure under Article 171(2), which allows the Court, in the manner indicated by the Commission, to impose pecuniary penalties on the Member State in question.
(1) Case C-345/93 Fazenda Publica and Ministerio Publico v. Américo João Nunes Tadeu [1995] ECRI-479. (2) Case C-375/95 Commission v. Hellenic Republic [1997] ECR I-5981.
(1999/C 135/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1406/98 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission
(11 May 1998)
Subject: The co-financing of Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) projects in Cuba
Over recent months there has been a substantial freeze in the co-financing of projects run by European NGOs working in Cuba.
This situation is causing serious difficulties for non-governmental cooperation initiatives in Cuba, and is preventing NGOs from pursuing development actions which may assist social, economic and political change in Cuba.
Does the Commission intend to resume the co-financing of NGO projects in Cuba and what is its attitude towards non-governmental cooperation in Cuba?
Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission
(17 July 1998)
Community cofinancing of operations with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has been suspended for the following reasons:
In its judgment of 12 May 1998 in case C 106/96, the Court of Justice annulled a Commission Decision allocating grants without a specific legal basis. One of the implications of this judgment is that any expenditure relating to a Community operation must not only be entered in the budget (the budgetary authority) but must also be preceded by the adoption of secondary legislation authorising the expenditure (the responsibility of the legislative authority). C 135/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
No secondary legislation yet exists to cover appropriations entered in the general budget of the European Union for 1998 under heading B7-6000 ‘Community contribution towards schemes concerning develop- ing countries carried out by non-governmental organisations’.
On 11 July 1995, the Commission sent the Council and Parliament a proposal for a Regulation on cofinancing operations with European development NGOs in fields of interest to the developing countries. The Regulation is expected to be adopted shortly (by the end of July).
As long as the Regulation has not been adopted, there is an obligation to adhere to the Court of Justice ruling by suspending all new cofinancing requested by NGOs under budget heading B7-6000.
As to the cofinancing of projects submitted by European NGOs working in Cuba, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, apart from the problem outlined above, there is no freeze on such projects and it intends to continue to support the operations concerned once the Regulation on cofinancing has been adopted.
In addition to granting humanitarian aid to the people of Cuba, the Commission envisages substantial project cofinancing with European NGOs working in Cuba under the 1998 budget. Pending a regulation, and given that NGOs must first submit projects for Commission appraisal, it is not yet possible to specify how much cofinancing of this type will be available in 1998.
(1999/C 135/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1445/98 by Pierre Lataillade (UPE) to the Commission
(11 May 1998)
Subject: Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery
The Commission has prepared an updated version of the ‘Guide to the Directive on machinery’ (Directive 89/392/EEC (1), amended in 1991 and 1993) that it published in 1993. The Guide has been immensely useful to the manufacturers and users of machinery, and particularly to small firms. The updated version of the Guide, about which there is very broad agreement within industry and in most of the Member States, has been eagerly awaited for more than a year.
1. What are the reasons for this delay?
2. Does the Commission intend to publish it?
3. When?
(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 9.
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(1 October 1998)
The Commission is pleased to have the Honourable Member’s support in its activities to ensure the transparency of Community legislation and is willing to support the publication of a guide in the near future.
In 1993, a brochure seemed to be the most effective way of meeting firms’ needs. The technological situation has changed in the meantime. The draft guide is three times as voluminous and needs to be updated frequently. As it is cheaper, faster and more flexible to send the guide electronically, the Commission plans to provide access to it via the information pages it publishes on the Internet, (1) it being understood that its sole purpose is to facilitate the implementation of Council Directive 89/392/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the approximation of the legislation of the Member States on machinery and that is does 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/5
not provide a binding legal interpretation. As far as a paper publication is concerned, the subsidy will depend on the budgetary means available since the Commission has to give priority to the publication of its own documents.
(1) http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dgiii/directs/dg3/index.htm.
(1999/C 135/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1447/98 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission
(11 May 1998)
Subject: Community funding of hydraulic projects in Spain
In reply to my Question E-0457/98 (1), Mrs Wulf-Mathies stated that
1. As far as the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is concerned, there is no project in Spain which in terms of its size and nature is equivalent or comparable to the Alqueva project. Similarly, no project of this scale and type has been financed under the Cohesion Fund.
2. The conditions which were applied to the co-financing of the Alqueva project derived from its exceptional scale (more than ECU 300 million of Community funds) which raised special problems in terms of environmental protection, water supplies, economic development and coordination of monitoring measures.
However, it is important to look at the actual facts and figures. In the case of the Alqueva project, the ERDF will contribute, in 1997 prices, only ECU 96,6 million. The remainder of the funds will be covered by the Cohesion Fund, the ESF and the EAGGF Guidance Section. To compare with corresponding values in Spain, where funding is also provided by the Cohesion Fund for hydrographic basins, we need to refer to the ERDF. The Regional Development Fund is to provide funding for the Spanish hydrological plan over the same period (Community Support Framework) amounting to ESC 260 billion, i.e. thirteen times more than the amount available to the Alqueva project.
As the Commission must be aware, the fact that a programme or project (such as the Spanish hydrological plan which, according to all the evidence, includes a large number of dams and ‘transfusion points’ funded by the ERDF and situated in international rivers, such as the Guadiana) is divided up does not mean that it should not be treated as a global entity, especially if one takes account of the single nature of the contributions to the same project.
How can the Commission therefore assert that no Spanish project of the same scale as the Alqueva project has been funded? And how can it be impartial when it maintains that only the Alqueva project required special monitoring conditions to be laid down for co-funding?
(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 7.
(1999/C 135/006) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1452/98 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission
(7 May 1998)
Subject: Community funding of hydraulic projects in Spain
1. Can the Commission supply a comparative table concerning ERDF spending up to the end of 1997 under the CSF for Spain on measure 6,1 (hydrological plan) as contrasted with expenditure on major hydraulic projects in Portugal?
2. Can the Commission also draw up a comparative table of the conditions attached by the ERDF to these payments in the case of each of the two Member States? C 135/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-1447/98 and P-1452/98 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(25 September 1998)
As the Honourable Member will have noted in the documentation the Commission sent him when replying to his Written Question P-4150/97 (1), it was decided to draw up national hydrological plans (NHPs) in Spain and Portugal for similar reasons and with similar objectives. The project, which was begun almost two years ago in Spain, was significantly amended by the new Government when it took office. So, although there is a Spanish NHP, it is still only a draft, even if a very advanced draft. For it to have legal validity, the Spanish Parliament must examine and possibly amend the plan during the present legislature.
This plan is not therefore public and currently includes no financing plan. It does, however, set out maximum overall estimates for the work the Spanish authorities plan to continue or initiate in the Guadiana Basin over the next ten and over the next twenty years. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) cannot intervene in a national plan that is not yet official and which lacks legal validity. On the other hand, in addition to national and local commitments, the plan expressly provides for an application for Community part-financing at the appropriate time, although it is not yet clear from which Community source or sources (ERDF or Cohesion Fund). The Commission will ensure, when Community part-financing is allocated, that the rules on eligibility and cumulation are fully respected.
Furthermore, the bilateral agreement between Spain and Portugal confirming the international nature of the Guadiana River provides for management of the basin on the basis of consensus. It is within this particularly suitable framework that the Honourable Member should seek data for comparing the projects of the two Member States.
Although the ‘Specific Programme for the Integrated Development of the Alqueva Area’ (Pediza) and the various works carried out in the Spanish part of the Basin are difficult to compare owing to their differing natures, the only data which can be given at present concern Community part-financing, from all sources, for, on the Portuguese side, the Alqueva project and work in the Alentejo, and, on the Spanish side, work in the Guadiana Basin under Heading 6.1.1 of the operational programmes (OP) for the Objective 1 areas of Extremadura and Andalusia.
As regards the conditions for part-financing and monitoring, the Commission reaffirms that the conditions applied to the above Spanish operational programmes are those uniformly applied, in accordance with the rules, to all ERDF operations in all Member States, and consequently in Portugal.
The conditions applied to part-financing of the Pediza programme are because of the importance and scope of this major project, for which a number of special factors relating to its size, nature and wide- ranging impact had to be taken into account. After discussion in the partnership which accompanies the implementation of the Structural Funds, those conditions were accepted by the Portuguese authorities. Any additional conditions attached to the implementation and payment of a project are linked to its specific characteristics and impact.
Projects and programmes part-financed by the Structural and Cohesion Funds must comply with all Community policies. Furthermore, according to the principle of subsidiarity, it is the responsibility of the Member States to certify, both before work begins and when expenditure claims are submitted, that the relevant Community rules, and in particular the rules on environmental impact, have been respected.
The Commission has so far received no complaints regarding the work undertaken in the Spanish part of the Guadiana Basin. It has therefore no reason to doubt the compliance of the Spanish authorities with Community rules and sees no justification for taking preventive measures, as this would amount to unfounded suspicion. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/7
The list of projects financed by the Cohesion Fund in Spain and Portugal over the last three years was sent to the Honourable Member in reply to his Written Question P-4150/97. The list of projects financed by the ERDF in the Guadiana Basin in Spain and Portugal is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament Secretary.
(1) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998.
(1999/C 135/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1859/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission
(16 June 1998)
Subject: Safeguards and the cost of inspecting nuclear plants
In its answer to my question E-663/98 (1) on the reliability of Euratom safeguards, the Commission stated that ‘as long as resources are available, the Commission will continue to perform continual inspections at the Dounreay site’. It goes on to say that it ‘is not aware either of any shortcomings in its safeguarding operations or of any dumping of safeguarded materials at the Dounreay site’. However, the April bulletin of the European Atomic Forum, concerning the contents of the waste shaft I mentioned, writes that, as the type of radioactive waste is not precisely known, a study will first be carried out of the surrounding hydrogeology and the best disposition of boreholes and instruments’.
1. Are the resources available to the Euratom authority adequate to continue to conduct all inspections required in European nuclear plant at regular intervals in future?
2. What is the annual cost of such inspections, and how much would be needed, in Euratom’s view, to continue to perform all necessary inspections?
3. Can the Commission categorically rule out the presence in the Dounreay nuclear waste shaft of substances which should in fact be subject to its inspection?
4. In this connection, how does the Commission respond to the statement by the nuclear industry that the contents of the shaft are unknown?
(1) OJ C 323, 21.10.1998, p. 62.
Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission
(15 September 1998)
1. In a time of limited public budgets the Commission will continue its endeavours to allocate the financial and human resources necessary to meet the safeguards obligations in the nuclear installations of the Community. The attention which the Parliament pays to this issue is highly appreciated and support continues to be welcome.
2. In 1997, the operational expenses of the Euratom Safeguards Directorate (excluding personnel) were ECU 15,8 million and are ECU 16,0 million for 1998. The current estimated budget requirements for the following four years according to the indicative financial programming established by the Commission are as follows: 1999 ECU 16,4 million; 2000 ECU 16,8 million; 2001 ECU 17,1 million; 2002 ECU 17,4 million.
3. Upon accession of the United Kingdom, the routine operation of the Dounreay waste disposal shaft mentioned by the Honourable Member was already terminated. Thus, the Commission could not verify the information on the nuclear inventory received from the operator.
4. Regarding the nuclear material contents of that shaft, the Commission has received some documentation which is being evaluated. C 135/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1979/98 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Appointment of the director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives
I have recentlyheard that the director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives has been appointed for a period of only two years, whereas his term of office should normally be five years, as was recommended bythe ECVAM’s advisorycommittee.
What is the Commission’s opinion of this, and what academic credibilitydoes it think a director can have who onlyholds his post for two years?
(1999/C 135/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2033/98 by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: Duration of the ECVAM director’s contract
The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods established bythe EU playsan important role in carrying out long-term validation studies.
It would appear that the most recent contract for the post of director is not for the standard period of five years but is for two years only.
Clearly, if managerial staff are replaced too frequently the continuity of work and the Centre’s scientific credibilityare likelyto be undermined.
Does the Commission not consider that, in view of the above, it would be advisable to confirm the appointment of the Centre’s director for a period of 5 years?
(1999/C 135/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2064/98 by Anne André-Léonard (ELDR) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: ECVAM (European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods)
The ECVAM Director’s term of office, which is normallyfive years,has been renewed onlyfor a period of two years.
Is such a decision on the part of certain authorities not likelyto pose a threat to the future of this institution?
Moreover, a two-year term of office is apparently inadequate for completing long-term validation studies. As a result the Centre will have limited credibilityin scientific circles.
At present the ECVAM comprises prominent experts in the field of validation of alternative methods. It would be regrettable to deprive the Centre of their experience and thus to jeopardize its veryexistence.
Will the Commission inform us of the latest developments in this respect? 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/9
(1999/C 135/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2079/98 by Magda Aelvoet (V)to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives
We have heard that there are problems regarding the continuity of the work of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives, which develops alternatives to tests on animals. We are convinced that the ECVAM carries out valuable work.
1. Is it true that the Director of the ECVAM, Mr Balls, was appointed for only two years rather than the customary five?
2. Is this situation jeopardizing the survival and efficient operation of the Centre?
3. Does the Commission agree that the ECVAM has done important work and must be able to continue it?
(1999/C 135/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2134/98 by Philippe De Coene (PSE)and Anne Van Lancker (PSE)to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: Length of the ECVAM Director’s term of office
The term of office of the Director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) has recently been renewed. The usual term is five years, but this time an extension of only two years has been granted.
Limiting the term of office in this way will seriously jeopardize any research that is launched during the period concerned. Many research projects can obviously not be completed in such a time, and two years is also too short to draw any well-founded long-term conclusions.
Scientific centres will not attach much credibility to the ECVAM when they realize that the Director has barely two years to carry out his research.
Does the Commission not agree that it makes scientific sense to grant a full term of five years? What are the reasons for choosing a shorter term?
(1999/C 135/013) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2452/98 by Paul Lannoye (V)to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: ECVAM
The appointment of Mr Balls, the director of ECVAM (the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods), a body set up by the EU, has been extended by two years.
Since the director is normally appointed for a period of five years, the associations working for the protection of laboratory animals are concerned for the future of the institution.
As ECVAM is one of the rare organisations bringing together experts in the validation of alternative methods, it would be regrettable if its existence were to be placed in jeopardy.
Can the Commission tell me what the future prospects of ECVAM are? C 135/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Joint answer to Written Questions E-1979/98, E-2033/98, E-2064/98, E-2079/98, E-2134/98 and E-2452/98 given byMrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(12 October 1998)
The extension of the contract of the head of the Centre for the validation of alternative methods (ECVAM) at the Joint research centre of Ispra, for a two-year period has been decided on the basis of technical and managerial considerations. In the meantime, the Commission will do its best to maintain its commitments and priorities to ECVAM.
The Commission remains fully committed to the validation of alternative methods as provided under Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (1). Furthermore it is continuing to pursue its efforts to end animal tests in compliance with the requirements of Directive 76/768/EC (2) as last modified by Directive 93/35/EC (3) relating to cosmetic products at the earliest possible opportunity.
(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986. (2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. (3) OJ L 151, 23.6.1993.
(1999/C 135/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1990/98 byMaryBanotti (PPE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Measures in favour of the family and children
Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Commission in Case C-106/96 (12 May 1998), what action is the Commission taking, or does it propose to take, to ensure the implementation of the projects to be funded from Item B3-4108: Measures in favour of the family and children?
Answer given byMr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(6 October 1998)
The Commission has decided to release part of the appropriations for item B3-4108 − Measures in favour of the family and children − for 1998. Commitments totalling ECU 810 000 have been entered into to date. Other projects totalling ECU 2,19 million could still be financed in the context of the production of a report on population and of the execution of projects accepted by the Commission before 10 June 1998, for which certain expectations have been created.
The possibility of financing these measures in future will be reviewed in the context of the interinstitu- tional agreement on the legal bases and amendments introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty.
(1999/C 135/015) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2017/98 byHiltrud Breyer(V) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Genetic engineering in organic foodstuffs
In the USA there has been a debate in recent months on a draft law from the USDA laying down rules governing the manufacture of organically farmed foodstuffs (USDA National Organic Program Proposal Rule). The USDA proposal allowed the use of genetic engineering in products derived from organic farming. It breached EU standards on 27 counts and the danger existed through the WTO, that genetically 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/11
manipulated foodstuffs could end up on the European market having been declared as organic foods and could mislead consumers. In the meantime, this proposal has been withdrawn. It is nevertheless an example of how easily European standards can be undermined in the context of international trade.
1. Did the EU try in negotiations with the USA to modify this USDA proposal? If so, how?
2. Is a mutual recognition agreement between the USA and the EU planned for foodstuffs?
3. If so, on what standards is it to be based? Will the EU maintain its existing standards?
4. What value will be attached to environmental and consumer interests in the negotiations on the New Transatlantic Marketplace and/or the New Transatlantic Partnership (NTM and/or NTP)?
5. To what extent are foodstuffs to be included in the NTM and/or NTP?
6. What kind of agreements are envisaged for foodstuffs in the NTM and/or NTP?
7. What sanctions are contemplated?
8. Is the issue of genetically manipulated foodstuffs included?
9. What timescale does the Commission envisage for an NTM and/or NTP for foodstuffs?
Supplementaryanswer given bySir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission
(12 November 1998)
Further to its answer of 26 August 1998 (1), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.
1. As indicated in its answer to oral question H-433/98 by Mrs Jackson during question time at Parliament’s May 1998 part-session (2) and to Written Question P-879/98 by Mr Hallam (3) the Com- mission studied in detail the draft regulations on organic farming proposed by the United States. The Commission notified its comments to the World trade organisation (WTO) in the framework of the technical barriers to trade (TBT) arrangement, and submitted comments to the United States department of agriculture bilaterally. The Commission did not however enter into negotiations with the American authorities on the issue.
The Commission is aware that the United States has withdrawn the possibility of using genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from its proposals on organic foodstuffs. Clearly, this results from the considerable opposition to this possibility expressed by interests both inside as well as outside the United States.
2. to 9. At the Community-United States summit on 18 May 1998 the parties agreed to reinforce their co-operation and joint leadership in international economic relations and fora as set out in the new transatlantic agenda (NTA), signed in 1995. This new initiative is called the transatlantic economic partnership (TEP).
This partnership will encompass multilateral and bilateral elements. One of the areas specifically identified for bilateral action is agriculture where the objective is to strengthen regulatory co-operation in the fields of food safety, plant health and animal health, including biotechnology (covering GMOs). The importance of continuing to improve the respective regulatory processes and of improving scientific co- operation has been reflected in the TEP. The Commission has recently approved a draft action plan for the TEP for further discussion with the United States, and in the Council. C135/12 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
On biotechnology the aim of the action plan is to strengthen the existing bilateral dialogue in order to enhance information exchange, improve scientific and regulatory co-operation, and to promote greater transparency and information to consumers. Other measures envisaged under the draft TEP action plan include reviewing the possibility of interconnection between the United States and Community food safety rapid alert systems, the appointment of specified food safety contact points in the United States and in the Community as part of an early warning system, and an exchange of information on risk assessment methodology.
The TEP declaration of the London Community-United States summit explicitly recognised the need to maintain high standards of safety and protection for health, consumers and the environment throughout the TEP process.
The Commmunity and United States continue to recognise the importance of involving a broad spectrum of parties in the NTA process through people-to-people dialogues. The transatlantic consumer dialogue was launched in September 1998 and preparations are in hand for the official launch of a parallel transatlantic environmental dialogue later this autumn. The Commission intends that both the environ- ment and consumer dialogues should be involved in all stages of the TEP, and has proposed this in its recent draft action plan.
(1) OJ C354, 19.11.1998, p. 129. (2) Debates of the Parliament (May 1998). (3) OJ C386, 11.12.1998, p. 51.
(1999/C135/016) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2026/98
by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Self-regulation of banking − Petition No 1227/95
The Commission’s response to the above petition mentioned ‘A hearing ... held in Brussels on 6 November’. Would the Commission be able to provide a written report of that hearing, giving its findings and conclusions, and is the Commission now in a position to advise whether it will be ‘proposing measures in certain areas in the near future or medium term’ and to advise what such measures might be?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(9 November 1998)
The findings and conclusions of the hearing to which the Honourable Member refers are presented in the Commission’s communication Financial services: Enhancing consumer confidence, of 26 June 1997 (1).
That communication sets out the results of a consultation process which the Commission launched in May 1996 with its Green Paper Financial Services: Meeting consumers’ expectations (2), and the observations put forward at the hearing of interested parties − financial services industry, consumer organisations and Member States − that took place on 6 November 1996.
In the communication the Commission argues that action has already been taken to tackle some of the problems identified, for example regarding cross-border credit transfers (3). But in other cases it considers that new initiatives, legislative or voluntary, will be needed in order to give full effect to the single market and to meet consumers’ expectations. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/13
The Commission has since adopted a good many of the measures foreshadowed in the communication. Examples are the proposal for a directive on insurance for motorists travelling abroad, which the Commission put forward in July 1997, and the recommendation of July 1997 concerning transactions by electronic payment instruments and in particular the relationship between issuer and holder (4). In July 1998 the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive on electronic money aimed at establishing a legislative framework for business of this kind.
Following on from the 1997 communication the Commission has also launched a voluntary initiative, a dialogue intended to enable the parties concerned to reach voluntary agreements on consumer information and consumer access to appeal machinery. In the course of 1997 and 1998 a particular subject of discussion was consumer information in the mortgage credit sector. A voluntary agreement on this point may be reached before the end of the year.
The Commission is currently examining other initiatives. These include the forthcoming directive on consumer credit and measures in respect of intermediaries.
Lastly, the Commission is drawing up a proposal for a directive on distance selling of financial services. The proposal would seek to improve the operation of the single market in this area, and to provide effective protection for consumers; it will be adopted in the next few months.
(1) COM(97) 309final. (2) COM(96) 209final. (3) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. (4) COM(97) 353final.
(1999/C 135/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2056/98 by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission
(7 July 1998)
Subject: Prospects for reform of the Structural Funds
With reference to the above topic, could the Commission provide the following information:
1. Are the planned reforms intended to bring greater simplification and decentralization? If so, in what way?
2. Is the Commission still intending to continue applying the Cohesion Fund beyond 1999 without making any changes to the existing procedure?
3. Are there any plans of the Structural Funds to be used to finance the future European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP)?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(11 September 1998)
Simplification and decentralisation in each area of implementation and at each stage are among the principal aims of the reformed system for implementation of the Structural Funds proposed by the Commission, which the clarification of the responsibilities of all the partners involved through a definition of their roles and responsibilities is intended to simplify. Their respective responsibilities for program- ming, monitoring, evaluation and checking will in future be clearly established, which will also facilitate relations between the Commission, the Member States, the regions and economic operators. The Member States will have general responsibility for implementing the Funds and detailed programming will in future be decentralised, hence implementation, financial management, monitoring and evaluation of this part of programming will, in the first place, be their responsibility. Financial management is an area which has been greatly simplified. While the current system of Community commitments and payments is based on a series of instalments, several advance payments and thresholds triggering payments as work is carried C135/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
out, the proposed system will involve only one annual automatic commitment, the payment of a single advance when the programme is adopted, the refund of the expenditure certified by the Member State and payment of the balance. Another important field for operators, the eligibility of expenditure, has also been simplified. Whereas the current rules make no provision for this aspect and experience has shown the need for rules (see the 22 datasheets on eligibility adopted by the Commission in March 1997 under SEM 2000), the principle is that the relevant national rules apply, except if a need appears at the Community level (e.g. harmonisation, legal vacuum), in which case the Commission will adopt common rules.
The Commission is proposing that Member States should be eligible for the Cohesion Fund if their per capita gross national product (GNP) is less than 90 % of the Community average, whether or not they take part in the third phase of economic and monetary union.
Article 9(4) of the proposal for a Regulation containing general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) requires the Commission to draw up guidelines setting out Community priorities for each Objective of the Structural Funds.
These guidelines will have therefore to take account of the provisions of Article 1 of the above proposal for a Regulation, which stipulate that in pursuing these Objectives, the Community shall contribute to promoting the harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities. In doing so, they may take over some elements of the European Spatial Development Perspective.
The Commission is also proposing that one of the three Community Initiatives should cover crossborder, transnational and interregional cooperation and so contribute to balanced regional planning in the European Union. Lastly, certain studies or innovative measures connected with regional planning can be launched at the initiative of the Commission.
(1) OJ C176, 9.6.1998.
(1999/C135/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2097/98
by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: EU resources for the trade sector
1. How large a proportion of EU resources in the following areas is assigned to the trade sector:
(a) Budget line B3-4000, industrial relations and social dialogue
(b) Budget line B3-4002, information and training measures for workers’ organizations
(c) Budget line B3-4003, information, consultation and participation of representatives of undertakings
(d) Resources administered by DG XXIII for trade and support for small and medium-sized undertakings
(e) The Leonardo programme.
2. How and to what extent are the European social partners in trade financed by EU resources? 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/15
Answer by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission
(26 October 1998)
The Commission’s efforts to foster the social dialogue cover the creation of the political and logistical conditions permitting dialogue and the provision of prior and subsequent technical and scientific support to the various organisations involved in the social dialogue. To achieve this, the Commission has a number of financial instruments in the form of budget headings B3-4000, B3-4002 and B3-4003. It supports initiatives by the social partners at European and national levels by endeavouring to give a European slant to their actions. This covers preliminary awareness-raising (conferences, studies, preparatory meetings, working parties, training on European affairs) and support for follow-up measures resulting from the social dialogue (dissemination, monitoring and appraisal of agreements, European action, for example, on youth employment, and the setting up of an industrial relations training centre).
The recipients of subsidies that can be granted under the budget headings mentioned above include professional associations representing either employers or workers. The aid is intended to provide funding for actions and not for the structures or internal operation of the social partners.
The social partners in the distributive trades sector receive support matching their commitment to the Community social dialogue. By way of example, Euro-Fiet and EuroCommerce recently received funding under budget heading B3-4000 to arrange a joint seminar on the impact of Internet trading on jobs in the sector and to organise a big conference on the distributive trades and the social dialogue in the sector, which is scheduled to take place in Brussels shortly.
As for the amounts that have been provided to the social partners in the distributive trades sector under the budget headings referred to by the honourable Member, it seemed useful to look at the last five years (1994 to August 1998) for headings B3-4000 and B3-4002 and the period from 1996 to August 1998 for heading B3-4003 (since the latter heading was introduced only in 1996).
The honourable Member and the Secretariat-General of Parliament will receive directly from the Commission a table showing the amounts disbursed under each heading.
(1999/C 135/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2100/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: EU Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC
Several years ago the French nature conservation organization SEPANSO submitted a complaint to the Commission concerning the massive capture of songbirds and migratory birds in the French department of Les Landes. The complaint is being dealt with by the Commission under the reference number 213/91.
What progress has been made on this matter?
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(23 September 1998)
In 1993 the Commission closed the file on complaint No 91/213 concerning the hunting in France of the ortolan bunting (Emberiza hortulana), though it continued to address the problem of French law failing to provide satisfactory protection for the species.
Accordingly, on 24 June 1998 the Commission decided, on the basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty, to refer the matter to the Court of Justice in view of France’s failure to comply with the judgment of 24 April 1988 (Commission v. France, C-252/85). C 135/16 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
The Commission’s decision was based on the fact that French regulations on the protection of wild bird species still does not indicate correctly all the prohibitions imposed by Article 5(b), (c) and (e) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. (1) Moreover, the same regulations also fail to indicate all the bird species to be protected under Article 5 of the Directive, including the ortolan bunting.
The complainant has been informed of the Commission’s decision.
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(1999/C 135/020) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2120/98 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE) to the Commission
(30 June 1998)
Subject: Violations, omissions and shoddy workmanship in connection with the implementation of projects in Greece under the Second CSF and the Cohesion Fund and responsibility for these failings
The report by the joint steering committee and recent press reports raise important questions about the proper implementation of projects undertaken in Greece within the framework of the Second Community Support Framework and the Cohesion Fund. In particular these reports note a number of violations, omissions and cases of shoddy workmanship by the construction companies and attribute responsibility for projects worth a total of DRS 2 billion to the supervising bodies and the relevant ministries; the possibility of recovering the money is also being considered.
1. Will the Commission say what violations, omissions and cases of shoddy workmanship is it apprised of or have been otherwise detected, and which projects are concerned?
2. How is the implementation of projects monitored and to what extent is this monitoring adequate and effective?
3. Which bodies are responsible for the violations and what sanctions are provided for?
4. What measures are being proposed specifically to rectify omissions and also to avoid similar incidents in future?
5. How will it ensure the proper use of the funds set aside in the Community budget for the implementation of projects?
Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(12 October 1998)
The Commission would point out that the rules in force make implementation of projects part-financed by the Structural Funds the sole responsibility of the Member States. The supervision of this work is governed by national law on public works.
Nevertheless, when the Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece for 1994-99 was approved, the Commission took due note of the Greek government’s intention, in the light mainly of the unprecedented quantity of projects to be carried out, to take special measures, perhaps including reform of the system of implementing public works, in order to avoid the weaknesses of the past. To this end, a joint steering committee, made up of experts from Greece and the Commission, was set up to design this reform and make proposals.
One of the measures taken in this regard was the establishment of an independent quality control mechanism (ESPEL) for projects receiving Community part-finance. Under Greek Law No 2372/96, a specialist firm, with an international reputation and selected on the basis of an open competition, was given the task of making random checks on part-financed projects. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/17
The first ESPEL quarterly report found that problems of the type mentioned by the Honourable Member did indeed exist. These initial findings seem sufficient to show that there is a certain general quality problem (poor quality materials and inadequate checking systems − in particular no test laboratories on worksites and absence of test protocols). However, the number of random tests on each project examined means that at this stage no specific project can be singled out.
The Greekauthorities therefore instructed ESPEL to switch, as from 1 July 1998, from random checksto systematic and in depth checks on projects, including those previously examined, in order to identify:
− projects suffering from secondary shortcomings: they will be corrected by the contractors;
− projects suffering from major shortcomings which have no safety implications but which will entail higher maintenance costs: these additional costs will be deducted from payments to the contractors concerned;
− the projects suffering from serious shortcomings which cannot be corrected: they will have to be rebuilt by the contractors at their own expense.
The Commission expects this matter to make rapid progress and hopes that any financial, disciplinary, penal or other consequences for those responsible will have a dissuasive effect in the future and will result in lasting improvements to the situation as regards quality, particularly since ESPEL’s routine and in depth inspections will continue and intensify. The Commission therefore welcomes the Greekgovernment’s initiative to establish this independent mechanism for additional quality checks on part-financed projects and will follow developments closely.
(1999/C 135/021) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2124/98 by Klaus Lukas (NI) to theCommission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: Cadmium
In connection with the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the placing on the market of fertilizers containing cadmium, the Commission is seeking a further extension of the existing derogations. The Commission intends the extra time to be used mainly for further studies of the impact of fertilizers containing cadmium.
The hazards associated with cadmium are adequately known. Why, in spite of this, does the Commission wish to carry out further studies on the subject?
On what scale are they to be carried out?
Who is to carry them out?
How long does the Commission expect them to take?
What costs will be involved?
What new information does the Commission expect to gain from them?
How will the findings be used?
Which EU Member States are preventing the EU, for example, from adopting Austria’s limit values for fertilizers containing cadmium, and on what grounds?
In Austria, for example, the limit values for fertilizers containing cadmium were introduced after thorough research. Will the Commission use the research on which they were based?
If not, does the Commission regard the research already carried out, for example, in Austria as being insufficiently scientific? C135/18 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(28. September 1998)
It is known that there are dangers associated with cadmium, but the danger to humans and the environment from cadmium in fertilisers is insufficiently known. The quantities of cadmium which can be taken up by plants and enter the food chain depend on climate, soil conditions, and other environmental factors which are very different in Member States. Only in a few Member States is sufficient information available, and not enough is known at European level to form a basis for Community decisions.
The Commission therefore, with the agreement and participation of Member States, initiated in June 1998 a programme of studies by consultants, at a total cost of some ECU 120 000. It aims to increase information at European level, concentrating on sensitive population groups and vulnerable environments. Final results are expected at the end of 2000, to allow the Commission to propose possible Community measures in 2001.
The programme depends on the active participation of Member States, and Austria is playing an important role in the review of the need for Community action. All relevant information in the possession of Member States, including Austria, will be needed to ensure the success of the programme.
(1999/C135/022) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2125/98
by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: Enlargement − justice and home affairs
Further to Question P-1172/98 (1):
1. Could the Commission provide further details of the ‘initiatives to improve the fight against corruption’? What measures have actually been carried out?
2. How much of the ECU 100 million has been spent on practical measures to combat corruption (in Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and the Slovak Republic)?
3. What measures are being taken to fight corruption in the applicant countries with which negotiations have already begun?
4. To what extent are Phare appropriations for Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia and Estonia being used to finance anti-corruption measures?
5. Please describe the new institution-building programme. How much Community funding is available for it?
6. What practical measures are planned under the Phare programme for asylum policy?
7. What steps have been taken in the individual States to bring their law on aliens up to the required standard?
8. What percentage of the appropriations for the Odysseus programme is being made available for programmes in Eastern Europe?
9. Please describe the project which has been planned in cooperation with Member States’ customs experts. How much Community funding is it receiving, and how?
(1) OJ C354, 19.11.1998, p. 74. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/19
Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(17 September 1998)
1. and 3. The fight against corruption is addressed in the individual accession partnerships and the national programmes for the adoption of the acquis communautaire of the individual candidate countries in Central and Eastern Europe. In the framework of administrative and judicial reforms specific measures are envisaged or already implemented including the setting up of specialised units, anti-corruption commissions and the establishment of anti-corruption programmes. Nearly all the countries concerned have made active and passive corruption criminal offences.
2. Project proposals under the ECU 100 million made available under the catch-up facility are still being scrutinized.
4. Phare is currently supporting administrative and judicial reforms in the candidate countries. These are an essential first step in the process of reducing corruption.
5. When assisting the transposition of the acquis communautaire, Phare supports in general the process of institution building. An indicative allocation of 30 % of the Phare programme has been made available for this activity. The new shaped instrument of twinning between public administrations under the national Phare allocations will play an important role. Funds available depend on the number of eligible projects.
6. Following the identification of legislative, institutional and training needs in the 10 candidate countries, practitioners will be trained in workshops presenting standards and practices used in the Community and will visit corresponding institutions in the Member States.
7. The adaptation of laws on aliens to standards within the Community is foreseen in the national programmes for the adoption of the acquis. Legislative reforms are in hand.
8. There is no percentage foreseen.
9. There are several projects with Member States’ customs experts. These provide for a total of approximately ECU 20 million of Phare support. In addition there will be twinning projects.
(1999/C 135/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2126/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission
(10 July 1998)
Subject: Enlargement − external border controls
In its reply of 27 May 1998 to Question P-1257/98 (1) concerning external border controls, the Commission states that it will be possible to give detailed answers to the questions I raised only after the Council has defined the Schengen acquis and after its transposition by the applicant countries has been reviewed.
1. When does the Commission believe that the definition of the Schengen acquis is likely to be completed, and how will information be supplied concerning the results of the review?
2. How long is the review of transposition in the Member States likely to take?
The Commission also says that it is primarily up to the applicant countries to overcome the inadequacies, but that the ‘Commission’ will support their efforts through existing Community programmes.
3. From which specific programmes has such support so far been given, or are there plans to give it during the current budgetary period, how much funding is being provided (as a percentage of the total costs involved) and what nominal amounts are involved (in ECU)?
4. To what extent have the applicant countries taken advantage of the opportunity to cover their co- financing contribution from Phare appropriations? C 135/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
5. According to the Commission’s estimate, what percentage of expenditure on all Community programmes is being used to assist the applicant countries?
6. Austria is among the more recent Schengen Member States, and the cost of meeting the criteria regarding external border controls was particularly high because of its location (its long Schengen external border). Has Austria received any assistance in meeting the cost from Community programmes?
(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 85.
(1999/C 135/024) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2674/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Assistance to enable applicant countries to meet the Schengen criteria
It has been repeatedly stressed that, if they are to qualify for membership, applicant countries must take over the acquis communautaire and hence the EU standards governing external border checks. The effectiveness of the applicant countries’ border policing is currently attracting increasingly voluble criticism, and the doubts whether the above-mentioned criterion is being fulfilled are mounting. That was why, when it addressed Parliament in Strasbourg on 15 July 1998, the Presidency-in-Office of the Council expressly called on the Commission to seek ways of helping the applicant countries to secure their borders, pointing out that the external borders of the 11 countries in question, placed end to end, were 6 600 km long and it was necessary to comprehend that order of magnitude.
1. How will the Commission comply with the above request?
2. Is it already making practical preparations? How much funding is it envisaging?
3. Which budget headings should be used to provide the appropriations, and what legal bases will be invoked to implement the corresponding expenditure?
4. How can such aid be justified, given that other Member States have recently had to rely solely on their own resources in order to meet the Schengen criteria, even though, as far as Austria on its own is concerned − to name but one example − the external border as defined for Schengen purposes is 2 400 km long?
Joint answer toWritten QuestionsE-2126/98 and E-2674/98 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(11 November 1998)
Declaration No 44 annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam states that, upon the date of entry into force of that Treaty, the Council shall adopt all the necessary measures referred to in Article 2 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, and in particular the Decisions defining the Schengen acquis and breaking down its components between the first and third pillars. Preparatory work is under way on these measures. The Council Decisions mentioned above will be published in the Official Journal.
Pursuant to the Schengen acquis on the implementation of the Schengen provisions and to Article 2(2) of the Schengen Protocol, the Council, acting with the unanimity of the Schengen members, will decide whether applicant countries have implemented the Schengen acquis and can take part in the area without internal frontiers. This decision will be taken after ensuring that all the preconditions are met, including controls and surveillance of external borders in accordance with Schengen standards.
In December 1994 the European Council meeting at Essen decided, as part of the preparation of the associated countries for accession to the Union, to extend cooperation with these countries to third-pillar matters (including border controls, asylum, immigration, police and customs cooperation, and judicial cooperation). To implement this decision, the Commission requested a report on the needs of the countries 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/21
concerned in the areas of justice and home affairs. The task was allocated to a high-level expert who was a former member of the K4 Committee. In October 1995, the Commission received a report on his visits to the associated countries, and has since implemented a number of measures to meet the needs identified in the report.
1. The Phare Horizontal Programme for Justice and Home Affairs (also called the Horizontal Phare JHA Programme). This programme is termed ‘horizontal’ because it covers all the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) which have applied for membership and emphasises interregional coop- eration and multi-country activities, particularly in the areas of training and exchanges. With a budget of ECU 11 million for the period 1996-1998, the programme enabled a needs identification mission to travel to each of the ten CEECs between June 1997 and June 1998, with the intention of going into the report’s conclusions in greater detail and proposing projects to bring the CEECs up to standard in the JHA area. These missions were carried out by police officers, judges and other officials appointed by the Member States through their national justice and home affairs contact points, and covered four areas, three of which are directly or indirectly linked to border controls (border management, asylum and immigration, police cooperation), with the fourth area covering justice. Provision has also been made under the Horizontal Phare JHA Programme to set up an across-the-board training measure for police forces in the applicant countries, run by the European Association of Police Colleges. This training measure will be used to harmonise the police training curricula in the CEECs on the basis of the methods used in the Union, and will include a major section on border controls and, in particular, the fight against trafficking.
2. A Phare multi-country management programme for the eastern frontier of the Baltic States was set up with an ECU 6 million budget from the 1997 Phare allocation to strengthen the capacity of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to manage their newly-created eastern frontier and combat cross-border trafficking. The aim of the programme is to make sure that both the ‘green frontier’ and official border posts are controlled, and provides support for border guards in the areas of communications, information technology, surveillance, mobility, tactical back-up and training. In addition to these two programmes, mention should also be made of the Phare multi-country customs modernisation programme and, in particular, the national Phare allocations.
3. The Phare multi-country customs modernisation programme began in 1995. It involves helping the applicant countries to take more effective action to fight trafficking in drugs, stolen cars and nuclear materials. More specifically, an ECU 0,5 million project was launched in October 1997 to make checks at border posts more efficient by introducing risk-analysis techniques into customs officers’ working methods.
4. The national Phare allocations. It is these national allocations that fund most of the work to bring the CEECs up to standard in the JHA area in general, and in the area of border controls in particular, by equipping and training border guards and other forces involved in border surveillance.
A distinction needs to be made here between the situation that existed prior to the adoption of the enhanced pre-accession strategy in December 1997 and the situation since the beginning of 1998.
− the situation up to December 1997. Following the country reports drawn up under the Horizontal Phare JHA Programme, a number of border projects were launched. A project to computerise border posts was written into the 1997 operational programme for Hungary (ECU 4 million) following a mission to that country in June of the same year. The programme for the eastern frontier of the Baltic States (see above) was extended to Poland in 1997 (ECU 12 million). Other border-related projects such as the provision of fingerprinting equipment to the Polish police (ECU 5 million) and the development of machine-readable identity papers in the Czech Republic were funded under previous national programmes;
− the situation since the beginning of 1998. Under the enhanced pre-accession strategy put forward by the Commission in its Agenda 2000 document and formally adopted by the European Council meeting in Luxembourg in December 1997, the Phare programme has been reshaped to ensure greater focus on the goal of accession. The future priorities for the programme include, in particular, assistance for the applicant countries to upgrade their administrative and legal capacity. Approxi- mately 30 % of Phare resources will be allocated to this objective, amounting to nearly ECU 500 million in subsidies each year. JHA is one of the four priority areas identified in the context of upgrading administrative and legal capacity, and this upgrading is one of the main challenges the applicant countries will have to meet if they are to implement the acquis effectively. Twinning schemes between government departments in the Member States and the applicant C 135/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
countries, including long-term secondments of experts from the Member States to the applicant countries, will thus be set up in the JHA area from the end of 1998, particularly in the area of border controls.These twinning projects will be funded from the national allocations of the Phare programme.
It should be noted that all Phare measures are funded under budget heading B7-500.There is no co- financing by beneficiaries under the Phare programme, unlike programmes under Title VI of the TEU (Grotius, Oisin, Odysseus, Falcone, Stop), which provide for co-financing between the Commission and the project promoter (the applicant countries can take part in these programmes if invited to do so by the project initiator, but they cannot submit project applications).Phare nevertheless comes under the general heading of ‘accession partnerships’ through which the applicant countries undertake to adopt the acquis of the Union and its Member States (which requires heavy investment on their part in terms of legislation, reorganisation and training) and obtain financial support from the Union to achieve this goal.
The level of economic development and financial capacity of the CEEC applicants for membership cannot be compared with that of the three countries which joined the Union in January 1995.Furthermore, the problems they have to solve in all areas to meet the Copenhagen criteria are infinitely more complex given that, with the fall of communism, they have their entire political/administrative, economic and social system to rebuild.Their exceptional circumstances justify the implementation of the enhanced pre- accession strategy put forward by the Commission in its July 1997 Agenda 2000 document and formally adopted by the Luxembourg European Council in December 1997.
(1999/C 135/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2140/98
by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(13 July 1998)
Subject: World Cup soccer violence
In view of the horrific acts of violence witnessed during the football World Cup tournament, what measures will the Commission be calling for to combat what is an increasing European wide trend?
Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission
(9 September 1998)
The implementation of appropriate policing measures for the purpose of preventing hooliganism, and generally speaking, the issue of violence occurring at sporting events or other occasions attended by large numbers of people, are primarily matters of public order.The Commission is not in position to intervene concerning the way police forces of the Member States maintain public order on their own territory.
Within the Justice and Home Affairs framework of the Council, the police cooperation working group tackles this issue from an operational point of view with a network of liaison officers and annual meeting of contact points.In this context, the Council in 1996 adopted a Recommendation on guidelines for preventing and restraining disorder connected to football matches (1).More recently in 1997 a Joint Action with regard to cooperation on public order and safety and a Resolution on preventing and restraining football hooliganism (2) were adopted by the Council.The implementation of the Recommendation (stadium bans, development of a checklist for media policy, annual report, annual expert meeting, report to the Council) should start in 1998.
The Commission is of course in favour of the promotion and the implementation of closer police cooperation at a European level and it has financed, in the context of the OISIN programme, a seminar on policing football hooliganism, held in Blackburn on 27-28 February 1998.But the implementation of appropriate measures for preventing and restraining disorder is for Member States in accordance with 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/23
their own national legislation and Union law. Furthermore, a Council draft recommendation on the responsibility of organisers is currently being discussed at a technical level. The Commission is not involved in the application of the Union of European football associations (UEFA) regulations concerning stadiums, but it does cooperate with organisations that have a specific role in this area, such as the Council of Europe where a standing committee has been created.
(1) OJ C 131, 3.5.1996. (2) OJ C 193, 24.6.1997.
(1999/C 135/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2145/98
by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(13 July 1998)
Subject: Planned forestry biomass incinerator power station at Salinas de Pisuerga (Palancia, Spain)
After five years of administrative proceedings relating to the supply of fuel, the planned incinerator power station at Salinas de Pisuerga is now facing enormous opposition from both inside and outside the region concerned. So far almost 100 complaints have been lodged by a variety of groups, a number of appeals have been submitted, calling for the project to be revised, and at least three administrative disputes are currently underway.
The widespread disquiet has intensified increased by the repeated refusal of the promoter (and also of the Castilla y León regional government) to give any explanation whatsoever regarding their intentions in the area. At the same time it has been stated that the data relating to the supply of fuel are confidential.
What is more, the project is located on the very edge of the areas protected under the Brown Bear Rescue Plan and Project 2000, areas in which considerable efforts have also been made to promote rural tourism. The current promoter has been granted public aid totalling 399 860 000 pesetas (OM-PAEE and SG- ERDF).
1. Does the Commission believe the nature of this project to be compatible with what is laid down in the White Paper entitled ‘Energy for the future: renewable sources of energy’, which was published by the Commission on 26 November 1997?
2. Does the Commission regard it as logical to subsidize at one and the same time both the project in question and others in the same area which are clearly incompatible with it?
3. Has the Commission any evidence that incinerators do not comply with Directive 89/369/EC (1), Directive 84/360/EEC (2) and Directive 75/442/EEC (3) on air pollution and waste?
4. What action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that incinerators which are still in operation comply with Community law? What priority is to be given to the needs and the interests of local people?
5. In view of the EU’s wish to develop renewable energy sources, is there any regulation which relates to biomass production plants?
(1) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989, p. 32. (2) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20. (3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39. C 135/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission
(5 October 1998)
1. It is indeed so that, under the White Paper on the promotion of renewable energy sources (1), the promotion of biomass takes pride of place. However, it goes without saving that in no way can that development be detrimental to the environment. It is stipulated in the White Paper that, where action is taken to promote renewable energy sources, the net environmental effects of the various energy sources will be taken into account.
It is assumed as far as the Salinas de Pisuerga project is concerned that the plant in question is intended to incinerate forestry waste. The European waste catalogue has a specific entry for this type of waste: 02 01 07 waste from forestry exploitation.
2. It should be pointed out that neither the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) nor the Cohesion Fund have subsidised the forestry-biomass-fired power station at Salinas de Pisuerga.
3. Even if the current provisions for waste incineration did not apply to this type of incinerator, Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (2) would do so. This requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment and, in particular, without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals, without causing a nuisance due to noise or odours, and without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest. In view of the content of the question the assessment by the authorities of Article 4 should in this case be clarified.
4. The region of Palencia is part of the autonomous community of Castilla y Léon. The Commission has received a waste management plan for this community. The plan only covers municipal waste and the installation in question is not included in this plan. It is unclear to what extent the revision of the plan, which should be presented to the government in early 1999, will include this installation. Inclusion of an incinerator in an approved waste management plan is a condition to be meet before the Community can contribute financially to such installations via the structural or regional funds.
5. Council Regulation (EEC) 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops provides that land that has been satisfied may be used to grow products which are not directly intended for human or animal consumption.
Most of the non-food arable crops obtained from such land whose being left fallow has been either obligatory or voluntary are intended for the production of renewable energy sources (3).
(1) COM(97) 599 final. . (2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. (3) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992.
(1999/C 135/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2148/98
by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) and Horst Schnellhardt (PPE) to the Commission
(13 July 1998)
Subject: Availability of veterinary medicinal products − crisis regarding treatment
In the Federal Republic of Germany increasing numbers of vets and their professional associations are complaining about the declining available range of veterinary medicinal products. As a result the veterinary care of certain groups of animals is being placed at risk and has become impossible in some cases. There are clearly also similar problems with homeopathic medicinal products, in particular for animals providing foodstuffs. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/25
1. a) How does the Commission assess this development? b) What does the Commission consider to be the cause of this trend? c) Is it aware of similar complaints from other Member States? d) What action does the Commission intend to take to alleviate the situation?
2. Can the Commission provide information on the criteria for assessinghomeopathic medicinal products for animals providingfoodstuffs in relation to approval or certification validity by the European Agency for the evaluation of medicinal products?
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(30 September 1998)
1. The Commission is aware of the fact that the number of veterinary medicinal products available in the Community for animals intended for food production is decreasing.
The reasons for this are firstly that the pharmaceutical industry does not apply for marketingauthorisa- tions or maximum residue limits (MRLs) for minor species and minor uses. It claims that there is not sufficient revenue in these products to justify the necessary investments in studies. This applies especially to studies designed to prove that residues of pharmacologically active substances are not harmful to human health, and to develop methods of analysis necessary to monitor the residues in foods (required by Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary mexicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (1)). Another reason is that for some substances maximum residue limits cannot be established since their residues have proven to be hazardous to the consumer at any limit.
The Commission is consideringvarious options to facilitate the authorisation of veterinary medicinal products in certain circumstances, which take the principles of consumer protection into account.
2. A homeopathic veterinary medicine intended for use in animals the flesh or products of which are intended for human consumption has to be authorised for marketingaccordingto the requirements of Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relatingto veterinary medicinal products ( 2) and Council Directive 92/74/EEC of 22 September 1992 wideningthe scope of Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to veterinary medicinal products and laying down additional provisions on homeopathic veterinary medicinal products (3). One of the conditions that has to be fulfilled before a marketingauthorisation for a veterinary medicinal product can be grantedis that the residues in foodstuffs of any pharmacological active substance contained therein has been positively evaluated. This evaluation has to be performed accordingto Council Regulation(EEC) 2377/90.
(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990. (2) OJ L 317, 6.11.1981. (3) OJ L 297, 13.10.1992.
(1999/C 135/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2151/98 by Ingo Friedrich (PPE) to the Council
(14 July 1998)
Subject: Illegal placement of foreign workers in the German construction industry
Is the Council aware that Dutch companies are illegally arranging employment for English workers on German buildingsites?
To what extent does the Council intend to take action on this matter? C 135/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Reply
(16 November 1998)
The Council has no information on the points mentioned in the Honourable Member’s question.
(1999/C 135/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2162/98 by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Commission
(13 July 1998)
Subject: Relations with Cuba
In its resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the relations between the European Union and Cuba (COM(95) 0306 − C4-0298/95), adopted on 18 January 1996, (A4-0312/95) (1), the European Parliament called on the Commission to provide Cuba with technical assistance in introducing new institutional and structural measures which are essential to ensure the success of the economic reforms now under way. The European Parliament also upheld the right of Cuban workers to exercise their right to strike, to set up independent trade unions and to enter into direct contractual relations with employers instead of having to use official intermediaries and considered that the EU must support the democratization process in Cuba at all levels.
According to the latest reports, no freedom of association in the trade unions exists in Cuba to represent and protect the interests and rights of workers, there is no substantial improvement in the living conditions of Cuban citizens and no essential progress in the democratization process.
What kind and what extent of technical assistance did the Commission provide to Cuba in introducing new institutional and structural measures essential to the success of the economic reforms? Does the Commission monitor the conditions of Cuban workers and citizens? What actions has the Commission undertaken to foster the improvement of the situation of Cuban workers and citizens?
(1) OJ C 32, 5.2.1996, p. 85.
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(21 September 1998)
The Commission is acutely aware of the various resolutions passed by Parliament concerning EU relations with Cuba, particularly the 1996 recommendations referred to by the Honourable Member, which provided for EU support for the reform process in Cuba.
The common position adopted by the EU on 2December 1996 ( 1) and reviewed in June this year sets the same objective, i.e. of promoting a peaceful process of transition to a multi-party democracy, greater respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, sustainable economic recovery and an improvement in the living standards of the Cuban people. The Commission has strictly adhered to those guidelines in its cooperation with Cuba.
The Commission has made a considerable effort to improve living standards for the Cuban people. Humanitarian and food aid supplied by the Commission helps to provide for the basic needs of the poorest in Cuba. The Commission is the main aid donor in Cuba, mainly through the various ‘overall plans’ of humanitarian aid for the Cuban population.
Furthermore, in line with Council recommendations, the Commission wishes to support the process of opening up the Cuban economy. It has started up a number of relevant projects since 1994 and programmed the following projects to support economic reform in 1998: a project to support the development of links between European and Cuban small and medium-sized enterprises; a training programme for Cuban company managers; a project to support the setting-up of the tax administration, and a project to assist with reform of the banking system. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/27
In addition, at the Council’s request, the Commission sent two technical missions to Cuba to assess the progress of economic and legal reform with a view to considering cooperation in those areas. Their recommendations are currently under examination. The legal mission took the opportunity to raise the issue of labour rights with the Cuban authorities, who expressed interest in cooperation with regard to their reform of labour laws. The Commission is of the opinion that such cooperation is bound to improve the situation of Cuban workers.
The EUis still concerned about the attacks on freedom of expression and association. It has set up a working party on human rights in Havana. When the common position was last reviewed, the Council noted that the working party had worked hard in 1998 to further the dialogue on human rights in Cuba.
(1) OJ L 322, 12.12.1996.
(1999/C 135/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2164/98
by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission
(13 July 1998)
Subject: Consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1998 (C-106/96)
What Commission initiatives and hence what programmes or projects will be affected by the Commis- sion’s decision to freeze the budget lines which have no legal basis in the light of the content of the Court’s judgment of 12 May 1998?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(27 October 1998)
The Commission adopted an immediate protective measure after the Court of Justice ruled that only for non-significant measures could expenditure be charged to the Community budget without an instrument of secondary legislation having first to be adopted. As guardian of the proper implementation of Union legislation, the Commission could not ignore the Court¢s ruling. As the authority responsible for implementing the budget, it had to ensure that it could implement with complete legal certainty the headings apparently lacking a legal basis in the 1998 budget, and therefore embarked on a detailed examination of all the headings concerned. Once the check was complete, and taking account of the outcome of the Council meeting (Budgets) on 17 July 1998, a number of cases could be identified.
In the case of headings where normal operation resumed in full, the temporary suspension will have led to no more than a momentary slowdown in implementation. Following the Commission’s decision to suspend operations on 10 June 1998, the Commission acted to resume implementation of the headings concerned gradually, at the latest by 14 July 1998. Similarly, the implementation of measures acknowl- edged to be politically sensitive, such as measures to combat violence against children, adolescents and women, measures to deal with illegal and harmful content on the Internet, support for and monitoring of electoral processes, and measures relating to human rights and democracy, resumed immediately after the conciliation meeting when the Council (Budgets) was meeting.
In the case of headings which are still partly or totally suspended, three types may be distinguished:
− those for which a legal basis has been proposed will be implemented as soon as the legal basis is adopted. The level of utilisation of 1998 appropriations will depend on the date of adoption of the legal basis. In any event, if the legal basis is adopted at the end of the year, the corresponding appropriations could in principle be carried over and used next year; C 135/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
− the headings where spending cannot resume because no legal basis has been proposed and because they relate to measures which cannot be regarded as autonomous or as preparatory measures or pilot schemes will be examined individually to determine to what extent they can nevertheless be implemented on the principle of catering for the legitimate expectations of potential beneficiaries and safeguarding existing investments. Authorising departments affected by partly or totally suspended headings were contacted to determine how they propose to implement the budget in accordance with the ad hoc measures. The findings were notified to the budgetary authority, in particular Parliament’s Committee on Budgets at the plenary meeting in Strasbourg in September;
− there remains the special case of the headings concerning the fight against poverty and social exclusion for which the Treaty of Amsterdam could supply the necessary means of establishing the requisite legal bases. These headings were the subject of a joint declaration by the Council and the Commission at the Council meeting (Budgets) on 17 July 1998. On a Commission proposal, on 16 September 1998 steps were taken to redirect these measures along truly innovatory lines in relation to the approach developed hitherto, and which will enable them to be regarded as preparatory to Community action in new areas provided for by the Treaty of Amsterdam. New measures can then be implemented.
(1999/C 135/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2194/98
by Outi Ojala (GUE/NGL) to theCommission
(14 July 1998)
Subject: Treatment of animals for slaughter in the EU
In Finland it appears that the treatment of animals for slaughter has deteriorated drastically with EU membership. For example in 1997-98 20 % of chickens arriving at the two largest slaughterhouses had to be rejected, whereas in 1994 the figure was only 5 %. The rejection figures for fat pigs and cattle have also risen. The reason for this deterioration in the condition of livestock for slaughter is thought to be the reduction in producer prices − by a half in the case of eggs − as a result of which farms have been cutting corners on animal welfare. For example, the poor condition of hens is thought to result from a shortage of feed when producers have cut their expenditure on fodder.
Another problem with hens is the use of battery units, which in Finland account for 95 % of all hen accommodation. These lead to a further deterioration in the hens’ condition. The EU’s aid policy also affects the situation. Because aid is allocated to farms on the basis of head of livestock, farmers unnecessarily prolong the suffering of their animals, which are already in poor condition.
1. Is the Commission aware of the problems related to the production of animals for slaughter, and are similar trends emerging elsewhere in the EU?
2. What does the Commission feel about the fact that EU subsidies favour the quantity of animals for slaughter over their quality? Has this matter been discussed in the Commission and does the Commission propose to do anything about it in future? Will these problems remain even after the Agenda 2000 agricultural reforms or have they been taken into account in those reforms?
3. Does the Commission propose to take any measures to prohibit the use of battery cages for hens altogether, or does it even propose to shorten the 2009 deadline significantly? If not, why not?
4. Under Directive 88/166/EEC (1), hens kept in battery cages must inter alia be assured access to sufficient food. Does the Commission consider that this is contrary to the situation in Finland, and if so, what does it propose to do about it? Might the payment of subsidies be made conditional on the recipients’ complying with current animal welfare legislation?
(1) OJ L 74, 19.3.1988, p. 83. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/29
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(16 September 1998)
1. The Commission is not aware of problems related to the production of animals for slaughter in Finland, or in any other Member State, resulting from reduced producer prices.
2. The Act of Accession for Austria, Finland and Sweden provided for the immediate introduction of common (lower) agricultural prices in these new Member States as of 1 January 1995. Finland reserved the right to grant degressive national subsidies as well as national investment aids to farmers during a transitional period until the problems from the small-scale structure of its agriculture are overcome.
In animal production, degressive national aids are paid on a per head basis in accordance with international agreements. It is not thought that in egg, broiler or pig production payment of these aids has lead to lower quality since the greater part of farmers’ revenue still comes from the prices obtained.
In the reform package of Agenda 2000 (1) no direct subsidies are envisaged in the three sectors mentioned.
3. The Commission has recently presented a proposal to the Council (2) which lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens in various systems of rearing, including cages. The proposal is presently under discussion in the Council and has been sent to the Parliament for an opinion.
The new requirements would, if adopted, apply to newly built or rebuilt systems from 1 January 1999 and from 1 January 2009 for all housing systems. This is a normal transition period. As a general rule under the new proposal hens should be housed in a system which allows nesting, dustbathing and perching. Member States may, however, authorise derogations from dustbathing and nesting in order to permit the use of battery cages, provided that the hens have a minimum area of 800 cm2 each.
4. The Commission does not have any information whether in Finland hens in battery cages receive sufficient food. The minimum standards in the present legislation concerning laying hens in battery cages have to be met independent of subsidies. The national authorities monitor compliance with the food requirements and react if there is any infringement.
(1) COM(97) 2000 final. (2) OJ C 123, 22.4.1998.
(1999/C 135/032) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2201/98
by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(14 July 1998)
Subject: Insurance of German cars in Sweden
Private individuals in Sweden who opt to import their cars directly rather than go through a Swedish dealer are discriminated against in that insurance companies raise their requirements to insure cars coming directly from Germany on the grounds that there is a higher risk of their being stolen. The requirements are an immobiliser, marked windows and an alarm, which increases the cost to the owner by some SEK(10)000. Employment created in Västerbotten by Reidars Bil, a firm importing cars from other EU countries on behalf of private buyers, is now under threat.
Is there any EC Directive which regulates these problems and what action will the Commission take in response to this incongruous situation? C 135/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(12 November 1998)
The Community Motor Insurance Directives provide for the introduction of a system of compulsory insurance against civil liability guaranteeing compensation for victims of road accidents. They make insurance against civil liability compulsory for motorists (1), define the extent of this protection by setting minimum protection thresholds (in ecus) that are applicable in every Member State and by specifying who is to be covered by those compulsory arrangements in respect of civil liability (2), and provide for complete coverage of the territory of the Community on the basis of a single premium (3). They do not, however, contain any provisions on comprehensive insurance, which includes anti-theft insurance, and harmonisation in this respect is not under consideration, for the time being at least. Firstly, Member States are not in favour of harmonisation and this would effectively prevent a directive on comprehensive insurance being adopted by the Council. Secondly, standardising all insurance products might be disadvantageous to the consumer, who currently enjoys a wide choice of products on the markets of the different Member States.
As regards the less favourable conditions applied to imported cars than to cars manufactured in Sweden, it should be pointed out that the rules of the Treaty on the prohibition of nationality-based discrimination and on free movement are, in principle, applicable to state measures and not to measures of private origin. The Court of Justice has accepted exceptions to this rule only in cases where restrictions of private origin result from measures of a private nature aimed at laying down on a collective basis the conditions for carrying on a professional activity (4). However, the individual behaviour of insurance companies in the context of their relations with their customers cannot be covered by this exception. The contractual link between insurer and insured creates private-law links which, in principle, fall within the scope of national law and may be the subject of appeals before the national courts.
In any event, the information provided by the Honourable Member is not sufficient to enable the Commission to establish whether or not the differential treatment which Swedish insurance companies may apply to cars imported from other Member States is discriminatory. For example, if the anti-theft equipment fitted to these cars does not correspond to that fitted to cars sold in Sweden − possibly because the conditions laid down for anti-theft insurance in other Member States are less stringent than in Sweden − Swedish insurance companies are entitled to require the owners of such vehicles to supplement this equipment with more efficient systems.
(1) Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ L 103, 2.5.1972). (2) Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ L 8, 11.1.1984). (3) Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ L 129, 19.5.1990). (4) Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECRI-4165; Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921.
(1999/C 135/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2209/98
by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Commission
(16 July 1998)
Subject: Infringement of European law by the Federal Republic of Germany, in particular through Article 60 of the Strassenverkehrszulassungsordnung (StVZO)
1. Does Article 60, paragraph 7 of the Strassenverkehrszulassungsordnung (StVZO) (Regulation on the entry into service of motor vehicles) infringe the legal provisions of the European Union on the type and composition of registration numbers and their supports? 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/31
Article 60, paragraph 7 prohibits the attachment to the supports of registration numbers of any type of device which could give rise to confusion with official registration numbers or which could impair the effect of these numbers.
2. If not, is the Commission planning a harmonization of the provisions on the supports for registration numbers in the foreseeable future?
3. Will the Commission also create the possibility of making use of additional advertising space on the supports, for which there is at present no legal provision in the Federal Republic of Germany?A certain amount of scope could create some 2 500 jobs in Germany.
4. What format might this specific provision on the advertising space have?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(1 October 1998)
The Commission considers that Article 60, paragraph 7, of the German StVZO does not conflict with the type approval requirements for the place and format of registration plates as laid down in Council Directive 70/222/EEC of 20 March 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the space for mounting and the fixing of rear registration plates on motor vehicles and their trailers (1).
The Commission does not intend to propose a change of the type approval legislation on this matter.
(1) OJ L 76, 6.4.1970.
(1999/C 135/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2210/98 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) to the Commission
(16 July 1998)
Subject: Use of support funds in Italy
Is it correct that in 1991, 1992 and 1993 European support funds were granted for the renovation of old farmhouses with the aim of creating holiday homes near to Umbertide in Umbria, Italy?
If so, is it correct that these European support funds for the renovation of the farmhouses or holiday homes amounted to about ITL 6 billion?
If so, is it correct that these houses were never rented and are now in exactly the same condition as before?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(28 September 1998)
The operational programme of the region of Umbria for the development of rural areas under Objective 5(b) for the period 1991-93 provides for, inter alia, the part-financing of investments aimed at renovating, for tourist purposes, buildings of particular cultural value which have deteriorated owing to their non- utilisation.
The implementation of the programme is the responsibility of the region of Umbria. According to the information provided by the region three projects of the above-mentioned type were part-financed in the commune of Umbertide under the Objective 5(b) programme during the period 1991-93 for a total public contribution of 379 million lire, 50 % of which was from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). C 135/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
The regional authority carried out, for the three projects, an on-the-spot check of the completion of the work and its correctness. The granting of aid was strictly conditional on the building being used for tourist activity for 10 years, under pain of financing being withdrawn. Within the framework of partnership, the Commission will invite the region of Umbria to check compliance with this condition.
(1999/C 135/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2211/98 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI)to the Commission
(16 July 1998)
Subject: Europartenariat
Europartenariat is a programme set up by the Commission in 1987 with the aim of stepping up cooperation between undertakings (SMUs). To this end a major event is held every six months, each time in a different European region. Alongside this event, at which meetings are arranged between companies and presentations made, a catalogue is published which is translated into five languages and distributed in 80 countries.
In connection with this event and the programme:
1. How is the venue for the events selected?
2. Which people and organizations are included in the ‘network of national counsellors’? Which organization is involved in Austria?
3. According to what criteria are companies selected to take part in this event?
4. According to what criteria are the counsellors selected who choose appropriate business partners abroad?
5. What sums are disbursed by the Commission for the preparation and implementation of this event?
6. What are the costs of the interpreting service which is made available?
7. What proportion of the costs is received by these counsellors in fees?
8. How many participants are involved in these events?
9. In which five languages is the catalogue of the event translated?
10. What is the size of the print-run and what is the cost of the catalogue distributed in more than 80 countries?
11. How are the desired positive effects of this event examined or assessed?
12. Is there a uniform evaluation procedure?
Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission
(23 October 1998)
1. The choice for a Member State is based on a request by the authorities of the Member State to the Commission.
2. The national counsellors are intermediary organisations of the different Member States themselves that have close links with the business community in their Member States (often chambers of commerce). For Austria, the Austrian federal economic chamber acts as national counsellor.
3. The minimum requirements from the Commission are that companies are small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) (according to the Commission’s definition (1)) that they must have proved to have been viable (at least three years in business) and that they must be capable of international co-operation. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/33
4. The choice of the national counsellors is − with regard to those active in the Community − in principle made by the main organiser itself, although former organisers and the Commission are consulted on this.
5. The budget for the organisation of a Europartenariat event is around ECU 3 million (one third of which is provided by the national or regional authorities concerned).
6. At a Europartenariat between 150 and 250 interpreters can be used. Costs for this item in recent events were around ECU 100 000.
7. The fees for the Community national counsellors take up approximately 15 to 20 % of the total budget.
8. The number of participating firms in a Europartenariat event is around 2000.
9. The five languages used for the catalogues are English, French, German, Italian and Spanish, plus the organising country’s language itself if necessary or desired.
10. The size of the print-run is ECU 65 000 - 80 000. The cost of the catalogues is around ECU 400 000 (costs include design, printing, and shipment).
11. The main organiser is requested to submit two evaluation reports to the Commission, one three months after the event, and one a year after the event. In addition, the national counsellors are required to write evaluation reports. The results of the latter are to be included in the reports of the main organiser to the Commission.
12. Yes, as described above. In addition, the Commission provides a main organiser with standard questionnaires to be used in interviewing companies (based on examples obtained via earlier events), and for standard formats of reporting by national counsellors.
(1) OJ L 107, 30.4.1996.
(1999/C 135/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2215/98 by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission
(16 July 1998)
Subject: Payments for intervention storage
What level of payments are made by the Commission to Member States for in situ intervention storage of cereals? In addition, what additional payments are made for handling cereals entering and leaving intervention stores?
What correlation is there between payments made in Member States and the rates set by the EU? Can the Commission publish the rates of payment made in Member States?
Does the Commission consider that different payments rates for storage across the EU distort competi- tion?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(8 September 1998)
The intervention storage costs of cereals are reimbursed to the Member States on the basis of standard amounts fixed from time to time by Commission decision. The standard amounts applicable for the 1998 financial year are ECU 1,76 per ton entry costs (1), ECU 1,71 per ton removal costs with tolerance (2) (ECU 1,98 per ton without tolerance) and ECU 1,11 per ton per month storage costs. C 135/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
The method of calculation of these standard amounts, which are applied across the Community, is laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) 1643/89 of 12 June 1989 defining the standard amounts to be used for financing material operations arising from the public storage of agricultural products (3) and is based on the weighted average of the real costs communicated by the four least expensive Member States, provided that those Member States hold at least 33 % of the quantities of the product in question. The Commission does not have a policy of publishing the real rates communicated to it for the purpose of this calculation.
Since the Commission pays a uniform rate throughout the Community, the suggestion that different payment rates for storage across the Community distort competition is not relevant. Although the real rates applicable from one Member State to another may vary, this is a reflection of the market conditions in each Member State.
(1) If no physical movement of product takes place, the standard amount is reduced by ECU 0,72 per ton. (2) Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) 3597/90 of 12 December 1990 on the accounting rules for intervention measures involving the buying-in, storage and sale of agricultural products by intervention agencies, OJ L 350, 14.12.1990. (3) OJ L 162, 13.6.1989.
(1999/C 135/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2219/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission
(16 July 1998)
Subject: Olive oil and blends
Why does the most recent reform of the common organization of the market in olive oil approved by the Council not include a ban on blends, even though their use is detrimental to the quality or designations of origin of olive oil and, moreover, the European Parliament had supported such a ban in its recommenda- tions?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Mixtures of olive oil and other vegetable oils do not qualify for protected designations of origin or protected geographical indications.
The Council and the Commission, in connection with the compromise of 25 June 1998, agreed to give particular priority to a detailed examination of quality strategy during the period preceding the definitive proposal for the reform of the common organisation of the market in olive oil. This includes the question of mixtures of olive oil and seed oils. This question requires an investigation of the various possible options, for which Member States put forward contradictory arguments, and has to be studied in connection with aspects relating to analyses and quality control.
(1999/C 135/038) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2220/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission
(16 July 1998)
Subject: Number of bovine animals eligible for premiums in Spain
In the Agenda 2000 forecasts and the proposals for regulations concerning the reform of the CAP, the Commission has determined that 649 896 bovine animals qualify for premiums in Spain. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/35
Has the Commission’s criterion been amended, or does it still intend to increase the current number of bovine animals eligible for premiums in Spain?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(25 September 1998)
The Commission does not at this stage intend to change its proposal on the reform of the beef and veal sector (1) as presented in March 1998. Moreover, the Commission has paid due regard to the Council’s request, as expressed during the compromise negotiations on the prices package and related measures for 1998/99, that a decision be taken under Agenda 2000 on the entitlements to beef and veal premiums in Spain and Portugal.
(1) OJ C 170, 4.6.1998.
(1999/C 135/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2231/98 by Magda Aelvoet (V) to the Commission
(16 July 1998)
Subject: Environmentally sound cotton production
European consumers are, quite rightly, increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of their textile products. To promote fair and environmentally sound world trade, they want to be sure about the clothes they wear. In industry too, there is a steadily growing awareness of this ethical dimension of production and trade. At present many problems still exist with regard to cotton growing. A more structured approach would be desirable, and the European Union could play a pioneering role in this regard.
1. Has the Commission taken any steps to promote the use and sale of cotton produced by environmentally sound methods?
2. Will the Commission introduce a special ecolabel for cotton products making it clear, inter alia, that no prohibited dyes have been used in their production and that the cotton has been grown in an environmentally sound manner (without using pesticides)?
3. Is consideration being given to granting special preferential treatment to products (e.g. textiles) produced by ecologically sound methods, as part of the WTO agreements on international trade?
4. Will the Commission consider further measures to support ecotextiles, e.g. research, special projects in conjunction with industry, pilot projects for ecocotton, etc.?
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(5 October 1998)
Within the framework of the Community eco-label award scheme, established by Council Regulation (EEC) 880/92 (1), criteria were adopted in May 1996 for bed-linen and T-shirts, made from cotton or blends of cotton and polyester.
The criteria limit the presence in cotton fibres of residues of certain environmentally harmful pesticide- active substances, and exempt organic cotton (that is produced in conformity with Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 (2) on organic production of agricultural products) from testing in this respect. The criteria address the key production processes to ensure a high level of environmental protection during the manufacture of the textile products, and exclude dyestuffs that are potentially carcinogenic. In addition, a series of tests are made on the eco-labelled product to ensure that it is fit for use. Work is being carried out to extend the eco-label to most other textile products and fibres. C 135/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
The debate in the World trade organization (WTO) committee on trade and environment has so far mainly focused on the relationship between environmental requirements, including measures pursuant to multilateral environmental agreements, and trade rules, as well as on the environmental benefits of removing trade restrictions and distortions. The establishment of special preferences for environmentally friendly products has not been specifically considered. The Commission would however support further workto examine ‘win-win’ situations of this nature which are a concrete example of how trade and environment can be mutually supportive of sustainable development.
Finally, the Commission co-finances a number of research projects which aim to develop cleaner textile production techniques.
(1) OJ L 99, 11.4.1992. (2) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.
(1999/C 135/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2246/98 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission
(16 July 1998)
Subject: Horse registration scheme
Given that in many parts of the European Union a sharp distinction is drawn between horses bred for meat and those used for recreation, has the Commission considered introducing a registration scheme whereby horses not destined for consumption could continue to be treated with medicines currently used to treat common ailments?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(21 September 1998)
Horses (and other domestic solipeds like donkeys and ponies) 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 of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat (1) have to be applied.
It has been suggested that because horses kept for sporting purposes do not enter the food chain, they should be excluded from the ‘residue 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) and 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). 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 countries where 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. 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. Indelible 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.
At present, the Commission is seeking a solution for the existing 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. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/37
(1999/C 135/041) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2266/98 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission
(13 July 1998)
Subject: Ban on exports of textile waste for recycling
Pursuant to Regulation (EEC) 259/93 (1) companies are forbidden from exporting hazardous waste materials to countries which are not members of the OECD. In December 1996 the scope of this regulation was extended to the export of waste materials for recycling. Secondhand textiles are an example of the exports which are now prohibited.
This causes major problems to companies which export these textiles for reuse or recycling.
What exactly are the reasons why the Commission considers that secondhand textiles are waste materials?
Is the Commission aware of the ESC opinion (10/95) which criticizes the total ban on the export of products for recycling, in view of the economic and ecological importance of recycling?
What effect does this ban have on employment opportunities both inside and outside the Union?
(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(7 October 1998)
The reasons for which secondhand textiles constitute waste materials are set out in the Commission’s answer to Written Question E-107/98 by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten (1).
The Commission’s amended proposal for a Council regulation establishing common rules and procedures to apply to shipments to certain non-OECD countries of certain types of waste (2) would apply a control procedure (prior informed consent) to exports of non-hazardous wastes on the basis of the precautionary principle, but would prohibit exports of non-hazardous waste for recovery to non-OECD countries that have indicated they do not wish to receive such imports.
The Commission is aware of the opinion of the Economic and social committee to which the Honourable Member refers and of the economic and ecological issues involved. It is for these reasons that the Commission has proposed a control procedure, rather than a total ban which would have its greatest impact on some of the world’s poorest countries with the most fragile economies. The Commission has however not made an assessment of the effects on employment.
(1) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 22. (2) COM(94) 678 final.
(1999/C 135/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2275/98 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council
(28 July 1998)
Subject: Criminal financial assets
What steps is the Council planning to take to utilise the unique opportunity available to identify criminal financial assets at the instant of the conversion from national currencies to the euro?
Are there plans to enlarge Europol’s remit to set up a financial unit to enable Europe-wide coordination and cooperation, particularly with regards to drug monies? C 135/38 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Reply
(16 November 1998)
Various Council working parties are currently examining the opportunities available to identify criminal financial assets at the instant of the conversion from national currencies to the euro, on the basis of suggestions by the Member States. The Austrian Presidency is at present preparing to take an initiative to ensure an adequate response to this problem by the adoption of provisions for the protection of the euro.
Europol is competent in respect of money laundering activities in connection with unlawful drug trafficking (Article 2(3) under 1 in conjunction with Article 2(2) Europol Convention). Moreover, within the framework of the implementation of the Action Plan against organised crime (1) (see Recommendation No 26), various initiatives are already under way to ensure that financial units set up in the Member States cooperate and coordinate in an appropriate manner. The Council has recently received the second report by the Commission on the implementation of the Directive on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering (2) and intends to take the necessary measures to follow up that report, inter alia to ensure that criminal assets are identified. Moreover, Council bodies are examining a proposal to extend Europol’s remit to cover action to combat the forgery of money (including the euro).
(1) OJ C 251, 15.8.1997. (2) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991.
(1999/C 135/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2278/98
by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission
(22 July 1998)
Subject: Waste returned to product producers and sellers
Would the Commission advise me of any European legislation or recommendations which require or encourage consumers to return waste from products they have purchased to the producers or sellers of those products?
I am aware, for example, that certain companies producing ink cartridges for printers and fax machines enable consumers to return the cartridges free of charge for the purposes of recycling. Is the Commission involved in any such schemes for this or other types of waste (packaging), or in encouraging the same?
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(16 September 1998)
Producer responsibility schemes exist in certain Member States for a number of waste streams, such as packaging waste in Germany, end of life electrical and electronic equipment in the Netherlands. In view of the environmental and economic advantages linked to producer responsibility this principle was introduced at Community level by the Community strategy for waste management (1). This was endorsed by the Parliament in its Resolution of 14 November 1996 on the Community strategy for waste management.
To make the principle of producer responsibility work, the consumer has an important role to play. It is up to him to make the wastes available to the producer. Accordingly, the concept of the Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (2) implies the participation of the consumer. This is also true for the Commission proposal for a directive on end of life vehicles (3). 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/39
As for the sector explicitly mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission work programme for 1998 foresees the adoption of a Commission initiative on waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Information technology (IT) equipment, including fax machines, would be part of the scope of such a measure, as well as various kinds of consumables, such as cartridges. This legislation should allow consumers to return such equipment and components free of charge for the purposes of recycling.
(1) COM(96) 399 final. (2) OJ L 365, 21.12.1994. (3) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997.
(1999/C 135/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2296/98
by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission
(22 July 1998)
Subject: Compliance with the Euratom Directive
Article 6 of the Euratom Directive requires that no practice involving exposures to radiation should be adopted unless it produces sufficient benefit to the exposed individuals or to society to offset the radiation detriment it causes.
In the legal judgment in the case of R v. HMIP & Others ex parte Greenpeace Ltd & Lancashire County Council (1994) Mr Justice Potts ruled that Ministers had erred in law in concluding that justification of the authorisation (to discharge radioactivity) was not needed and that there was a legal obligation to justify the grant of authorisations.
However, since then, the THORP reprocessing plant has consistently failed to keep any of the goals on which this judgment was reached. On this basis, what action does the Commission intend to take against Britain to ensure compliance with the Directive?
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(2 October 1998)
The new basic safety standards Directive 96/29/Euratom (1) does not differ in effect from the previous Directive (Directive 80/836/Euratom (2) as revised by Directive 84/467/Euratom (3)) on the principle of justification, which principle applies to types classes or categories of practice. Determination of the justification of any new classes or types of practices is the duty of the Member State. It should take place before the introduction of the class or type of practice and as early as possible to reduce the influence of the already incurred costs in balancing economic and social factors against health detriment. The communication (4) from the Commission concerning the implementation of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom states that ‘Compliance with this principle can be safely assumed in respect of a new class or type of practice by the existence or laying down of regulations specifically concerning the class or type of practice’. However the newly introduced proviso of Article 6 (2) of that Directive reflects that there might be a need to review the justification of existing classes or types of practices.
When transposing the new basic safety standards before 13 May 2000 as required by the Directive the United Kingdom will communicate its draft legislation according to the Article 33 procedure of the Euratom Treaty. The Commission will make appropriate recommendations on the provisions related to the principle of justification with a view to harmonising the provisions applicable in the Member States.
(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996. (2) OJ L 246, 17.9.1980. (3) OJ L 265, 5.10.1984. (4) OJ C 133, 30.4.1998. C 135/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2304/98 by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission
(22 July 1998)
Subject: Mutual recognition of driving licences by Member States
The many German citizens who have chosen to take up residence in this frontier region bordering on Germany have to complete a large number of administrative formalities; for example, their German driving licences have to be exchanged for French ones. One German national living in France who produced his German driving licence after being stopped for a police inspection in France in 1997 was fined.
There is a European directive on the mutual recognition of driving licences. Could the Commission report on the progress made in incorporating it into national law, particularly in France and Germany?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(22 September 1998)
Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (1) came into effect on 1 July 1996. Article 1.2 introduces the principle of mutual recognition of driving licences issued by Member States.
Given the fact that several Member States did not transpose Directive 91/439/EEC on time, the Commission opened infringement proceedings against them, including Germany and France. The German authorities notified the Commission on 2 June 1998 of the transposition of Directive 91/439/EEC into national law, which will enter into force on 1 January 1999. The French authorities notified the Commission on 18 March1998 of a draft decree to transpose Directive 91/439/EEC. Thisdraft decree is expected to enter into force on 1 January 1999.
However, all Member States have respected the principle of mutual recognition since 1 July 1996, even in the absence of formal transposition. In cases that have arisen to date, the central French and German authorities have taken action to ensure the application of this principle, even retrospectively, when local authorities that were not aware of Community law were infringing this principle.
The Commission will follow up all cases brought to its attention by Union citizens and will take the necessary steps to ensure the principle of mutual recognition is applied in practice.
(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
(1999/C 135/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2306/98 by Helwin Peter (PSE), Hiltrud Breyer (V) and Doris Pack (PPE) to the Commission
(22 July 1998)
Subject: Marriage, family, parentage and divorce law in the EU Member States
1. The number of marriages between partners from different EU countries is increasing. All Member States have different marriage and family laws which have not yet been mutually recognized and which considerably inhibit the freedom of movement of EU citizens. In Germany a marriage is not possible, for example, unless a certificate of descent is presented. A Frenchbride can, however,only obtain a certificate of origin in her home country. There is no EU provision which recognizes this document as equivalent and as a result an enormous amount of bureaucracy must be dealt with. How has the Commission sought to 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/41
deal with the problem of non-uniform marriage and family legislation up to now? What results have been achieved?
2. The divorces of two EU citizens are also not recognized by other Member States. A German-Italian couple divorced in German is not automatically considered to be divorced in Italy. Children of a couple irrevocably bear the name of the father, which can cause problems if the child lives with the mother and the mother uses her maiden name, i.e. a different name from that of the child. What possibilities does the Commission see to achieve mutual recognition of the differing legal situations in the Member States?
3. Registrars often lack knowledge about the legal situation in another Member State. European registrars have pointed out the great need for expertise in this field. To what extent does the Commission consider that the drawing up of an EU information brochure and the introduction of specific further training possibilities would be useful? Is the Commission prepared to provide financial support for such options?
Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission
(8 October 1998)
1. The Commission has not taken any initiative with regard to substantive law applicable to marriage and the family. With the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, the Commission will be able to take any action which might be required on the matter.
2. With regard to the recognition of divorces granted in another Member State, the Council (Justice and Home Affairs) recently adopted a Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters (Brussels II Convention). This Convention, which must still be ratified by the Member States, provides that a decision granting a divorce in one Member State can be recorded in the civil-status records of another Member State without the need to follow any procedure. This Convention does not include any provision with regard to whether the children should bear the father’s or the mother’s name. This matter is governed by the private international law of the trial court.
3. It is for the Member States to ensure that registrars are supplied with the appropriate information. Nevertheless the Commission would recall that under the Grotius programme it can provide financial assistance for projects submitted to it by law professionals with a view to improving their knowledge of the legal and judicial culture of other Member States.
(1999/C 135/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2311/98
by Monica Baldi (PPE) to the Commission
(22 July 1998)
Subject: Schengen Agreement and airport safety
In view of the Schengen Agreement and the abolition of systematic customs checks within the Single Market, how does the Commission consider that an adequate level of safety for citizens at airports can be ensured, especially with reduced staffing levels and high volumes of traffic, as at Florence airport?
Can the Commission check or take steps to ensure that the applicable safety regulations are being complied with? C 135/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(23 October 1998)
The Commission has always taken the view that the abolition of controls on persons and goods at internal frontiers as provided for by Article 7a of the EC Treaty concerns only the elimination of frontier controls, in other words controls which are carried out in connection with or on the occasion of the crossing of an internal frontier. On the other hand, checks carried out by Member States or by carriers during embarkation on aircraft or ships with a view to ensuring the safety and security of individuals and property during transport should not be affected by the creation of an area without internal frontiers. Such checks are carried out at airports regardless of whether the flight is domestic, intra-Community or international.
Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) 3925/91 of 19 December 1991 concerning the elimination of controls and formalities applicable to the cabin and hold baggage of persons taking an intra-Community flight and the baggage of persons making an intra-Community sea crossing (1) thus provides that ‘this Regulation shall apply without prejudice to the safety and security checks carried out on baggage by the authorities of the Member States, port or airport authorities or carriers’. In its proposal for a Council Directive on the elimination of controls on persons crossing internal frontiers (2), the Commission has followed the same approach.
The Commission does not have any evidence suggesting that the creation of a frontier-free area has led to lower standards of safety and security in air or sea transport.
(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1991. (2) OJ C 289, 31.10.1995.
(1999/C 135/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2326/98 by Franz Linser (NI) to the Commission
(22 July 1998)
Subject: Brenner toll 1
The Austrian Federal Government plans to submit to the Commission two compromise proposals on toll charges for the Brenner motorway which are intended to persuade the Commission to withdraw the complaint against Austria in the European Court of Justice.
1. Is Variant 1, which provides that for each lorry journey on the Lower Inn Valley motorway a toll of ATS150 is to be levied, with this sum then being deducted from the current Brenner toll, suitable to persuade the Commission to withdraw its complaint against Austria?
2. Is Variant 2, under which the current Brenner toll will be reduced by ATS80 to ATS1070 suitable to persuade the Commission to withdraw its complaint against Austria?
(1999/C 135/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2327/98 by Franz Linser (NI) to the Commission
(22 July 1998)
Subject: Brenner toll 2
The Commission has brought a complaint in the European Court of Justice for infringement of the road pricing directive because of tolls imposed on the Brenner motorway. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/43
1. On what legal basis has this complaint been made?
2. Is there a possibility that the Commission will withdraw the complaint?
3. If so, what conditions would Austria have to meet for the Commission to withdraw its complaint?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2326/98 and E-2327/98 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(1 October 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question No 1764/98 by Mr. Konrad (1).
If the Commission finds that Austria has taken measures to put an end to the infringement of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures (2), it could consider discontinuing the proceedings against Austria. This possibility remains, however, at the discretion of the Commission which will at all times work on the basis of the facts relevant to the case.
The Commission noted with interest the two latest Austrian proposals on restructuring of the Brenner tolls which aim to achieve progress in the Council discussions about the revision of Directive 93/89/EEC. These latest Austrian proposals have not been submitted within the framework of the Brenner case pending before the Court.
(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 80. (2) OJ L 279, 12.11.1993.
(1999/C 135/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2334/98
by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Payments from the Structural Funds by region in Ireland
Can the Commission provide figures giving details of payments from the Structural Funds by region in Ireland over the last three years and is the Commission convinced that, given the economic differences between the regions in Ireland, a reasonable share-out has taken place?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(10 September 1998)
It should be recalled that Ireland is considered to be a single region for the purposes of cohesion policy. There is a single Community support framework administered at central government level. However, the Commission has in recent years encouraged more regional involvement in the disbursement of the structural funds in Ireland. This is evidenced by the establishment, in 1994, of the eight regional authorities. Arising from this development, regional statistics are being refined and additional statistics developed to better assess the level of development of the eight regions. One useful statistic emerging from this process is the level of structural funds spending in the individual regions. Reliable statistical data for 1994 and 1995 are now available and are reproduced below. C 135/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Table of total expenditure (including national matching funds) (million IR£)
Expenditure 1994 Expenditure 1995 Border 122,49 188,51 West 117,08 171,26 Mid-West 93,50 117,05 South-West 127,19 197,37 South-East 90,48 118,01 Midlands 57,27 82,08 Mid-East 84,56 90,09 Dublin 248,17 292,34 TOTAL 940,73 1256,70
The forecast regional spread of expenditure over the whole of the current 1994-1999 structural funds programming period is shown below.
Table of expenditure by region (1994-1999)
Expenditure Per capita % Share Population (mio IR£) (IR£) Border 1 325,91 15,31 406 444 3 262,22 West 1 050,88 12,14 351 874 2 986,52 Mid-West 847,92 9,79 316 875 2 675,88 South-West 1 256,68 14,51 546 209 2 300,73 South-East 853,77 9,86 391 046 2 183,30 Midlands 632,24 7,30 205 252 3 080,31 Mid-East 540,32 6,24 346 669 1 558,60 Dublin 2 150,78 24,84 1 056 666 2 035,44 TOTAL 8 658,50 100,00 3 621 035 2 391,17
The Commission considers that this regional allocation is reasonable, taking account inter alia of the fact that transport and telecommunications infrastructure improvements in one region also bring benefits to other regions. Account should also be taken of the interventions of the cohesion fund.
(1999/C 135/051) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2352/98
by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Safety of agricultural vehicles
Following a tragic accident in the West Flanders commune of Kortrijk-Heule in which a cyclist was run over by a trailer being pulled by a tractor, I would like to ask the Commission the following questions:
Although the tractor was equipped as required by the regulations with a number of rear-view mirrors, the cyclist was not visible to the driver. According to experts, blind spots such as this can only be avoided if there is a second person on board the tractor or if structural adjustments are made in the form of the addition of an opening at the bottom of the door to provide greater visibility.
Have studies already been carried out to determine whether it would be feasible to require such structural adjustments to be made and have any steps been taken on this matter? 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/45
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(24 September 1998)
The Commission is very anxious to inform the Honourable Member that it also deplores the tragic accident in the Kortrijk/Heule district that caused the death of a cyclist who had been run over by a trailer being pulled by a farm tractor.
The Honourable Member must realise that the Commission is highly attentive to the problems raised by the various aspects of safety.
In order to avoid that type of accident the Commission felt it necessary to amend Council Directive 74/346/EEC (1) on rear-view mirrors fitted to agricultural or forestry tractors. Those amendments were adopted on 8 June 1998 (Directive 90/40/EC) (2) and take account of the range of rear-view mirrors still used and of the conditions under which these are adjusted by the driver. These changes thus meet the wish expressed by the Honourable Member as regards improvements to the lateral field of vision from tractors.
However, the Commission must confirm that the conditions under which these devices are used are equally decisive. Indeed, rear-view mirrors that have been component type approved and fitted in accordance with Community requirements and must be correctly adjusted by the driver of the vehicle if its field of view is to cover all situations and does not include any blind spot, account here being taken of any implements attached to the tractor and of its trailer loading.
(1) OJ L 191, 15.7.1974. (2) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.
(1999/C 135/052) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2357/98 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council
(28 July 1998)
Subject: Presidential elections in Togo
Following the visit to Togo by observers from the EU, the EU Presidency expressed deep concern 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 Council taking to ensure democracy in Togo?
Reply
(7/8 December 1998)
The report of EU observers to the Presidential elections in Togo on 21 June 1998 identified serious flaws and questioned their validity. The Togolese opposition maintains that its candidate, Mr Gilchrist Olympio, won the elections and has refused to accept the legitimacy of President Eyadema after the expiry of his previous mandate on 25 August 1998.
As the Honourable Member is aware, the EU Council is endeavouring to promote democracy in Togo. The EU expressed its disappointment at the way the elections had been conducted in a declaration on 26 June 1998. As a further mark of EU dissatisfaction with the fashion in which the elections had been held, EU Ambassadors were instructed not to attend the inauguration ceremony of President Eyadema on 26 July.
The Council on 13 July 1998 approved the text of a letter to the Government of Togo requesting consultations with the Togolese Government on the basis of Article 366a of the revised Lomé IV Convention. The consultations were held in Brussels on 30 July. The Togolese delegation was led by Prime Minister, Mr Kwassi Klutse. The explanations offered by Togo differed considerably from the assessments of the EU observers’ mission. The EU has decided to consider them in detail. It will take a C135/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
decision in the light of these considerations and of the evolution of the democratic process in Togo on whether to pursue these consultations. Since 1993, EU development cooperation with Togo has been partially suspended.
In the meantime the Council will continue to follow closely the political situation and do everything in its power to encourage the development of democracy in Togo.
(1999/C135/053) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2367/98
by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Foreign prisoners held in French jails under Article 752
In France, convicted drug-traffickers must pay the street value of the drugs in their possession or, if the fine is over FF 500 000, must serve up to another two years in addition to their basic sentence. During that time, foreign nationals are eligible neither for transfer to their home country nor for parole.
Would the Commission support proposals to allow prisoners from the EU to serve these last two years of their sentence in the Member State of origin?
Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission
(16 September 1998)
Arrangements for the transfer of sentenced persons between the Member States are primarily governed by the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons of 21 March 1983.
The transfer of a person under this convention is subject to a number of conditions including the consent of the person concerned and the agreement of the sentencing state and the state to which the person is to be transferred. In accordance with the Convention the person concerned must be informed about the Convention by the sentencing state and may make known to either stated his interest in being transferred. It is possible for either state to apply for the transfer to take place.
Within the Union judicial co-operation is a matter of common interest in accordance with Title VI of the Treaty on the European Union. According to these provisions as they currently stand, the Commission is not in a position to take action in this field, but such an initiative must come from the Member States.
(1999/C135/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2368/98
by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Reform of the FIFG and assistance for joint ventures
The restructuring of the fisheries sector through the setting-up of joint ventures under the current FIFG has proved highly effective in terms of job- and wealth-creation in the European Union. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C135/47
In Spain there are 164 vessels belonging to joint ventures, which directly provide a total of 1912 jobs. Furthermore, 93,5 % of these jobs are concentrated in Objective 1 regions (Galicia and Andalusia), which demonstrates the contribution made to economic and social cohesion in the Community. Of the 498 000 tonnes of fresh and frozen fish entering the Spanish port of Vigo (the world’s major port in this respect) in 1997, 30 % (150 000) came from joint ventures. Likewise, 50 % of Spain’s annual imports of frozen fish come from joint ventures (250 000 tonnes).
If we have experienced all these beneficial effects in Spain, it is to be expected that other Member States have benefited in a similar way. This is an extremely effective structural measure whose continuity should be guaranteed in the new programming framework for the period 2000-2006.
It is therefore astonishing that the proposal for legislation to implement Agenda 2000 submitted by the Commission on 18 March 1998 (COM(98) 131 final) contains a draft regulation on structural measures in the fisheries sector (1) which makes no reference to joint ventures or any other measure, producing a situation of total uncertainty. It should be borne in mind that the above proposal for a regulation repeals and replaces the regulation currently in force, Council Regulation (EEC) 2080/93 (2) of 20 July 1993, Articles 2 and 3 of which list all the structural measures which may be applied to the fisheries sector, including joint ventures.
Can the Commission say whether joint ventures will continue to figure among the structural measures financed by the FIFG in the period 2000-2006?
If not, can the Commission state the reasons on which the proposal to abolish such funding is based?
Finally, how does the Commission explain the fact that a proposal for a regulation on structural measures in the fisheries sector makes no reference to any structural measure in the fisheries sector?
(1) OJ C176, 9.6.1998, p. 44. (2) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission
(18 September 1998)
The Commission has taken careful note of the information provided by the Honourable Member with regard to the importance of joint ventures in the Spanish fisheries sector.
With regard to form, it should be pointed out that the 1998 proposals for legislation on structural measures in the fisheries sector are to be adopted in two separate phases, as in 1993: first, a basic regulation representing the ‘structural package’ and establishing a link between economic and social cohesion policy and structural measures in the fisheries sector, and second an implementing regulation, based on Article 43 of the Treaty which is the legal base of the common fisheries policy, specifying the exact scope of structural measures in the fisheries sector.
This procedure was set out in the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the proposal for a Regulation on structural measures in the fisheries sector (1) (first phase).
With regard to substance, the Commission will adopt the proposal for an implementing regulation, on which Parliament will be called to give an opinion, in good time (second phase).
(1) OJ C176, 9.6.1998. C 135/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2381/98 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Failure to clarify conditions applicable to cabotage
Is the Commission aware that since the introduction of limited cabotage,an inventory of the conditions subject to which cabotage may be authorised has been made only once?
Does the Commission further realise that new countries have since acceded to the Union and that no general review of the relevant conditions has ever been provided for those countries?
Has Commission any plans to draw up and publish a comprehensive review outlining the relevant conditions? If so,when? If not,why not?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(6 October 1998)
Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) 3118/93 of 25 October 1993 laying down the conditions under which non- resident carriers may operate national road haulage services within a Member State (1) states that (save as provided in Community regulations) regulations and administrative provisions in force in the ‘host’ Member State apply in five areas that are enumerated in the Regulation. These five areas are rates and conditions governing the transport contract,weights and dimensions of road vehicles,requirements relating to the carriage of certain categories of goods,driving and rest time,and value added tax (VAT) on transport services.
The Commission is aware that a number of national organisations produce,for their own members, extensive inventories of national rules in other countries. For example,an inventory produced by Transport en Logistiek Nederland covers 49 countries in its 1998 edition.
It would not be appropriate for the Commission to create and update a manual of the national legislation applicable in all these areas,but it may be useful for an international organisation of road hauliers to coordinate such work so as to avoid duplication.
(1) OJ L 279,12.11.1993.
(1999/C 135/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2396/98 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Radiation leak in Algeciras (Spain)
In June 1998 it emerged that there had been a radiation leak at the Acerinox plant in Algeciras,in the Spanish province of Cadiz. The Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (Nuclear Safety Council) was told that a caesium 137 isotope with a half-life of 30 years which can penetrate the muscular system had become volatile during the smelting of scrap metal in which the radioactive substance was lodged. The contaminated scrap metal was placed in the plant’s smelting furnace and radioactivity passed into the atmosphere and the slag,causing a radiation leak which may well have been responsible for the high levels of caesium 137 recorded in France,Switzerland,Germany and Italy between 25 May and 2 June 1998.
Traces of caesium 137 had also been found at two waste treatment plants to which the steelworks had been sending its waste to be fully detoxified. Both plants have since been shut down and sealed off,and its staff denied access to contaminated areas. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/49
Bearing in mind that Acerinox was fined in October 1997 for failing to report the arrival of a lorry carrying radioactive scrap metal at its plant,and in the light of suspicions that Spain has breached the international protocol on nuclear accidents by not providing immediate notification of the leak:
1. Does the Commission intend to adopt the measures required to compile and check data,and if need be adopt the necessary legal measures?
2. What measures will the Commission take to put a stop to radioactive contamination caused by caesium 137?
3. Can the Commission look into whether the basic standards for health protection within the EU have been met,in keeping with Article 30 of the Euratom Treaty and Council Directives 80/836/ Euratom (1) and 84/467/Euratom (2) amending the Directives laying down the basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionising radiation?
4. Can the Commission say how it is monitoring the situation?
(1) OJ L 246,17.9.1980,p. 1. (2) OJ L 265,5.10.1984,p. 4.
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(21 September 1998)
At the end of May 1998,and the beginning of June a temporary but significant increase of Caesium-137 concentrations in air was detected in Italy,South-East France,and in Switzerland. The Commission progressively assembled the information from those concerned. This phenomenon was notified,as a precautionary measure,through the Community and International atomic energy agency communications systems to their respective national contact points on 11 June 1998,although the measured levels did not represent any threat to public health. The two systems forwarded subsequent complementary information as it was received. No Community Member State nor the Commission was in fact bound to issue a notification as no ‘measures of a wide-spread nature to protect the general public’ had been implemented, which is the criterion set out in Article 1 of Council Decision 87/600/Euratom (1) on Community arrangements for the early exchange of information in the event of a radiological emergency.
The Commission has been in regular contact with the Spanish authorities since the release of contamina- tion from the Acerinox plant was first notified. In July the Commission received a copy of an interim report of the Consejo de seguridad nuclear (CSN) to the Spanish Parliament. A full report elaborated by the CSN was received in mid-August and the content is currently being carefully analysed. There is no evidence that the Community basic safety standards for the protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation have been infringed. For the workers involved in the incident,the Spanish authorities have estimated a maximum dose corresponding to 8 % of the annual limit relevant for the general public.
The levels of contamination in the environment do not represent any threat to public health and therefore no countermeasures have been implemented. The cleaning and decontamination of the treatment plants to which the steelworks had been sending its waste were expected to be completed before the month of September.
Following a request by the Parliament’s environment committee,detailed information was transmitted to its chairman on 4 August 1998. As stated in that context,reflection is underway within the Commission on possible initiatives to prevent such events from occurring in future.
(1) OJ L 371,30.12.1987. C 135/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2401/98 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Compulsory use of winter tyres in Finland and road safety
In Finland it is compulsory to use winter tyres, and accordingly every vehicle registered in Finland must during the winter months use either studded tyres or non-studded friction tyres for winter driving. However, Finland has no right to prevent vehicles arriving in Finland without winter tyres during the period when these are compulsory if they are registered in a country other than Finland. However Germany, for example, is allowed to prevent a Finnish-registered car from entering Germany with studded tyres.
Should not such prohibitions and freedoms be applied uniformly throughout the EU, applying to all countries? Each country should have the right to enact road safety provisions and to insist that all EU nationals travelling on its territory comply with those provisions. How does the Commission justify the current discrimination between the Member States?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(6 October 1998)
The compulsory use of winter tyres in Finland for safety reasons under specific climatic conditions is a matter of national competence. It is imposed, as the Honourable Member says, on all road users, regardless of the Member State of registration of the motor vehicle and does not, therefore, constitute a case of discrimination. In this context it should be mentioned that in some areas in other Member States there are requirements for all motor vehicles to use snow chains for safety reasons.
Forbidding winter tyres with studs on roads also falls under the competence of the national authority responsible for the roads. The reason for this prohibition is the excessive wear of roads caused by such tyres.
(1999/C 135/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2402/98 by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Council
(28 July 1998)
Subject: Financial transactions carried out by Mr Karadzic
According to a report which appeared in the Banja Luka weekly Nezavisne Novine and which was taken up by the Corriere della Sera of 22 June 1998, DM 17 million (the equivalent of Lire 17 billion) were transferred in 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.
− what information can the Council 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 Council 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? 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/51
− what action does the Council 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?
Reply
(14 December 1998)
The Council thanks the Honourable Member for having drawn its attention to this matter. The Council regrets that, due to the nature of the question, it cannot provide the information requested. But the Council has handed over the text of the Honourable Member’s question to the authorities of Italy and Liechtenstein who are looking into the questions raised.
As concerns the strengthening of the European institutions’ cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, the Council would like to point out that cooperation with ICTY is first and foremost the responsibility of individual member States. Nevertheless, the Council has always put its political support behind the work of ICTYand has made cooperation with the tribunal an important aspect for assessing compliance by the successor states of former Yugoslavia with the Dayton Peace Accords.
(1999/C 135/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2405/98 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council
(28 July 1998)
Subject: Plans to halve Britain’s nuclear strength
1. Has the Council noted the British Government’s plans to halve the nuclear strength of its armed forces?
2. Does the Council not consider it necessary for the British Government to discuss such sweeping measures with its NATO and EU partners before taking a decision?
3. Is the Council prepared to request the British Government to proceed to a reduction in the number of its nuclear warheads only when the following conditions are satisfied:
a) The coherence of the strike power of European defence is not undermined by the reduction in the number of British warheads, at the very time when many EU Member States are cutting back on defence;
b) Russia has ratified the START Treaty;
c) India and Pakistan sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Reply
(16 November 1998)
As the Honourable Member is certainly aware, national measures pertaining to defence are not discussed in the Council.
(1999/C 135/060) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2410/98 by Guido Podestà (PPE) to the Commission
(17 July 1998)
Subject: Trans-European transport networks: opening of Malpensa airport
The appeals made by a number of European airlines about the transfer of air traffic from Linate to Malpensa could imply that there is a prejudice against the Lombard airport despite the fact that it forms C 135/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
part of the 14 priority projects, that it will soon be opened and that its situation in Europe makes it of strategic importance in North/South routes also in the light of the recent agreement between Alitalia and KLM. Given that so far there have been no additional delays in completing the infrastructures for the new airport, does the Commission not think that:
1. the problems raised by some European airlines could constructively be resolved by gradually transferring air traffic from Linate to Malpensa without prejudice to the fact that Malpensa should soon become a real European hub, as determined by the European Council in Essen?
2. the transfer of air traffic from Linate to Malpensa will be beneficial for all European airlines since Linate is at saturation point and no longer able to satisfy demand?
3. a number of statements about Alitalia’s monopoly on the Linate-Fiumicino route are completely unjustified since, as from 25 October 1998, Alitalia will operate 492 flights a week between Rome and Milan and 4 other companies will be able to offer a good 672?
4. any move it makes substantially to change the position it has so far maintained as regards the transfer of air traffic from Linate to Malpensa with the exception of the Milan-Rome route would come rather late and thus be detrimental to free competition between airlines?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(1 October 1998)
The Commission fully supports the substantial transfer of traffic from Linate airport to Malpensa, not least because it is necessary in order to ensure the success of the Malpensa hub.
Any transfer must, however, be in compliance with Community law, in particular the principles of non- discrimination and proportionality in relation to the stated objective. The creation of the Malpensa hub will allow for the resolution of congestion problems that currently affect Linate airport (which handled 14 million passengers in 1997 against an optimal capacity limited to 8 million). The Malpensa hub will also provide users in Milan and the neighbouring areas with air services that are better suited to demand, especially through the development of direct intercontinental routes.
The transfer of traffic from Linate to Malpensa will have positive consequences for air carriers since they will benefit from modern airport infrastructure that is capable of dealing with the envisaged traffic growth over the coming years. However, to achieve this Malpensa must have land transport infrastructure that will provide adequate access. That infrastructure is not yet in place. This led the Commission to adopt a decision declaring the traffic distribution rules incompatible with Community law on 16 September.
The Commission has not received any complaint relating to conduct by Alitalia in contravention of competition rules on the Milan-Rome route (abuse of dominant position). While Alitalia obviously has a strong position on the Milan-Rome route because of its high market share and connections on either side, this falls short of a monopoly because the route is open to all Community carriers by virtue of the principles set out in Council Regulation (EEC) 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (1). Several are currently operating in competition with Alitalia.
While the Italian authorities have informed the Commission of the criteria relating to these rules, the Commission was not informed of the date envisaged for the application of these rules (25 October 1998) until the day following the adoption of the decree that fixed this date. Consequently, the Commission could not take a position at an earlier opportunity.
Moreover, it is important to emphasise that the Commission contacted the Italian authorities very shortly after it received the first complaints i.e. in early March 1998.
(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/53
(1999/C 135/061) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2413/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE)to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Taxation on passenger vehicles imported into Greece
With a view to harmonizing the provisions governing tax exemptions on the definitive import of personal goods granted to various categories of person who transfer their normal place of residence from a non-EU country, the Republic of Greece has incorporated into its national law the provisions of Directive 83/181 (1) and Regulation 918/83 (2).
Through Article 6, Paragraph 13, of Law No 2459/97 the Greek Republic abolished as from 1 January 1997 the tax exemption on the import of motor vehicles − alone among personal effects − but only for Greek civil servants, even if the motor vehicle purchased by them had been registered and driven in a non- EU country, according to the general conditions of taxation obtaining therein (including the provisions set out in international conventions and agreements).
Will the Commission say:
1. Have the provisions of Directive 83/181 and Regulation 918/83 remained in force after 1 January 1993?
2. If so, does Greece have the right to exclude from the scope of this legislation Greek civil servants who, at their request have worked and or are working in a non-EU country, having transferred all their personal and professional activities there for a period of at least 185 days per calendar year?
(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 38. (2) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(27 October 1998)
1. Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another and Council Regulation (EEC) 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty are still in force as regards the subject raised by the Honourable Member.
2. As to whether or not Greece has the right under this legislation to stop officials from its administration who have worked or are working in a non-EU country from benefiting from relief in cases in which they have transferred all their personal and professional activities to that non-EU country for at least 185 days per calendar year, this depends essentially on whether the officials concerned have transferred their normal place of residence to that country. If they have done so, and subsequently transfer it back to Greece, they have the right to the tax exemptions and customs duty relief provided for in the legislation cited in paragraph 1. On the other hand, if they are considered to be on mission in the non-EU country concerned, their normal place of residence continues to be in Greece during the period of their mission, and they do not therefore have the right to customs duty relief under Community law.
The significance of the ‘normal place of residence’ is set out in Article 7 of Directive 83/182/EEC (1) and (in identical terms) in Article 6 of Directive 83/183/EEC, as interpreted by the Court of Justice. We would refer the Honourable Member to the answers given by the Commission to Written Question E-183/98 (2) and Mr Sjöstedt’s oral question H-177/98, put during question time at the March II 1998 part-session of Parliament (3).
The upshot of Court of Justice interpretation is that ‘normal place of residence’ is determined by a number of legal and factual factors, and that the question of whether there has been a transfer of normal place of residence in one direction or the other should therefore be judged on a case-by-case basis.
(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983. (2) OJ C 323, 23.10.1998. (3) Debates of the European Parliament (March II 1998). C 135/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2416/98
by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission
(27 July 1998)
Subject: Damage to agriculture caused by heatwave in Crete
At the beginning of July Crete experienced an unprecedented heatwave (the temperature exceeded 40 degrees) which greatly damaged viticulture (especially in the prefecture of Irakleion) and stock- breeding. In particular, production of table grapes over a very large area and hundreds of hectares of sultana vineyards were destroyed. As far as stockbreeding is concerned, the heatwave mainly affected poultry, pigs, domestic animals and apiculture. Will the Commission say whether it considers that there is any scope for granting aid to the stricken agricultural sectors in Crete?
(1999/C 135/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2595/98
by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Disastrous effects on agriculture caused by heat wave in Crete
At the beginning of July, Crete was hit by an unprecedented heat wave (with temperatures over 40 degrees) which wrought havoc among vineyards (especially in the Heraklion region) and stockfarming. In particular, table grape vines over a huge area and hundreds of hectares of sultana production were destroyed. As regards livestock, the heat wave mainly affected poultry, piglets and domestic animals as well as bee-keeping. In view of this situation, does the Commission consider it possible to grant assistance to the Cretan farmers affected by this disaster?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2416/98 and E-2595/98 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(8 October 1998)
The second subparagraph of Article 2(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) 411/97 of 3 March 1997 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 2200/96 as regards operational programmes, operational funds and Community financial assistance (1) allows fruit and vegetable producer organisations, in the event of a natural disaster, to use a theoretical value of marketed production based on the average yield during the three preceding years for calculating Community financial assistance to the operational fund. The Commission proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) 20/98 of 7 January 1998 laying down rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 2200/96 as regards aid to producer organisations granted preliminary recognition (2) contains a similar provision.
The Community legislation currently in force provides for two ways in which, at the Member State’s instigation, a programme can be launched to help wine-growers replant drought- and heatwave-damaged vineyards. The first possibility is investment aid in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) 2741/89 of 11 September 1989 laying down criteria to apply under Article 14 of Council Regulation (EEC) 822/87 on national aid for the planting of wine-growing areas (3) (such aid must be notified in advance to the Commission in compliance with Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty); the second possibility is aid to restore production potential through investment in replanting heatwave-damaged vines, funded jointly by the Community under the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (such aid must fall within Greece’s financial allocation for the current programming period (1994-99) and comply with the relevant procedure laid down in the Objective 1 Community support framework (CSF)). However, the aid must be granted in accordance with the specific requirements stipulated by the respective measures referred to in the CSF, for example Council Regulation (EC) 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures (4) (as regards 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/55
investment in agricultural holdings) or the specific measure to combat phylloxera in Crete, both of which form part of the agriculture operational programme (OP) in the national section of the CSF.
Similarly, where livestockfor breeding (poultry, pigs, bees, etc.) has been affected, national aid may be granted in accordance with the Community rules on State aid, subject to notification in compliance with Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty. Structural aid funded jointly by the Community under the Guidance Section of the EAGGF is also possible, subject to the conditions explained above, for example under the same operational programme’s measure on restoring production potential lost through natural disasters − provided, of course, that the aid is likewise notified in compliance with Article 93(3) of the Treaty and that it falls within the measure’s current financial allocation in the agriculture OP.
In the case of both vineyards and livestock, comprehensive and well-founded documentation proving the extent of the damage will have to be submitted to the Commission.
(1) OJ L 62, 4.3.1997. (2) OJ L 4, 8.1.1998. (3) OJ L 264, 12.9.1989. (4) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997.
(1999/C 135/064) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2421/98
by Concepció Ferrer (PPE)to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Parkinson’s disease and the EU’s Fifth R&D Framework Programme
In Europe, 650 000 families are currently affected by Parkinson’s disease, a figure which could rise to 1,2 million by the year 2008. These alarming figures merely illustrate the increasing need for extra resources to finance scientific research programmes into Parkinson’s disease.
Could the Commission say what specific headings will be provided within the fifth R&D framework programme for the benefit of organisations involved in treating Parkinson’s disease? How much funding will be made available for those headings? Is the Commission planning to launch any specific initiative outside the fifth R&D frameworkprogramme which will concentrate on scientific research into Parkinson’s disease?
Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(5 October 1998)
In preparing for the fifth frameworkprogramme for research and technological development (RTD) (FP5) (1), the Commission has proposed to give priority to several research items that would enable direct support for clinical and epidemiological research on Parkinson’s disease. As such, the Commission’s proposal for a specific programme for RTD (2) on ‘Quality of life and management of living resources’ addresses Parkinson’s disease, its prevention and novel treatment by promoting, under the key action ‘Ageing population’, research into age-related illnesses and health problems with high morbidity.
Efforts for improved understanding of Parkinson’s disease will also benefit from the RTD activities of generic nature, where chronic diseases are addressed in general, and emphasis is laid on neurosciences and neurological disorders. C 135/56 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
For the specific programme on ‘Quality of life and management of living resources’, the Commission has proposed ECU 2 635 million, with an indicative percentage breakdown including 7,6 % for the key action ‘Ageing population’ and 20,6 % for the RTD activities of a generic nature. In viewof the divergent positions of Council and the Parliament on the overall funding and the breakdown of FP5, the conciliation procedure will have to determine the level of funding. The Commission will support all efforts to arrive at a satisfactory compromise.
No Community funded scientific research into Parkinson’s disease is foreseen outside the fifth framework programme.
(1) COM(97) 142 final. (2) OJ C 260, 18.8.1998.
(1999/C 135/065) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2427/98
by Concepció Ferrer (PPE)to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Construction of high-speed rail links
It appears that some of the sections of the high-speed rail link which is currently being built in southern Europe will not be finished on time, in particular the Perpignan-Montpellier section. This could defeat the efforts which have been made along most of the route and will also prevent the area concerned from enjoying the economic benefits to be derived from the existence of this major rail link.
Is the Commission planning to take any action to speed up the construction of the sections which are behind schedule, so as to ensure that this major Community transport link is completed on time?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(12 October 1998)
The high speed train (HST) railway line linking Madrid-Barcelona to Perpignan and Montpellier, the so- called HST South, was identified by the Essen European Council as one of the 14 priority projects for development of the Trans-European networks (TENs) on which the Commission should concentrate its efforts.
This project benefits from Community financial support through the Cohesion fund and the TEN-T budget line. It is however true that, although the project is progressing quite well, notably on Spanish territory, the Perpignan-Montpellier section may be delayed and thereby temporarily reduce the overall benefits of the whole project.
The Commission keeps in close contact with the French government in order to get precise information on the construction timetable for this specific section. However, the timetable and all other relevant factors remain the responsibility of the French authorities. The importance of the Perpignan-Montpelier link was emphasised in the Report of the High Level Group on TENs Public Private Partnerships and, most recently, in the Commission’s report to the Cardiff European Council on progress on the 14 priority projects.
The Commission will continue its efforts to speed up the realisation of the entire project, from Madrid to Montpellier. By the end of 1998, Réseau Ferré de France, responsible for French national railway infrastructure, is expected to issue a plan setting out the newrailwaypriorities in France, and the Commission will continue to emphasise, in this context, the importance of the High Speed Train South. 14.5.1999 EN OfficialJournalof the European Communities C 135/57
(1999/C 135/066) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2430/98 by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Road transport − harmonisation of conditions of competition
The French Ministry of Transport tabled a ‘memorandum’ with the Commission on 19 November 1997 asking for driving and rest times to be harmonised through the incorporation of times other than driving times in Regulation 3820/85 (1).
Has the Commission considered these proposals? What are the current European rules on this matter?
(1) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(16 October 1998)
On 19 November 1997, the French government submitted a memorandum to the Councilfor European harmonisation of socialrulesin road transport. The memorandum made suggestions in three areas: regulations of all periods of activities in road transport particularly for drivers; the introduction of obligatory professional training for all drivers; and a harmonisation of enforcement measures and penalties.
The Commission took note of the suggestions and indeed is actively engaged in addressing all three areas. Firstly, in the absence of an agreement between the Social Partners on Working Time, the Commission is drawing up its own proposals for Community-wide rules covering ‘mobile’ workers in road haulage. The Commission also intends to propose to extend the Working Time Directive (93/104) to cover non-mobile workers. Secondly, a Commission communication on driver training is in preparation. Thirdly, the Commission is gathering information from the Member States to form the basis of a report on the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement levels and current penalties.
(1999/C 135/067) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2432/98 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) and James Janssen van Raay (UPE) to the Council
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Suspension of payments from budget items devoted to organizations caring for the elderly
1. Is the Councilof Ministers aware that the Commission decision of 10 July1998 to suspend payments from some 40 budget items devoted to European cooperation in areas including care for the elderly constitutes a serious handicap for European NGOs which have requested subsidies?
2. Does the Councilshare my view that this suspension runs counter to the rulesof sound financial management?
3. What steps has the Council taken, as we approach 1999, the UN Year of the Elderly, to lift that suspension?
4. Does the Council realize that the decision to suspend payments is incompatible with the objective of encouraging senior citizens to involve themselves in EU affairs and that it will, inter alia, sharply reduce the degree of interest of European senior citizens in the forthcoming European elections in June 1999?
5. Is the Council aware that the suspension of payments gives a totally false signal to the social services organizations which work to improve the welfare of the elderly in Europe? C 135/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
6. What measures is the Council prepared to take in order to lift the suspension and to create for the Commission, at the very earliest opportunity, the legal basis required for the appropriations set aside for this purpose still to be made available, thereby ensuring the continuity of projects and networks?
Reply
(7/8 December 1998)
The Judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 May 1998 in Case C-106/96 (United Kingdom v. Commission) gives a reminder of the Court’s earlier case-law which makes it clear that, ‘in the system of the Treaty, any implementation of expenditure by the Commission in principle presupposes, in addition to the entry of the relevant appropriation in the budget, an act of secondary legislation (commonly called the ’basic act‘) from which the expenditure derives’ (Point 22 of the grounds of the Judgment, ECR 1998-5, p. I − 2753).
On 10 June 1998, the Commission, acting within the framework of its responsibilities under Article 205 of the Treaty, suspended the implementation of a number of the Union’s 1998 budget headings, which it felt should be examined in the light of this principle. Following this examination, it decided to press ahead with the implementation of most of the headings.
In this context, however, the implementation of heading B3-4116 ‘Cooperation with non-governmental organisations and associations to combat social exclusion’, to which the Honourable Members’ question refers, has not been resumed. This is because the Commission found that there was no basic act, which it accepted was necessary, in this case.
The Council, aware of the importance of Community policies for Union citizens, considered at its meeting on 17 July 1998 that the Commission could, in compliance with Community law as re-affirmed by the Court, continue without delay the implementation for 1998 of measures recognised as being politically sensitive, such as measures to combat violence against children, adolescents and women, action relating to illegal and harmful content on the Internet, support for and monitoring of electoral processes, and action in the field of human rights and democracy.
At that meeting the Council also agreed, with European Parliament and Commission representatives, on an interinstitutional agreement signed by the representatives of the three institutions on 13 October 1998 on legal bases and implementation of the budget under which, in the light of the abovementioned Court of Justice judgment of 12 May 1998, arrangements for cooperation between the three institutions would be made by common agreement in order to improve the legislative procedure and the budget procedure, so that the Commission would be fully able to implement Community expenditure.
The Council also undertook, with the Parliament, in the case of budget headings for which a basic act had been proposed but not yet adopted, to endeavour to speed up the legislative procedures under way and complete them as soon as possible. That commitment resulted in the adoption on 17 July 1998 of Council Regulation (EC) 1658/98 on co-financing operations with European non-governmental development organisations (NGOs) in fields of interest to developing countries (1).
(1) OJL 213, 30.7.1998, p. 1.
(1999/C 135/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2443/98 by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Sea turtle
The European Communities (EC) made a third party submission to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute between the United States (US), India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand concerning the US import restrictions on shrimp obtained using fishing methods likely to cause mortality to endangered species of sea turtle. The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding also entitles the EC to make a public explanation of its position. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/59
Will the Commission now provide such an explanation, in particular, in order to clarify:
1. Why the EC intervened in this dispute?
2. How the EC intervention, which opposes the US embargo, can succeed without being detrimental to the species of endangered sea turtle, which are listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) − a multilateral agreement to which the EC is also a party?
3. Why for the purposes of the WTO general exceptions (Article XX(g)), the EC proposed that it may be appropriate to define ‘an exhaustible natural resource’ as those species protected under the Bonn Convention or listed in CITES Appendix 1 (but not Appendices 2 or 3)?
4. The extent to which it is satisfied with the Dispute Panel’s finding against the US?
Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission
(6 October 1998)
1. and 2. By intervening as a third party in the ‘shrimp-turtle’ case, the Commission, on behalf of the Community, aimed at influencing the evolution of case law on General agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) Article XX in a manner consistent with the Community’s policy line on trade and environment, as reflected, in particular, in the Commission communication of February 1996 (1).
The Community third party submissions to the panel and to the appellate body are based on the premise that international co-operation, rather than unilateral action, is the most effective and least trade-disruptive means to address global and transboundary environmental problems. Accordingly, the appropriate way for World trade organisation (WTO) members to promote the preservation of globally shared environ- mental resources, including migratory species, is to come to an internationally agreed solution. This is fully consistent with principle 12 of the Rio Declaration on environment and development.
Moreover, the Community has not excluded the possibility for a WTO member to adopt unilateral trade measures aimed at protecting global environmental resources. However, such a possibility should be subject to certain requirements. In particular, unilateral trade measures would only be acceptable if genuine efforts to develop internationally agreed solutions had previously been made. This is a fundamental issue in the ‘shrimp-turtle’ case since the United States could not demonstrate that they effectively tried to promote conservation of marine turtles through co-operative channels before unilaterally enforcing trade restrictions.
The Commission is convinced that an interpretation of GATT Article XX along the lines suggested by the Community would contribute significantly to achieving a mutually supportive relationship between trade liberalisation and environmental protection objectives. In the first place, the role of co-operative mechanisms as the main instrument to address global and transboundary environmental problems would be clearly recognised in the WTO. Secondly, such an interpretation would provide a strong incentive to achieve broader participation in multilateral environmental agreements.
3. The Honourable Member’s question concerning the interpretation of GATT Article XX (g) seems to be based on a misunderstanding. In its third party submission to the panel, the Community invoked the interpretative criteria developed in previous case law (to reject a narrow interpretation according to which only non-living resources or species of a commercial value should be considered as ‘exhaustible natural resources’ under this provision). The Commission is, therefore, of the view that, in principle, the notion of ‘exhaustible natural resources’ in GATT Article XX (g) encompasses all species of fauna and flora, and certainly all species listed in Appendices I, II and III of CITES. C 135/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
4. The Community is of the opinion that this ruling is likely to enhance the debate on the wider trade and environment relationship in the WTO committee on trade and environment, where the Community has consistently argued that multilaterally agreed measures should benefit from a preferential treatment vis-à-vis WTO rules. Some of the arguments found in the panel report would however require some further clarification by the appellate body.
The Commission believes that the above considerations demonstrate that the Community intervention in this case has been guided by a genuine interest in devising effective solutions to develop a more harmonious relationship between commercial and environmental concerns and to preserve the scope for accommodating trade-related environmental measures in the WTO.
(1) COM(96) 54 final.
(1999/C 135/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2461/98 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Construction of quays at the mouth of the river Douro
It was recently reported in the Portuguese media that the Commission had rejected co-financing under the Cohesion Fund for the construction of quays at the mouth of the river Douro. It was also revealed that the Commission had rejected such co-funding because the project did not comply with the priorities defined by the Cohesion Fund. Can the Commission provide information on the following:
1. When did the Portuguese Government submit an application to the Cohesion Fund for the project to construct quays at the mouth of the river Douro?
2. Given that an international river would be made navigable through this project, what is the Commission’s justification for considering that the project does not comply with the priorities of the Cohesion Fund?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(29 September 1998)
The request for aid concerning the project covering work in the estuary of the Douro river was submitted to the Commission on 5 November 1996.
The project in question, which was analysed carefully by the Commission, was not considered as a priority because the impact on the activities of the port of Leixões was marginal and its economic justification was insufficiently established. The Douro river does not form part of the trans-European transport network and projects connected with its navigability are not therefore eligible under the Cohesion Fund.
(1999/C 135/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2464/98 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Anti-dumping tariffs for steel producers
I am very grateful for the answer of 11 June 1998 (P-1606/98) (1). Since the answer relates to measures already taken for stainless steel screws, I am obliged to repeat my question to the Commission and point out that it concerns steel screws in general.
1. Is the Commission planning to take such measures?
2. If so, how high will these tariffs be per tonne? 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/61
3. When is an anti-dumping tariff on the products referred to above likely to be introduced?
4. Does the measure only concern steel screws, or will other steel products also be affected?
5. Will all steel producers in the Far East be affected by the tariff policy?
6. If not, to which producers is this anti-dumping arrangement to apply?
7. If the Commission sets different tariff rates, how will it calculate them?
8. How long is the Commission planning to maintain such an arrangement?
9. Through what channel and when at the earliest can the enterprises affected by the measure obtain information on the Commission’s thoughts in this matter?
(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 54.
Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission
(18 September 1998)
1. The Commission generally does not open anti-dumping proceedings on its own initiative, but analyses a complaint lodged by Community producers injured by dumped imports.
2. No statement about the potential amount and type of duties can be made before the end of an investigation.
3. Pursuant to Article 7(1) of the basic anti-dumping regulation (Council Regulation (EC) 384/96 of 22 December 1995 (1)) provisional duties are imposed no earlier than 60 days from the initiation of proceedings, but no later than nine months from the initiation of proceedings if the preconditions for measures are met.
4. The definition of the product concerned in proceedings depends on the complaint. The Community industry may lodge a complaint with regard to other products.
5. and 6. The definition of the countries and the exporting producers against which proceedings are initiated depends on the complaint and can be changed by the Commission on its own initiative.
7. The duties imposed on the co-operating producers depend on the calculation of their individual dumping and injury margins.
8. Definitive duties generally remain in force for five years, unless a review shows that the expiry of measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
9. Under Article 5(5) of the basic anti-dumping regulation, the Commission cannot provide any information concerning complaints unless a decision has been made to open an investigation.
(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996.
(1999/C 135/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2471/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: The European Parliament and Parkinson’s disease
What initiatives have been undertaken and how much funding has been made available by the European Union for the purpose of studying, combating and relieving the suffering caused by Parkinson’s disease? C 135/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Has the Commission any plans for a programme to meet the needs arising from the treatment and the effects of Parkinson’s disease?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(26 October 1998)
The Commission has supported activities on neurodegenerative disorders and informal carers since 1995. However,so far no project presented on Parkinson’s disease has met the criteria required for financial support. The European Parkinson’s Disease Association has received financial support from the programme on integration of disabled people into the labour market,in order to analyse the needs of people and their families living with this disease and to find the appropriate response.
The new ‘paving’ communication on the development of public health policy (1) proposes a move away from the disease-specific approach towards a more horizontal approach to public health. However,Article 152 of the Treaty of Amsterdam states clearly that the way the Member States organise and deliver their health care systems is the responsibility of the Member States.
Research into Parkinson’s disease has always had a place in the Community¢s biomedical research programmes (Biomed). It received funding under Biomed 1 and there are now four Biomed 2 projects specifically on the subject. These range from the genetic and molecular approach to treatment by cellular grafting or functional neurosurgery. Some of these projects have already yielded significant results. The disease is also covered partially or indirectly by many other projects.
It should be given at least as much priority under topic 1 of the future fifth framework programme,and is in fact one of the few diseases expressly mentioned in the programme,in the key action on ‘ageing’. It also ties in perfectly with at least two general actions: chronic and degenerative diseases,and neurosciences.
(1) COM(98) 230 final.
(1999/C 135/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2485/98 by Johann Kronberger (NI) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: ‘Corridoio Adriatico’ project
1. What is the situation regarding the ‘Corridoio Adriatico’ project,i.e. the waterway leading from the port of Trieste which is intended to link the Adriatic with other States bordering the Mediterranean and with the Suez region?
2. How important does the Commission consider this project to be?
3. What is the current state of negotiations?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(7 October 1998)
1. The ‘Adriatic corridor’ project represents an alternative route to link the central regions of the Union and Italy to Greece and the eastern part of the Mediterranean basin,avoiding the inland route through former Yugoslavia. It integrates rail and road infrastructure,ports,links to ports and combined transport along the Adriatic-Ionian coasts in Italy and Greece. In the framework of the TEN-T co-financing (Council Regulation 2236/95 (1)) the Commission has allocated financial support to two feasibility studies concerning the ‘Adriatic-Ionian Corridor’,one in Greece (financial support of ECU 0,34million in 1996) and one in Italy (financial support of ECU 1 million in 1995). According to information provided by the authorities neither study has yet been completed. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/63
2. Previous studies show that there are good opportunities for the development of combined transport and short sea shipping on the corridor. It is therefore expected that this important corridor will be able to contribute substantially to improving the access of peripheral regions of the Community and of Mediterranean countries to the central regions of the Community in a framework of sustainable mobility of persons and goods. The Commission is therefore convinced of its usefulness.
3. The Adriatic and Ionian seas were also recognised as an important transport element by the Third pan-European transport conference held in Helsinki in June 1997, where the Adriatic/Ionian PETrA (Pan- European transport area) was defined. It is intended that, for the PETrA, the countries concerned should work on the establishment of an infrastructure development plan for the area and for its links with the pan- European corridors and the Trans-European transport network. With the encouragement of the Com- mission, Italy and Greece have jointly undertaken some preparatory work and plan to call a general meeting of all interested parties, including the Commission, in the near future.
(1) OJ L 228, 23.9.1995.
(1999/C 135/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) and Edith Müller (V) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: EU aid and improved nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe
The European Union is spending substantial sums under the PHARE and TACIS programmes on improving nuclear safety in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
Can the Commission estimate (in percentage and/or real terms) the extent to which nuclear safety has improved in the recipient countries, following the deployment of the various types of EU aid, since the programmes were initiated?
(1999/C 135/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2489/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) and Edith Müller (V) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: EU aid and improved nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe
As long ago as November 1996, in the study ‘Nuclear safeguards and nuclear safety in the East’ (PE 166.083/fin.), the European Parliament’s STOAunit documented serious shortcomings in the administration of EU financial aid to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in connection with the PHARE and TACIS programmes. At around the same time the Commission commissioned a similar study, the purpose of which was to evaluate the safety improvements which had actually been achieved in the nuclear sector in the recipient countries. However, the European Parliament has not been given access to date either to that study or to its results. Experiences with current PHARE and TACIS projects suggest that little or nothing has changed with regard to the weaknesses in the EU-funded aid programmes previously identified in the STOAstudy.
1. Does the Commission consider that the procedural rules governing the aid programmes make it possible to react quickly enough to sudden problems, or are there possibilities for improvement in this respect and, if so, what are they?
2. Is it correct that the Commission is having serious problems in coordinating aid to the Central and Eastern European nuclear sector, as intended by the G24 States, partly because of a lack of adequate communication not only between its own departments but also with other organisations involved, and does it consider the staff available to it in this area to be adequate in terms of numbers and qualifications?
3. What is the Commission’s view of the effects of the problem of liability on improvements in nuclear security in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and what effect are liability issues having on the success of the EU funds deployed to this end? C 135/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
4. How successful does the Commission consider the use of supply agencies, as the interface between donor and recipient countries, to have been, particularly in the area of on-site assistance and taking cost aspects and implementation times into account, and should the Commission not retain more decisions as a matter for itself?
(1999/C 135/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2490/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz(V) and Edith Müller (V) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: EU aid and improved nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe
The European Union is spending substantial sums under the PHARE and TACIS programmes on improving nuclear safety in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The use of these funds has been evaluated in a European Parliament study (STOA, PE 166.083/fin.). The Commission has also commissioned a similar study, but has not made its results accessible to the European Parliament. Experiences with current PHARE and TACIS projects suggest that little or nothing has changed with regard to the weaknesses in the EU-funded aid programmes previously identified in the STOA study.
1. Is it correct that studies drawn up under the PHARE and TACIS programmes and/or their results are not communicated to the relevant authorities in the recipient countries, and in this context, what does the Commission consider to be the point of the heavy financial outlay in this connection?
2. Is the Commission aware that West European contractors pass on assignments to subcontractors in the recipient countries who are able to work substantially more cheaply, and that the considerable difference is retained by the West European consultants, and what is its view of this way of treating EU funds?
3. What is the breakdown in percentage (and real) terms between West European consultants and their Central and Eastern European subcontractors in respect of services provided under the PHARE and TACIS programmes?
4. When will the Commission finally make available to the European Parliament the studies that it has received concerning the use of EU funds to improve nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe and in the States of the former Soviet Union?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2488/98, E-2489/98 and E-2490/98 given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(6 October 1998)
The Commission has committed some ECU 720 million toward the nuclear safety sector under the Phare and Tacis programmes (1990-1997). An interim evaluation has confirmed the positive impact of the programmes. It is clear that the programmes have established close cooperation with all the national safety authorities and power plant operators of the partner countries.
Measures to improve the efficiency of activities in the nuclear safety sector have been implemented without amending the regulation. In this respect, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to comments on the Hoff report (1).
The Commission actively participates in all relevant international fora and maintains regular contacts with bilateral and multilateral donors.
The Commission concluded contracts under the 1991 Tacis programme in order not to delay the programme’s implementation. Because of the uncertainty about the rules applying to civil liability, these contracts contained restrictive clauses on the transmission of the findings of studies to beneficiaires. The Commission’s attempts to find an interim solution to the problem pending ratification by Russia of the Vienna Convention culminated in the signing in 1995 of a memorandum of understanding with the Russian Federation which included a provision on nuclear civil liability. All the restrictive clauses proposed by contractors have been systematically rejected since the memorandum was signed. A solution 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/65
was found in 1997 for contracts concluded before the memorandum was signed providing for an exchange of letters between the contractors concerned and the Ministry for Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation (Minatom)allowing the findings of studies to be made available to beneficiaries.
Supply agencies are used solely for work which is not the responsibility of the public authorities.
The fee structure of Phare and Tacis contracts prevents experts from partner countries being invoiced at Community fee rates. The proportion of work sub-contracted to experts in partner countries varies according to the nature of the project under consideration. Studies of reactor design safety generally necessitate a substantial contribution from the original designer (in some cases 50 %). On-site assistance contracts require much less involvement on the part of local sub-contractors.
(1)PE 223.140.
(1999/C 135/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2504/98 by Astrid Lulling (PPE) to the Commission
(30 July 1998)
Subject: Single market and exclusive distribution contracts
Because of the small size of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, retailers in Luxembourg always have to buy from Belgian suppliers who have concluded exclusive distribution contracts for Belgium and Luxembourg.
In some cases ‘physical’ delivery of the goods to the Luxembourg retailer is carried out directly by a producer or wholesaler who is not based in Belgium, whereas ‘accounting’ delivery goes through the Belgian intermediary, adding to the initial price a commission which can vary between 15 and 40 %.
Does the Commission consider this system, which often results in the price charged to the Luxembourg retailer being higher than the consumer price of the same product in neighbouring countries, to be compatible with the single market and the principle of fair competition?
What measures could the Commission take to ensure that retailers in Luxembourg have the right to buy their stock in any country they choose where there are distribution networks for the same product and thus escape exorbitantly expensive distribution networks?
Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission
(6 November 1998)
Commission Regulation (EEC)1983/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3)of the Treaty to categories of exclusive distribution agreements (1)exempts, pursuant to Article 85(3)of the EC Treaty, exclusive distribution agreements, that is agreements whereby one party agrees with the other to supply certain goods for resale within the whole or a defined area of the common market only to that other. It is therefore in line with the Community competition rules to assign to one distributor the task of reselling certain goods in a defined area of the common market, such as the Belgo-Luxembourg area.
However, the Regulation provides that the block exemption ceases to apply to the agreements in question if the contract goods cannot be supplied by other importers in the area covered by the exclusive distribution agreement or obtained by users or intermediaries established in that area from undertakings outside it whose terms are more favourable.
(1)OJ L 173, 30.6.1983. C 135/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/077) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2521/98
by Sirkka-Liisa Anttila (ELDR) to the Commission
(28 July 1998)
Subject: Agenda 2000 deprives Finnish farming of its spirit of enterprise, leading to ‘virtual agriculture’
The Agenda 2000 proposal would lead, if implemented, to producer price cuts for cereals (20 %), beef and veal (30 %) and dairy products (15 %). This reform would lead in Finland to a kind of ‘virtual farming’, because the prices we could get for our produce would no longer cover even the production costs. Agricultural production costs are the sum of all the costs entailed by production activity. By comparing this with the total yield from the relevant products one obtains the farm’s profitability.
According to official studies the average production costs per kilo for barley and oats at 1996 levels were FIM 1,78 for the smallest farms and FIM 1,32 for the largest. The corresponding range for bread cereals was FIM 2,10 to FIM 1,63. These figures, based on standardised farm models, represent the most efficient farms in terms of yield. On average farms the production costs are even higher. The production costs for pigmeat, based on the same calculation models, vary between FIM 11 and FIM 20,67. Only 18 % of farms are able to produce pigmeat for FIM 11, while 47 % of farms spend FIM 14 and the rest need between FIM 16 and FIM 20,67. In 1995, statistics show that production costs for milk were FIM 3,54 per litre.
If the producer price reductions proposed in Agenda 2000 are implemented Finnish agriculture will not even begin to cover its production costs. In producing their crops, the farmers would be ‘eating’ their own subsidies, and thereby reducing their income. The greatest threat to farming in Finland is ‘virtual agriculture’, depriving the agriculture industry of the spirit of enterprise and motivation to work. For this reason there can be no question of approving the price cuts proposed in Agenda 2000 without special arrangements.
What does the Commission propose to do in the context of Agenda 2000 to protect the spirit of enterprise and motivation in Finnish agriculture?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(22 September 1998)
The Commission shares the point of view of the Honourable Member on the challenge that Agenda 2000 represents for Finnish farmers. They are still adjusting to the common agricultural policy (CAP) in the aftermath of accession and they have to face a new set of proposed reforms.
The evolution of the Finnish farming economy since accession is notable. Costs of production are decreasing, farm structures are improving and the income evolution is positive. The pessimistic prediction on the dramatic decline of farming has not become a reality.
Particular handicaps such as those that affect Finnish farmers must be dealt with so as to ensure the maintenance of sustainable farming and rural communities in all the Union. This is specifically stated in the Agenda 2000 proposal (1) (introduction, section 3):
For centuries Europe’s agriculture has performed many functions in the economy and the environ- ment and has played many roles in society and in caring for the land. That is why it is vital, as the Luxembourg European Council concluded in December 1997, that multifunctional agriculture must develop throughout Europe, including those regions facing particular difficulties. In connection with Agenda 2000 and its implementation, care will accordingly need to be taken to provide proper compensation for natural constraints and disadvantages. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/67
As in the past, the Commission will continue to help Finnish farmers to achieve a successful integration and to help them to take advantage of all the opportunities allowed by the evolution of Community and world agricultural markets.
(1) COM(98) 158 final.
(1999/C 135/078) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2523/98
by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission
(28 July 1998)
Subject: Granting of subsidies to animal welfare organization
Can the Commission indicate which animal welfare organizations have submitted applications for a subsidy from Article B4-306 (Awareness and subsidies)?
Can it also indicate whether those applications have been approved and, if not, which ones have not been approved and why not?
Can it further indicate the amount devoted to animal welfare from Article B4-306?
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(21 September 1998)
Each year, the Commission uses budget Heading B4-3060 to provide financial support to European non- governmental organisations (NGOs) active in the defence of the environment (point 1) and to information and awareness projects (point 2). Animal protection does not figure among the objectives and priorities of these two programmes. However, the Commission does fund certain bodies which, by protecting natural environments, help protect wild animals.
Regarding the call for the submission of proposals under a Community action programme promoting non- governmental organisations primarily active in the field of environmental protection (1), in accordance with Council Decision No 97/872/EC of 16 December 1997 (2), the Commission received 62 proposals in 1998. It selected 18 of them, including five which help protect animals: Seas at Risk (Netherlands), Birdlife International (United Kingdom), Eurosite (France), European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism (United Kingdom) and International Friends of Nature (Austria). Proposals were not selected which failed to meet the following criteria: cost-effectiveness; a sustainable multiplier effect at European level; effective and balanced cooperation between the partners in terms of planning and carrying out activities and financial contributions; contribution to a multinational approach and, in particular, to transboundary cooperation within the Community and, where appropriate, with neighbouring countries outside the Community; ability to foster dialogue and cooperation between the partners identified in the fifth action programme; degree of representativeness within the particular association movement; ability to foster a multisectoral approach to the environment; quality of cooperation and dialogue between the association and its members via regular exchange of information; ability to demonstrate the financial feasibility of the annual programme of activities by means of a realistic, reasonable and balanced budget; an undertaking to broadcast as widely as possible the Community’s current environment policy, especially the Community programme of policy and action on the environment and sustainable development.
Regarding the call for submission of proposals for general measures to inform and increase awareness of environmental problems (3), in 1997 the Commission selected 59 proposals, including three concerning public information and awareness-raising on animal protection. The beneficiaries are: Wildlife Europe Sveriges Television AB (Sweden), Morgane Production (France) and the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles (Belgium). The 1998 selection of projects is under way. C 135/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
The amount of appropriations awarded to animal protection and nature in 1997 for awareness projects, and in 1998 for NGOs, is ECU 628 000.
(1) OJ C 25, 24.1.1998. (2) OJ L 354, 30.12.1997. (3) OJ C 53, 22.2.1997.
(1999/C 135/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2524/98
by Niels Kofoed (ELDR) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Low producer prices for pigmeat
At present European pigmeat prices are at an extremely low level, with heavy losses for the pig producers. It is expected that this situation will deteriorate further in the coming months. Because of increased production, this year an additional amount of some 800 000 to 900 000 tons of pigmeat will come onto the European market. At the same time we are seeing the European pigmeat industry lose important and traditional markets like southeast Asia and Russia, due to fierce competition from countries like the USA and Canada. In many cases these exports are only possible because of government support. On the European market every ton of pigmeat exported means one ton less on the internal market and more consumption of beef, which costs about ten times more to take off the internal market.
1. Is the European Commission aware of the effect on the beef market of extra pigmeat coming onto the European market?
2. Is the Commission willing to introduce export refunds on pigmeat products, which until last year were exported in large quantities to important markets like Japan, South Korea, Eastern Europe, etc., in order to try to prevent a further fall in pigmeat prices and to help the European pigmeat industry to face the aggressive competition on third country markets?
3. Which other measures could the Commission envisage to prevent a further fall in pig prices to producers?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(23 September 1998)
1. The Commission regularly assesses the links between different meat markets. However, the link between beef and pigmeat is certainly not as clear-cut as suggested by the Honourable Member.
2. The Commission has followed the situation closely and already reacted by introducing export refunds for carcasses and bone-in cuts on 14 May 1998. Certain boneless cuts were added to the list of eligible products for export refunds on 3 August 1998 and an increase to the refund levels was made.
3. The market organization for pigmeat has only two measures available for supporting the market. These are export refunds, which are limited by the World trade organisation (WTO) agreement, and aid for private storage. At present, the Commission is supporting the market by a strengthening of the export refund policy.
The Commission is willing to consider further measures to support the market if necessary and possible, but it can do little about the basic problem of increased production. It is up to farmers to decide whether they will adapt production and thereby improve the market price. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/69
(1999/C 135/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2526/98 by Graham Watson (ELDR)to the Council
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Political oppression in Burma
As the military dictatorship of Burma has carried out countless atrocities against the Burmese people and the population of the country lives in extreme poverty despite an abundance of natural resources, what action does the Council intend to take?
Would the Council advocate the imposition of economic and financial sanctions against the Burmese government?
Reply
(16 November 1998)
The Council remains deeply concerned at the continuing violations of human rights and the lack of democratic progress in Burma/Myanmar. The regime’s recent tightening of restrictions and increase of pressure on the democratic opposition is particularly worrying and has been condemned by the Union.
The Union has on many occasions issued strong public statements deploring the human rights situation and the lack of democracy in Burma/Myanmar, most recently on 26 October 1998. At the 54th meeting of United Nations Commission on Human Rights the European Union presented a Resolution criticising the human rights situation in Burma, which was adopted on 20 April 1998. The Union has also repeatedly urged the Burmese rulers to enter into meaningful dialogue with all democratic opposition parties.
The EU furthermore maintains regular contacts with the ASEAN States regarding Burma/Myanmar, and is urging them to put increased pressure on the Burmese regime.
On 26 October 1998 the Council decided to extend for a further six months the common position on Burma adopted on 28 October 1996 (1), which provides for a number of restrictive measures vis-à-vis Burma and senior Burmese officials. The Council also decided to strengthen that common position by prohibiting the issue of transit visas and extending the visa ban to cover Burmese authorities in the tourism sector (while ensuring that the ban is applied rigorously to all individual members of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and the military, together with their families). It echoed the view expressed by Aung San Suu Kyi that, in the present situation, it is inappropriate for tourists to visit Burma. The Council also envisaged the possibility of economic and financial sanctions against Burma, but has taken no decision for the time being. It should however be mentioned in this regard that forced labour practices in the country led to the EC’s decision to withdraw GSP benefits from Burma/Myanmar.
(1) OJ L 287, 8.11.1996.
(1999/C 135/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2536/98 by André Fourçans (PPE)to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Operation of European financial markets
The advent of the euro will result in the increasing integration of Europe’s financial markets. The recent announcement of an alliance between the London and Frankfurt stock exchanges is an early indication of this. C 135/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Within this new framework which will gradually be established, does the Commission consider that a greater harmonization of the rules governing the operation of European financial markets is needed or rather that a European monitoring institution should be set up, modelled on the Security and Exchange Commission in the United States?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(13 October 1998)
The euro will very quickly lead to an increase in the integration of wholesale financial markets. This change will be driven by the decision to conduct monetary policy through money market instruments, the connection of national money markets in real time through Target and the decision of national authorities to issue new debt in euro and to redominate existing debt from the beginning of 1999. The elimination of exchange rate risk and of currency matching rules will also have important implications for stock markets, and on the behaviour of corporate borrowers and for investors.
Nevertheless the Commission is also aware that the introduction of the euro will make remaining gaps and loopholes in the internal market in financial services more visible. To develop all the benefits of the introduction of the euro it is essential that the functioning of financial services markets be streamlined. In order to ensure that this is the case, the Commission, in line with the conclusions of the Cardiff European Council in June 1998, will table by the end of the year a ‘fremework for action’ to improve the single market in financial services. This framework will examine the effectiveness of the implementation of current legislation, identify weaknesses which may require amending legislation, and outline the Commission’s opinion on the modernisation of financial market regulation. This strategic review will draw on a wide range of inputs from market operators, representative bodies, regulators and supervisors.
(1999/C 135/082) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2546/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Shipments of nuclear waste
1. A number of years have gone by since the publication of the report by the European Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry on the Handling and Transport of Nuclear Material and the adoption of a directive on this subject. In view of the revelations that the limit values for the transport of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuels are grossly exceeded, does the Commission feel it would be useful for the European Parliament to appoint another Committee of Inquiry?
2. Does the Commission agree that because the limit values for the transport of radoactive waste and spent nuclear fuels transported from the Federal Republic of Germany and Switzerland to France have been exceeded this constitutes contravention of Council Directive 92/3/EURATOM (1) of 3 February 1992 based on Article 31 Euratom Treaty?
What action does the Commission intend to take against this contravention?
(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992, p. 24.
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(5 October 1998)
1. It is clearly for the Parliament to decide whether or not an enquiry should be undertaken. The Commission would, however, suggest that the following points be taken into consideration: (a) despite the number of incidents now revealed it seems clear that there was no breach of the Community dose limits; (b) the final results of the investigations by the French and German authorities are not yet available but will obviously be relevant to any decision; (c) the Commission has itself given an undertaking to examine 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/71
these results once available and to consult all relevant Member States to ensure that the lessons learned are widely disseminated and appropriate actions taken at national and Community levels.
2. According to Article 3 of Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community (1), ‘the transport operations necessary for shipment shall comply with Community and national provisions and with international agreements on the transport of radioactive material’.
In the present case national provisions which are in conformity with Annex VII of the RID (Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail) have been violated by operators. The RID is Appendix B of the Convention concerning international carriage by rail (COTIF). Council Directive 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail (2) introduces the RID as a mandatory text for national and intracommunity transport.
It is for the national authorities to ensure that the situation is rectified. The Commission will verify that the necessary measures have been taken at national level.
(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992. (2) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.
(1999/C 135/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2547/98
by Hiltrud Breyer (V)to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Shipments of nuclear waste
1. The Commission set out the guidelines for the disposal of radioactive matter and fuel elements in a communication in 1994. It proposed harmonising the definition and categories of radioactive waste, establishing common strategies for reprocessing, reducing the volume and the transport of radioactive waste and drawing up plans to improve safety of disposal, in particular storage. Does the revelation that limit values have been exceeded for nuclear waste shipments from the Federal Republic and Switzerland to France mean that there is now a need for the Commission to take action?
2. The transport rules for maximum exposure are based on IAEA recommendations currently in force. For non-fixed contamination on the surface of containers and vehicles the rules provide the following limit values: 4 Bq/cm2 for beta and gamma emitters and 0,4 Bq/cm2 for alpha emitters. The limit values are precautionary measures laid down for the protection of persons handling shipments.
3. Does the Commission regard exceeding by up to 5000 times the limit values for the shipment of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuels pursuant to the IAEA rules as unacceptable, and what conclusions does it draw?
(1999/C 135/084) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2548/98
by Hiltrud Breyer (V)to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Shipments of nuclear waste
The IAEA’s Safety Series 37 explains that if the recommended decontamination measures are observed there should be no question of the limit values being exceeded. However, occasional values in excess of C 135/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
the limit values are entirely harmless given that the limit values are conservative in nature. If the limit values are exceeded, the recipient should inform the sender of this so that the latter can take remedial action.
1. Does the Commission believe that the IAEA’s findings are still appropriate?
2. What action does the Commission intend to take, given that it has become known that limit values have been exceeded by up to 5000 times in the case of shipments of nuclear waste?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2547/98 and E-2548/98 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(30 September 1998)
The Commission accepts that the statements taken from the International atomic energy agency (IAEA) safety series 37 are still appropriate.
The conservative nature of the limits is well illustrated by the results of the enquiries carried out by the French and German authorities, which although yet to be completed, already clearly show that there has been no overexposure of workers or members of the public despite the excess contamination levels and the number of such events now communicated.
However, the frequency with which such events have occurred and the late recognition of the situation clearly calls for further action. In the first instance such action is the responsibility of the national authorities which have quite properly been carrying out an extensive review of current practices with the aim of taking corrective action to ensure not only that individual events are indeed no more than ‘occasional’ but also that when they do occur all appropriate parties are duly informed in keeping with the IAEA statements.
Equally, the Commission recognizes that lessons learned in France and Germany can also be relevant to ensuring good practices in other Member States. As stated in its declaration to Parliament on 17 June 1998, therefore, the Commission foresees examining the French and German final reports from the point of view of the situation not only in these Member States but also in other relevant Member States. For this purpose it will be consulting with all such Member States as a matter of urgency.
(1999/C 135/085) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2565/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Shortcomings in the transposition of Directive 79/409/EEC in the Lombardy region and the Brescia Province in Upper Italy
To date, the Upper Italian region of Lombardy, and, in particular, the Brescia Province which forms part thereof, have not transposed in full the Directive referred to above.
In particular, with a few exceptions, the Lombardy Regional Council (Giunta Regionale Lombardia) and the Brescia Province have, to date, not designated as protected areas the passes through the Brescia Alps which are important for bird migration and which, according to a study drawn up in April 1997 by the State Forestry Corps (Corpo Forestale dello Stato), constitute some of the most significant autumn migration routes for European songbirds and birds of prey across the Alps; capturing birds with nets has still been authorized year after year, although actions brought on the basis of Directive 79/409/EEC (1)by Italian nature protection societies against such authorizations regularly succeed before the region’s administrative courts; in 1997 alone, the shooting of more than eight million sparrows, starlings, chaffinches and bramblings was permitted, although those birds are protected under EU law.
1. What is the Commission intending to do in order to persuade the Lombardy Regional Council and the Brescia Province to fulfil their obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 79/409/EEC and to designate as protected areas the passes through the Brescia Alps which are so important for bird migration? 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/73
2. What is the Commission intending to do in order to persuade the Lombardy Regional Council at long last to comply with the ban on the hunting of migratory birds with nets (see Article 8(1) of the Directive referred to above)?
3. What is the Commission intending to do into order to persuade the Lombardy Regional Council not to authorize in future the shooting of bird species not listed in Annex II to Directive 79/409/EEC as species that may be hunted?
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(23 October 1998)
The insufficient classification of special protection areas in Italy is the subject of infringement proceedings against Italy. A reasoned opinion has been notified to the Italian authorities.
As mentioned by the Honourable Member, Article 8 of Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds states that ‘Member States shall prohibit the use of all means, arrangements or methods used for the large scale or non-selective capture or killing of birds or capable of causing the local disappearance of a species, in particular the use of those listed in Annex IV’. Nets are listed in the Annex mentioned, consequently they are forbidden. However, Article 9 of the same Directive states that Member States may derogate from the provisions of Articles 5, 6, 7, and 8, where there is no satisfactory solution, for a certain number of reasons and under well specified and defined conditions. Provided that these reasons and conditions are fully respected, it is possible for a Member State to adopt a specific derogation on the basis of which hunting with nets is allowed.
As for the case of Lombardy mentioned by the Honourable Member, a complaint has been registered following a previous enquiry and a letter requesting information sent to the Italian authorities, in order to check the compliance of the derogation adopted by ‘Regione Lombardia’ with Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC.
The Commission is waiting for a response. It will take the appropriate steps in order to ensure the observance of Community law.
(1999/C 135/086) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2566/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Recruitment to the European Environment Agency (EEA)
In replying to my Written Question E-1779/98 (1) concerning the unacceptable situation regarding the spread of nationalities among the staff of the EEA, Commissioner Bjerregaard, who is normally highly circumspect, made a significant slip of the tongue − albeit unwittingly, I am sure − in saying that ‘ ... there is no formal division of posts according to geographical or demographic criteria. On the contrary, recruitment is principally on merit ...’. The obvious implication of this answer is that the Greeks and Irish have no merit since the EEA has deemed that only one Greek and one Irish national deserve to work at the Agency, whereas seven Belgian and seven Dutch nationals, for example, have been recruited as officials.
At another point in her answer, Mrs Bjerregaard stresses that ‘In a small organization like the European Environment Agency, which is based in the north of Europe, there will inevitably be practical difficulties in reconciling the need for the best candidates and the need for a good geographical spread’. The governing body of the EEA (which is constantly informing the members of the Committee on Budgets − through the Commission − of the reasons why funding for the EEA should be increased) and the Commission itself, know full well that the decentralized agencies do not exist to recruit officials from the geographical area in which they are located but to serve European citizens and not incite them by their practices and ‘open and transparent competitions’, as Mrs Bjerregaard puts it. Recent experience with the C 135/74 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
legal bases of the EU budget, moreover, has shown that matters can become rather complicated when the procedures followed are not transparent.
What practical measures has the Commission taken to enhance the transparency of the recruitment procedure at the EEA and to eliminate the imbalance in the spread of nationalities among its officials (not the national experts)?
(1)OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 91.
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(1 October 1998)
The Honourable Member’s conclusions on the reply to Written Question E-1779/98 were doubtless made ‘tongue-in-cheek’, but nonetheless he will appreciate that recruitment on merit can only be on the basis of the applications received.
The Honourable Member is aware that the Commission can only offer advice to the European environmental agency on how to conduct its recruitment, but the Commission does understand his concerns at the apparent difficulty in attracting the best candidates from Southern Europe to apply for posts. The Commission has informed the Agency of the Honourable Member’s questions and will ask that the executive director consider possible remedies for future recruitment competitions.
The Commission will continue to be represented in future selection procedures.
(1999/C 135/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2568/98
by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Human rights in Tunisia
Following reports that Tunisia has been involved in numerous suppressions of human rights: the right to travel, freedom of speech and the right to be politically active, what action does the Council intend to take to ensure that Tunisia respects the human rights clause of the Euro-Mediterranean agreements?
Reply
(7/8 December 1998)
1. The Council is aware of the importance of respect for human rights throughout the world and shares the Honourable Member’s concern regarding the human rights situation in Tunisia. It is watching developments in this area very closely.
2. The Council recognises that Tunisia is a country in transition and one of the Mediterranean partners most committed to its relationship with the Union. It recognises that Tunisia is an active participant in the Barcelona Process, striving to transform the Mediterranean basin into an area of peace, prosperity and stability. It acknowledges that Tunisia plays a leading role in this Process and has set the pace for the other countries in the area, by being the first Mediterranean partner to ratify an Association Agreement. It has thus committed itself, among other things, to a regular political dialogue, which will include human rights. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/75
3. A first EU-Tunisia Association Council took place on 13-14 July 1998, which also allowedfor an exchange of views on human rights questions; on that occasion the EU hadthe opportunity of stressing that the aims of the association are basedon sharedrespect for democracy,human rights andthe rule of law. It confirmedthat the political dialoguebetween the two partners will enable them to consult each other frankly on a whole series of political issues, including human rights, and should contribute to the government’s aspirations to develop democratic traditions and civil society based on the rule of law.
(1999/C 135/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2571/98
by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Headage payments in Ireland
Is the Commission aware of recent serious problems in the mountain regions in the West of Ireland relating to headage payments (compensatory allowances), where sometimes a husband and wife have separate herds which are grazed on commonage as is the tradition in such systems? Can the Commission state whether or not such common grazing is in violation of the conditions for headage payments under the scheme?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(29 September 1998)
The Commission is responsible for the approval of the national headage schemes according to Community rules, but not for the approval of individual applications which falls under the competence of the national authorities. Consequently, the Commission is not aware of the specific case of granting headage payments to both husbandandwife for separate herdsgrazing on commonage to which the Honourable Member refers. Also the control missions undertaken to check the correct implementation and application of the schemes in the Member States give no indications on irregularities in the application of the approved headage scheme.
The general possibility to grant headage payments for animals grazing on commonage is compatible with Community law andhas been approvedfor Ireland.In the Irish scheme, the applicants have either to occupy andfarm at least 3 hectares of utilisedagricultural landwhich may includecommonage or to have grazing rights in less favouredareas which are equivalent to a farming area of 3 hectares in orderto be eligible for headage payments. If both husband and wife manage completely independent farms in less favoured areas and fulfil this condition, each of them is eligible for headage payments from the viewpoint of Community law. However, national provisions set a limitation on separate applications in the case of two or more people managing one or more herds as a single unit. In such a case, they should be treated as one joint applicant and their herds as one joint herd for the purpose of the headage scheme.
(1999/C 135/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2575/98
by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Cohesion andStructural Fundspayments to Ireland
Can the Commission state how much EU finance is to be paidto Irelandunderthe current six-year programme under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund and how much of this money had actually been paidby 1 January 1998? C 135/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(24 September 1998)
Direct structural fund support for Ireland is based on the Community support framework 1994-1999, backed up by a series of Community initiatives for the same period. These sources of finance should provide a total of ECU 5 900 million, of which ECU 3 250 million had been paid by 31 December 1997.
In addition, Ireland will benefit during this period from a further ECU 250 million being made available under the Peace and Interreg Community initiatives which it jointly manages with the United Kingdom. Under these programmes a global contribution of nearly ECU 550 million in Community support was foreseen, of which ECU 171 million had been paid by 31 December 1997.
Ireland’s share of the Cohesion fund will be between 7 % and 10 % of the total budget allocation over the period 1993-1999. This share is estimated to be between ECU 1 167 million and ECU 1 668 million. On 31 December 1997, payments totalled ECU 698,5 million.
The Commission recalls that its payments in respect of interventions for the current programming period may, in general, continue to be made up to the end of 2001.
(1999/C 135/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2576/98 by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Pigmeat sector
Is the Commission aware of the current disastrous situation in the pigmeat sector and has the Commission made any proposals which might help to avoid widespread bankruptcies in the industry?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(16 September 1998)
The Commission is well aware that after two good years of exceptionally high pigmeat market prices, European pig farmers have considerably increased their production for 1998, which has inevitably been followed by lower market prices. There was a considerable increase in production already in 1997, which was blanketed by the removal of a large amount of pigs from the markets due to classical swine fever. The price drop in a situation of increased production is a typical cyclical phenomenon of pig production. On the other hand the lower prices will enhance consumption.
The Commission has followed the situation closely and has already reacted by introducing export refunds for carcasses and bone-in cuts on 14 May 1998. Certain boneless cuts were added to the list of eligible products for export refunds on 3 August 1998 and an increase to the refund levels was made.
The exports to third countries have developed quite well. Total exports to third countries increased in 1997 to an all time high of 1,07 million tonnes, of which 78 % was possible without export refunds. During last two years the Community increased pigmeat exports to Eastern Europe and Russia by 25 % and exports to South East Asia (including Japan) increased by 51 % during the same period. The export figures for the first quarter of 1998 suggest a further increase of exports.
The Commission is willing to consider further measures to support the market if necessary and possible, but it can do little about the basic problem of increased production. It is up to farmers to decide whether they will adapt production and thereby improve the market price. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/77
(1999/C 135/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2581/98 by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Rape and sexual abuse of children at a European Union crèche
The Belgian judicial authorities have charged two members of staff at the Clovis crèche, an establishment falling under the Union’s responsibility, with rape and sexual abuse of children attending the crèche.
The incidents are alleged to have taken place between January and July 1997.
For months, parents have been coming up against the conspiracy of silence being maintained by the Commission as well as by the crèche staff and the powers-that-be.
1. When did the Commission learn of the shocking incidents at the crèche?
2. By whom was it informed?
3. Did it immediately report the incidents to the Belgian judicial authorities?
4. Did it immediately contact the parents concerned?
5. Has it arranged psychological and/or medical follow-up care for the children?
6. Did it take the immediate precaution of removing the suspects? In other words, did the suspects continue to frequent the crèche after the Commission had learnt of the scandal?
7. Does the Commission not consider it essential to end the current system whereby the crèches are run and staff selected by a body practically independent of the Union?
8. Since the serious incidents occurred and in anticipation of a possible reform of the system, has the Commission taken steps to:
− tighten up its supervision of the running of Union crèches?
− check the aptitude of the staff recruited?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(16 October 1998)
1. and 2. On 29 May 1997 a parent complained to the management of the Clovis crèche alleging mistreatment and sexual abuse of their child, the crèche being one of the places attended by the child. The Management Committee of the crèche was informed the same day by the Director of the crèche who had received the complainant.
3. Yes. The Commission contacted the judicial authorities as soon as it was informed of the facts of the incident. It assisted the judicial authorities thereafter.
4. Yes.
5. The parents refused the psycho-medical help offered by the Commission, preferring to call on an outside specialist body. However, with the assistance of the ‘Association des parents des crèches’ and the ‘SOS enfants’ association, the Commission organised group hearings for parents using the Clovis crèche. C 135/78 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
6. On 28 June 1997, the Brussels Prosecution Service opened proceedings following the lodging of a complaint. The Commission Security Office immediately took precautionary measures to ensure the children’s safety. There were no immediate accusations against individual staff members at the Clovis crèche.
The two teachers who came under suspicion subsequently ended their services under contract to Esedra at the end of the 1996-97 school year. They took leave from27 July and 1 August 1997 and were no longer in Belgiumwhen the rumoursabout themstarted up. The intention had been to extend both contracts from the beginning of October 1997 to the end of December 1997, which is why they returned on 6 October 1997. At this point the management of the establishment decided to drop them both and cancelled the extension of their contracts. These two teachers have not worked at the Clovis crèche since 6 October 1997.
7. Of the three interinstitutional crèches in Brussels, two are directly managed by the Commission, and one by a private firmunder Belgian law for which the tender procedure was launched. The organisation and operation of the Clovis crèche and the recruitment conditions for the staff are in accordance with the quality standards laid down in the Commission specification, the application of which is regularly checked by its departments. Since identical criteria are applied to all three crèches, whether managed directly by the Commission or by a private firm, there is no difference in the service provided. The Commission does not, therefore, consider there is any causal link between the type of management, i.e. whether a crèche is managed directly or by a sub-contractor, and the occurrence of such incidents in a crèche.
8. Over the years the Commission has set up the necessary conditions to ensure proper supervision of the crèches in keeping with the high standards expected of a child-minding service. Since the above incidents, in particular at the Clovis crèche, different types of check, including checks of the operation and of the staff, have been made according to the normal schedule. However, in view of the circumstances, there is an obvious need for coordination meetings and more sustained specific checks, with a twofold goal of reinforcing security and facilitating the inquiry. In addition, the Commission maintains contacts with the Office National de l’Enfance (ONE), a body engaged in the inspection of day-care facilities in the Brussels region with a view to setting up a system of collaboration in terms of supervising management and studying mistreatment.
(1999/C 135/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2609/98
by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Promoting quality meat
What funds has the Commission provided or earmarked for the promotion of quality meat as a means of reversing the recent slump in beef consumption, restoring consumer confidence, and thus bringing about an increase in beef consumption?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(17 September 1998)
Since 1993, the Commission has supported promotion and marketing measures for quality beef and veal under Council Regulation (EEC) 2067/92 of 30 June 1992 on measures to promote and market quality beef and veal (1). 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/79
The following table summarises the budgetary situation with regard to finance for the measures:
(ECU million)
Amount of budget Amount of Expenditure Year appropriations measures selected on measures selected 1993 10,0 16,4 9,1 1994 10,0 4,0 2,7 1995 10,0 8,7 3,6 199610,0 − 3,1 1997 12,0 25,0 7,7 1998 27,0 13,6( 1) 16,6 Preliminary draft budget 1999 16,9 − 16,9 (2)
NB: The budget appropriations refer to expenditure. Payment for the measures normally straddles two budget years. (1) Of which ECU 10,3 million in preparation. (2) Estimate.
(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
(1999/C 135/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2619/98
by Sören Wibe (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Salaries of officials
Public opinion in Sweden is shocked that Swedish citizens working at the Commission and Parliament information offices in Stockholm receive very high salaries while paying a much lower rate of tax than ordinary members of the public. In Sweden, this leaves the heads of the two information offices with higher salaries after tax than the Swedish Prime Minister.
Should European Union officials based in their own countries not also pay tax in accordance with the tax regulations applying in those countries?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(22 September 1998)
Under the terms of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Communities (1), officials are liable to a tax for the benefit of the Communities on salaries, wages and emoluments paid to them by the Communities. The tax is deducted at source and the proceeds are paid into the Community budget. There are 14 tax rates ranging from 8 % to 45 % applied to consecutive salary bands.
Officials are exempt from direct national income taxes on salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Communities. They pay, of course, indirect taxes (such as value added tax) according to national tax regimes. C 135/80 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
With specific reference to officials posted to Commission representations, Commission policy is to limit as far as possible the number posted to their own Member State (2) and to apply a four year rotation system.
(1) See Article 13 of Chapter V. The protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Communities is annexed to the Treaty signed on 8 April 1965 establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the Communities and was accepted by Sweden in the accession Treaty. (2) Less than 1 % of officials are posted to representations, and even less to their own Member State.
(1999/C 135/094) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2626/98
by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Financial support for the projects of the ACP National Chambers of Commerce Association
A number of ACP national operators have applied to the EU (by means of the Commission delegations in their respective countries and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 164 of the Fourth Lomé Convention) for funding for two projects via the Association of National Chambers of Commerce, Industry and Other Economic Operators in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, which acts as an ACP trade forum. These projects are the ACP National Chambers Network Project and a project concerning the organisation of a meeting on the role of the private sector in future relations between the EU and the ACP countries.
The Libreville Declaration, which was adopted at the Summit of Heads of State and Government in Gabon (November 1997), acknowledges the need for institutional innovation and expresses support for the establishment of an ACP-EU trade forum to represent ACP businesses and trade institutions (paragraph 32).
The ACP-EU Joint Assembly held in Brussels in March 1997 adopted a resolution (ACP-EU 2082/97/fin.) in which it called on the Commission to provide the financial support needed to improve the promotion and the services of the above Association. In his oral reply to Question No 17 by the above Assembly, Mr Pinheiro, Commissioner, gave an undertaking to support any initiative by the Association which was intended to improve the exchange of trade and industrial information between ACP chambers and between the latter and those of the EU.
In more than thirty years of ACP-EU cooperation the Commission has never undertaken a cooperation project with the ACP Chambers of Commerce which would help to consolidate their potential, which is essential in order to focus the development of the private sector in the ACP countries and the involvement of civil society in cooperation policy.
Is the Commission therefore intending to provide support for the necessary consolidation of the ACP Association of National Chambers of Commerce, Industry and Other Economic Operators as a trade forum, in order to comply with Joint Assembly resolution ACP-EU 2082/97/fin. and to honour the commitment given by Mr Pinheiro in his reply to Question No 17 by the ACP-EU Joint Assembly?
Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission
(6 October 1998)
Recently the Commission received several letters from national authorising officers of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries with a request for financing under Article 164 of the Lomé convention of two projects related to the Association of ACP national chambers of commerce, industry and other economic operators. The projects are an ‘ACP national chambers network project’ and a conference on the role of the private sector in future relations between the ACP and the Community. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/81
The negotiating directives on future relations between the ACP and the Community emphasize the importance of support for private sector development after Lomé IV. The Commission is also preparing a communication on future Community support for private sector development in ACP countries,which will be discussed during autumn 1998.
Therefore it appears that the Association is organising the conference at the right moment and the Commission would be very much interested in the reflections and perceptions of the private sector represented by the national ACP chambers and is presently considering a request for co-financing the conference.
As regards the other project it should be noted that the Commission is currently discussing the possibilities of supporting the Association in a way which will appropriately address the needs of its members.
Finally the attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the ‘EU-ACP business scheme’ (EBAS) which will be implemented from the beginning of 1999 targetting service users (private ACP companies) and also service providers such as export associations and chambers of commerce.
(1999/C 135/095) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2627/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Minority languages and cultures: Community funding
The Commission is drawing up a proposal to provide a legal basis for a number of budget headings which lack such a basis and whose implementation has for that reason been suspended.
Could the Commission say which budget headings are involved and,in particular,whether they include heading B3-1006 on the promotion and protection of minority languages and cultures?
Could the Commission say what action it will take in respect of programmes which are currently being adopted,those which have already been adopted and those which are currently being implemented under budget heading B-1006 pending the final adoption of the appropriate legal basis?
Could the Commission provide information concerning the timetable for the adoption of the relevant proposal by the College of Commissioners and say what procedures and timescale will subsequently be followed when the proposal comes before Parliament and the Council?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(25 November 1998)
The Commission confirms that it is planning to present Parliament and the Council with a proposal for a legal basis for activities currently financed under item B3-1006 (promotion and protection of minority languages and cultures). It is preparing a multiannual programme which should be adopted by the Commission before the end of 1998.
Regarding the 1998 budget,implementation of the measure was not prevented by the lack of a legal basis. About half the appropriations allocated to the measure had already been committed before 31 May following selection of a first set of projects. Selection of the second set of projects took place before 10 June,the date on which the Commission decided to suspend implementation of headings lacking a legal basis following the Court of Justice decision in Case C-106/96. The Commission considered that beneficiaries whose projects had been accepted at the time of the second selection had legitimate expectations; the project therefore continued to receive the subsidy. C 135/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/096) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2629/98
by Arie Oostlander (PPE)to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Quality of milk products of the Netherlands dairy industry that qualify for subsidies under the EU school milk scheme
To what extent do milk products of the Netherlands dairy industry, such as chocolate milk, buttermilk and yoghurt drinks, satisfy the quality standards defined by the Commission for dairy products that qualify for subsidies under the EU school milk scheme?
Which products, if any, do not satisfy the Commission’s quality standards and to what extent?
If the products concerned do satisfy the quality standards, will the Commission publicise the fact so that schools may take advantage of a minimum choice of dairy products?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(18 September 1998)
The Community legislation on aid for milk and milk products distributed in schools merely lists the categories of products which are eligible for aid, and does not actually specify what quality standards such products must satisfy. As a result, the horizontal rules on the quality of dairy products placed on the market also apply to the school milk scheme. It must therefore be assumed that no dairy product manufactured by the Netherlands dairy industry should be excluded from the scheme for reasons of quality.
(1999/C 135/097) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2633/98
by Otto von Habsburg (PPE)to the Council
(1 September 1998)
Subject: EU-Croatia relations
I refer to the hardly informative and more than inadequate answer to my question of 31 March 1998 to the Council (No P-1110/98 (1)) concerning the cancellation of the Council President’s visit to Zagreb, which did not take place until 6 July:
1. Instead of making general and unsubstantiated accusations about Croatia, is the Council prepared to state specifically in what proven respects Zagrebhas failed to honour its international commitments?
2. What does the phrase ‘by the regional approach and the policy of conditionality’ mean in normal, unbureaucratic language?
3. Is the Council aware that certain circles in the EU are pursuing a systematically hostile policy against Croatia, even though it has taken an exemplary stand against foreign aggression and has never threatened any of its neighbours in any way?
(1) OJ C 323, 21.10.1998, p. 114. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/83
Reply
(20/21 December 1997)
1. Under the Paris/Dayton Peace Agreement and more recently the Bonn Peace Implementation Council (PIC) conclusions, Croatia is obliged to create conditions that are conducive to the safe and voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons. However, since the end of the mandate of the UN Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia (UNTAES), physical and bureaucratic harassment of Serbs has resulted in a constant flow of emigration, mostly to Bosnia, Federal Republic of Yougoslavia (FRY) and Western Europe.
Only following intense international pressure, Croatia finally adopted an acceptable and comprehensive Plan for the return of refugees. It still remains to be seen how this plan will be implemented.
The High Representative requested the Croatian Authorities on several occasions to use their influence on Bosnian Croats to comply within the Federation with key Dayton/Paris obligations. PIC Steering Board ambassadors in Zagreb conducted demarches in Zagreb to highlight the need for continued Croatian compliance with Dayton.
President Tudjman’s speech to the HDZ Party Congress on 21 February 1998 which drew fierce criticism from the international community both for its tone and the content, clearly has to be considered being in contradiction to Dayton obligations.
Consequently, the Council has on several occasions expressed the EU’s conviction that Croatia was falling short of its obligations and called on Zagreb to comply fully with Dayton/Paris (especially concerning special relations with the Federation), to remove obstacles to all-way refugee returns − particularly in Krajina − to publicly declare its commitment to reconciliation, to make progress on internal democracy and to demonstrate its commitment to Erdut and other agreements.
The Presidency Ambassador in Zagreb recently called on Foreign Minister Granic to convey the concerns of the EU, stressing that the EU expects the Croatian leadership to use its influence on HDZ Bosnia and Herzegovina to adhere to all commitments under the Dayton Accords.
2. In April 1997, the Council adopted a comprehensive strategy (the so-called regional approach) for the relations with the countries in the Western Balkans: Croatia, Bosnia ans Herzegovina, FRY, FYROM and Albania. In order to consolidate peace and stability in the region, to contribute to its economic renewal and to advance its European vocation, it was decided that the EU would develop its relations with these countries step by step. To this end the EU established political and economic conditions which have to be fulfilled in order to qualify first for autonomous trade preferences, then for the access to PHARE and finally for contractual relations. The Council monitors the progress made towards these conditions regularly and last adopted conclusions on the issue on 9 November 1998.
3. The Council does not share the opinion that certain circles in the EU are pursuing a systematically hostile policy against Croatia. The EU’s approach is based on objective criteria which are applicable to all the countries of the region. The EU’s attitude towards these countries and its relations with them evolve in function of the respect of the political and economic conditions set out in the Council conclusions of 29 and 30 April 1997. C 135/84 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/098) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2634/98 by Otto von Habsburg (PPE), Hiltrud Breyer (V), Charles Goerens (ELDR), Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE), Claudia Roth (V), Wilmya Zimmermann (PSE) and Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (PPE) to the Council
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Visa requirements for Bulgaria and Romania − expert reports
Several commissions of experts have recently visited Bulgaria and Romania to consider the visa problem there. No reports have yet been published on these visits. If such expert reports already exist, when will the Council be submitting them to Parliament? What conclusions has the Council reached in this matter? If a report or reports of this kind have not yet been drawn up, when will they be compiled?
Reply
(16 November 1998)
Since it is not associated with the expert commissions mentioned by the Honourable Members, the Council has no knowledge of the existence or otherwise of any reports drawn up by such commissions.
(1999/C 135/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2636/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V), Otto von Habsburg (PPE), Charles Goerens (ELDR), Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE), Claudia Roth (V), Wilmya Zimmermann (PSE) and Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (PPE) to the Council
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Visa requirement for Bulgaria and Romania
1. How, in the Council’s opinion, can the strategy for bringing Bulgaria and Romania closer to the European Union be reconciled with the visa requirement for their nationals, seeing that two EU institutions, the European Parliament and the Commission, have argued for the removal of these countries from the common list compiled pursuant to Article 100c of the Treaty establishing the European Community and that the European Parliament will shortly be reaffirming this position?
2. What are the Council’s reason for refusing to withdraw the visa requirement in respect of these countries?
3. Is the Council aware of the sometimes unreasonable conditions under which visas are issued to Bulgarian and Romanian nationals for entry into a Member Sate of the EU? Does the Council intend to ease the requirements and conditions for the issue of such visas and to abolish them in the foreseeable future?
4. Does the Council regard the proportion of Roma people in the two countries as an obstacle to the removal of the latter from the common list? If so, why?
Reply
(7/8 December 1998)
Currently there is no Commission proposal before the Council to remove Bulgaria and Romania from the list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external frontiers of the Member States.
The Council is not aware of the difficulties mentioned by the Honourable Members concerning the granting of visas. Currently, the requirements and conditions laid down for granting visas are not harmonised at Community level. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/85
It must be pointed out that visa policy does not distinguish between ethnic groups but is based on citizenship of the countries in question.
As part of its strategy to approximate the policies of the countries applying for accession to those of the European Union on visas, the Council has, since the Luxembourg Presidency, organised periodic meetings between the Member States, the Commission and those countries.
(1999/C 135/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2650/98 by Friedhelm Frischenschlager (ELDR) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Unauthorised subsidies for nuclear energy
The liberalisation of the European energy market is marching onwards and within the next few years will lead to substantial reductions in energy prices, to the benefit of citizens, as a result of increasing competition. However, the process set in train by the Commission must be subject to continuing monitoring over the next few years to ensure that subsidies (in the broadest sense) do not lead to market distortions which would have economically and environmentally undesirable long-term consequences. The peaceful use of nuclear energy, in particular, prompts the question as to whether this sector does not enjoy such subsidies on a massive scale, thereby affecting the market opportunities of other forms of energy production, particularly production from renewable sources.
Does the Commission consider that nuclear power stations and/or their operators receive subsidies, in the broad sense, which are incompatible with EU law, e.g. in the form of inadequate regulations and liability provisions, (misdirected) research funding, State guarantees, etc.?
If not, can the Commission confirm that the cost accounting of nuclear power station operators makes adequate provision for:
− the damage and devastation that might occur in the event of an accident (worst-case scenario);
− the final storage of radioactive material or the complete reprocessing thereof;
− safe closure and preservation of nuclear power stations for the period of time during which they represent a health and environmental risk, or environmentally safe scrapping at the end of their relatively short operating life?
If not, how does the Commission explain the price structure of nuclear energy? Would the Commission accept such incomplete cost accounting and its consequent price structure from other energy producers, particularly private-sector energy producers?
What does the Commission consider to be the likelihood of success if a traditional energy producer were to bring proceedings under competition law against a nuclear operator?
Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission
(1 October 1998)
With the exception of a complaint currently under examination, the Commission currently has no evidence of subsidies for nuclear power plants that are incompatible with Community law.
The regulations on the obligation to build up reserves for nuclear damage, disposal of fuel elements and decommissioning fall under the competence of the Member States. Partly, they are based on international conventions aiming at the establishment of a general safety framework for nuclear risks. C 135/86 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Under Article 24 of Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity( 1), Member States have the possibilityto notifyto the Commission commitments or guarantees of operation given before the entryinto force of the directive, which maynot be honoured on account of the provisions of the directive, with a view to applying the transitional arrangements indicated in that article. The Commission is about to examine those notifications. Should the Commission − in this or anyother context − be provided with concrete information about cost advantages that are not in line with Communitystate aid rules, it will examine them diligently.
The Commission is obliged to examine complaints from undertakings or people against breaches of Communitycompetition rules. The likelihood of success depends upon the individual case and cannot be assessed in advance.
(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.
(1999/C 135/101) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2654/98
by Friedhelm Frischenschlager (ELDR) to the Council
(1 September 1998)
Subject: European burden-sharing relating to refugees and displaced persons
The population flight associated with the crisis in Kosovo shows once again that EU-wide uniform criteria for the admission of displaced persons, refugees or asylum-seekers are needed. The solution cannot be, however, to channel refugees systematically into so-called ‘safe third countries’, even if this is legal defensible, because this affects reforming States, such as Hungary, which are right next door to the crisis areas, and which are anyway having to make great efforts to become ready to join the European Union. In connection with the creation of a possible ‘burden-sharing’ arrangement, attention is drawn to a proposal from the Commission for a Joint Action based on Article K.3 of the Treatyon European Union (COM(97) 93 final (1)), on which the Council of Ministers has so far unfortunatelyfailed to reach agreement: sensible, liberal provisions concerning familyreunification and unrestricted permission for displaced persons to engage in gainful activityappear to be particularlycontentious.
How do the ideas of the Council or of the Council Presidencyconcerning a ‘burden-sharing arrangement for population flight’ look in detail? What criteria are to be used to determine the allocation of costs relating to persons displaced bywar? What criteria are to be used for distributing displaced persons among the EU Member States? Are refugees and asylum-seekers, as well as displaced persons, to be covered by such ‘burden-sharing’? If not, whynot?
Are there plans for such ‘burden-sharing’ among the EU Member States also to include non-EU Member States, such as Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic, which are particularly affected and which are known to be deemed ‘safe third countries’? If so, in what form? If not, whynot? What are the reasons for the above Commission initiative concerning temporaryprotection of displaced persons not being followed up? Will the Council do what it can to ensure that, until armed conflict in the crisis areas comes to an end, displaced persons and refugees from Kosovo are given de facto refugee status in all EU Member States, as was granted byAustria to refugees from Bosnia?
(1) OJ C 106, 4.4.1997, p. 13.
Reply
(7/8 December 1998)
The Commission recently(in July1998) submitted to the Council and the European Parliament an amended proposal for a Joint Action concerning the temporaryprotection of displaced persons and a 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/87
proposal for a Joint Action concerning solidarity in the admission and residence of beneficiaries of the temporary protection of displaced persons, which take into account the Opinion of the European Parliament (1) and the discussions held within the Council’s bodies on the initial proposal (2) to which the Honourable Member refers.
The Council Presidency attaches a great deal of importance to this matter and has made it one of its priorities.
Both proposals are currently being considered within the Council’s bodies, by the competent working party. At this stage in the proceedings, it is impossible for the Council to reply to the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member regarding what is meant by ‘burden-sharing’and the criteria governing it.
These proposals do not concern States which are not members of the European Union. If they are adopted, they will form part of the acquis, to which any new Member State of the European Union will have to subscribe.
(1) OJ C 339, 16.11.1997, p. 146. (2) OJ C 106, 4.4.1997, p. 13.
(1999/C 135/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2665/98 by Ilona Graenitz (PSE)to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Framework directive on foodstuffs
In his statement on the Breyer report (Foodstuffs additives − A4-0242/98) Mr Bangemann referred on 14 July 1998 to the debate on a framework directive for foodstuffs. A directive of this kind was called for by Parliament in its resolution of 10 March 1998 (A4-0009/98).
Has the detailed discussion of such a directive already begun? Can a proposal for a directive still be expected during the life of the current Parliament or during the term of office of the current Commission?
Will such a directive still be produced in sufficient time for it to be accepted as part of the ‘acquis communautaire’by the applicant countries?
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(8 October 1998)
The Commission is able to assure the Honourable Member that its departments will soon begin to prepare the final touches to a proposal for a framework directive on foodstuffs.
Given the complexity of the subject matter and the need to conduct highly detailed consultations with all of the parties concerned, the Commission is at the moment unfortunately not able to give it any indication as regards the deadlines needed in order successfully to complete those preparations.
(1999/C 135/103) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2668/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI)to the Council
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Extension of the Eurodac Convention
The Justice and Home Affairs Council has already held detailed discussions on the Eurodac Convention which seeks to introduce a computer-assisted system for the exchange of fingerprints of asylum-seekers in implementation of the Dublin Convention on Asylum. This prompts the following questions: C 135/88 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
What form do the envisaged data protection provisions take?
For what period of time are the data to be stored?
According to reports, the scope of this measure is to be extended to include illegal immigrants as well by means of a protocol which is due to be adopted during the current presidency.
How far have the negotiations on this issue progressed? Are there objections to such an extension?
How is it intended to define the term ‘illegal immigrants’?
Reply
(16 November 1998)
1. The Council first wishes to point out that discussions on the draft Eurodac Convention are still in progress.
It would also point out that the European Parliament was consulted (in a letter from the Presidency dated 6 October 1997) on the draft Eurodac Convention and that it forwarded to the Council the Opinion it adopted on 15 January 1998.
The measures relating to the protection of data and to the time limit for storage already appeared in the document submitted to the European Parliament for consultation. The Honourable Member will never- theless find a summary of them below:
A. Provisions guaranteeing the protection of data
The draft Eurodac Convention contains several provisions on this, concerning in particular:
− the responsibility of the Member State of origin and the central unit as regards the use of data and the measures to be taken to ensure their security;
− the right of persons with regard to data concerning them which are recorded in the Eurodac system (access, correction in the event of errors, erasure in the event of unlawful recording);
− monitoring by an independent national supervisory authority of compliance by the Member State concerned with its data protection obligations;
− finally, monitoring by a joint supervisory authority of the central unit’s compliance with its data protection obligations.
B. Time limit for storage of data
The draft Convention provides that data will be kept in the central database for a period of ten years. They will be erased earlier where the person acquires the nationality of a Member State.
Data on asylum-seekers who have obtained in a Member State the status of refugee within the meaning of the Geneva Convention will be ‘blocked’(in the sense that they will be separated from the rest of the data and comparison results will not be forwarded to the Member States) in the central database during the first five years of Eurodac’s activities. At the end of this period, the Council will decide, on the basis of statistics established by the central unit, whether or not it is advisable to erase data relating to recognised refugees.
2. As regards the extension of the Eurodac system to include fingerprints of illegal immigrants, the Justice and Home Affairs Council, concluded at its meeting on 28 and 29 May 1998 that:
− a protocol for this purpose would be drawn up for adoption by the end of 1998;
− Member States would take appropriate steps to ensure that the national procedures for adopting the Eurodac Convention and any protocols were completed simultaneously at the earliest opportunity. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/89
Discussions on extension are continuing while a draft protocol is being prepared containing a definition of ‘illegal immigrants’ for the purpose of implementing the Eurodac Convention.
(1999/C 135/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2669/98
by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Extension of the Eurodac Convention
The Eurodac Convention which seeks to introduce a computer-assisted system for the exchange of fingerprints of asylum-seekers in order to facilitate implementation of the Dublin Convention on Asylum has already been under discussion for a long time. Nevertheless, it still prompts the following questions:
1. Does the Commission possess information as to what form the envisaged data protection provisions will take and for what period of time the data are to be stored?
2. According to reports, the scope of the measure is to be extended to include illegal immigrants as well by means of a protocol which is shortly due to be adopted.
3. How far have the negotiations on this issue progressed? Are there objections to such an extension?
4. How is it intended to define the term ‘illegal immigrants’?
Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission
(5 October 1998)
1. At its meeting on 4 and 5 December 1997, the Council confirmed the agreements reached at technical level for certain articles of the Eurodac Convention, including those relating to data storage. The relevant articles provide that the fingerprint data of asylum seekers would be stored in the Eurodac central database for ten years from the date on which they were last taken. After the ten-year period had expired, the fingerprint data would be erased. Notwithstanding this, data would be erased as soon as the person concerned acquired citizenship of a Member State. The Council also agreed on a procedure whereby data relating to a person who had been recognised as a refugee would be blocked on the central database, and statistical data would be compiled. After Eurodac had been operating for five years, the Council would revisit the issue of whether to store or erase the data of recognised refugees, taking account of the statistical information which would then be at its disposal.
The Convention contains a number of other detailed provisions on data protection arrangements. These provisions are currently being reviewed in the light of the possibility that the Commission rather than a Member State would operate the Eurodac Central Unit.
2. and 3. At its meeting on 19 March 1998, the Council commissioned a feasibility study to examine the legal and technical implications of a possible extension of the Eurodac Convention to cover illegal immigrants. At its meeting on 28 and 29 May 1998, the Council concluded that, taking account of the feasibility study, it would draw up a protocol to the Eurodac Convention extending the Eurodac system to illegal immigrants for adoption by the end of 1998. The Council noted that the precise definition of what constitutes an illegal immigrant is still to be determined. Negotiations are now taking place in the Council on the basis of the Council’s conclusions of May 1998.
The Commission considers that the extension of the Eurodac Convention to ‘illegal immigrants’ would require the development of a separate set of rules on data storage and deletion specific to that category of people. C 135/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
4. The precise definition of an ‘illegal immigrant’ has not yet been determined. The Commission notes, however, that there is general agreement that the purpose of fingerprinting illegal immigrants is to facilitate the implementation of the Dublin Convention. The relevant articles of the Dublin Convention are Article 6 and, depending on the outcome of discussions in the Council, Article 10.
(1999/C 135/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2672/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Assessment of transposition of the acquis communautaire in the applicant countries
A British Home Office Minister has stated that the third pillar acquis has already been listed in detail in anticipation of enlargement. The lists in question are to be used to gauge the progress of the accession negotiations and transposition of the acquis. A common assessment procedure has been laid down for that purpose, and an expert working party of Member State representatives set up to monitor the transposition.
1. What is the basis and underlying criteria of the assessment procedure?
2. Will the public be able to keep track of the assessment procedure? What specific form does the procedure take?
3. For whom will the expert working party draw up its assessments, and will the public be allowed to inspect them?
4. Who represents Austria in the expert working party?
Reply
(14 December 1998)
1. The basis of the assessment procedure is the Joint Action establishing a mechanism for collective evaluation of the enactment, application and effective implementation by the applicant countries of the acquis of the European Union in the field of Justice and Home Affairs (1) approved by the Justice and Home Affairs Council at its meeting on 28 and 29 May 1998. On 10 June 1998 the Permanent Representatives Committee set up the expert group referred to in Article 2 of that Joint Action. The first meeting of this Collective Evaluation Working Group took place in Brussels, on 30 September 1998. Since then country-by-country evaluations have been carried out on a regular basis.
2. The evaluation procedure involves analysing information relating to the effective implementation by the candidate countries of the acquis of the Union. The information examined by the Evaluation Working Group is essentially based on Member States’ experience of working with the candidate countries, on the reports from Commission delegations in these countries and the information available to the Commission within the framework of the overall process of accession (including reports concerning the PHARE programme) together with reports from the Council of Europe or from any other source deemed to be relevant. The Commission should take account of the evaluations in its proposals for significant adjustment of the priorities and objectives of the accession partnerships.
3. The Collective Evaluation Working Group will report to the Council on the progress and results of the evaluations through Coreper and in close cooperation with the K.4 Committee and with the other Council bodies involved in the enlargement process.
4. It is the responsibility of each Member State to designate its representative to the Group.
(1) OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 8. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/91
(1999/C 135/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2675/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) tothe Council
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Transparency and openness in the sphere of justice and home affairs
When they met within the Council in March 1998, the Ministers responsible for justice and home affairs issued a statement on openness and transparency. The object was to make details of measures more readily and rapidly accessible, provide regular exhaustive information to the press, and organise open Council debates. In addition, the national parliaments were to be briefed at an earlier stage.
1. What practical steps will the Presidency-in-Office take to implement the above statement?
2. How will information (for the public and Press) be made more easily accessible?
3. What will be done to involve the national parliaments earlier in the day?
4. What open debates is the Austrian Presidency planning to organise?
5. How far has the Council progressed in its preparations to compile a list of documents available for inspection by the public, an essential means of promoting transparency and bringing the Union closer to citizens?
6. What seminars and conferences on justice and home affairs does the Austrian Presidency plan to hold? How will the conclusions be brought to public notice?
7. According to reports, the British Presidency, in collaboration with the Commission, drew up an exact list of legislation constituting the third pillar acquis, which is now to be used as a basis for the accession negotiations. Would it not be conducive to transparency to publish the list? If so, when can the list be supplied?
Reply
(7/8 December 1998)
The Council must emphasise that it attaches considerable importance to complying with its obligations as regards transparency and public access to Council documents. This is particularly the case as regards decisions concerning access to documents under Council Decision 93/731/EEC.
The Council is also aware of the new obligations which entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty will impose on it with regard to openness. Article 1 of the TEU, as amended, will establish the principle of openness in decision-making within the EU and Article 255 of the EC Treaty, as amended, will give citizens of the Union right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, subject to principles and conditions to be defined. Under Article 41 of the amended TEU, Article 255 will also apply to Title VI of the TEU.
As to the Honourable Member’s question regarding the practical steps taken by the Presidency-in-Office, the Council would point out that the conclusions adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 19 March 1998 have been and are being taken into account with respect to all measures, decisions and action of the Austrian Presidency. The schedule of meetings of the K.4 Committee and the working parties has been made available to the public and the number of press conferences has been increased. In addition, the Presidency intends to publish a progress report at the end of its term of office on the work carried out in the sphere of justice and home affairs. It is also proposed to publish the proposals put forward at the time of their submission to the European Parliament, initially on the Internet and subsequently in the OJEC.
As far as open debates are concerned, it should be noted that the Council, in its ‘justice and home affairs’ composition, will hold an open debate on 3 December 1998 on the subject of an ‘Action plan on establishing an area of freedom, security and justice’. C 135/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
It should also be pointed out that a number of seminars in the field of justice and home affairs have been organised under the Austrian Presidency. A detailed list will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member.
In addition, work is currently under way on the publication on the Internet of documents concerning Title VI. This work will be completed as soon as possible. A copy of the list of the European Union’s acquis in the field of justice and home affairs up to May 1998 will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member.
Finally, the Council would draw attention to the fact that the Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union, which will be added to the Treaties by the Amsterdam Treaty, provides for national parliaments to be informed in good time of any legislative proposal or other significant measure to allow them to examine it. This Protocol is intended to encourage the closer involvement of national parliaments in the European Union’s activities and to enhance their ability to express their points of view on matters of particular interest. It should be noted that the Council’s practice, where justice and home affairs are concerned, is to make all documents available in the eleven official languages of the European Union at least fifteen days before the Council meeting concerned. As a result, all national parliaments have the possibility − through their Governments − of scrutinising the proposals made within the European Union framework.
(1999/C 135/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2678/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Environmental crime
The fight against organised crime is increasingly becoming a key concern for the Union. It is generally agreed that the threat posed needs to be tackled through individual and joint action.
The conclusions of the Cardiff Summit noted that environmental crime was a serious, disturbing matter whose effects often extended beyond national borders. Measures would accordingly have to be taken to combat it.
1. What practical steps will the Commission take to answer the above call for action?
2. What particular forms will the measures take?
3. What impact will they have on criminal prosecution issues in the Member States?
Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission
(5 October 1998)
The Commission agrees with the conclusions of the Cardiff European Council on the need for closer cooperation at European level to combat environmental crime. It will examine with interest the proposals to provide common definitions of offences announced by the Danish Minister for Justice during the public debate at the Council meeting (Justice and Home Affairs) held in May 1998. Such measures will facilitate judicial cooperation and prevent certain firms from taking advantage of existing disparities between criminal laws to the detriment of the environment. The Commission feels this initiative should be supplemented by a communication on stepping up the fight against environmental crime. The commu- nication would cover the exchange of information, training, investigations, prevention and legal matters such as improved enforcement of existing legislation. With regard to the last point, as the Commission already mentioned in its communication on Implementing Community environmental law (1), it is planning to include specific provisions in its proposals for environmental legislation, requiring the Member States to make provision, in their transposal measures, for penalties, including criminal penalties, in the event of an infringement of these measures.
(1) COM(96) 500 final. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/93
(1999/C 135/108) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2680/98
by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Judicial cooperation
Organised crime is a priority issue for the Austrian Presidency. Inadequacies in the judicial cooperation system foster every form of cross-border crime. To speed up and enhance the effectiveness of legal relations, the Council has adopted a joint action to facilitate direct contacts among authorities. Another measure intended to serve the same purpose is a proposal currently under discussion to improve judicial assistance procedures, which, however, fails to address key questions. Further steps are absolutely essential in order to tighten up judicial assistance and extradition procedures.
1. Is the Commission drawing up further measures at the present time to speed up and enhance the effectiveness of judicial cooperation?
2. Does it know whether steps will be taken in this area in the near future?
Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission
(29 September 1998)
Fighting against organised crime is not only a priority of the Austrian Presidency, but a pressing necessity identified by the Community as such. The Amsterdam European Council in June 1997 endorsed an action plan to combat organised crime (1), which contains numerous measures and initiatives to be taken within a determined time schedule, in particular with regard to judicial cooperation. The recommendations of the action plan are under constant monitoring and a first report on their implementation was submitted at the European Council in Cardiff in June 1998.
Among the measures which were recently adopted, it is worth mentioning the joint action creating a European judicial network (2), the purpose of which is to enable appropriate direct contacts to be set up between judicial authorities and other authorities responsible for judicial cooperation and action against forms of serious crime within Member States, as well as the joint action on good practice in mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, which provides for concrete practical improvements. The Parliament issued an opinion on all those drafts.
A number of further instruments are under discussion, including a draft joint action on identification,tra- cing, freezing or seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds from crime and a draft convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters (3), which builds on the 1959 European Convention and its additional Protocol for enhanced assistance between Member States.
Under the Treaty on European Union, the Commission itself is not entitled to draw up proposals in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. It is however managing the Grotius programme of incentives and exchanges for legal practitioners (4) which, by developing mutual understanding and fostering mutual confidence, facilitates assistance and cooperation. Moreover, in the perspective of the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, the Commission issued a communication ‘Towards an area of freedom, security and justice’ (5), in which it set out the issues which in its view should be addressed to realise that goal. The European Council in Vienna will consider the concrete steps and timetable for meeting the objectives set up by the new Title IV of the Treaty.
(1) OJ C 251, 15.8.1997. (2) OJ L 191, 7.7.1998. (3) OJ L 191, 7.7.1998. (4) OJ L 287, 8.11.1996. (5) COM(98) 459 final. C 135/94 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/109) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2681/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Threatened flood of refugees from Kosovo
It appears increasingly unlikely that a diplomatic solution can be found in Kosovo. Europe is consequently threatened with a flood of refugees on a comparable scale to the influx from Bosnia-Herzergovina. Appropriate advance planning would do much to simplify the situation in the event of a crisis.
Has the Council already discussed this problem and worked out ways of proceeding that would enable it to act instead of just reacting after the event?
If so, what form are the preparations taking?
If not, does it plan to make the necessary preparations in the near future?
What is the state of progress as regards the action plan on the influx of immigrants from Iraq and neighbouring regions, due to be published in autumn 1998? What specific arrangements will be laid down in that action plan?
(1999/C 135/110) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3049/98 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Council
(2 October 1998)
Subject: Kosovo refugees and the EU
In the event that the crisis in Kosovo becomes even more acute, has the Council drawn up any action plan specifying the measures to be taken to deal with the problems arising from an influx of more refugees, particularly into neighbouring countries, two of which are Member States?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2681/98 and P-3049/98
(7/8 December 1998)
The Council is fully aware that the extremely violent offensive of the Serbian security forces against the ‘Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)’ has led to a dramatic humanitarian situation. According to the latest data from UNHCR, there are over 250 000 refugees and internally displaced persons (40 000 in Montenegro, 15 000 in Albania, 2 000 in FYROM). The Council agrees that the prospect of a growing flow of refugees into Western Europe is a real one. While there has been a certain improvement in the humanitarian situation in Kosovo, following the cessation of hostilities and an increased international presence, the Council remains concerned by the situation of tens of thousands of people who may still be without permanent shelter as winter approaches. The EU will continue to deploy substantial resources to alleviate their plight.
The EU has adopted a two-pronged approach to the problem, addressing both its root cause and its humanitarian fall-out.
On the political level, the EU fully supports the agreements signed in Belgrade on 16 October 1998 between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and the OSCE, and on 15 October 1998 between the FRY and NATO following the negotiations mandated by the Contact Group on the basis of the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions, as an important step towards a political solution to the Kosovo crisis. It welcomed the adoption on 24 October of UN Security Council Resolution 1203, which confers the authority of the United Nations to the demand for full and immediate compliance by all parties concerned with these agreements, the unilateral commitments and Security Council Resolutions 1160 and 1199. The Council reiterates that there must be full and immediate compliance with Resolution 1203 by all parties concerned. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/95
The Council would emphasise that cooperation with the European Community Monitoring Mission (ECMM) is an integral part of compliance by the FRY with UN Security Council Resolution 1199. It therefore expects the authorities of the FRY to grant the ECMM unlimited access to the whole of the Republic’s territory.
With regard to humanitarian assistance, the EU is making major efforts to help refugees and displaced persons, not only in Kosovo, but also in Albania. The EU’s aim is to deal with the issue within the region, in order to lessen migratory pressure on EU Member States. Efforts undertaken in close collaboration with the UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have concentrated on returning refugees and internally displaced persons to their villages in the framework of the ‘Kinkel-Védrine initiative’. The EU Presidency has established humanitarian working parties in Belgrade and Geneva to improve coordination of and support for the efforts being made by the international community and the humanitarian organisations active in Kosovo for the return of refugees. The main problem, however, is still the lack of a secure environment for refugee return. At its meeting on 26 October 1998 the Council took note of the Presidency’s ten-point Action Plan for the return of refugees and displaced persons, which was drawn up on the basis of the information prepared by the EU Special Envoy for Kosovo. The Commission also decided to supply emergency humanitarian aid, bringing to ECU 44 million the level of aid provided by the Community and Member States in 1998.
As far as preparations for the future are concerned, plans have already been made to support measures in the social and education areas intended to establish a climate of confidence and to strengthen civil society, including by means of Community support for the implementation of an agreement on teaching.
With regard to the EU Action Plan on the influx of migrants from Iraq and the neighbouring countries in the region, adopted by the Council on 26 January 1998, it should be remembered that, in accordance with Articles J.7 and K.6 of the Treaty on European Union, the Presidency of the Council submitted, for information, the text of the Action Plan to the European Parliament on 25 February 1998. Since the adoption of the Action Plan, the Council has regularly taken stock of its implementation. At the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 24 September 1998 it was stressed that the causes of possible refugee flows needed to be examined. It was also emphasised that a temporary common system on how to deal with the refugees already present in the Member States should be defined. The Council also highlighted the importance of arriving at a common political assessment of the situation in Kosovo, to ensure that examination of asylum applications from Kosovo Albanians was conducted in a more consistent way in the various Member States.
(1999/C 135/111) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2687/98
by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Discharge of untreated sewage in Lisbon
Is the Commission aware that, according to Portuguese press reports, many newly opened waterfront restaurants in Lisbon are bypassing the public city sewage system and discharging completely untreated sewage into the Tagus? What steps will it take to curb this continual pollution of the Tagus Estuary?
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(5 October 1998)
Under Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991, on the treatment of urban waste waters (1), as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC (2) of 27 February 1998, Member States must ensure that sewer systems convey all urban waste waters to water reclamation works for treatment before being discharged into the recipient waters. The final deadline for this is 31 December 1998 in the case of urban areas having more than 10 000 equivalent inhabitants (an equivalent inhabitant is a unit of C 135/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
measurement representing the average organic load produced by one person within one day) whose urban effluents are discharged into waters that have been identified as sensitive by the Member States. For conurbations having more than 15 000 equivalent inhabitants whose urban effluents are discharged into waters that have not been identified as sensitive that deadline is 31 December 2000, while for small conurbations the relevant date is 31 December 2005.
The Commission is currently checking the criteria used by the Member States, including Portugal, to identify sensitive areas in terms of water quality. It will for this purpose satisfy itself, in particular, that the classification of the Tagus estuary conforms, since it has not been identified as a sensitive area by the Portuguese authorities.
The Commission has not been informed of any direct discharges of effluent from several Lisbon restaurants into the Tagus estuary. It will, in good time check that all conurbations, including Lisbon, comply with the provisions of the directive referred to above with regard to the collection and treatment of urban waste waters.
(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991. (2) OJ L 67, 7.3.1998.
(1999/C 135/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2691/98
by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: EU relations with Turkey and their impact on the trade in hazelnuts
The current strain in relations between the EU and Turkey lies behind measures such as the change to the autonomous tariff quota on hazelnut imports. The new Council Regulation No 1506/98 (1) of 13 July 1998 suspends the exemption from import duties for a quota of 9060 tonnes of hazelnuts entering the EU market from Turkey.
Has the Commission assessed the potential impact on European producers, especially those in the Reus district, should Turkey react to the new regulation by abandoning henceforth the minimum price support for hazelnuts of approximately 4 dollars per kilogramme?
(1) OJ L 200, 16.7.1998, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(9 October 1998)
As the Honourable Member points out, Council Regulation (EC) 1506/98 of 13 July suspends the autonomous tariff quota on 9 060 tonnes of hazelnuts imported from Turkey. This Regulation is a response to Turkey’s continuing ban on all imports of beef and live bovines, including those from the Community.
The annual meeting provided for in Decision No 1/98 of the EC-Turkey Association Council took place in Reus, Spain, on 10 September. Representatives of the Commission, the Turkish Under-Secretariat of Foreign Trade, Community traders and Turkish hazelnut exporters discussed the hazelnut market and its prospects.
At the meeting the Turkish authorities told the Commission that they intended to continue their current policy of intervention and price support. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/97
(1999/C 135/113) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2696/98 by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: European definition of heavy goods vehicles
The total authorised loaded weight for heavy goods vehicles in France is subject to a limit of 40 tonnes, whereas the corresponding limit in neighbouring European countries ranges from 44 to as much as 50 tonnes.
The European Union has been looking into a common definition of road transport vehicles with a view to harmonising the rules applicable to them in the light of the opening of borders to the transport of goods by road and establishing the weight, dimensions and environmental standards to which such ‘European’ vehicles should conform.
Can the Commission say what progress has been made on this matter?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(6 October 1998)
In 1993, the Commission adopted a proposal to harmonise the maximum weights and dimensions of lorries throughout the Community (1) for international and national transport operations.
The proposal contained, inter alia, a maximum weight limit of 44 tons for 6 − axle lorry combinations fitted with air suspension and a maximum weight limit of 40 tons for 5 − axle lorry combinations.
Whilst certain aspects of the proposal (chiefly those relating to maximum vehicle dimensions for all transport and weight limits only for international transport) were adopted as Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 (2), there was no agreement in the Council to harmonise maximum vehicle weights for national transport.
This part of the Commission’s proposal consequently formally remains with the Council for consideration and there are currently no plans to withdraw the proposal.
(1) OJ C 38, 8.2.1994. (2) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.
(1999/C 135/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2697/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Flight safety
Community legislation on flight safety points to the establishment of an independent national agency for the prevention and investigation of aviation accidents as one of the most effective means of achieving the goal of flight safety.
The setting up of such a body, made obligatory by an EEC directive which has yet to be implemented by Italy, has become more urgent and necessary as a result of the introduction of free competition between carriers. Its establishment should be justified on grounds that attract broad political consensus, precisely because everyone has a right to safety.
Can the European Commission say which Member States have yet to implement the directive and does it not consider that it should prevail upon these Member States to do so? C135/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(9 October 1998)
Five Member States (Belgium, Greece, France, Italy, Austria and Portugal) have still not fully completed the transposition process of Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents (1).
The Commission has already sent reasoned opinions to these Member States and will decide before the end of the year whether Court referrals are necessary.
(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994.
(1999/C135/115) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2698/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care
With regard to the serious problems caused in Italy by the distinction between the register of dentists and the register of surgeons, in which doctors specialised in dentistry and in odontostomatology are registered, can the Commission say:
1. whether in any Member States other than Italy, doctors practising dentistry belong to the same professional body;
2. whether in France and Luxembourg there are regulations governing ‘activities involving the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ...(...)... the teeth, mouth, jaws ...’ carried out by dentists who are not doctors or by doctors (whether or not specialising in stomatology) practising either in the public sector or privately, and also whether exceeding any such restrictions on the right to practise constitutes a criminal offence or merely an aggravating factor in cases of malpractice?
(1999/C135/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2699/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care
The so-called ‘doctor directives’, Directives 75/362/EEC( 1) and 75/363/EEC( 2) regulate, on the basis of analogous criteria (mutual recognition and right of establishment) the right to practise, among other things, odontostomatology (activities simply involving the treatment of mouth and teeth problems carried out without restrictions by doctors).
It should be noted that the ‘doctor directives’ do not specify the fields of activity of doctors, only the criteria for their training. Indeed, no Member State has ever considered it possible to place an anatomical limit on the scope of the actions of a doctor called upon to treat a patient. Only in Italy has it been deemed that because the treatment of one part of the body (the teeth, mouth, etc.) has been entrusted to a health- care professional who is not a doctor this should automatically mean that this part of the body must by law no longer come within a doctor’s sphere of activity.
Can the Commission say whether any Community legislation or precedents exist that may in any way have imposed some kind of regulatory framework on Member States forcing them explicitly to ban doctors from practising in the areas of the treatment of the mouth and the teeth?
(1) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975, p. 1. (2) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975, p. 14. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/99
(1999/C 135/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2700/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care
Prior to 1980, the year in which the first degree courses in dentistry were introduced (also the year in which the EC directives came into force) offering places on a strictly limited and selective basis, in some medical schools dentistry was regarded as the Cinderella of medical specialisations. It now appears, however, that all the doctors registered on the register of dentists (30 000 in Italy) must be removed on the grounds that they do not satisfy the requirements of the Community directives.
With reference to the so-called ‘doctor directives’, Directives 75/362/EEC (1) and 75/363/EEC (2) which regulate the recognition of doctors’ qualifications, their right of establishment and right to practise, among other things, as specialists in odontostomatology, can the Commission say whether, from a legal point of view, it meant by this anything other than ‘activities involving the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ...(...)... the teeth, mouth, jaws ...’ carried out by doctors?
A precise answer would be appreciated because in Italy the interpretation of this legislation has the potential to cause unpleasant professional problems and to have harmful repercussions, not least in the legal sphere.
For the purpose of further clarification, can the Commission also say whether the so-called ‘dentist directives’, Directives 78/686/EEC (3) and 78/687/EEC (4) of 25 July 1978, have the legal authority to regulate, directly or indirectly, the activities of doctors in the Member States?
(1) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975, p. 1. (2) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975, p. 14. (3) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1. (4) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10.
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2698/98, E-2699/98 and E-2700/98 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(27 October 1998)
According to the information available to the Commission, Spain is the only Member State apart from Italy where dental practitioners covered by the ‘dentists’ Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC (namely ‘licenciados in odontología’) and doctors specialising in stomatology belong to the same professional body (‘Colegio de Odontólogos y Estomatólogos’). The Commission wishes to point out, however, that the Spanish and Italian situations are not comparable, since in Spain doctors specialising in stomatology belong exclusively to the above-mentioned professional body, while non-specialist doctors have never been able to practise dentistry as their main activity, since this is prohibited by national legislation. As regards legislation in France and Luxembourg, the Commission is not aware of any regulations such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member.
Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC on dental practitioners, the purpose of which is the creation of a specific profession of dentist as distinct from that of doctor, group certain activities under the professional title of ‘dental practitioner’. These directives were interpreted by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 1 June 1995 in case C-40/93 Commission v Italy (1). It follows from this judgment that, in order to have the right to practise dentistry, the dental practitioner must possess one of the qualifications referred to in Article 2 of Directive 78/686/EEC, unless expressly covered by the exemption provided for in the directive − including Article 19 relating to Italy − and that the Member States may on no account create categories of dental practitioner which do not correspond to any of the categories provided for by the directives concerned. Thus the Court ruled that, by deferring, by Law No 471 of 31 October 1988, until the 1984/1985 academic year, with regard to diplomas in medicine and surgery, the final date set in Article 19 of Directive 78/686/EEC, Italy failed to fulfil its obligations under these directives, since at the time when Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC obliging Italy to create the specific profession of dentist were C 135/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
adopted, dentistry was practised in that Member State by doctors. By way of exemption, Article 19 of Directive 78/686/EEC allows such doctors to continue to practise dentistry and to move to other Member States as dental practitioners on the main condition that they began their medical training before 28 January 1980. As Community law stands at present, only doctors who began their medical training in Italy before 28 January 1980 are covered by Article 19 (on the conditions laid down by this article) and may thus practise dentistry and move to other Member States as dental practitioners.
Directive 93/16/EEC (2), which consolidates Directives 75/362 and 75/363/EEC, does not specify the field of activity of doctors but lays down solely the minimum training criteria. Nor is it the purpose of the ‘dentists’ Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC to regulate the activities of doctors. However, the special situation of Italy at the time the ‘dentists’ Directives were adopted called for a temporary derogation (Article 19 of Directive 78/686/EEC). With regard to the questions on membership of professional bodies, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answer to Written Question E-1522/96 by Mrs Muscardini (3). The Commission also refers the Honourable Member to the answers to Written Questions E-1324/95 (4), 836/96 (5), 3592/96 (6), 3593/966 and 1649/97 by Mrs Muscardini (7), which all deal with odontostomatology in Italy.
(1) Reports 1995, pages I-1319. (2) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993. (3) OJ C 356, 25.11.1996. (4) OJ C 277, 23.10.1995. (5) OJ C 280, 25.9.1996. (6) OJ C 186, 18.6.1997. (7) OJ C 391, 23.12.1997.
(1999/C 135/118) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2706/98 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: EU subsidy for school milk
Can the Commission verify that the current level of subsidy for schools in the UK is 11,98 p per pint of milk? If so, given the importance of milk as a source of calcium for children, is this an adequate level of subsidy or does it need to be reviewed?
Can the Commission confirm what channels primary schools have to use in relation to the Intervention Board in Reading in the UK in order to access this subsidy? Can the Commission investigate whether there is an unnecessary amount of bureaucracy in accessing it and if so, how this procedure can be simplified?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(25 September 1998)
Following an adjustment of the United Kingdom green rate on 3 May 1998, the level of subsidy for whole milk distributed under the Community school milk scheme now amounts to 11,67 pence per pint. This subsidy, which amounts to 95 % of the target price for milk, is higher than any other subsidy granted in the framework of the common market organisation for milk and milk products. The Commission is convinced that this level of subsidy is adequate.
A primary school in the United Kingdom wishing to participate in the scheme should contact the Community school milk subsidy scheme section in the intervention board in Reading, which is responsible for implementing the scheme in the United Kingdom. As regards the practical arrangements for the scheme, the Commission’s role is confined to checking their conformity with the existing Community legislation. The administrative procedures as such fall under national competence and, therefore, their possible simplification should be discussed with the British authorities in the first instance. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/101
(1999/C 135/119) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2709/98 by Françoise Grossetête (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Assessment of the risks of biocidal products
Directive 67/548/EEC (1) establishes a single framework that applies to all chemical substances before they are placed on the Community market, if this took place after 10 September 1981. The European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances (EINECS) lists all the substances that were on the market between 1 January 1971 and 18 September 1981, and Regulation (EEC) 793/93 (2) enables the risks posed by the substances listed in EINECS to be systematically evaluated and controlled.
Of the 110 000 substances that appear in EINECS, 900 of those listed under the heading ‘active biocidal substances’ have been singled out for evaluation using a risk assessment procedure that is entirely different from that set out in Directive 93/67/EEC (3) laying down the principles for assessment of risks to man and the environment of substances notified in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC.
Directive 98/8/EC (4) concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market does not exempt the new active substances from the requirement that notification should be given of their being placed on the market, as already stipulated by Directive 67/548/EEC.
In view of the above and also of the European Parliament’s resolution on the report of the group of independent experts on simplification of Community legislation and administrative provisions of 4July 1996 (A4-0201/96) (5) and the new Title XIX of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Article 174(3).
Could the Commission state:
1. Why it considers that the risk assessment for these active biocidal substances cannot be carried out in line with the procedure set out in Directive 93/67/EEC and its technical annexes and how it justifies the fact that there are currently two ‘procedures’ for carrying out risk assessments?
2. How it justifies the fact that two requirements concerning the notification of a substance being placed on the market coexist in Community legislation?
(1) OJ L 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1. (2) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1. (3) OJ L 227, 8.9.1993, p. 9. (4) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1. (5) OJ C 211, 22.7.1996, p. 23.
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(30 October 1998)
Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market provides that all biocidal products on the Community market must be authorised by Member States following a decision taken in accordance with the common principles laid down in Annex VI of the Directive.
It also provides that only those active substances listed in Annex I or IA (positive lists) can be included in biocidal products. The decision to include or not to include an active substance in Annex I or IA will be based upon the evaluation of the risks that it poses to humans and to the environment. This will initially be made by a Member State rapporteur, but the ultimate decision will be at Community level following the opinion of the standing committee on biocidal products. This is a different process from that foreseen by Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and admin- istrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, where a substance is placed on the European market with a notification scheme and with a risk assessment carried out in only one Member State. C 135/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
The Commission is developing technical notes for guidance (TNsG) to carry out a comprehensive risk assessment for biocidal active substances and biocidal products. These TNsG are based on the same principles detailed in the technical guidance document in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of 20 July 1993 laying down the principles for assessment of risks to man and the environment of substances notified in accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC and Commission Regulation (EC) 1488/94 of 28 June 1994 laying down the principles for the assessment of risks to man and the environment of existing substances in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 (1). However, the general nature of the technical guidance document makes it unsuitable as such for the purpose of the biocides Directive due to the often specific use pattern of biocides, the fact that biocidal active substances are placed on the market for their ‘cidal’, i.e. killing, effect and that in some cases they are deliberately introduced in the environment or in the food processing chain. They also often come in contact with the human population, including non-professional workers and the general public. These aspects have to be carefully considered in the risk assessment.
The Commission, in accordance with Article 13, paragraph 1 fifth indent of Directive 67/548/EEC, intends to adopt a measure to exempt active substances for exclusive use as biocides from certain of the provisions of the Directive, particularly those provisions concerning notification, effective from 13 May 2000 when Directive 98/8/EC has to be implemented.
(1) OJ L 161, 29.6.1994.
(1999/C 135/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2714/98
by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Threat to the peace process in Angola caused by an arms build up
Is the Council prepared to take an unambiguous political stance against the threat to the peace process in Angola caused by an arms build up now that the government in Luanda is launching military attacks from the territory of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Namibia and using the most modern weapons, bought out of Angolan oil revenues, when 60 % of the Angolan population is living below the poverty line and Angolan troops are still stationed in the neighbouring country of Congo-Brazzaville in order to maintain the unelected President in power there and literally threatening to liquidate the official opposition, given that the EU cannot tolerate such conduct within the current political relationship based on the Convention of Lomé and that it will inevitably be obliged to impose sanctions?
Reply
(20/21 December 1998)
1. The Council shares the Honourable Member’s deep concern about the deterioration of the political and military situation in Angola and the growing risk of a return to war and further widespread suffering of the Angolan people.
The EU has consistently urged the parties to fulfil the Lusaka Protocol, particularly as regards the demobilization of all UNITA troops who have not yet been incorporated into the Angolan army.
The Council is of the opinion that the primary cause of the crisis in Angola and of the current impasse in the peace process, as stated by the UN Security Council in its Resolution 1195 (1998) adopted on 15 September 1998, is the failure by the leadership of UNITA to comply with its obligations under the ‘Acordos de Paz’, the Lusaka Protocol and relevant Security Council resolutions. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/103
The European Union will therefore continue to call upon the UNITA leadership to comply immediately and without conditions with its obligations, in particular the complete demilitarisation of its forces and full cooperation in the immediate and unconditional extension of State administration throughout the national territory.
In the meantime, recognising the patience shown by the Angolan government, the Union will encourage the latter to reject military action, to pursue dialogue to resolve the crisis, to refrain from any steps which could exacerbate the current situation, and to facilitate the work of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General.
In the framework of its relations with Angola, the Union remains of course committed to encouraging and supporting national reconciliation, economic reconstruction and democratisation, on the basis of respect for the rule of law and good governance (including the transparent and accountable management of all the country’s resources for the purpose of equitable and sustainable development).
2. Concerning the crisis in the Great Lakes region, the Union maintains that no lasting peace can be achieved without a political settlement and continues to support the idea of convening an international conference, under the joint auspices of the UN and the OAU and enjoying the support of all the States of the region, in order to address within a global approach the root causes of the conflicts there.
On the recent crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the Union has in particular reiterated its support for the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty of the DRC and its neighbouring countries and called for a cessation of external interference in that country. It should be noted in this context that the DRC’s invitation to Angolan, Zimbabwean and Namibian troops was not considered inconsistent with UN Charter principles by the UN Security Council, though the Union is of course lending its support only to those diplomatic initiatives aimed at a peaceful solution.
3. Like the Honourable Member, the European Union remains concerned about the situation in the Republic of Congo and has condemned any external interference, particularly intervention by foreign troops, and has asked for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces.
(1999/C 135/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2718/98 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE)to the Council
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Questions concerning human rights violations in the Netherlands Antilles
1. Is the Council of Ministers aware that the Public Prosecutor in Curaçao has ordered an investigation into the ill-treatment of prisoners in Koraal Specht Prison?
2. Is the Council of Ministers aware that violent incidents occurred in the high-security wing of Koraal Specht Prison before warders and members of the riot police intervened?
3. Does the Council of Ministers realise that the manner in which the riot police in the Antilles intervened, which included forcing a group of prisoners to strip naked and, while handcuffed, run the gauntlet back to their cells along a row of warders hitting them with batons, constitutes a serious violation of human rights?
4. Is the Council prepared to ask the Kingdom of the Netherlands for information about these practices, and what does the Council of Ministers intend to do to prevent such conduct from occurring on the territory of an EU Member State in the future?
Reply
(14 December 1998)
The Council is not in a position to answer the Honourable Member’s questions which, in any case, do not come under the competence of the European Union. C 135/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2722/98 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Doubts about the safety of a nuclear power plant in Cuba
1. Is the Council aware that work has been resumedon the construction of a nuclear power plant in Juragua, Cuba, which was begun in 1981 and stopped in 1992, although the building was described as ramshackle in a recent report in ‘The Independent’?
2. Is the Council preparedto seek information as to the safety of both the buildingandthe reactors which, it is claimed, will be ready to go on stream within four years?
3. What prospects does Cuba’s observer status under the Convention of Lomé offer for the finding of a solution to this issue which will be satisfactory andsafe for Cuba in particular andfor the region andthe worldin general, andis the Council preparedto make use of this new political relationship between the EU andCuba?
Reply
(16 November 1998)
1. The question raisedby the Honourable Member has not been discussedbythe Council.
2. In any case, such a question couldbe discussedinthe framework not of Euratom but of the Convention on Nuclear Safety, to which Cuba (having signedthe Convention on 20 September 1994) and the Member States of the EU are party.
The objectives of that Convention are:
i) to achieve and maintain a high level of nuclear safety worldwide through national measures and international cooperation;
ii) to establish and maintain effective defences in nuclear installations against potential radiological hasards in order to protect individuals, society and the environment from harmful effects of ionizing radiation from such installations;
iii) to prevent accidents with radiological consequences and to mitigate such consequences should they occur.
Article 5 states that ‘each Contracting Party shall submit for review, prior to each meeting referredto in Article 20, a report on the measures it has taken to implement each of the obligations of this Convention’.
3. Neither the existing Lomé Convention nor the negotiating proposal for a future Lomé Convention contain provisions on this matter.
It is also pointedout to the Honourable Member that Cuba’s observer status at the forthcoming negotiations is without prejudice to any future decision on its accession to the Lomé Convention.
(1999/C 135/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2724/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Protection of cultural monuments of Kosovo
Large numbers of Orthodox and Muslim monuments in Kosovo are under serious threat of destruction as a result of the armedhostilities in the region. Since the EU regardsthe protection of the cultural heritage of 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/105
all peoples as a matter of prime importance and works in close cooperation with Unesco and other international organizations to that end, will the Commission say what initiatives it will take to have the monuments of the region of Kosovo classified as part of the world cultural heritage and protected accordingly?
Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission
(15 October 1998)
The Commission is aware of the threat to the cultural heritage monuments in Kosovo due to the armed conflict.
The Commission has no competence to classify cultural heritage monuments in the world heritage list. This is the exclusive responsibility of the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organisation (Unesco) and as the Honourable Member is aware, such an initiative has to be undertaken by the authorities of the country in question through the diplomatic procedures established by Unesco.
(1999/C 135/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2726/98
by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Soap containing mercury
Can the Commission inform me if skin-whitening soaps containing mercury are still being produced for export from the EU? Can the Commission inform me in which Member States the manufacture of this banned product continues?
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(30 September 1998)
The safety of cosmetic products marketed in the Community is ensured by the provisions of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1) (the Cosmetics Directive). The use of mercury and its compounds in cosmetic products marketed in the Community is prohibited through the provisions of Annex II, ‘List of substances which must not form part of the composition of cosmetic products’.
The Cosmetics Directive refers to the placing on the market of cosmetic products in the Community. There are no provisions that cover the manufacture of cosmetic products for export to third countries. Rather, the marketing of products in third countries is considered a matter for the legislation of the appropriate authority holding jurisdiction in the country in question.
Further, the Cosmetics Directive does not require the notification of manufacturing sites that produce products intended solely for export to third countries. Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to address the question of whether skin whitening mercury based soaps are still in production for export from the Community.
(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. C 135/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2730/98 by Jessica Larive (ELDR)to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: DG XIII’s failure to pay a subsidy promised to the Netherlands Film Festival
In 1995 the Commission (DG XIII) decided to grant the Netherlands Film Festival a subsidy of ECU 12 000 to organise the Scientific Technical Festival. After a series of letters, phone calls and requests for payments the sum in question was eventually received in early 1997.
In1996 anothersubsidy, this time of twice ECU 12 000, was promised by anofficial of DG XIII. The requisite papers were completed and returned by the recipient.
However, despite a number of letters, petitions and a complaint to the European Ombudsman no money has yet beenforthcoming.
1. Is the Commission aware of the facts concerning the granting of subsidies by an official of DG XIII and excuses about mail not being received and the service moving premises?
2. Has the official inquestionpromised more thanhe candeliver?
3. What actionis the Commissiongoingto take?
4. When does the Commission think it will be paying out the money?
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(7 October 1998)
A complaint concerning the case referred to by the Honourable Member has already been made to the EuropeanOmbudsman.
The Commission provided a detailed response to an initial request for information by the Ombudsman. In addition, following a request for further information by the Ombudsman, the Commission provided further details on specific points concerning the subsidy-granting procedure. The Ombudsman has so far not announced his conclusions.
Since the facts at issue are being examined closely by the European Ombudsman the Commission feels that the Ombudsman¢s conclusions should be awaited before any possible follow-up work in this areas is examined.
(1999/C 135/126) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2732/98 by Christine Oddy (PSE)to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Religious persecutioninSudan
Will the Commission protest in the strongest possible terms to the government of the Republic of Sudan over that country’s continuing persecution of people who convert to the Christian faith?
Its attention should be drawn particularly to the cases of Faisal Abdallah, Ahmad Abdulraham and Al Faki Kuku Hassan, all converts from Islam who have been imprisoned and against whom charges of subversion have beenmade, simply as a pretext to persecute them for their faith. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/107
Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission
(21 October 1998)
The Commission is aware of the continuous persecution by Sudan of people accused of apostasy and remains concerned about the lack of basic human rights such as the denial of religious freedom by the Sudanese government, which seeks to impose its version of Islam on the population.
Although the government has stated that all religions should be respected and that freedom of worship is ensured, in practice the government treats Islam, the religion of the majority, as the de facto state religion and has declared that Islam must inspire the country’s laws, institutions and policies. While non-Muslims may convert to Islam, the 1991 Criminal Act makes apostasy (which includes conversion to another religion) by Muslims a punishable offence. Authorities continue to restrict the activities of non-Muslims, and further incidents of harassment and arrest for religious beliefs and activities have been reported.
Through its delegation in Khartoum, the Commission is currently investigating in close contact with Member States the situation of Messrs. Faisal Abdallah, Ahmad Abdulraham and Al Faki Kuku Hassan.
On several occasions, the Union has called on the government of Sudan to respect human rights and humanitarian law in all parts of Sudan, in particular to allow unimpeded access for aid agencies, monitors and international observers and to investigate alleged violations promptly, publish their findings and punish offenders.
(1999/C 135/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2734/98
by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Battery cages
Will the Commission draw up proposals to phase out the use of battery cages for laying hens and introduce a system of mandatory egg labelling to enable consumers to be aware of the conditions under which the hens which laid the eggs have been kept?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(24 September 1998)
The Commission has recently presented a proposal to the Council which lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens in various systems of rearing, including cages (1). The proposal is presently under discussion in the Council and has been sent to the Parliament for an opinion.
The new requirements would, if adopted as proposed, apply to newly built or rebuilt systems from 1 January 1999 and from 1 January 2009 for all housing systems. As a general rule under the new proposal hens should be housed in a system which allows nesting, dustbathing and perching. Member States may, however, authorise derogations from dustbathing and nesting in order to permit the use of battery cages, provided that the hens have a minimum area of 800 cm2 per hen.
The Commission intends to amend the existing Community egg-labelling legislation (Council Regulation (EEC) 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for eggs; Commission Regulation (EEC) 1274/91 of 15 May 1991 introducing detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EEC) 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs (2)) to ensure that all table eggs produced in the Community are labelled. These provisions will be voluntary for third countries. With this system of labelling it would be possible C 135/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
for consumers to distinguish table eggs produced in the Community and those produced in third countries and to be aware of the conditions under which the hens have been kept. With this system of labelling it is then up to the European consumers to choose the type of table eggs they prefer.
(1) OJ C 123, 22.4.1998. (2) OJ L 173, 6.7.1990.
(1999/C 135/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2736/98
by Christine Oddy (PSE)to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Asbestos
Will the Commission urgently draw up proposals for a total ban on the import and manufacture of chrysotile (white) asbestos in view of the grave risk to health posed by the use of this substance which, together with other forms of asbestos, is responsible for the deaths of more than 3500 people every year in the United Kingdom alone?
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(30 September 1998)
There already exists a significant body of Community legislation which aims to protect the health of workers and the public from the health effects of asbestos. All types of asbestos fibres, except white (or chrysotile) asbestos, are already banned by current Community legislation. In addition, there is a ban on fourteen categories of products containing chrysotile and strict Community controls on exposure of workers to asbestos and on release of asbestos fibres to the environment.
Even though much has already been accomplished, it is apparent that more now needs to be done to tighten up the Community legislation on the marketing and use of asbestos-containing products. There are now nine Member States which have introduced national bans on chrysotile which go beyond the current Community legislation. This represents a significant disruption to the internal market which requires a solution at Community level.
Also, various national organisations, including the Health and safety executive in the United Kingdom, have made very disturbing projections about the numbers of deaths which are likely to be attributable to asbestos over the next few decades. However, it is important to note that these figures relate to past exposures to mixed asbestos types, including the fibres which have already been banned. It would be wrong to use these statistics alone to justify a ban on the marketing and use of chrysotile because such a ban would not lead to a lower risk of exposure for workers to asbestos which is already in place, nor would it reduce the number of deaths which are occurring today as a result of past exposure to asbestos. Possible contamination from asbestos in existing buildings (e.g. in relation to maintenance activities and asbestos removal operations) will remain an important cause of exposure to workers for many years.
However, taking all the above into account, based on current scientific knowledge about the health risks of chrysotile asbestos, the Commission is preparing a draft proposal for a European-wide ban on chrysotile asbestos (with some exceptions and temporary derogations), which will be discussed with Member State experts in the near future. The details of the final draft will of course depend on those discussions, and on contacts with the Parliament, interest groups and on the outcome of continuing scientific considerations. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/109
(1999/C 135/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2738/98 by James Moorhouse (ELDR) to the Council
(8 September 1998)
Subject: Lebanese prisoners in Syria
What pressure has the Council brought to bear in negotiating the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement with Syria, or under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, to secure the release by the Syrian Government of the 250 Lebanese detainees still held in its prisons?
Reply
(14 December 1998)
1. The standard clause on human rights is included in the negotiating directives for an Association Agreement with Syria. The clause, which states that relations between parties will be basedon respect for the democratic principles and fundamental human rights which guide their internal and international policy, constitutes an essential element of the agreement. The negotiations with Syria were openedin April 1998 andthe secondroundof negotiations took place on 20-21 October 1998. The Council follows closely all aspects relatedto the negotiations.
2. Syria is also a signatory of the Barcelona Declaration in which the participants undertook to act in accordance with the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as with other obligations under international law; and to develop the rule of law and democracy in their political systems.
3. The Council is following closely the question of Lebanese detainees in Syria. It noted that on 5 May 1998, 121 detainees had been liberated by the Syrian authorities.
4. The Council can assure the Honourable Member that it will not hesitate to employ all means at its disposal, of a formal or informal nature, to invite the Syrian authorities to abide by the rules of law and justice so as to allow the liberation of all prisoners unjustly detained.
(1999/C 135/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2741/98 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission
(3 September 1998)
Subject: Inwardinvestment agreements with car manufacturers
Can the Commission comment on whether or not it is legal for Member States to enter into inward investment agreements with car manufacturers that result in car prices in such Member States becoming artificially inflatedcomparedto the rest of Europe?
Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission
(28 October 1998)
The Commission is not in a position to comment on the question submittedby the Honourable Member, as it has not been informedabout such investment agreements. As for the analysis of car price differences across the Community, the Commission is sending its bi-annual publication on car prices direct to the Honourable Member andto Parliament’s Secretariat.
In this context, the Commission wouldalso refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2577/98 by Mrs Anita Pollack (1).
(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 150. C 135/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/131) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2745/98
by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission
(1 September 1998)
Subject: Novel Foods Regulation (EC) 258/97 − authorisation of varieties
1.Is it true that, if genetically modified plants are registered in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (70/457/EEC) (1) and of vegetable seed (70/458/EEC) (2), no further approval is required for these plants under the Novel Foods Regulation (258/97) (3)?
2.If that is the case, will only the labelling of such plants be covered by the Novel Foods Regulation?
3.In future, will transgenic plants still require any authorisation and approval apart from registration in the common catalogue of varieties?
4.Is it true that all plant products which are authorised as varieties will no longer need to undergo any notification procedure or the simplified authorisation procedure under the Novel Foods Regulation?
5.If so, will any products processed from such plants require authorisation under the Novel Foods Regulation?
6.Will secondary products of plants already covered by variety authorisation need to be individually notified, tested and authorised under the Novel Foods Regulation?
7.Will secondary products which contain only a small percentage of plant products requiring authorisation need separate authorisation (e.g., tomato concentrate on ready-made pizzas)?
I find totally unacceptable the answers given by the Commission to Written Questions E-2113/97 to E- 2121/97 (4).Not a single question has been answered.The Commission has simply referred to legal acts of which I am also aware.The Commission must, however, realise that the text of the legal acts does not provide the answer to my questions.I would therefore ask the Commission to stop prevaricating and give specific answers to my questions.
(1) OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 1. (2) OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 7. (3) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. (4) OJ C 174, 8.6.1998, p. 11.
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(16 October 1998)
1.At present, the varieties covered by Directive 70/457/EEC on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species and Directive 70/458/EEC on the marketing of vegetable seed must be registered in the catalogue of varieties whether or not they are genetically modified (GMOs), with a view to the placing on the market of seeds or plants within the Community.Before they can be registered, evidence must be provided that they are distinct, stable and sufficiently uniform, and, with regard to varieties of agricultural plant species, that they will be of satisfactory value for cultivation and use.
Varieties based on GMOs are also subject to a special authorization under a separate procedure following an assessment of the risks they could pose to human health and the environment within the meaning of Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1) on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/111
Moreover, since 15 May 1997, any food or food ingredient derived from a transgenic variety which had not been consumed in significant quantities in the Community at that time, has had to conform with the procedures of Regulation (EC) 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients before it can be placed on the market.
2.Seeds and plants of transgenic varieties are labelled in accordance with the provisions of Directives 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC respectively, and in accordance with the terms of Annex III to Directive 90/220/EEC which states that any product containing or comprising GMOs, which is the case with transgenic varieties, must be labelled as such.
Foods or food ingredients based on transgenic varieties are subject to the labelling requirements under Article 8 of Regulation (EC) 258/97 which stipulates that the consumer must be informed of:
− any characteristic or food property such as composition, nutritional value or nutritional effects, or the intended use of the food which renders a novel food or food ingredient no longer equivalent to an existing food or food ingredient.A novel food or food ingredient shall be deemed to be no longer equivalent if scientific assessment, based upon an appropriate analysis of existing data, can demonstrate that the characteristics assessed are different in comparison with a conventional food or food ingredient, having regard to the accepted limits of natural variations for such characteristics. In this case, the labelling must indicate the characteristics or properties modified, together with the method by which that characteristic or property was obtained;
− the presence in the novel food or food ingredient of material which is not present in an existing equivalent foodstuff and which gives rise to ethical concerns or may have implications for the health of certain sections of the population;
− the presence of a GMO must be declared on the label.
3.The Commission has presented a proposal for an amendment of Directive 70/457/EEC on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species and Directive 70/458/EEC on the marketing of vegetable seed in line with the principle of a ‘one-stop shop’.Parliament gave an opinion on the proposal in its July 1997 plenary session.
The principle of the ‘one-stop shop’ establishes a link between different Community instruments in the field of biotechnology and also provides for a limitation of evaluations in the framework of sectoral legislation (for example Directives 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC or the Novel Foods Regulation) by taking account of any evaluations carried out under horizontal legislation (for example Directive 90/220/EEC) without having to repeat them.
In future, when Directives 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC are amended in line with the abovementioned principle, the evaluation of environmental risks within the meaning of Directive 90/220/EEC posed by transgenic varieties of species covered by the Directives will be carried out in connection with registering the varieties in the catalogue.
4.and 5. The amendment referred to under point 3 above also means that the placing on the market of foods or food ingredients produced from transgenic varieties and intended for use as foods or food ingredients within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 258/97 could be authorized under that Regulation, or under the procedure of Directives 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC for establishing that a food is harmless, similar to that already provided for in Regulation (EC) 258/97.In the latter case, and once all the evaluations (agricultural, environmental, harmlessness of food) have been carried out, the registration of the variety will authorize its cultivation, but also the processing and consumption of foods or food ingredients derived from it.
6.Derived products are subject to Regulation (EC) 258/97.
7.No, provided the vegetable products requiring authorization were authorized.
(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. C 135/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2748/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) tothe Council
(8 September 1998)
Subject: European volunteer year for young people
Does the Council see the serving of a European volunteer year as a possible alternative to the military and civilian service obligations in the Member States? What steps is the Council taking in this respect?
Reply
(16 November 1998)
The Honourable Member will recall that it is for each Member State to determine whether any periods of voluntary service would or would not be considered as an alternative to legal obligations for military or civilian service. It is moreover stated in the decision of the European Parliament and Council establishing the Community action programme ‘European Voluntary Service for Young People’ (1) that ‘European voluntary service activities are not a substitute for military service, for the alternative service formulae provided in particular for conscientious objectors or for the compulsory civilian service existing in several Member States’.
The Council notes that during the conciliation procedure the Commission undertook to prepare a study on the current situation in regard to this question, which it looks forward to with interest.
(1) OJ L 214, 31.7.1998, p. 1.
(1999/C 135/133) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2767/98 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE) to the Commission
(7 September 1998)
Subject: Cohesion Fund − sewage treatment projects in Thessaloniki
The projects Nos. 94/09/61/010 and 94/09/61/043 entitled ‘Enlargement and completion of sewage- treatment installations for Thessaloniki − stage II’ and ‘Completion of the sewerage treatment plant in the tourist area of Thessaloniki’ were included under the projects financed from the Cohesion Fund in 1995.
According to a Communication from the Commission (1), the operational phase of the first project is to begin in 1999, whereas the second project was due to be completed by 31 December 1996. Bearing in mind that:
− the Greek authorities notified the Commission in May 1997 that work on the construction of the Thessaloniki sewage treatment installations was complete and that they were currently at the test stage;
− under the terms of project No 94/09/61/010, the Greek authorities have undertaken to expand the sewer network and link up the industrial area to it, and to monitor the quality of industrial effluent;
− it is absolutely vital to complete the projects to clean up the Thermaic Gulf so as to protect the marine ecosystem from uncontrolled daily discharges of 150 000 m3 of urban sewage and 60 000 m3 of industrial effluent.
Will the Commission say:
1. what stage has been reached in the construction of the installations and when they are due to be completed?
2. what contribution the Community has made and what amounts have so far been spent on each of the projects mentioned? 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/113
3. whether there have been delays in completing these projects and, if so, why?
4. what difficulties and shortcomings have arisen in the construction of the installations, if any, and what measures will be taken to ensure that the funds allocated are used for the completion of the projects?
5. which of the other undertakings given by the Greek Government in connection with project 94/09/61/ 010 have been met?
(1) OJ C 244, 22.8.1996.
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(5 October 1998)
The project ‘Completion of the sewerage treatment plant in the tourist area of Thessaloniki’ was finished on schedule and the plant has been in operation since February 1997. Community funding for the project totalled ECU 2,7 million, 80 % of which has been paid. The balance will be paid once the Greek authorities have submitted a formal request.
The project ‘Enlargement and completion of sewage-treatment installations for Thessaloniki, stage II’ is in progress. So far, one fifth of all the works have been carried out. Those relating specifically to sewage treatment are 35 % complete, so that it will soon be possible to treat more than 60 000 m3 of sewage a day. The under-sea conduit is 15 % complete and the plant improvement works have just started. According to the Greek authorities, the project will be finished at the end of 1999.
The project has been granted Community funding totalling ECU 59,3 million, of which ECU 13,8 million have been paid and ECU 12,5 million will be paid on submission of a request by the Greek authorities.
Construction work for the project was delayed while various essential studies were carried out. To the Commission’s knowledge, no defects have been found so far.
As for the undertakings given by the Greek authorities, the waters of the Thermaic Gulf are being monitored by research programmes, screening of industrial effluent will be supplemented if necessary, and the sewer network management plan will shortly be put out to tender. Once the stage II installations have been completed, the industrial estate will be connected to the system − thereby ensuring that industrial effluent is monitored.
(1999/C 135/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2771/98
by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission
(14 September 1998)
Subject: The ca. 3 000 Europeans detained in foreign jails
The European organisation ‘Fair Trials Abroad’ reports that some 3 000 European citizens are being held in prisons in third countries.
Most European prisoners, it says, are held in Morocco (472), the USA (470), Australia (176), Thailand (170), Brazil (146), Venezuela (133), Switzerland (102), Ecuador (74), Colombia (64) and India (63). Some 125 people are in prison in Russia and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. A further ca. 1 500 persons are in prisons in various developing countries. C 135/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
1. Is there any form of cooperation at European level which ensures a fair trial and reasonable treatment in prison for these people, or is there any form of consultation between the EU Member States with regard to prisoners jailed in the same country?
2. Does the Commission play a coordinating role in this respect, for example through the local EU ambassadors?
Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of Commission
(22 October 1998)
The Union is concerned with the situation in prisons throughout the world, particularly where the detention conditions of nationals of its Member States are involved. Where it considers that the situation justifies action under the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), it can make representations to the authorities of the countries concerned.
Furthermore, under Article 8c of the Treaty on European Union and a Council Decision of 19 December 1995, every citizen of the European Union living or staying in a non-member country is entitled to the consular protection of any Member State’s diplomatic or consular representation in that country.
The Council’s group on consular matters closely monitors the issue of EU citizens imprisoned in non- member countries.
(1999/C 135/135) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2776/98 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission
(14 September 1998)
Subject: The imprisonment of Petrus Hariyanto in Indonesia
Amnesty International has drawn attention to the Indonesian student Petrus Hariyanto who is serving an eight-year sentence in Cipinang prison in Indonesia because he was one of the co-founders of the political party PRD.
As far as is known, he has never been guilty of violence; nor has he ever propagated it.
Will the Commission ask the Indonesian authorities if this political detainee can be released, now that the government has adopted a more democratic stance?
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(16 October 1998)
The Commission regularly calls on the Indonesian authorities to release all political prisoners in Indonesia and will continue to do so. So far, only a limited number of political prisoners have been released, with many still remaining in prison.
Petrus Hariyanto, one of the leaders of the political party PRD, was sentenced to eight years in jail in 1997 under the anti-subversion law. Although PRD is no longer a prohibited political party, Mr Hariyanto and the other imprisoned PRD leaders have not yet been released.
The Commission will continue to include Petrus Hariyanto among the list of political prisoners whose release is urged upon the Indonesian government. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/115
(1999/C 135/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2780/98 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE)to the Commission
(14 September 1998)
Subject: Political detainees in Vietnam
Is the Commission aware that hundreds of political detainees are still in prison in Vietnam?
Is the Commission prepared to ask the Vietnamese government for information on the following detainees: Nguyen Dinh Huy, Pham Tuong, Bui Kim Dinh, Pham Thai Nguyen Ngoc Tan, Dong Tuy, Nguyen Van Chau and Nguyen Van Bien?
Is the Commission prepared to ask the Vietnamese government to release all political detainees?
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(14 October 1998)
The Commission is not only aware of the detention of prisoners of conscience in Vietnam (a recent Amnesty International report puts their number at 70) but is, together with Member States, pursuing the matter actively. A list of prisoners of conscience (referred to as the Union list hereafter) has been drawn up and presented on several occasions, through Troika demarches, to the government of Vietnam.
Followingthe demarches by the Commission, Member States and like-minded countries, the government amnestied 5219 prisoners on 2 September 1998. An overwhelmingnumber were common law detainees, but six of them were on the Union list. Furthermore, the Commission has grounds to believe that the release of some 3 000 more detainees is beingprepared, and it hopes that more people on the Union list will be included.
The Commission informs the Honourable Member that Mr DongTuy was already released on 2 September 1998. All the others, with the exception of Mr Pham Thai Nguyen, are part of the Union list and their cases will be followed closely.
The Commission, in close coordination with the Member States, will continue its action until the full release of all prisoners of conscience in Vietnam.
(1999/C 135/137) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2785/98 by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE)to the Commission
(9 September 1998)
Subject: Presidential elections in Togo
In connection with the presidential elections in Togo, the Commission funded media observation projects by Reporters Without Frontiers (RSF) in the sum of ECU 110 000, and an electoral observation mission coordinated by Electoral Reform International Services (ERIS) to the tune of ECU 560 000.
In funding these projects from heading B7-7020, lacking a legal basis, the Commission felt free to ignore a number of rules.
Is this why, in its reply of 24 July 1998 to Written Question P-2187/98 (1), the Commission says that ‘the projects were submitted by the bodies in question and were approved in accordance with the arrangements appropriate to the management of this budget heading’?
Does this mean that ECU 560 000 were allocated to ERIS and ECU 110 000 to RSF without any selection procedure beingused?
If there was no selection procedure, and since these two organisations were well-known to be close to the Togolese opposition, how does the Commission justify taking this politically sensitive decision?
(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 132. C 135/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission
(28 September 1998)
The use of budget appropriations for those headings still without a legal basis is subject to the stringent provisions of the Financial Regulation that governs the budget as a whole. The projects cited by the Honourable Member are a case in point. The Commission is therefore unable to accept the contention that it felt ‘free to ignore a number of rules’.
The budget heading funds projects submitted by partners:non-governmental organisations, associations or international organisations. After examination and appraisal, projects satisfying the criteria laid down for the heading’s use are the subject of a formal decision by the Commission under the financial rules in force.
The Commission would also point out, as emphasised in its answer to Question 2187/98, that the two projects cited by name formed part of a coherent programme of support for the electoral process. The programme was set up at the request of the national authorising officer, in accordance with Parliament’s resolution of November last year on Togo and on the basis of requests from a number of partners.
The Commission believes that the activities it financed contributed to the success of the elections. It also believes that the partners who carried them out worked with efficiency and without bias.
(1999/C 135/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2790/98 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(17 September 1998)
Subject: European-wide leagues
What does the Commission intend to do to encourage the formation of European-wide leagues in various sports?
Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission
(16 November 1998)
Most major sports federations have long been organising European competitions. Football, for instance, has the champions league and basketball the European league. If the Honourable Member’s question is about the creation of European leagues outside the federations, the Commission is not planning any particular action to encourage such moves. This is a matter for the sports organisations. The Commission has neither a legal basis nor the political interest to interfere. Nevertheless, the Commission stresses the importance of keeping real solidarity between elite and grass roots sport. Furthermore, where the rules or actions of existing or new sports organisations fall within the scope of the competition rules of the EC Treaty, the Commission has the duty to ensure that these rules are respected.
(1999/C 135/139) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2795/98 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission
(17 September 1998)
Subject: Financing of the UCK
Despite all their verbal pledges, Albanian politicians in Kosovo have so far displayed little genuine readiness to enter into a dialogue with the Serbian and Yugoslav authorities and seek a peaceful solution to the conflict. A serious obstacle here is the attitude of the UCK (the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army), 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/117
which within the past few days has expressed its intention of continuing the armed struggle until final victory is achieved. The UCK’s political leader, Mr Adem Demaci, refuses to join an Albanian delegation to engage in negotiations.
So long as the UCK feels able to continue the armed struggle, it will not only itself continue to sabotage the attempts of the international community to bring about a negotiated settlement but also place political leaders in Kosovo under pressure not to take part in any talks.
The UCK is largely dependent on financial support from so-called ‘humanitarian’ organisations in many countries of the Union. This is used to purchase weapons and to recruit and train personnel. The money obtained by these organisations comes largely from Albanians resident in countries of the Union who are compelled to contribute a percentage of their income.
Can the Commission say:
1. what organisations in which countries of the Union are suspected of being in contact with the UCK?
2. what measures have been taken or are under preparation to halt both the collection of money under pressure and its transfer to the UCK, in order to give a clear signal to the latter that any continuation of the violence is rejected?
Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(20 October 1998)
While difficulties have been experienced in persuading either the Serbian authorities or the representatives of the Kosovar Albanians to enter into dialogue with each other, efforts are continuing to that end.
The Commission does not have information on organisations suspected of being involved in the financing of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). It does not believe, however, as mentioned by the Honourable Member, that any reputable humanitarian organisations, national or international, are involved in any way.
There is a general embargo on the supply to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of arms or equipment which might be used for terrorism or police repression. No measures have been taken at Community level in order to halt the financing of the KLA. One Member State has indicated its intention unilaterally to implement measures to stem fund-raising or arms purchases, in its territory, by the KLA.
(1999/C 135/140) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2799/98 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission
(17 September 1998)
Subject: Refugees in Kosovo
Many people have fled from their homes because of the fighting in Kosovo. Some of them − representatives of humanitarian organisations put the figure at ‘maybe 50 000’, albeit without being any more specific − are currently bivouacking in the open air.
The following aspects call for comment:
− The Kosovo Liberation Army (UCK) is trying to prevent Albanian refugees from returning to their villages; columns of refugees returning under police escort are sometimes fired on.
− In mid-August, Mr Ibrahim Rugova, who is accepted by the international community as the leader of the Albanians, initially advised the refugees against returning to their homes. Later he qualified his advice and said that people could return, but only ‘under the escort of international organisations’. C 135/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
− Albanian newspapers have refused to publish an advertisement in which the Serbian Ministry of the Interior called on refugees, in Albanian, to return to their homes.
Does not the Commission agree that it is unacceptable to use the plight of refugees as a means of exerting political pressure or influencing public opinion?
Will the Commission urge the leaders of the Albanians to help make it possible for the refugees to return to their homes as soon as possible, in cooperation with the authorities and, where necessary, under international escort?
Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(21 October 1998)
Over 280 000 people are now displaced from their homes in Kosovo. Some 200 000 are displaced within Kosovo, of whom the United Nations high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) has estimated that 50 000 could be without access to shelter. Figures can only be estimated given the difficulties in locating those displaced, and because many of them have been displaced more than once.
The Commission is very much in favour of the rapid and safe return to their homes of all of the refugees and displaced people, particularly those forced to live in the open. However, with continuing Serb offensives, a steadily worsening security situation and increased targeting of civilians, widespread return is not likely at this time. The threat to their security which caused civilians to leave their homes in the first place remains, the deliberate destruction of their homes and livestock continues, and they are not convinced that it is safe to return. Serbian forces have already attacked three of the eleven ‘return sites’ designated by the Serbian Government.
As winter has already begun in the mountains, the most urgent task is not the promotion of organised returns to areas where the conditions for return have not yet been met, but rather the establishment of local distribution networks for humanitarian assistance in order to avoid a human disaster.
However, the prerequisite for organised safe returns is a credible ceasefire, which would facilitate the work of aid agencies and convince those who are displaced to return to their homes.
(1999/C 135/141) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2800/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(17 September 1998)
Subject: Unsuitable methods used by the British Museum to conserve the Elgin Marbles
According to press reports, irreparable damage was caused in the past to the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum as a result of conservation methods which were known even at the time to be unsuitable.
Since the Acropolis and its marbles form part of the European cultural heritage referred to in the Treaty, what steps will the Commission take to persuade the British Government to allow international experts to examine the damage suffered by the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum as a result of unsuitable conservation methods?
Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission
(30 September 1998)
The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member that the Parthenon of the Acropolis and its sculptures form an integral and invaluable part of the European cultural and architectural heritage. It is certainly in this spirit and context that the Commission has, since 1983, supported financially, on an annual basis, the protection, conservation and restoration of the Acropolis monuments. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/119
The Commission does not have in its possession any official information about the alleged damage caused to the Parthenon sculptures situated in the British Museum due to ‘unorthodox’ preservation methods.
As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission acting on the principle of subsidiarity and in the context of Article 128 of the EC Treaty, which mandates the Community to encourage cooperation between Member States in the field of cultural heritage conservation and enhancement, is prepared to support an initiative, such as suggested by the Honourable Member, provided that it is submitted jointly by the authorities concerned, i.e. the British Museum and the Hellenic Archaeological Service, within the framework of the Raphael programme.
(1999/C 135/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2804/98
by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission
(17 September 1998)
Subject: Disastrous fires in Greece
In July and August 1998, the forests of Greece were ravaged by fires which lay waste hundreds of hectares of woodland throughout the country, destroying the last remaining green areas in Attica. Most of the fires were attributed to acts of arson, while accusations were made against at least one Turkish secret service agent, who abruptly flew out of Greece for the Netherlands after he was located by the Greek media.
This appalling disaster, which affected the whole of Greece, has plunged the inhabitants of the burned out areas into despair; their property (houses, cars etc.) also suffered extensive damage owing to the authorities’ inability to extinguish the fires.
Will the Commission, therefore, say:
1. what possibilities there are of Commission funding for reafforestation of the regions affected and restoration of the environment,
2. whether it is possible to use Structural Fund resources for the above purposes,
3. whether the Community environmental protection initiatives under the Cohesion Fund can be used for those purposes,
4. whether the Community’s URBAN initiative can contribute towards restoring the environment in the areas affected, and
5. whether it has information about the activities of third countries’ agents on EU territory and what action it intends to take to trace them (through EUROPOL and the Schengen Information System) and investigate their involvement in acts of arson in Greece?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(23 October 1998)
As already stated in its reply to Written Question E-2437/98 (1) from the Honourable Member, the Commission is well informed about the serious fires in Greece this summer. It is fully alive to the need to protect Europe’s forests, half of which are classed as fire risk zones. The Community scheme for the protection of forests against fire, adopted by the Council in 1992 and prolonged by Council Regulation (EC) 308/97 of 17 February 1997 (2), gives tangible form to the Community’s commitment to forest fire prevention. C 135/120 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
The general protection plan presented by Greece for the purposes of the scheme, in effect a formal statement of its national forest fire prevention measures, covers action in a number of areas (public awareness, preventive infrastructure, preventive sylviculture, forest surveillance) in collaboration with the relevant partners, including the rural population. Over the period 1992-98 the Commission has granted ECU 18 million for 79 Greek projects in realisation of this general plan through action of the above types. A general assessment of the impact of the scheme and of the specific problems of the countries concerned should be possible in the near future using the data provided by the Community information system on forest fires set up under the 1992 Regulation.
The Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund has a budget of ECU 176,4 million for forestry measures under regional operational programmes for the period 1994 to 1999. These measures include reconstitution of burnt forest and protection of land against erosion. If the Greek authorities wish to reafforest certain areas affected by the recent fires they can do so under the provisions in force by redeploying funds provided enough remain available.
In 1994 the Commission granted ECU 12 million from the Cohesion Fund for forest and soil protection and reafforestation. At the moment it is examining a request for ECU 31,5 million from the Cohesion Fund for surveillance and fire control facilities for Greek forests.
The locations selected for assistance under the Urban Initiative are densely populated urban zones that should not be affected by forest fires.
National security action taken against the activities of third-country intelligence agents operating on Member States’ territories are a matter for the latter. The Commission does not hold information on the activities of agents of non-EU countries and is not involved in any anti-terrorist action that may be carried out by other authorities.
(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 146. (2) OJ L 51, 21.2.1997.
(1999/C 135/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2807/98
by Leo Tindemans (PPE) to the Commission
(17 September 1998)
Subject: Phare policy: protection of the interests of European experts
How can European experts working on Phare projects assert their interests against their principals in the event of differences of opinion about the implementation of a project?
Under the principle of decentralised implementation, responsibility for the implementation of pro- grammes is borne by the authorities of the Phare countries and the Commission’s delegations.
If a difference of opinion arose between the authorities in the country concerned and the European contractor, one would normally expect the European contractor to be able to ask the Commission delegation to act on his behalf in seeking to arrive at a satisfactory solution to enable the implementation of the project to proceed.
However, experience in Romania and Bulgaria shows that the delegations there entrust the monitoring of Phare projects to local officials who are not willing to intervene in disputes with their colleagues in the national administrations, while European officials at the delegation do not see it as their job to do anything about the situation. Officials at the Commission’s DG IA are not willing to intervene, either. Thus in the event of misunderstandings, European experts face a wall of incomprehension and helplessness. Yet misunderstandings about the implementation of programmes are not so uncommon. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/121
In the Commission’s view, who can be instructed to mediate between a European contractor and the authorities on the spot? Would it not be appropriate for either the Commission itself or the Phare administration to assume this task?
Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(21 October 1998)
The Commission has transferred the contracting authority for nearly all Phare projects to partner countries. In this decentralised system, a national implementing authority, such as a programme management unit, enters into a contract with consultants. The Commission has no legal relationship with the consultant. If disagreement on the implementation of the contract arises between the consultant and the implementing authority, it is to be settled according to the procedures established in the contract between these two parties.
Normally, problems arising in implementation of a project should be addressed by the two contracting parties. However, where problems persist, the consultants should contact, while respecting their contractual obligations, the relevant Commission delegation or the Commission’s Joint relex service for the management of Community aid to non-member countries. The Commission will seek to intervene informally with both parties, where resources allow, to help achieve the objectives of the projects while respecting the autonomy of the partner country to manage projects entrusted to it.
(1999/C 135/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2809/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council
(18 September 1998)
Subject: Gender mainstreaming at meetings of the Council
1. How is the Commission’s principle of gender mainstreaming implemented at meetings of the Council?
2. Do the Ministers for Women’s Affairs or their nominated representatives attend the meetings of the different Councils (transport, energy, etc.)?
3. If not, why not, or is gender mainstreaming just so much waste paper?
Reply
(20/21 December 1998)
The Council would point out to the Honourable Member that under the first paragraph of Article 146 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the corresponding Articles in the other Treaties, the Council consists of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that Member State. Within each Government, women holding the offices corresponding to the particular Council meeting do, of course, attend.
The representatives of the Member States may moreover raise questions concerning gender mainstream- ing policy at any time on the occasion of discussions by the Council and its preparatory bodies.
Finally, the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that Article 3 of the EC Treaty as amended by the Amsterdam Treaty provides that in all the Community’s activities, it will aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women. C 135/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/145) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2811/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission
(17 September 1998)
Subject: Salary of the President of the ECB
According to press reports neither the President of the ECB, Mr Duisenberg, nor the other ECB staff know what their salaries will be.
1. Will the Commission state the precise salaries of ECB staff?
2. If not, what are the reasons for withholding this information from EU citizens and for breaching the principle of transparency?
Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission
(14 October 1998)
Under the Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (ECB), the terms and conditions of employment of the members of the Executive Board, in particular their salaries, pensions and other social security benefits, are to be the subject of contracts with the ECB. They are to be fixed by the Governing Council on a proposal from a committee comprising three members appointed by the Governing Council and three members appointed by the Council. The members of the Executive Board do not have the right to vote on these matters (Article 11.3. of the Statute). Regarding ECB staff, their conditions of employment, in particular their salaries, pensions and other social security benefits, are to be laid down by the Governing Council, on a proposal from the Executive Board (Article 36.1.).
The Commission is not in a position to comment on the salaries of ECB staff and of members of the Executive Board since it has no power to fix their terms and conditions of employment.
(1999/C 135/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2815/98 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE) to the Commission
(17 September 1998)
Subject: Floods in China
The recent floods in China caused when the Yangtze river burst its banks have left more than 3 000 people dead and destroyed 5 million homes, affecting more than 230 million people. The total damage is put at around ECU 18 billion due to the destruction of cultivated land, infrastructure, school buildings and materials, industrial installations, housing etc.
What contribution has the Commission made to international aid in the form of food, medical products, educational material and emergency aid? Will the Commission continue its assistance in the coming months?
What is the initial, perhaps provisional assessment of the damage caused, particularly as regards the environment?
Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission
(21 October 1998)
The extensive and continous rains of the last five months in China have caused serious flooding that is now affecting an estimated 223 million people in 29 provinces in central, south east, and northern China. The Yangtze River has reached record levels and in many areas the floods are being described as the worst in living memory. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/123
According to the latest official figures more than 5 000 people have been killed, 5 million houses have been destroyed and some 14 million people have been left homeless. In total, 21 million hectares of land have been flooded and 5 million hectares of crops have been destroyed.
On 6August 1998, the Commission adopted an emergency decision of ECU 605000. These funds channelled through the European Community humanitarian office (ECHO) enable two relief projects to be implemented by the International federation of red cross and MSF Holland. These projects are targeting some of the worst affected areas and addressing the needs of food security, medical assistance and emergency relief (water sanitation and temporary shelter).
Because of the magnitude of the disaster, humanitarian needs are still enormous despite the national and international response to the disaster. Therefore, a second emergency decision of an amount of ECU 1 050 000 has recently been adopted by the Commission. The project will be implemented by the International federation of the red cross and will focus on the same objectives.
Due to the size of the disaster and given the anticipated worsening of the situation, the Commission has sent a field correspondent to China to monitor its projects and the humanitarian situation. The Commission will continue to evaluate and address humanitarian needs in China.
(1999/C 135/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2816/98 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission
(17 September 1998)
Subject: Sun screens
In view of the various reports published in August in various sections of the media concerning the ineffectiveness of sun screens in cases such as melanoma, can the Commission say:
1. whether it has any information on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of such products, and
2. if not, what steps will it take to clarify the matter?
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(16 October 1998)
The safety of cosmetic products marketed in the Community is ensured by the provisions of Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, otherwise known as the Cosmetics Directive. The safety of sunscreens is closely examined and regulated through the provisions of Annex VII which lists the ultra violet (UV) filters that can be used in cosmetic products in the Community.
Article 7a of the Directive states that the manufacturer must make information on the efficacy of the product available to the authorities. The efficacy of sunscreens is demonstrated through the determination of the sun protection factor (SPF) for a material or product. This is the universal means by which the effectiveness of a sunscreen is assessed. It compares the UV dose required to introduce skin reaction with and without the protective product under examination. This method (for which a standard protocol is available) is widely accepted by dermatologists and health workers and has demonstrated the positive benefits of the protection provided by UV filters.
However, the Commission is responsive to the concerns over the safety and efficacy of sun products that have recently been reported. The Commission has convened, in the framework of the activities of the scientific committee on cosmetic products and non-food products intended for consumers, an expert panel on the safety of sunscreens. The expert panel will convene its first meeting in early 1999 and will advise the Commission on the consumer safety implications of the use of sunscreens and UV protectors. The C135/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
scientific committee will examine the safety of sunscreens, their ability to block the harmful effects of UV exposure, consumer habits and the suitability of SPF for giving consumer information. The Commission will review the opinions of the expert panel and propose legislative or technical actions as appropriate.
(1999/C135/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2821/98
by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission
(17 September 1998)
Subject: Repayment by the Italian Government of the ‘Europe Tax’
In its 1997 budget the Italian Government levied the so-called ‘Europe Tax’ in order to bring public finances into line with the criteria set out in the Maastricht Treaty for moving to the third phase of the single currency.
The Italian Ministry of Finance has recently stated that 60 % of this tax will be repaid to taxpayers by the end of 1998.
Some Member States have several times expressed doubts about the legitimacy of this tax, precisely because of the commitment made to repay it.
If the Italian Government were to repay, as promised, part of the ‘Europe Tax’ to taxpayers, does the Commission not consider that this alleged ‘tax’ would in reality be compulsory lending imposed on the Italian people?
Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission
(3 November 1998)
The Italian Government has made considerable efforts on the budgetary consolidation front in recent years, and particularly in 1997. These efforts have enabled Italy to fulfil the budget criteria laid down in the Treaty on European Union and thus to qualify for participation in the third stage of economic and monetary union. In that context, Italy’s finance act for 1997 contained a number of tax measures, in particular an income tax surcharge (‘Tassa per l’Europa’).
When the ‘Tassa per l’Europa’ was adopted, the Government stated that it intended to reimburse some of the revenue from this surcharge to taxpayers in future years, under conditions to be determined. Recent statements by the Italian Finance Minister are in line with the political commitments which the Government entered into at that time.
Revenue and expenditure items are always entered in the budget in accordance with clear administrative rules. The proceeds from the ‘Tassa per l’Europa’ were registered as budget revenue in exactly the same manner as the proceeds from other taxes.
A formal decision, taken after collection, to refund part of the revenue from the ‘Tassa per l’Europa’ to taxpayers would constitute a new budget measure that would be independent, in both formal and accounting terms, of the initial collection of the surcharge. The corresponding expenditure would be charged to the budget for the year in which the refund was made. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/125
(1999/C 135/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2822/98 by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Council
(18 September 1998)
Subject: Measures to tackle the crisis in Russia
Among the victims of the recent economic crisis in Russia are the Italian banks.
According to the latest surveys carried out by the Bank for International Settlements, Italian banks have exposures in Russia amounting to $4,3 billion, the equivalent of over LIT 8 000 billion.The SACE in particular has exposures totalling LIT 10 600 billion.
Any deterioration in the crisis in Russia could give rise to the so-called ‘contagion effect’ which would worsen the general crisis in market confidence.
Can the Council say what the actual exposure of European and, in particular, Italian banks to the rouble crisis is?
Can the Council clarify whether measures will be taken in relation to the introduction of the single currency to protect the economies of European countries against financial crises in third countries, in which the Community’s own programmes have encouraged investment?
Reply
(16 November 1998)
According to the Bank for International Settlements’ available data, EU commercial banks account for about 70 % of foreign bank exposures to Russia.As for Italian banks, their lending to Russia represents about 9 % of the European commercial banks exposure to this country.
Moreover, the Council considered the means by which the EU can help Russia to overcome the present crisis and concluded during the General Affairs Council meeting of 5 October 1998 that its response should depend on a credible and sustainable Russian economic programme, to be developed in close co- operation with the international financial institutions.At the EU-Russia Summit which took place in Vienna on 27 October 1998, the EU and Russia recognized that a credible and sustainable economic policy programme is essential to address pressing social needs, meet existing financial obligations and restore confidence in the markets and stability of the currency while stimulating investment, including foreign investment.
The Council is of the opinion that the decision on the introduction of the euro at the preannounced exchange rates, as from 1 January 1999, has shown to be a safeguard against monetary instability between the currencies of Member States following the Asian and Russian financial crises.
(1999/C 135/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2828/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Deposits of caesium-137 exceeding 40 Kbq/m2 in areas of Greece following the Chernobyl disaster
According to the map showing caesium deposits in Europe in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster published by the Commission in cooperation with scientific institutes and bodies in Russia, Belarus, the Ukraine and certain Member States, an increased accumulation of caesium-137 (exceeding 40 Kbq/m2) can be observed in a number of European countries (apart from countries in the immediate vicinity of Chernobyl), including Greece, Austria, Italy and Germany.In Greece, deposits of this radioactive substance can be observed in certain areas in particular. C 135/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
In view of the fact that the half-life of caesium-137, as opposed to other radioactive substances, is 30 years, can the Commission say whether data bases have been set up and and statistics compiled concerning the possible impact on the health of local residents? In what way is Greece participating?
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(10 November 1998)
The atlas of the deposition, over the whole territory of Europe, of radioactive caesium released during the Chernobyl accident results from a collaborative research programme of the Commission with Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. It provides much needed perspective for judging the current radiological significance of the deposition across Europe.
While in a few regions in Greece levels exceed 40 kilobecquerelle per square meter (kBq/m2), as in many other regions of Member States, there is no reason to expect that any observable health effects would occur in the affected population.
The Commission receives on a regular basis, under the terms of Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty, information from Member States on current levels of radioactivity in the environment. This data is stored in the radioactivity environmental monitoring (REM) database of the Joint research centre in Ispra and is taken up in a series of reports published by the Commission.
(1999/C 135/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2829/98
by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: The millennium bug and its impact in the EU
It is known that on 1 January 2000 the entire world (in particular the EU) will be facing a chaotic situation. Many of the records concerning the public sector of the EU Member States, together with the financial and business sectors and the EU administration will be lost as a result of the millennium bug, i.e. the failure of existing information systems to adjust to the change of the century.
Can the Commission provide the following information:
1. What steps have been taken by the EU to avert the danger of the European administrative sector grinding to a halt because of this problem?
2. Has the Commission assessed the impact on the European Union finance and business sectors? What is the estimated cost?
3. What stage has been reached by preparations within the Member States and their administrations to confront the above problem on entering the twenty-first century?
4. Has the EU assumed a coordinating role in endeavouring to avert the serious consequences of the administrative disruption expected to occur in the Member States?
5. What is the exact amount of budget appropriations which have been or will be earmarked by the EU and the Member States in response to this problem?
6. Will steps be taken to inform companies of the enormous scale of the problem and provide them with incentives enabling them to forestall or overcome the problem with regard to their own records? 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/127
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(12 November 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its communication to the Council, the Parliament, the Economic and social committee and the Committee of the regions on the year 2000 computer problem (1).
The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Questions E-421/98 (2), E-422/98 and E-425/98 (3)and E-424/98 ( 4)by Mr Watson.
The Commission is preparing a report for the December European Council in Vienna on the state of readiness of the Member States, which should clarify the situation.
Finally the Honourable Member may refer to the Commission’s world wide web site on the matter (http://www.ispo.cec.be/y2keuro).
(1)COM(98)102final. (2)OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 61. (3)OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 98. (4)OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 62.
(1999/C 135/152) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2836/98 by Niall Andrews (UPE) to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: East Timor independence
Following the change of leadership in Indonesia, will the Commission state what developments have taken place on the legitimate claim for independence for the people of East Timor?
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(26 October 1998)
Since early August 1998, several important developments have taken place with regard to a possible solution of the situation in East Timor.
On 4 and 5 August 1998 the United Nations Secretary general held talks with the ministers of foreign affairs of Portugal and Indonesia in New York that led, for the first time in history, to a joint communiqué. The main point in the communiqué was the agreement to hold in-depth discussions on a special status for East Timor without prejudice to their basic positions of principle. It was also agreed to involve the various groups in East Timor more closely in the search for a solution. It was agreed that the all-inclusive intra- East Timorese dialogue should resume in October 1998. Agreement was also reached on the establishment of interest sections in friendly embassies in Lisbon and Jakarta respectively.
On 10 and 11 September 1998, a reconciliation meeting took place in Dare in East Timor, on the invitation of Bishop Belo, bringing together all the various factions and public and civil groups of East Timor. At the end of the meeting, a joint statement was published. It stressed the point that there were divergent views among the various groups, and that further efforts were needed to find a common platform to unite the people of East Timor.
There were also some sporadic riots and looting of government rice stores in East Timor, due to the dire economic situation and apparently without political connotation. The Indonesian government continued with a moderate reduction of its troops, but recently sent in fresh troops, claiming that the new arrivals were not combat troops, but included medical officers.
The Commission hopes that the positive developments observed over the past few weeks will soon lead to a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution for the problem of East Timor. C 135/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/153) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2837/98 by Niall Andrews (UPE)to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Asylum seekers
Can the Commission say how many asylum seekers there are in each Member State? How many are considered to be ‘economic refugees’ and how many political refugees?
Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission
(10 November 1998)
The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat two tables. Table A shows the number of asylum applications lodged in each Member State each year from 1987 until 1997. Table B shows the number of decisions taken by each Member State over the same period to recognise a person as a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees.
It is important to note that asylum decisions frequently relate to applications lodged in previous years. There is not therefore a straightforward correlation between the two tables. It is not possible to draw conclusions about the number of unfounded asylum applications submitted in each Member State on the basis of the information available.
The Commission also notes that many people who are not recognised as refugees within the meaning of the 1951 Convention are nevertheless in need of international protection. In some cases, Member States will have obligations under other human rights instruments such as the 1950 European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms or the 1984 United Nations Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In other cases, there may be humanitarian reasons for not returning the person concerned to the country of origin. A number of Member States grant what is often referred to as a de facto or ‘B status’ to such people. Common minimum standards for forms of protection complementary to refugee status have not yet been adopted at the level of the Union, but Article 73k(2)(a) of the Treaty of Amsterdam will require the Council to adopt measures in this area within five years of the new treaty’s entry into force.
(1999/C 135/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2842/98 by Hedy d’Ancona (PSE)to the Council
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Trial against representatives of the Greek Rainbow Party
On 14 October, Vasilis Romas, Costas Tasopoulos, Petros Vasiliades and Pavlos Voskopoulos will go on trial in Florina (Greece). These leading members of the Greek-Macedonian Rainbow Party (Venezito) are charged under article 192 of the Greek penal code. They are charged with having incited ‘mutual hatred between citizens’ in September 1995 by displaying a sign in two languages (Greek and Macedonian) indicating the name of the party and the local section. After the sign had been removed by the local police, the local party office was attacked by a mob led by the mayor of Florina.
The official charge is that the combination of words used and ‘the fact that they were in a foreign language, and more specifically in a Slavic language, provoked and incited discord between various sections of the population in the region’ and harked back to a ‘former terrorist organization of Slavic-speakers’.
Venizito is an officially recognized political party which has twice participated in elections in Greece including in the 1994 European elections. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/129
Is the Council aware of these facts and of the forthcoming trial against this political party? Does the Council consider that, in view of the criminal proceedings against the Rainbow Party, there can be said to be a breach of international treaty provisions which also apply to Greece? What steps does the Council intend to take to ensure that inter alia the fundamental freedom of choice of language is also respected in Greece?
Reply
(20/21 December 1998)
The Honourable Member is referred to the reply given to Question No E-1998/98.
(1999/C 135/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2850/98 by Roberta Angelilli (NI)to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Reappraisal of energy-based medical techniques
There are a number of academic disciplines and fields of professional specialisation which do not currently receive adequate support from the European Social Fund, but which have considerable potential as sources of employment. In particular, the Homo Sapiens Academy of Viareggio (Italy) offers specialisation courses for doctors and psychologists on an energy-based approach to psychology and clinical practice, designed to provide a familiarisation with this area, and its implications for health, showing its many connections with the biological, psychological and relational aspects of human beings. The energy-based approach has always been confined to experimentation, and moreover, it is not an official field. However, the changed cultural climate has now made it possible to establish a body of knowledge with methodological rigour.
In view of the above can the Commission say:
1. whether there is any provision for measures to facilitate and/or fund the spread and adoption of these methods and courses?
2. whether there are any documents on this subject produced by the Commission or any other Community bodies?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(23 November 1998)
The distribution of European social fund (ESF) funding is handled by monitoring committees which make detailed arrangements for the selection of projects. As a general rule, advanced-level specialisation courses are not co-financed by the ESF. The Commission has not adopted any guidelines for monitoring committees as to the support of the discipline mentioned by the Honourable Member, nor is it aware of any documents on this subject produced by any Community body.
(1999/C 135/156) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2861/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE)to the Council
(14 September 1998)
Subject: Arrangements envisaged by the Council for the project shared amongst European cities of culture in 2000
In recognition of the symbolic significance of the year 2000, the EU has decided to undertake a project which for the first time will be shared amongst nine European cities of culture: Avignon, Cracow, Reykjavik, Santiago de Compostela, Helsinki, Bergen, Bologna, Brussels and Prague. Five cities from EU Member States and four from European countries outside the Union will thus join together in a cultural cooperation project without precedent in Europe, insofar as it brings together three cities from northern C 135/130 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Europe, three from central Europe and three from southern Europe. Evidently, such an important and ambitious project requires special support and adequate funding to ensure that it enjoys success by giving prominence to a European cultural project which embraces the entire continent and forging the ties which the project can and must make possible, and avoids the potential failure inherent in merely juxtaposing nine different and independent projects devoid of a common thread binding European culture together.
That being the case, can the Council say what plans, projects, programmes and means of support it has envisaged to ensure that the project for European cities of culture in 2000 enjoys the success it deserves?
In particular, does the Council intend to appoint a coordinator to monitor the various forms of programming?
Can the Council specify the total sum it intends to earmark in the budget for this important event and provide a breakdown of that sum, so as to enable those responsible for the event to plan their activities accordingly?
Reply
(16 November 1998)
The agreement underlying the ‘European City of Culture’ event (pending adoption by the European Parliament and the Council of the proposal for a Decision submitted by the Commission for 2002 and beyond) is an intergovernmental agreement established by a Resolution of the Ministers for Cultural Affairs meeting within the Council on 13 June 1985 (1).
Amendments were subsequently made to that Resolution, in each instance in an intergovernmental framework, by conclusions of 18 May 1990( 2), 18 May 1992 (3) and 12 November 1992 (4).
The choice of the European cities of culture for 2000 was therefore an intergovernmental act taken by the Ministers for Cultural Affairs meeting within the Council. It ensues that the Council was unable to take any initiative along the lines of the last three questions put by the Honourable Member. However, wide- ranging collaboration has developed amongst the cities designated.
The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that European cities of culture have hitherto received limited support under cultural support programmes (experience has shown that Community support covered approximately 1 % of the costs incurred). Those programmes will expire at the end of 1999.
On 26 May 1998 the Commission submitted a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a first European Community framework programme in support of culture (2000-2004), in which it proposes a sum of ECU 2,5 million for the European City of Culture project. The Culture 2000 programme is currently being examined by the Council’s subordinate bodies.
(1) OJ C 153, 22.6.1985. (2) OJ C 162, 3.7.1990. (3) OJ C 151, 16.6.1992. (4) OJ C 336, 19.12.1992.
(1999/C 135/157) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2866/98 by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Council
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Code of conduct on arms control
Despite the Code of Conduct on Arms Control agreed in May, the German company Heckler and Koch have signed a contract with MKEK of Turkey under which the latter will manufacture 200 000 combat rifles.
Given human rights abuses in Turkey does this contravene the Code of Conduct, and what steps is the Council taking on this issue? 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/131
Reply
(20/21 December 1998)
The Code of Conduct on arms exports was adopted on 8 June 1998 with a view to setting high common standards which should be regarded as the minimum for the management of, and restraint in, conventional arms transfers by all Member States, and to strengthen the exchange of relevant information with a view to achieving greater transparency within the Union.
The facts mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question have not been brought to the attention of the Council.
The Honourable Member will be aware that individual arms export decisions, and therefore the implementation of the Code, remain the responsibility of the Member States and of their national licensing authorities.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Code, the Council is currently engaged in the definition of the detailed procedure for the envisaged reporting exercise.
(1999/C 135/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/98 by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Code of conduct on arms control
Despite the Code of Conduct on Arms Control agreed in May, the German company Heckler and Koch have signed a contract with MKEK of Turkey under which the latter will manufacture 200 000 combat rifles.
Given human rights abuses in Turkey does this contravene the Code of Conduct, and what steps is the Commission taking on this issue?
Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(5 November 1998)
The Union’s code of conduct on arms exports was formally adopted by the General Affairs Council of 8 June 1998. The code lists various criteria for Member States to take into account when selling military supplies to third countries. These criteria include compliance with the Member States’ international undertakings and the human rights situation in the country of destination. However, the code of conduct is not an instrument of Community policy and cannot therefore, under the rules of the Treaty, be enforced by the Commission. Each Member State is accordingly responsible for interpreting the criteria listed in the code and assessing how they apply to its arms sales.
(1999/C 135/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2870/98 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Phosphorous pollution from detergents
Detergents are a major source of phosphorous in waste water. Such pollution has resulted in a legal ban on phosphorous in detergents in Italy and Switzerland and voluntary agreements with the detergent industry in other countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands. This has resulted, for example, in a C 135/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
94 % reduction in the amount of phosphorous in detergents in Germany since 1975. Such measures have resulted in significant reductions in the input of phosphorous from detergents into the aquatic environment in the countries where action has been taken.
No such action has been taken in Ireland, resulting in significant aquatic pollution from this source. Does the Commission agree that standardisation is necessary to bring Ireland into line with the good practice which is widespread across much of the rest of the EU and that this standardisation could come in the form of a Europe-wide voluntary agreement with industry, as in Germany and the Netherlands, or a ban as in Italy?
As a first step, does the Commission agree that phosphorous-free detergents should be VAT-exempted in the EU to reduce the price deterrent currently in place which prevents consumers from buying phosphorous-free products?
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(30 October 1998)
The Commission is currently examining the issues raised by phosphates in detergents. Controls on marketing, whether legislative or voluntary, exist in some Member States and vary from one to another. The general attitude toward phosphates in detergents has been evolving in favour of phosphates. Many circles favour phosphates over other alternative detergent builders providing that wastewater treatment is adequate, since phosphates can be readily removed from wastewater thus making them less of an environmental problem than their substitutes.
Council Directive 91/271 EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (1) provides that urban waste water entering collecting systems shall before discharge be subject to secondary treatment (2) and has established a schedule for the compliance of agglomerations of different sizes up to 31 December 2005. Furthermore, special provisions, mainly the requirement for nitrogen and phosphorous removal, have been established for areas susceptible to eutrophication. However, not all Member States have wastewater treatment systems in place.
The Commission is in the process of assessing the need for harmonization of the marketing of phosphates throughout the Community. No decision on harmonisation has been taken yet, and in the absence of harmonisation, the Commission has not considered fiscal incentives.
(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991. (2) ‘secondary treatment’ means treatment of urban waste water by a process generally involving biological treatment with a secondary settlement or other process in which the requirements established in Table 1 of Annex I of the directive are respected.
(1999/C 135/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2879/98 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Infringement of Directive 91/674/EEC concerning insurance undertakings
According to allegations by various bodies which have now come to light and reached the attention of the Commission, the GreekMinistry of Development is failing to show the necessary rigour in monitoring compliance with Greekand Community legislation, thereby permitting many insurance undertakingsto accumulate deficits of millions of drachmas and illegally attempt to cover them during the following accounting period. This is resulting in constantly increasing deficits, thereby placing policyholders in a precarious position and allowing certain undertakings illegal access to stock exchange listing.
In the light of the information available to it, does the Commission consider that Directive 91/674/EEC (1) is being properly implemented in Greece and, if not, will it take appropriate measures?
(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1991, p. 7. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/133
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(4 December 1998)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(1999/C 135/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2886/98 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Trade with Russia
The agreement signed on 23 July 1998 on bilateral trade in textile products between the EU and Russia abolished some 30 quotas on Russian exports. Has an assessment been made of the potential impact of the said agreement on the textile sector in the EU as a whole, and in Spain in particular?
Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission
(21 October 1998)
The agreement between the Community and Russia concluded on 20 July 1998 abolishes textile and clothing quotas previously maintained by both parties. It also confirms that the provisions of the Cooperation and Partnership Agreement with Russia apply equally to the textile and clothing sector, thus providing a clear and stable legal framework for trade in textiles.
At this stage it is difficult to assess precisely what impact abolishing the 28 Russian quotas will have on Russian exports, since the full statistics are currently available only for the first five months of 1998.
Given the low level of use of most of the Russian quotas when they were in force, and the downward trend in Community imports of textiles from Russia (ECU 246 million in 1997, ECU 244 million in 1996 and ECU 277 million in 1995), the elimination of 28 quotas will probably not result in a significant increase in Community textiles imports.
Since Russia’s share of total imports of textile and clothing products is also falling (0,44 % in 1997, 0,51 % in 1996 and 0,61 % in 1995), it is unlikely that Russian textile exports will have a serious impact on the EU textile sector.
(1999/C 135/162) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2888/98 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Works of art as debt payments to the Community
In certain instances, and for various reasons, undertakings and individuals alike are obliged to repay sums to the EU Exchequer.
On occasion, the difficulty created by the financial situation in which undertakings or individuals find themselves, aggravated further by a shortage of liquidity, makes it preferable for them, as a last resort, to pay off their debt by handing over works of art under their ownership. C 135/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Can the Commission specify whether it is possible to use works of art to pay off debts to the European Union, as is the case in the Member States when undertakings or individuals contract debts with their national exchequers, whether regulations exist to cover such an eventuality, and whether it is legally empowered to deposit such works of art in national museums in the Member States?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(4 December 1998)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(1999/C 135/163) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2889/98
by Bernard Lehideux (PPE) to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Possible resumption of EU accession negotiations with Malta following the change of govern- ment there
Mr Eddie Fenech Adami’s National Party has just won the early elections held on 5 September in Malta.
This is the third term of office as prime minister for Mr Adami, who has always expressed his intention of bringing Malta into the European Union. He was the originator of Malta’s membership application, subsequently shelved by the Labour government of Mr Alfred Sant which came to power in 1996.
The new prime minister seems to wish to relaunch Malta’s application for membership of the European Union.
1. What procedures will the new Maltese prime minister have to follow in order to resubmit his country’s application?
2. When might such an application result in Malta’s accession to the European Union?
Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(3 November 1998)
1. The new Maltese Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs met the Austrian Foreign Minister in Vienna on 14 September 1998 and officially presented a request for the reactivation of Malta’s application for Union membership.
2. At the General Affairs Council of 5 October 1998 the Council asked the Commission to present an update of the 1993 opinion on Malta’s request for Union membership. It should be recalled that any decisions concerning accession negotiations with Malta are for the Council to take. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/135
(1999/C 135/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2891/98 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Human rights violation in Colombia
According to human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, there are still widespread violations of human rights in Colombia. The situation in San José de Apartade is, apparently, particularly serious.
Is the Commission aware of the situation in San José de Apartade, and what action has it taken to bring this matter to the attention of the Colombian authorities?
Does the Commission provide financial aid of any sort for refugee groups in Colombia?
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(26 October 1998)
The Commission is closely monitoring the human rights situation in Colombia, whose generally unsatisfactory development continues to give cause for concern. It has repeatedly expressed concern to the Colombian authorities about the seriousness of the situation regarding human rights and humanitarian issues and asked them to show firmer commitment to improving the situation.
The Commission is aware of the situation in San José de Apartade, which is one of the many examples of the situation referred to above. The Member State Ambassadors to Bogota and the Head of the Commission Delegation regularly visit the areas affected by armed conflict to demonstrate their support for the victims of violence and extorsion and to bear witness to the international community.
The Commission gives high priority to initiatives designed to protect human rights and monitor human rights violations in Colombia in three main ways:
− by increasing the presence of the international community in the country (renewing financing for international observers made available to the UN Commission for Human Rights for monitoring the human rights situation throughout the country);
− by financing initiatives for local non-governmental organisation (NGO) active in the field of democracy and human rights;
− by mobilising ECU 11 million of humanitarian aid specifically for displaced persons and victims of violence between 1997 and 1998.
(1999/C 135/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2898/98 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Access to universities in Portugal
Is it the case that students completing their studies at the European Schools enjoy preferential and significantly easier access to universities in Portugal if one of their parents is employed by the European Union, while these privileges are not extended even to Portuguese school-leavers from the European Schools if neither of their parents is employed by the European Union, and what view does the Commission take of this situation bearing in mind the principles of equality and equal opportunities, which also apply to the general recognition of the leaving certificates awarded by the European Schools? C 135/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(30 November 1998)
Portuguese law (Decreto-loi (Decree-Law) No 28 − B/96 of 4 April 1996 and, subsequently, Portaria (Ordinance) No 317 − A/96 of 9 June 1996) offered a special scheme for access to Portuguese universities for the families of members of the Portuguese diplomatic corps and other equivalent services. The families of EU officials were also covered by this special scheme, since the Community institutions were classed as equivalent services.
However, a new law published recently (Decreto-loi No 296 − A/98, of 25 September 1998) repeals the previous law and no longer offers a special scheme for access to Portuguese universities, but only a general scheme.
The organisation of educational systems, including the establishment of conditions governing access to university, is a matter for the Member States. In the present state of Community law, the Commission intervenes only in cases where access conditions are different for national students than for students who are nationals of other Member States and who wish to pursue their higher education in another Member State.
As regards a Member State treating its own nationals differently one from another, the Commission has no power to intervene.
(1999/C 135/166) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2905/98 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission
(2 October 1998)
Subject: Creation of an international therapeutic solidarity fund
Following on the conclusions of the Presidency of the European Council of 13 December 1997 (paragraph 58) on health and the procedure for establishing a therapeutic solidarity fund to combat AIDS in the developing countries, what action is the Commission taking to set up this therapeutic fund rapidly so that pilot programmes are available to give access to treatment for people with HIV/AIDS in the developing countries?
It is becoming extremely urgent for the most industrialised countries to implement a concrete policy of international solidarity to combat AIDS.
Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission
(22 October 1998)
The European Council of 13 December 1997 asked the Commission to look into the establishment of a therapeutic solidarity fund under the aegis of UNAIDS to help combat AIDS in developing countries.
The Commission analysed this issue in its Communication to the Council and the European Parliament for increased solidarity to confront AIDS in developing countries (1). The Communication gives a survey of work to date to combat the human immunodeficiency virus/ acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. In the light of the success of targeted preventive operations, it stresses the importance of supporting and reinforcing health-care systems. It also looks at a number of possibilities for creating new solidarity mechanisms, taking account of the need to prepare any such mechanisms collectively.
This Communication is currently being discussed by Parliament and the Council, and particularly by the group of Member State experts onthis subject.
(1) COM(1998) 407 final. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/137
(1999/C 135/167) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2916/98
by Jean Baggioni (UPE) to the Commission
(2 October 1998)
Subject: Missions by Community officials and representation of the Commission
At official events one frequently meets officials from the various directorates-general claiming to be ‘representatives’ of the Commission. Can the Commission explain the extent to which these officials are empowered to represent it and to express their views on its behalf? Can it also state whether these officials are required to inform the political or administrative authorities of the regions or Member States to which they travel of their presence and of the fact that they are attending these events?
Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(16 November 1998)
Each official is required to fulfil the obligations written into the Staff Regulations under all circumstances. Naturally all these provisions apply to officials on mission. The Commission specifies that any official or other servant who takes part in an official event must be given instructions by his Director-General or Director, who will determine the role to be played − observer, speaker or organiser in advance.
The official or other servant in question must be in possession of a travel order, duly completed and signed, whether the mission is within or outside the Community. In the event of a mission to a non- member country, particularly where the official travels to take part in international negotiations, provision has been made for coordination between the relevant external relations Directorates. The procedure includes, among others, checking and authorising the mission in the first place and then coordination with the Commission delegation in the country to be visited.
(1999/C 135/168) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2925/98
by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(2 October 1998)
Subject: Failure by Greece to implement Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Natura 2000)
The Commission has forwarded a reasoned opinion to the Greek authorities for failure to implement Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Natura 2000). The Greek authorities have proposed a list of 196 conservation areas containing priority natural habitat types and species.
1. Does the Commission know the reasons for the delay by Greece in implementing the directive?
2. Is the obligation to withhold authorisation for projects with an unfavourable environmental impact in the 196 listed areas being respected in practice?
3. If the conservation regulations concerning these 196 areas are infringed, what effective action can be taken by ecological and other organisations or individual citizens in response to this?
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. C 135/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(23 November 1998)
Under Article 23 of Directive 92/43/EEC, Member States are obliged to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 5 June 1994. In the absence of any notification, within the prescribed period, of the measures necessary to transpose this Directive, Greece was condemned by the Court of Justice (1) for having failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive. Following this judgment, Greece was required to take the measures necessary to ensure implementation under Article 171 of the EC Treaty. On the basis of this article and in the absence of any notification of measures to implement this judgment of the Court of Justice, the Commission delivered a reasoned opinion to the Greek Government on 25 September 1998. At this stage, the Commission has no information as to the causes for the delay in transposing this Directive in Greece.
While the regulatory and administrative measures necessary for the transposition of Directive 92/43/EEC into Greek law have still to be taken, the Greek authorities have nevertheless submitted to the Commission a national list covering 264 proposed sites for the Natura 2000 network. In particular, this list contains 230 sites of Community importance proposed by Greece in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC. In addition, the list also contains the 52 sites classified by Greece as special protection areas (SPAs) pursuant to Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (2). The Commission is currently assessing the proposed sites of Community importance in the context of the Mediterranean biogeogra- phical region.
The obligations incumbent on the Member States as regards the protection of future Natura 2000 sites are set out in Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC. More particularly, paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 stipulate that an appropriate impact assessment study must be carried out in respect of any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on the site in question, while at the same time laying down the relevant authorisation conditions to be met. Under Article 7 of the Directive, these provisions already apply in the case of the SPAs. Furthermore, pending the adoption of the definitive lists of sites of Community importance, Member States are being encouraged to prevent any deterioration in the proposed sites, particularly where those sites host priority natural habitat types or species.
Any citizen or ecological organisation in possession of information proving that there has been any infringement of the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC can contact the Commission and lodge a complaint on the matter. If, after examining the complaint, the Commission finds that there has been a breach of the Directive, it will initiate infringement proceedings against the Member State concerned under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
(1) Judgment of 26 June 1997, Case C-329/96, Commission v Hellenic Republic. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(1999/C 135/169) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2929/98 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission
(2 October 1998)
Subject: European Tourism Agency
In its resolutions A4-80/94 (1) and A4-16/96 (2), the European Parliament called for the creation of a European Tourism Agency. In response, Commissioner Papoutsis stated (P-2433/96 (3) and E-1129/97 (4)) that the creation of such an agency would be examined on completion of the first multiannual programme to assist European tourism.
Will the Commission say what steps it is taking to respond to the Parliament’s calls in this regard, particularly in view of the regrettable absence of any mention of tourism in the Treaty of Amsterdam?
(1) OJ C 18, 23.1.1995, p. 159. (2) OJ C 65, 4.3.1996, p. 34. (3) OJ C 365, 4.12.1996, p. 115. (4) OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 234. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/139
Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission
(26 October 1998)
As indicated in its previous replies, the Commission considers that the question of creating a European tourism agency should be examined after, and in accordance with, the decision on a multinannual programme to assist European tourism, to be taken by the Council. The adoption and implementation of such a programme continue to be the priority of the Commission in the field.
(1999/C 135/170) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2930/98 by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission
(2 October 1998)
Subject: Secondary occupations of EU officials
According to information published in Finland, the Director-General of the Commission’s Directorate- General for Research (DG XII), Jorma Routti, is a candidate for membership of the board of the new investment bank Conventum, which is to be listed in Helsinki. He considers that this secondary occupation would ‘promote connections between European research and the money markets’.
The independence required of Commissioners under Article 157 of the Treaty of Rome may surely be regarded as a premise for the independence and impartiality of EU officials. During their period of office they are absolutely forbidden to undertake any other paid work or unpaid professional work, with the exception of lecturing without a fee. Commissioners are expected to be absolutely independent of national interests or of any other interests external to the Commission.
The secondary occupations of EU officials are governed by the Staff Regulations. EU officials are not permitted to have secondary occupations, and they require the permission of their superior before they accept any. A secondary occupation must not give rise to a relationship of dependence or jeopardise officials’ impartiality. Particularly at Director-General level, this requirement may surely be regarded virtually as an outright ban on outside interests and secondary occupations analogous to that which applies to Commissioners.
The secondary occupations of EU officials should be considered, above all, in relation to their duties. EU officials are required, inter alia, to be impartial in relation to the Member States. Secondary occupations are particularly problematic if the field of activity in question is closely related to that of the relevant EU Directorate-General. Secondary occupations can easily give rise to conflicts of interest, which are further aggravated if they involve payment or other advantages.
EU officials have a strict duty to maintain confidentiality. Especially in the case of senior officials, a secondary occupation may confer a dual role which in the eyes of the outside world may become untenable, inter alia in connection with the duty of confidentiality.
Does the Commission consider it possible for an EU official who is a Director-General to sit on the board of a financial institution? How does the Commission monitor secondary occupations, and can it publish a list of them? How common is it, in any case, for Directors-General to pursue secondary occupations?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(30 October 1998)
According to Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Staff Regulations, an official wishing to engage in an outside activity, whether gainful or not, or to carry out any assignment outside the Communities, must obtain permission from the appointing authority. Permission shall be refused if the activity or assignment is such as to impair the official’s independence or to be detrimental to the work of the Communities. C 135/140 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
The Commission, in its decision of 7 May 1992, has outlined the criteria applicable to the requests for external activities of its officials and other agents. Under this decision, the appointing authority will take into account, when examining a request, the nature and the amount of work of the external activity as well as its possible impact on the productivity of the official in his service, the interest the activity might represent for the Communities, and the net income deriving from the activity.
In any case, external activities, whether they are paid or not, implying the exercise of so-called liberal professional activities or a position within a commercial company are not allowed. Furthermore, the maximum ceiling on the total net income for external activities of the official is ECU3,500 per year. The amount received by the official over and above this ceiling is to be transferred to the Commission.
As far as the case mentioned by the Honourable Member is concerned, it should be noted that the person in question has announced the withdrawal of this application for the external activity.
(1999/C 135/171) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2933/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council
(24 September 1998)
Subject: Secondary law in the field of immigration and asylum policy
As the documents show, there have been some 70 Council legal acts in the field of immigration policy in the last few years.
Which acts are involved, specifically? Please give details, with the appropriate references.
Are there moves for more extensive coordination of the law?
What is the Council’s explanation for the fact that the aim of ‘sustainably influencing the reality of migration through the European Union in an empirically verifiable manner’ (1) has not, after all, succeeded?
Where and how are data from the Centres for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum and on the Crossing of Borders and Immigration accessible to the public or MEPs?
(1) Strategy paper on immigration and asylum policy 9809/98, ASIM 170 [unofficial English version of quotation as document not available − Translator’s note].
Reply
(20/21 December 1998)
1. As the Honourable Member will know, the instruments adopted by the Council in the area of immigration and asylum cover various aspects and constitute important steps towards the gradual building of a common strategy in the area of immigration and asylum policy. For ease of reference a list of instruments adopted in the immigration and asylum areas will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member.
2. Discussions are under way within the competent Council bodies on the Commission’s proposal for a convention on rules for the admission of third-country nationals (1). This proposal takes a comprehensive approach for dealing with legal immigration policy issues. It is recalled that, on 8 December 1997, in accordance with Article K.6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council submitted the Commission’s proposal to the European Parliament for its views.
3. A second initiative by the Commission in this area concerns the situations of mass influx of displaced persons, and resulted in two proposals, namely the amended proposal for a joint action concerning temporary protection of displaced persons and the proposal for a joint action concerning solidarity in the admission and residence of beneficiaries of the temporary protection of displaced persons (2). The European Parliament has been consulted also in this matter. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/141
4. In addition, in the context of the progressive establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice, Title IV of the EC Treaty as it will be amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam requires the Council to adopt specific measures on immigration and asylum policies.
5. The data contained in CIREFI and CIREAdocuments are subject to the conditions laid down in the Council Decision of 20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents (3), as subsequently amended by the Council Decision of 6 December 1996 (4). Attention is drawn to the fact that since these data are supplied by Member States, under Article 4(1) of this Decision, access to a Council document containing such data is not granted inter alia where its disclosure could undermine the protection of confidentiality required by the legislation of the Member State that supplied any of the information contained in that document.
(1) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997, p. 9. (2) OJ C 268, 27.8.1998, p. 13. (3) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 43. (4) OJ L 325, 14.12.1996, p. 19.
(1999/C 135/172) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2934/98
by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE) to the Council
(24 September 1998)
Subject: The crisis in Albania
The current situation in Albania, where the passive attitude of the international community appears to have been the dominant feature over the past years, may jeopardise the maintenance of stability in the region, and the unrest will have evident repercussions on EU countries and future members.
Has the Council taken any measures which would enable security in the area to be increased?
In view of the growth in the number of new conflicts in the country and international passivity, does the EU intend to embark on any kind of mediation or action to resolve the conflict?
Reply
(14 December 1998)
The Council regrets that the Honourable Member considers the Rome Conference of 1997, the joint OSCE, EU, Council of Europe, NATO and WEU activities, the providing of ECU 70,4 million in 1997 and of an estimated ECU 105 million in PHARE support for 1998/99, the Commission and EU troika experts missions, the presence of the European Community Monitoring Mission (ECMM), the Cooperation Agreement, the humanitarian aid provided by ECHO, the recent establishment of the ‘Friends of Albania’ Group and the EU participation in the International Conference on Albania as a passive attitude of the international community.
The Council certainly is deeply concerned about maintaining the stability in the region and would like to recall that the European Union and its individual member States are by far the largest contributors to the enhancement of stability in Albania and are likely to remain so for the near future.
The Council wishes to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the Council decision of 22 September 1998 adopted on the basis of Article J.4(2) of the Treaty on European Union, requesting the Western European Union to complete urgently its study on the feasibility of possible options for international police operations in Albania in order to assist the Albanian authorities to restore law and order in that country. At its meeting on 26 October 1998, the Council welcomed the transmission of the WEU supplement to its feasibility study. C 135/142 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
The Council is looking forward to cooperate with the new Government in Tirana, especially in the areas of economic and democratic reform, and the enhancement of internal security. It made clear the absolute necessity of progress in the national reconciliation process, and of the adoption of the constitution, and urged all political forces, and in particular the leadership of the Democratic Party to live up to their responsibility towards the Albanian people.
The Council welcomed the successful holding of the International Conference in Tirana on 30 October, which took stock of cooperation between the International Community and Albania and mapped out cooperation with the new Government in its pledge to restore democracy, security and political and economic stability to the country.
(1999/C 135/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2936/98 by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Reduction of VAT on certain labour-intensive services
Could the Commission say what progress has been made on the Communication submitted by the Commission on 12 November 1997 to encourage job creation at a local level and combat certain types of ‘undeclared’ work by reducing VAT on labour-intensive services such as building renovation etc.?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(27 October 1998)
The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the communication on the possibility of a reduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services for an experimental period and on an optional basis which it presented to the Council on 12 December 1997 (1) is still being discussed by that institution.
The Commission has now begun work on a proposal for an instrument on reduced rates of VAT.
It would be premature at this stage to discuss how activities such as building renovation should be treated for VAT purposes. This matter will be addressed during the work on which the Commission is currently engaged.
(1) SEC(97) 2089 final.
(1999/C 135/174) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2945/98 by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Council
(19 October 1998)
Subject: Delays on the part of the Italian Government in setting up a guarantee fund for SMEs
The Ecofin Council has approved the allocation of EUR 420 million to various measures aimed at SMEs, including a loan-guarantee fund requiring a financial contribution from the Member States.
The Italian Ministry for Industry has initiated a yet to be concluded legislative procedure for the adoption of a decree establishing a national guarantee fund to match the European fund. The Italian fund should have been available by mid-September, but the decree is not expected to be issued in the near future. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/143
Owing to the failure to issue the necessary decree, Italian SMEs are once again unable to take advantage of European aid, which will instead go to Member States quicker to react in introducing the instruments required to be able to benefit from the opportunities provided by the Community. The delays on the part of the Italian Government thus penalise only the potential beneficiaries of Community aid − in this case SMEs.
How does the Council intend to protect the interests of SMEs placed at a disadvantage by their government’s failure to take the necessary legislative action in good time?
What action does it intend to take vis-à-vis those governments which fail to adopt appropriate measures, thus penalising businesses in their own countries?
Reply
(14 December 1998)
In accordance with the division of powers between the Institutions under the Treaty, the Council has no competence to ensure that the Community measures are applied in Member States.
(1999/C 135/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2947/98 by Antonio Tajani (PPE)to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: The privatisation of Società Autostrade S.p.A. in Italy
On 30 July 1998 the Commission stated its position on the privatisation of Società Autostrade S.p.A. and laid down a number of rules with which the Italian authorities must comply in order to adhere to the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination with regard to both the sale of shares and the arrangements for application of the concession, in compliance with the European rules set out in the Commission communication (1).
Would the Commission state whether:
1. given the fact that it itself confirmed the nature of the relationship with Società Autostrade as being based on a ‘works concession’, the management of works contracts by an ‘external, independent commission’ appointed by the Ministry for Public Works is in keeping with the provisions of Directives 305 of 26 July 1971 (2) and 440 of 18 July 1989 (3) on participation in tendering procedures organised by concessionaires;
2. the setting up of such a commission would not constitute interference in company activities and therefore act as a deterrent, particularly to foreign investors wishing to take part in the privatisation, given that similar procedures are not used in the rest of the Community;
3. the setting up of a stable core of shareholders is compatible with the provisions of the aforementioned Commission communication;
4. it is true that, as reported by a leading daily newspaper, Società Autostrade made use of the services of a leading Roman law firm during the discussions with Brussels, and if so, which?
(1) OJ C 220, 19.7.1997. (2) OJ L 185, 16.8.1971, p. 5. (3) OJ L 210, 21.7.1989, p. 1.
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(25 November 1998)
1. Article 3 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (1) distinguishes between different types of concessionaires in the case of works to be carried out by third parties. Paragraph 3 of the said Article stipulates that when the C 135/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
concessionaire is himself a contracting authority, he shall comply with the provisions of this Directive in the case of works to be carried out by third parties. Paragraph 4 of the Article, on the other hand, stipulates that a concessionaire other than a contracting authority is bound only to apply the advertising rules. There is no provision preventing any third party in relation to the concessionaire from conducting the procedures for the award of public works contracts.
2. The Italian Authorities set up an external commission as part of their effort to make the rules for applying for the concession as transparent as possible and open to competition.
3. The Commission, in order to reply more precisely to the third question, invites the Honourable Member to be more specific in his question about the stable core of shareholders.
4. The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that institutionally it has relations exclusively with the Member States’ authorities. It is for these national authorities to establish what means and resources should be employed and to determine the composition of the delegations that deal with the Commission.
(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
(1999/C 135/176) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2950/98 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI)to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Recognition of academic qualifications
In the reply to question E-1304/98 (1) which I submitted on 29 April 1998 no mention is made of the third question, which I shall rephrase for ease of understanding: With what conditions must an Italian student with a Master of Arts degree from the Open University in Britain comply so that his degree is recognised?
1. Can the Commission provide the information requested?
2. If not, to whom must students in this situation turn to obtain correct information?
3. Does the Commission rule out taking steps to ensure that such students have their rights recognised?
(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 89.
Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(18 November 1998)
In reply to the first question, the Commission would like to refer to its answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question No 1304/98 (1), in which it explained that there is no system of automatic recognition of diplomas in the Community. As a result, the ‘Master of Arts’ degree awarded by the Open University in the UK is not automatically recognised in Italy or any other Member State. Furthermore, in reply to the third question, the Commission would like to emphasise once again that the academic recognition of diplomas and the conditions which must be fulfilled for diplomas to be recognised are the exclusive responsibility of the Member States. In view of the diversity of the contents and structure of higher education in the Community, diplomas are assessed on a case-by-case basis. This means that Open University graduates wishing to have their ‘Master of Arts’ degree recognised in Italy will have to apply to the Italian authorities.
(1) OJ C 354, 24.11.1998. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/145
(1999/C 135/177) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2952/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Notification requirement
According to Article 8 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC (1) of 28 March 1983 the Member States are required to communicate to the Commission any draft ‘technical’ regulation within the meaning of the directive. In my view the Austrian Regulation on the avoidance and recovery of packaging waste and specific residues and the establishment of collection and recovery systems (VerpackVO 1996) BGB1 II No 232/1997 should be covered by this provision.
Is the Austrian regulation covered by the notification requirement in the Directive?
If so, when was it communicated?
If it was not, what are the legal implications of this omission?
(1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8.
Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission
(4 November 1998)
The two texts the Honourable Member refers to were notified to the Commission at draft stage in accordance with Article 16(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. (1)
Both were draft measures which Austria was planning to adopt in the context of Directive 94/62/EC. Pursuant to Article 16(1) of Directive 94/62/EC, the Austrian authorities were thus bound to notify them in accordance with the procedure laid down in 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 (2) (which has since become Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 (3)).
The draft Decree of the Federal Minister for Environment, Youth and the Family on the avoidance and recycling of packaging waste and of certain goods residues and the establishment of collection and recycling schemes (VerpackVO 1996) was first notified on 27 August 1996 (notification number 96/332/A). The adopted text was published in the Austrian official gazette (BGBl No 648/1996 of 29 November 1996).
A new version of the same Decree (VerpackVO 1997) was notified at draft stage on 1 April 1997 (notification number 97/156/A). The definitive text was published in BGBl II No 232/1997.
(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994. (2) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983. (3) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
(1999/C 135/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2959/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Social security rights of workers in the tobacco industry in Greece
The EU’s imposition of acreage quotas on tobacco-growing in Greece has reduced tobacco production and the level of employment in the industry, which had already been cut by advances in technology. The effect of this has been to put workers’ expectations of retirement under threat since, through reducing the number of days of insurance contributions and increasing the inordinate number of years of contributions required (now 40), it is possible that they may not be able to retire on a pension. C 135/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
As provision was made for specific measures to safeguard workers’ insurance rights, and having regard to Articles 10 and 25 of the charter of workers’ fundamental social rights, will the Commission say whether it will take specific measures to protect the social security rights of workers in the tobacco industry?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(13 November 1998)
In the field of social protection, Member States are free to decide their own policies as regards the organisation and operation of social security systems, provided they comply with Community legislation on equal treatment for men and women.
This means that Member States may adopt rules fixing the number of years of insurance contributions needed to qualify for an old-age or retirement pension.
(1999/C 135/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2969/98 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) and Gianfranco Fini (NI) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Europol and the Internet
The use of the Internet by paedophiles and the transmission of obscene material depicting minors, which has recently led the police in a number of countries to take action to arrest those responsible, underlines the need for concerted action by the Member States, in cooperation with the international organisations that protect the dignity and rights of minors.
Would the Commission state whether, to combat this evil more effectively,
1. it agrees that proposals should be put forward to regulate the use of the Internet by preventing access to it for purposes inimical to the dignity of the individual?
2. it agrees that governments should be urged to take action under the ‘Third pillar’ to harmonise legislation concerning paedophile activities and the defence of minors?
3. it considers that Europol’s powers could include the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for using the Internet to promote paedophile activities?
Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission
(19 November 1998)
1. The Community has a well defined policy in this area, based on a set of complementary instruments.
Following wide ranging consultation on the basis of a green paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information service (1), the Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 on the development of the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry by promoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection of minors and human dignity (2) is the first legal instrument concerning the content of on-line audiovisual and information services made available on the Internet.
Based on a communication, a Council Resolution and two working party reports on illegal and harmful content, the Commission has adopted a proposal for an action plan to promote safe use of the Internet (3). The action plan supports four areas: a European network of hotlines, self-regulation by industry, filtering and rating and awareness. Member States are also committed under the Recommendation on protection of minors and human dignity to provide the appropriate framework. The Recommendation offers guidelines for the development of voluntary national self-regulation, based on four elements: codes of conduct; 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/147
consultation and representativeness of the parties concerned (industry, service and access providers, user and family associations, public bodies, government) in preparing, implementing and evaluating codes of conduct; national bodies representative of all the parties involved facilitating cooperation at Union level; and national evaluation of self-regulation.
2. The Commission agrees that governments should take action under the third pillar and welcomes the work on the draft joint action submitted by the Austrian Presidency concerning the fight against child pornography on the Internet.
3. Referring to Council decision of 4 December 1997, a draft Council decision is being prepared to extend the present mandate of Europol on trafficking in human beings to cover child pornography material. For the time being, and pursuant to the Convention establishing Europol, child pornography can only be covered by Europol if an enquiry is related to a case involving trafficking in human beings.
(1) COM(96) 483 final. (2) OJ L 270, 7.10.1998. (3) COM(97) 582 final modified by COM(98) 518 final.
(1999/C 135/180) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2973/98
by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Role of the media in the increased sexual exploitation of women
According to a recent statement by the Council of Europe, women are the main victims of sexual exploitation using the networks, which constitutes a serious violation of human rights. The way in which women are depicted by the mass media is contributing to the increased sexual exploitation of women in Europe, while those involved in the white slave trade are making increasing use of modern media and new technologies. What action does the Commission intend to take and what measures will it adopt in response to this serious problem?
Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission
(10 November 1998)
The Commission understands the question as addressing two separate issues. The first concerns the image of women in the media. Women are often represented through stereotyped images showing traditional and unequal roles for women and men, including images which could possibly encourage the sexual exploitation of women. The image of women in the media is one of the main concerns of the equal opportunities policy of the Community. A series of projects promoting non-stereotype images for women in broadcasting have been co-funded by the Commission under the third (1991-1995) (1) and the fourth (1996-2000) (2) Community action programmes for equal opportunities. In addition, a Europe-wide survey on existing research on women and the media has been completed and will be published by the Commission.
The second issue addressed by the Honourable Member concerns the use by criminal organisations of new technologies, in particular Internet, in relation to trafficking in women for purpose of sexual exploitation. A distinction has to be made between ‘sexual advertising’ offered on the Internet by individuals or specialised firms and the use of Internet by certain organisations to carry on their criminal activities that are not necessarily restricted or even related to trafficking in women. The Commission has proposed an C135/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
action plan (3) on both illegal and harmful content on the Internet focusing on prevention and public awareness aspects. As for the use of Internet by criminal organisations, Europol is seeking to develop a strategy to obtain intelligence and information on high tech crime that would embrace a larger scope than simply computer crime.
(1) COM(90) 449 final. (2) COM(95 381 final. (3) COM(97) 582 final.
(1999/C135/181) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2975/98 by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Italian proposal to promote job creation in the south with exemptions from contributions
The Italian Government recently issued a proposal to promote job creation in the south of Italy by exempting firms in the area from paying contributions.
The Government failed, moreover, to obtain information from the Community authorities about the legality of this measure. The same thing happened in 1995 when it launched ‘work training contracts’ and as a result of this emission infringement proceedings were initiated against Italy (for breaching Community anti-trust rules) and the firms were requested to refund all the subsidies received since 1995.
Does the Commission not agree that the Italian Government’s measures to support the south discriminate against firms in the other regions of Italy which would like to hire more staff but cannot benefit from any job-creation measures?
What measures does the Commission intend to take against Italy in order to avoid any further ‘omission’ to notify national measures?
Does the Commission not consider that SMEs in Italy should be given more protection to ensure that productive workers do not suffer from the Government’s errors?
Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission
(19 October 1998)
The Commission has not been officially informed of the proposal to which the Honourable Member refers.
Under Article 93(3) of the ECTreaty, the Italian Government is obliged to inform the Commissionof any plans to grant or alter aid before they are implemented, so that it can decide whether they are compatible with the common market. The Commission will ensure that this obligation is met.
The Commission will examine measures notified to it in the light of Community rules and in particular, where the measure is to promote job creation, on the basis of the guidelines on aid to employment (1).
If measures are put into effect before the Commission gives its approval, they are illegal and the Commission may also ask for any subsidies received to be refunded.
The Commission does not consider it appropriate to comment on the Italian Government’s intentions to support certain regions or categories of firms, provided that Community rules on state aid are upheld.
(1) OJ C334, 12.12.1995. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/149
(1999/C 135/182) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2980/98 by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: The purchase of cars in the European single market
Following the difficulties that my constituents have encountered in purchasing European motor cars, with UK specifications, from suppliers in the Netherlands and elsewhere can the Commission say what action it is taking to ensure a genuine European single market in the purchase of cars?
Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission
(9 November 1998)
The Commission wouldrefer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions P-1957/97 by Mr Skinner (1), E-3298/97 by Mr Watts (2), E-1851/98 by Mr Mather (3) andE-2534/98 by Mr Mather ( 4).
(1) OJ C 21, 22.1.1998. (2) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998. (3) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 90. (4) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 149.
(1999/C 135/183) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2983/98 by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland
Is the Commission aware of the excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland and does it consider that this is due to lack of competition in the Irish market?
(1999/C 135/184) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2984/98 by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Derogations in motor insurance in Ireland
Will the Commission state whether the Irish market for motor vehicle insurance is affectedby any derogations from EU competition policy or other legislation and can the Commission state when such derogations come to an end?
Joint answer to Written Questions E-2983/98 and E-2984/98 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(4 December 1998)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible. C 135/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/185) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2994/98 by Roberto Mezzaroma (PPE) to the Council
(19 October 1998)
Subject: Reform of the law on representation in the armed forces in Italy
On 21 July 1998, the defence committee of the Italian Chamber of Deputies approved the text of a law aimed at reforming the system of representation in the armed forces.
The substance of the law reveals the lack of a political will to undertake an innovative reform of the system of representative in the armed forces so as to improve the conditions of military personnel.
The law has been met with complete indifference and has failed to prompt any critical reaction on the part of military personnel, indicating a serious and alarming lack of concern about the law’s content.
For many years the fundamental rights of military personnel in the armed forces of European countries have been enjoyed wide-ranging and comprehensive protection under the law. In view of the fact that in 1985 and 1997 the European Parliament adopted a recommendation stating that military personnel should be allowed proper and effective representation, does the Council not consider it necessary to make a specific recommendation, without encroaching on the autonomy of the Italian Parliament, that the new law, which is set to be approved by the Senate, should incorporate the constitutional right to the protection of the fundamental and inalienable rights of association and be brought into line with similar laws in other European countries as part of a unified defence policy in the WEU?
Reply
(14 December 1998)
The question raised by the Honourable Member is not within the competence of the Council.
(1999/C 135/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2998/98 by Renate Heinisch (PPE) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Information on the level of EU aid paid to universities and research institutes in Baden- Württemberg in 1997
For what measures was Community funding paid to universities and research institutes in Baden- Württemberg in 1997, and how high were the grants from:
1. the Fourth Framework Programme for activities in the field of research and technological develop- ment and demonstration,
2. the Community programmes in the areas of energy and the environment,
3. Community initiatives, particularly the Interreg programme,
4. the Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth for Europe programmes,
5. other Community programmes?
Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(16 December 1998)
Further to its answer of 23 October 1998 (1), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/151
In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
(1) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999.
(1999/C 135/187) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3014/98 by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission
(28 September 1998)
Subject: Echelon system
The interim report published by STOA in January 1998 confirms the existence of the Echelon system, whereby the United States, with the aid of a grid of telecommunications networks based on Vortex satellites, can intercept all messages sent within the European Union by telephone, fax or E-mail.
We are told by a well-informed source that the President of the Commission has circulated a document to the institution’s chief section heads warning of the risks of the Commission’s communications being intercepted.
Can the Commission confirm this information? What steps does it intend to take, within the framework of its powers, to protect institutions, businesses and individuals within the Union against all forms of political and economic espionage?
Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(6 November 1998)
The Honourable Member is referred to Commission answers to Written Questions numbers E/1039/98 by Ms Van Dijk (1), E-1049/98 by Ms Van Dijk (2), E-130/6/98 by Ms Muscardini and others (3), E-1329/98 by Ms Raschhofer (4), E-1776/98 by Mr Manisco (5) and E-1987/98 by Mr Kaklamanis (6).
(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 55. (2) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 54. (3) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 109. (4) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 35. (5) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 90. (6) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 130.
(1999/C 135/188) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3017/98 by Luigi Florio (PPE) to the Council
(2 October 1998)
Subject: Israel’s request to join the group of Western European and other States in the UN
The State of Israel is the only one of the 185 Member States of the UN which cannot be elected to the Security Council. This is because the group of Asian States, to which Israel belongs geographically, ban it from joining their organization and the European Union countries have not yet responded to Israel’s request to join the Western group.
The United States, Australia, Canada and Norway have already indicated that they are in favour.
What response does the Council intend to make to Israel’s request?
Does it not consider that to approve the request would be a sign that it rightfully condemns the Asian group’s discrimination against Israel? C 135/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Reply
(7/8 December 1998)
The Council recalls that, in the EU’s view, Israel geographically belongs to the Asian Regional Group. However, given that Israeli membership ofthe Asian Group is unfortunatelynot possible at present, it is right for the Western European and Other States Group (WEOG) to be ready to recognise that difficulty by, on a case-by-case basis, supporting Israeli candidatures for elections in UN bodies where there are no WEOG candidates.
On the question ofgranting Israel temporary membership ofWEOG, the EU’s position remains that it would not be appropriate to take a decision to this effect. Furthermore, it should be noted that for this purpose agreement by the EU would not be enough as a consensus ofall WEOG members would be required.
(1999/C 135/189) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3020/98
by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Meda-Democracy Programme
B’Tselem − The Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories − has asked me the following question:
’Parliament initiated the Meda-Democracy and Human Rights Programme in 1996, which we understand has proven very useful in the promotion of human rights and democracy in the Mediterranean. We have heard that the Commission is envisioning major administrative changes to the Programme that would have a negative effect on the achievements of the Programme. We would like the Commission to explain to use the nature ofthe changes envisaged and to convince us that this would improve the work ofNGOs in the field.’
Can the Commission respond to the concerns ofNGOs working in the fieldto provide visibility and hope as regards human rights and democracy?
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(9 November 1998)
We envisage changes to the MEDA Democracy programme following the implementation of the proposal for a Council Regulation (1) setting out requirements for the implementation of Community operations contributing to the overall objective ofthe development and consolidation ofdemocracy and the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, in the Occupied Territories as in the Community’s Mediterranean partner countries. The proposal is currently under consultation with Parliament.
The Regulation has yet to be approved in detail, but the main innovations are intended to make financing decisions more transparent, for example by obliging the Commission to submit an annual report to Parliament and the Council on the operations financed and an overall evaluation of such operations three years after the Regulation enters into force.
(1) OJ C 282, 18.9.1997. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/153
(1999/C 135/190) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3025/98 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Gas and fire liability
Will the Commission reconsider the need for a proposal on service liability to complement the existing Directive on product liability?
In addition, has the Commission undertaken any research into how information on fire safety might best be applied to consumers in holiday accommodation and does the Commission consider that there is a case to mandate the existing Recommendation on Fire Safety?
Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission
(5 November 1998)
In the context of consumer safety protection, and the internal market, the Commission intends to reconsider and explore the needs, scope, options, approaches and possible contents for Community action in the field of service safety. Preventive aspects of the safety of services will be considered as well as reparative aspects linked to liability.
The Commission intends to launch studies for an updated assessment of the issue as soon as possible.
The necessary contacts with Member States’ experts and interest groups will take place in the course of these studies.
Safety information is already part of Council Recommendation 86/666/EEC of 22 December 1986 on fire safety in existing hotels (1). The Commission does not plan to launch specific research on that subject.
Following a Resolution by Parliament on fire safety in hotels (2) a study on the state of the implementation of the Recommendation in the Member States shows that the Recommendation has been extensively implemented in national legislation. The Commission does not, therefore, envisage proposing that this Recommendation becomes mandatory.
For further information on this point, the Honourable Member is referred to Written Question E-1423/97 by Mrs Pollack (3).
Safety in hotels could nevertheless be examined when considering the safety of services and taken into account in the studies to be carried out in this context.
(1) OJ L 384, 31.12.1986. (2) OJ C 205, 25.7.1994. (3) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998.
(1999/C 135/191) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3029/98 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Obstacles to the free movement of products containing precious metals
Since there is no specific Community directive to harmonise the manufacture and marketing of products containing precious metals, some EU Member States are using their domestic legal regulations to obstruct C 135/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
the marketing of products from other Member States, even in cases where the inspections they perform are identical or equivalent to those in the Member State from which the goods have come.
The main problem lies in the different methods used by the Member States to approve products. To be more precise, Spain has 52 laboratories authorised by the state authorities to inspect and stamp goods. Nonetheless, exporters are required to have the same goods stamped in the Member State for which they are bound (chiefly Portugal, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Ireland), and are thus obliged to pay laboratory charges in both Spain and the other Member State in question, since the latter does not recognise the Spanish quality mark. As a result, apart from the additional costs incurred, commercial transactions are subject to holdups and delays.
In such circumstances, does the Commission intend to take measures of any kind to remedy this absence of legislation, which is responsible for a clear obstacle to the free movement of goods and for the consequent failure to observe the principle of mutual recognition?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(18 November 1998)
As a general observation, it should be noted that the Commission has already examined the Member States’ legislation on precious metals as part of an EU-wide survey. Following this examination, the Member States were asked to amend their existing legislation (these amendments are still under way in three Member States) in order to comply with the principle of free movement of goods enshrined in Articles 30-36 of the EC Treaty and set out in the rulings of the Court of Justice (for products containing precious metals, see in particular the Robinson judgement of 22 June 1982, Case 220/81, and the Houtwipper judgement of 15 September 1994, Case C-293/93). As a rule, compliance with this principle means accepting hallmarks on products legally manufactured or marketed in other Member States and accepting sponsors’ marks and quality labels which give the same level of detail as required by law in the Member State where the product is marketed.
In practice, however, there are still problems with free movement. These problems stem mainly from the restrictive application of the principle of mutual recognition and in particular the notion of equivalence. Despite having adopted mutual recognition clauses in compliance with the Commission’s request, some Member States with a mandatory official hallmarking system, i.e. where stamping is done by one or more officially recognised independent bodies, seem to refuse to give equal recognition to hallmarks laid down by an official body and hallmarks laid down by a body which is controlled by the manufacturer but closely monitored by the national authorities as part of their quality assurance system.
Because of this situation, the Commission has resumed talks with the Member States concerned.
(1999/C 135/192) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3035/98
by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Imports of flowers from Latin American countries
In its answer to my questions (E-0901/97 (1) and E-1762/97 (2)) on imports of flowers from Latin American countries, the Commission stated that it kept a close watch on trends in exports of flowers and plants to the Community.
1. Can the Commission provide precise figures on the export of flowers and plants from Latin American countries to the Community for the period 1991-1998? 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/155
2. Can the Commission indicate whether exports to the EU will increase further as a result of the crisis in Russia and Asia and if so, to what extent?
3. Has the Commission already considered adopting measures in accordance with the provisions in Article 14 and AnnexVI, chapter 6 of Regulation 1256/96 ( 3)?
4. Can the Commission provide information on the results of the study, to which it referred in its answer to my first question and in which particular attention was paid to reduced drug production because of the increased opportunities to export flowers?
(1) OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 37. (2) OJ C 21, 22.1.1998, p. 92. (3) OJ L 160, 29.6.1996, p. 64.
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(9 November 1998)
1. Statistics on EU imports from Latin America and total imports from non-EU countries of flowers and plants (CN codes 0601 to 0604) for 1991-1997 will be sent to the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat.
2. The statistics show a slight increase in exports from non-EU countries in 1997 compared with the previous year but this is not necessarily the result of the crisis in Russia and Asia.
3. Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) 1256/96 of 20 June 1996 provides that where a product originating in one of the countries or territories listed in AnnexIII is imported on terms which cause or threaten to cause serious difficulties to a Community producer of like or directly competing products, CCT duties on that product may be reintroduced at the request of a Member State or on the Commission’s own initiative.
In the case of cut flowers under CN code 0603 originating in the countries referred to in AnnexV, the situation described in Article 14(1) is deemed to exist where in any given year the quantities released for free circulation under preferential arrangements exceed the volume of imports from one of these countries to the Community corresponding to a figure halfway between the highest quantity and the average quantity in the last four years for which statistics are available.
To date the Commission has neither decided itself nor received a request from a Member State to apply Article 14 to products under Chapter 6 of the Combined Nomenclature.
4. The reports (1) evaluating the beneficiary countries’ efforts to combat drug trafficking and analysing the economic and social impact of the special arrangements have concluded that there is a need for such an instrument to support beneficiary countries’ efforts to reduce their dependency on the drug economy and stabilise their economic and social structures and constitutional institutions. However its objectives have not yet been fully met. Given the problems involved and continuing lack of progress or headway the Community considers it should continue to assist the Andean Community and Central America in the fight against drugs through the GSP. There will in any case be a general review at the end of the ten-year period (2004) of this and all other aspects of the scheme.
(1) These reports will be presented to the Generalised Preferences Committee under the procedure referred to in Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) 3281/94 (OJ L 348, 31.12.1994) on 10 November. C 135/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/193) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3036/98 by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission
(2 October 1998)
Subject: Joint EU-Algeria education programmes
Would the Commission be prepared to drawup plans for joint actions in the field of education as a specific EU-Algeria programme?
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(9 November 1998)
Within the context of the MEDA programme, in 1996 the Commission came to an agreement with the Algerian government on a programme of bilateral financial cooperation lasting several years, which takes into account on the one hand the main thrust of MEDA policies − support for economic transition, a better socio-economic equilibrium and for the development of civil society and on the other the socio-economic challenges facing Algeria and the security situation. On this basis, the Commission and the Algerian government have chosen to concentrate funds on five cooperation programmes.
As the social situation is worrying and the unemployment rate is around 30 %, the Commission would like to provide support in reinforcing the social net through job creation. Other elements of the programme include structural adjustment facility, support for small and medium-sized enterprises, privatisation and the modernisation of the financial sector. Current Community cooperation programmes and those in preparation include major training components, such as the training of business women, financial sector employees or traditional fishermen.
Since education is an area of Euro-Mediterranean partnership as defined in the Barcelona declaration, the Commission and the Algerian government could take the opportunity offered by the revision of MEDA programming to redefine future cooperation priorities on the basis of Algeria¢s medium- and long-term sectoral strategy and agree to target education from nowon.
(1999/C 135/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3037/98 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Television without frontiers
The qualifying match for the European Championship between Denmark and Belarus in Belarus was shown only on TV3 since the other channels DR and TV2 were unwilling to pay the high cost. This meant that only 60 % of viewers were able to see the match. This is not in conformity with the Council directive stipulating that some national sporting events must not be shown only on channels available to a small section of the population. Is there a loophole in the directive?
Howdoes the directive affect the cost of television rights?
Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission
(4 December 1998)
Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552/EEC (the ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive) (1), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC (2), allows − but does not require − Member States to take measures in accordance with Community law to ensure that a substantial proportion of the public is not deprived of the possibility of following events of major importance for society via live or deferred coverage on free television. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/157
Any measures taken by the Member States must strike a balance between the legitimate general interest recognised by Article 3a(1), on the one hand, and competition between free channels and pay channels and the freedom to supply cross-border services on the other.
In general, the Commission believes that offering free channels the rights to televise events considered to be of major importance for society at market prices may be regarded as a solution that is in the spirit of the Directive, which does not specify any mechanism for fixing the price of rights.
In accordance with Article 3a(2) of the Directive, the Danish authorities have notified the Commission of a draft ministerial decree laying down rules for televising events of major importance for the Danish public. The Commission is currently examining these measures to ensure that they are compatible with Community law.
(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989. (2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.
(1999/C 135/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3038/98
by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Spread of resistant MDR-TB in Russia
According to the Guardian (23.9.1998), a mutant form of tuberculosis called multi-drug resistant TB- MDR-TB is spreading quickly in Russian prisons.Ordinary TB in Russia can be treated in six to eight months, MDR-TB takes 18 months to treat and there is only a 60-85 % chance of survival.Furthermore, the treatment of MDR-TB is very expensive compared to the treatment of traditional TB.MDR-TB is spreading quickly in overcrowded Russian prisons and is passed on into the rest of society as prisoners are freed and through prison personnel.Obviously MDR-TB knows no national borders.Tackling the crisis is going to prove very expensive even according to modest estimates.
What is the Commission going to do to help Russia stop the spread of MDR-TB and thus combat a major threat to Russia, Europe and the rest of the world?
Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission
(16 November 1998)
The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about the dramatic increase in tuberculosis (TB) cases in the Community of Independent States (CIS) in the 1990s.In the Russian Federation, the case rate rose by 42 % between 1991 and 1994.In the period 1995-1996, a further increase by 4 % was observed.By 1996, tuberculosis had become the most important lethal infectious disease in the country.
The World health organisation (WHO) advocates DOTS (directly observed therapy short course) a relatively cheap and effective scheme of curing TB patients and preventing transmission, but this has unfortunately proved difficult to implement in the Russian Federation due to lack of drugs and the fact that treatment preferences vary among local medical staff.Treatment methods are often changed during a cure, favouring the increasing appearance of drug resistant bacteria.
Throughout the last year, the Commission has been funding specific humanitarian projects addressing this problem (DOTS training for local medical staff, provision of drugs).These activities have been focusing on prisons in Central Siberia, where the TB issue is particularly important. C 135/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
While it is understood that the scientific aspects of TB, including the potential adaptation of existing treatment methods to multiple-drug resistant bacteria, have to be addressed by specialised agencies such as WHO, the Commission is considering the continuation and possible expansion of its programmes in the Russian Federation.
However, it has to be stressed that the medium-term success of these efforts will depend on effective implementation of the recommended treatment strategies by local medical authorities.
(1999/C 135/196) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3042/98 by W.G. van Velzen (PPE)to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Developments with regard to the European Energy Charter
The European Energy Charter is intended, in particular, to protect investment in the field of energy and to promote investment in the energy sector in Central and Eastern Europe.In view of the current crisis in Russia, it is very important to investors to know that their investments in Russia are secure.
According to the most recent information available, France has not yet ratified the Charter.
1.Which EU Member States and which non-member countries of the EU have not yet ratified the Charter?
2.Why has Russia not yet ratified the Charter?
3.What is the nature of France’s objections?
4.Can the Commission do anything to accelerate ratification, as the European Energy Charter is an important instrument for the protection of investment in energy in Russia, and bearing in mind current economic conditions?
Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission
(20 November 1998)
1.The Member States which have not yet ratified the Energy Charter Treaty are France and Ireland. Other signatories of the Energy Charter Treaty which have not yet completed their national ratification procedures are: Australia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Japan, Malta, Norway, Poland, Russian Federation and Turkey.Ukraine has completed its national ratification procedure but not yet deposited its instrument of ratification with the depositary.
2.The Russian government initiated the ratification procedure for the Energy Charter Treaty in August 1996.However, up to now, the Duma has not taken up this important issue, which is still pending in its economic policy committee.On several occasions, the Commission has tried to help overcome the concerns of the Duma.In February 1997, the member of the Commission responsible for energy participated in a seminar organised for members of the Duma in order to explain and to promote the ratification of the Energy Charter Treaty by the Russian Federation.At the G8 Energy ministerial meeting on 1 April 1998 in Moscow, the Commission highlighted again the importance of ratification of the Energy Charter Treaty as soon as possible by all signatories, including and above all by the Russian Federation.
3.The Commission is not aware of any political or legal reason that poses a problem for France to ratify the Energy Charter Treaty.The procedure for ratification is pending in Parliament, after having been interrupted in 1997 when the National Assembly was dissolved.The Senate has already approved ratification. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/159
4. The Commission has no instruments at its disposal to speed up ratification procedures in national parliaments. It can only underline the importance of ratification for the whole Energy Charter process, and especially for the creation of an investor friendly climate in the transition countries.
(1999/C 135/197) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3044/98 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: EU-funds for the trade sector
What percentage of EU funding goes on trade in the following areas, broken down by single Member State if possible:
1. Item B3-4000, ‘Industrial relations and social dialogue’;
2. Item B3-4002, ‘Information and training measure for workers’ organisations’;
3. Item B3-4003, ‘Information, consultation, and participation of representatives of undertakings’;
4. Administrative funds via DG XXIII in the fields of trade and support for SMES;
5. Leonardo Programme.
Can the Commissioner also tell me how and to what extent the social partners in the commercial sector are funded with EU monies, and provide data on their implementation, broken down by Member State?
Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission
(4 December 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2097/98 by Mr Blak (1).
(1) See page 14.
(1999/C 135/198) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3050/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission
(2 October 1998)
Subject: Dutch study of phthalates
1. Why did the Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment set a higher TDI level in April 1998 than in 1994?
2. Why was the assumed weight of the baby raised from 5 kg in the committee’s report of February to 8 kg in that of April 1998 and the assumed sucking time reduced from 12 to 6 hours, with the result that only 2, instead of the former 3, phthalates were classified as potentially dangerous?
3. The Scientific Committee estimates that phthalate intake from toys only accounts for 10-30 % of total exposure. Why does the Committee nevertheless take the full TDI value (instead of only 10-30 %) as the basis for its recommendation regarding the withdrawal of phthalates, thus ignoring a fact which it had earlier pointed out itself? C 135/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
4. Is the Commission of the opinion that products that may cause long-term damage to young children should at least be withdrawn from the market until it has been unequivocally demonstrated that they are harmless?
5. The Commission certainly shares the Member’s opinion that experiments with children are ethically indefensible. How can the Commission nevertheless allow a situation where millions of children are exposed to phthalates for hours at a time on a daily basis although 15 minutes in the laboratory has already been deemed twice to be ethically indefensible?
6. What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that children do not continue to be freely exposed to the danger of phthalates?
Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission
(23 October 1998)
1. In its initial evaluation the scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment (SCTEE) took account of past data, in particular the tolerable daily intake (TDIs) identified by the scientific committee for food (SCF). For the most part these had been expressed in opinions of the SCF in 1996. However in its effects assessment (included in the SCTEE opinion on phtalates in toys of 24 April 1998), the CSTEE considered that new data had become available which superseded the older data.
2. In its first report of February 1998, the SCTEE had assumed an exposure period of 12 hours and a body weight of 5 kg, on the basis of a draft report of CEN (European committee of standardisation). Subsequently, the SCTEE, following criticisms of those assumptions, reviewed these criteria and in April 1998 concluded that those values were ‘overly conservative for infants using polyvinyl chloride (PVC)- based teethers’ and decided to use an exposure period of 6 hours and a body weight of 8 kg.
3. The SCTEE has highlighted the need to take into account sources of child exposure to phthalates other than toys and childcare articles. However, it has underlined the uncertainties surrounding the quantification of those sources.
The percentage of 10-30 % for the contribution of the other sources refers to all phthalates and does not provide a sufficient basis for adjustment of the phthalate-specific TDIs mentioned in the SCTEE opinion. Therefore the Commission, in its Recommendation 98/485/EC of 1 July 1998 on childcare articles and toys intended to be placed in the mouth by children of less than three years of age, made of soft PVC containing certain phthalates (1), has indicatively included the guidance values for phthalates in toys which are recommended by the SCTEE, without adjustment, while drawing the attention of the Member States to the need to take into account the whole opinion when assessing the safety of the products in question and deciding the measures to be taken.
In fact, the Recommendation states that in vetting these products, Member States shall monitor the levels of migration of these substances in the context of appropriate checks, taking into account the opinion delivered by SCTEE on 24 April 1998 and notably the migration limit values for phthalates released by these products recommended by this committee and reproduced in the Annex. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/161
In this perspective, the guidance values of the Recommendation should be seen as indicative upper limits and the Member States, in assessing the safety of specific products, should apply the precautionary approach.
4. The Commission takes the view that childcare articles and toys intended to be placed in the mouth by babies under 3years, in soft PVC containing phthalates, should indeed be prohibited from marketing and withdrawn from the market where there are indications that they can harm child health, in particular taking into account the data included in the SCTEE opinion. In the absence of specific Community legislation in this area it is up to the Member States to assess the risks posed by specific products and decide the measures to be taken, in the light of the obligation established by Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (2) under which only safe products may be placed on the market. The Member States must ensure that any such measures are justified and proportional.
5. The Commission considers that young children in the Community should not be allowed to be dangerously exposed to phthalates, taking into account the available scientific knowledge. The Com- mission intends to propose Community legislation in this area as soon as possible. Pending the entry into force of such legislation the Commission invites the Member States to check the market for these products and take the appropriate action at national level. The issue of tests on babies is a separate issue and involves considerations going beyond the specific products and risks in question.
6. The measures taken or planned by the Commission have been mentioned above. It should be noted in addition that the Commission is consulting the SCTEE again in order to obtain an updated opinion in the light of new studies on the subject which have been published recently. When it has the updated opinion of the SCTEE, the Commission will consider whether any modifications of its present policy in this area are necessary.
(1) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998. (2) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
(1999/C 135/199) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3054/98
by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Manchester United
What action will the Commission take to ensure that the proposed acquisition of Manchester United by BSkyB does not conflict with EU competition policy?
Answer given by Mr Van Mierton behalf of theCommission
(4 November 1998)
BSkyB’s proposed acquisition of Manchester United Football Club falls outside the scope of Community merger control legislation (Council Regulation (EEC) 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 (2)) as it does not constitute a concentration with a Community dimension. In particular, the proposed acquisition does not meet the turnover threshold tests set out in Article 1 of the Regulation.
In principle, therefore, national competition law and procedures apply to this proposed acquisition, which will be examined by the British authorities.
(1) OJ L 257, 21.9.1990. (2) OJ L 180, 9.7.1997. C 135/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3056/98 by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Breakaway super soccer league
Is the Commission aware of the proposedestablishment of a breakaway super league involving Europe’s leading football teams? Will the Commission monitor this situation, particularly to ensure that the broadcasting of any games arising out of such a development are not exclusively in the hands of ‘pay-to- view’ television companies?
Answer given by Mr Van Mierton behalf of theCommission
(29 October 1998)
The Commission is aware of the proposedestablishment of a new European football league involving a significant number of European football clubs.
The Commission has not receivedso far any request for clearance, application for an exemption, nor complaint in relation to this project. If one or the other were received, or if it is considered appropriate to act ex officio, the Commission wouldin the course of its assessment of the case considerwhat consumer benefits will accrue from the new league. This assessment wouldincludean examination of the league’s policy towards the broadcasting of matches, whether on free-to air-television, pay television or pay-per- view television.
(1999/C 135/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3065/98 by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Plans to make lotteries subject to European competition law
The opening of infringment proceedings against Ireland pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty, the request by a Finnish court for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice andproposals to make lotteries subject to European competition law rather than national legislation have given rise to some debate in the Federal Republic of Germany.
As far as I am aware, the German Länder do not intend to open up the German lottery market to foreign organisers. A range of different issues play a crucial role here, in particular tax considerations.
Can the Commission say:
1. What led the Commission to abandon its original declaration at the EU summit in Edinburgh of 12 December 1992 that it wouldnot seek to regulate lotteries?
2. What stage has been reachedin the infringment proceedingsagainst Irelandpursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty?
3. What opinion has the Commission expressedin relation to the request by a Finnish court for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice in the Läärä case C-124/97?
4. Has the subject been discussed in the Ecofin Council and, if not, when are such discussions scheduled to take place? 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/163
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(19 November 1998)
The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that it continues to stand by its 1992 declaration that completion of the internal market in the area of gambling does not require legislation. This is borne out by the fact that no proposal has been submitted either to the Council or to the Parliament for examination or decision. This position could, however, be reviewed in the light of new developments.
In its judgment of 24 March 1994 on the Schindler Case (C-275/92), the Court of Justice held that the organisation of lotteries (like other forms of gambling) was an economic activity falling within the scope of Community law and that, given its peculiar nature, Member States might wish to take steps to restrict it, provided such measures were not discriminatory.
Consequently, if the Commission receives a complaint and its examination leads it to suspect that there are unjustified discriminatory measures in this domain, it can launch infringement proceedings against the Member State, which always has the opportunity to submit its observations. In this regard, the infringement proceedings against Ireland, which replied to the reasoned opinion sent to it, will be conducted in the light of the Schindler case-law and the forthcoming judgment on the Läärä Case mentioned by the Honourable Member.
It should be noted that in the Läärä Case, the Commission considered that granting a monopoly to a public body in the area of slot machines was a restriction which was not incompatible with the principles of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services as set out in Articles 52 and 59 respectively of the EC Treaty.
(1999/C 135/202) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3067/98 by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Council
(16 October 1998)
Subject: Negotiating mandate for a European Union free-trade agreement with the Mercosur States and Chile
The negotiating mandate for a European Union free-trade agreement with the Mercosur States and Chile has met with opposition from farmers’ organisations.
Can the Council say:
1. What stage has been reached? Has a negotiating mandate already been confirmed by the competent Council of Ministers?
2. What objective is to be pursued by the draft negotiating mandate with respect to agricultural products?
3. What further prospects does the European Council see for an EU free-trade agreement with the Mercosur States and Chile?
4. How does the European Council assess the reservations expressed by farmers’ organisations with regard to a further opening-up of agricultural trade with Chile and the Mercosur States?
5. What form has economic cooperation between the EU and the Mercosur States and Chile taken until now, in particular in the agricultural sector?
Reply
(14 December 1998)
At the end of July 1998, the Commission submitted to the Council recommendations authorising the Commission to negotiate an inter-regional association agreement between the EC and its Member States and Mercosur and its Member States and a political and economic association agreement with Chile. C 135/164 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Before starting to examine those recommendations, the Council − in accordance with the arrangements approved by the Amsterdam European Council (16 and 17June 1997)for the examination of preferential agreements − examined impact studies carried out by the Commission in order to reply in particular to the following preliminary strategic questions:
− Will the proposed agreement be compatible with all relevant WTO rules?
− Will the proposed agreement achieve identifiable offensive economic interests of the EU?
− What would be the political and other benefits of the proposed agreement?
− What would be the impact of the proposed agreement on the Community’s other external commit- ments?
− What would be the impact of the proposed agreement on the Community’s common policies?
− What will be the overall economic effect of the proposed agreement?
− Would the proposed agreement be likely to support the development of the multilateral trading system?
It was only after those proceedings that the Council bodies began examining the draft negotiating directives. It is not possible at this stage to say when the Council will be in a position to adopt them.
With regard to the objectives of the draft negotiating directives, it should be stated that the agreements signed with Mercosur and Chile in 1995 and 1996 provide:
i) in Article 4 that ‘the Parties undertake to forge closer relations with the aim of increasing and diversifying trade, preparing for progressive and reciprocal liberalisation of trade and creating conditions conducive to the eventual establishment of a political and economic association, in conformity with WTO rules and with due allowance for the sensitivity of certain products’;
ii) in Articles 34 and 42 respectively that the Parties will determine the suitability and timing of transition to association in the light of progress made under the existing agreements.
When examining the draft directives, which are of course confidential, the Council will take account of all of the Community’s interests, including its agricultural interests.
In accordance with the information procedure governing relations with the European Parliament in the field of association agreements and trade agreements, the relevant EP Committees will be informed confidentially of the content of the negotiating briefs.
The Honourable Member is asked to contact the Commission to receive details of current economic cooperation and especially agricultural cooperation between the EC and Mercosur and the EC and Chile.
(1999/C 135/203) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3074/98 by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE) to the Commission
(9 October 1998)
Subject: Corruption in Russia
The current state of the Russian economy suggests that the process of resolving its problems will be long and hard. However, the most regrettable aspect has been the reports alleging that the Central Bank and other bodies have not used the loans granted by the IMF for the purposes for which they were intended and even that they may have been misappropriated by senior Russian officials. Given this situation, what is the current amount of the EU’s outstanding loans to Russia? What measures will the EU take as regards monitoring the loans already granted to Russia or any which it might grant in the future? 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/165
Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(10 November 1998)
The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about Russia’s economic and financial situation.
Today, there are no outstanding credits with Russia. Those granted in 1991 (Community guarantee for export credits worth ECU 500 million, and ECU 1 250 million loan to the ex-Union of Soviet Socialist republics (USSR) for food and medical aid) were fully paid back. No macroeconomic assistance has ever been granted to Russia.
As regards the possibility of new credits to help Russia overcome its present financial crisis, the Commission will follow the guidelines set by the Cardiff European Council. Any eventual macroeco- nomic assistance should be provided through the international financial institutions and should be linked to the implementation by the Russian government of a credible economic reform policy.
(1999/C 135/204) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3077/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council
(16 October 1998)
Subject: Fines for road traffic offences
The Council’s Working Party on the Schengen acquis is at present reviewing the Schengen acquis in preparation for the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Meanwhile, according to the media, work is in progress on a draft ‘Convention on cooperation in the matter of criminal proceedings for offences against road traffic regulations and the enforcement of fines imposed for such offences’.
− Has the Council come across any plans of this nature in connection with the Schengen acquis?
− Does the Council know of any plans in this regard, and if so at what stage are they?
− What is the specific content of these plans?
− How is the problem of the differences between the substance and procedure of the regulations in force in the various Member States to be solved?
Reply
(20/21 December 1998)
The Council is not in a position to inform the European Parliament regarding draft instruments being examined within the Schengen context. However, the Council understands that the Schengen Presidency regularly informs the relevant bodies of the European Parliament on work in progress.
(1999/C 135/205) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3078/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission
(9 October 1998)
Subject: Fines for road traffic offences
According to the press, work is in progress on a draft ‘Convention on cooperation in the matter of criminal proceedings for offences against road traffic regulations and the enforcement of fines imposed for such offences’. C 135/166 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
− Does the Commission know of any plans of this nature?
− Has the Commission come across any plans in this regard in connection with the review of the Schengen acquis, and at what stage are they?
− What is the specific content of these plans?
− How is the problem of the differences between the substance and procedure of the regulations in force in the various Member States to be solved?
Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission
(11 November 1998)
1. to 3. Until the Amsterdam Treaty incorporating the Schengen acquis into the Union framework comes into effect, Schengen work falls within the intergovernmental framework, and the Commission is unable to give any details regarding it.
4. Within the field of Justice and Home Affairs, work was concluded in June 1998 in the Council, with the Commission’s participation, establishing a convention between all Member States ensuring that traffic offences leading to disqualification from driving committed in another Member State than where the offender is residing, will be given effect by the Member State of residence, when the offender returns there. This convention was adopted by the Council on 17 June 1998, and has to be ratified by the Member States before it enters into force.
(1999/C 135/206) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3088/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission
(16 October 1998)
Subject: Danube development project
The Commission’s letter of 28 October 1997 reminding the Federal Republic of Germany of its obligations obviously had no effect.
What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the Federal Government and the Land of Bavaria delay no longer in designating the area as protected?
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(19 November 1998)
As already stated in its reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-3095/97 (1), the Commission has decided to deal with this case within the infringement proceedings concerning the insufficient designation of special protected areas according to the Council Directive 79/409/EEC (2)of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds in Germany. The area concerned, as well as other areas along the river Danube, is specifically highlighted in the context of this general procedure.
In the context of these infringement proceedings, the Commission sent a supplementary letter of formal notice to the German authorities. The German authorities replied and also notified the designation of a range of areas as special protected areas. However, given that neither the reply nor the designation of further areas are considered sufficient with a view to the obligation under the Directive 79/409/EEC, the Commission has decided to address a reasoned opinion to the Germany.
(1) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/167
(1999/C 135/207) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3098/98 by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Council
(19 October 1998)
Subject: Professional relations among professional soccer players
Barriers should not be created that hinder or prevent free competition in the area of professional relations between soccer players and sports promoters, or promoters in general, who operate in a complex and constantly evolving industry.
The system adopted by the FIGC [Italian Football Federation], which involves the drawing up of a special list, does not comply with Italian law since it does not meet the criteria required for the system to be recognised as a professional body.
Private enterprise should not be prevented from bringing its inventiveness, creativity, research capacity, initiative and imagination to the business of competitive sporting activities, where these activities constitute industrial and commercial activities like any other.
In view of the above, can the Council say:
1. whether the notion of sports promoter, as defined by the FIGC, is at odds with the evolving Community case law in the area of professional activities;
2. whether the FIGC regulation on sports promoters constitutes an obstacle to the freedom to provide services, in particular in cases of professional activities being exercised jointly, in relation to the applicability of the provisions of Italian law No 287/90?
Reply
(20/21 December 1998)
The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, pursuant to the Treaty, it is the Commission which is responsible for ensuring that Treaty provisions are applied. It follows that, insofar as the Honourable Member’s questions on professional relations between soccer players and sports promoters relate to the freedom to exercise professional activities and freedom of competition, they fall within the Commission’s sphere of competence.
(1999/C 135/208) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3099/98 by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission
(16 October 1998)
Subject: Professional relations among professional soccer players
Barriers should not be created that hinder or prevent free competition in the area of professional relations between soccer players and sports promoters, or promoters in general, who operate in a complex and constantly evolving industry.
The system adopted by the FIGC [Italian Football Federation], which involves the drawing up of a special list, does not comply with Italian law since it does not meet the criteria required for the system to be recognised as a professional body.
Private enterprise should not be prevented from bringing its inventiveness, creativity, research capacity, initiative and imagination to the business of competitive sporting activities, where these activities constitute industrial and commercial activities like any other. C 135/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
In view of the above, can the Commission say:
1. whether the notion of sports promoter, as defined by the FIGC, is at odds with the evolving Community case law in the area of professional activities;
2. whether the FIGC regulation on sports promoters constitutes an obstacle to the freedom to provide services, in particular in cases of professional activities being exercised jointly, in relation to the applicability of the provisions of Italian law No 287/90?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(7 January 1999)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(1999/C 135/209) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3110/98 by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission
(16 October 1998)
Subject: Discrimination against Luxembourg firms in the crafts trades sector by virtue of the German law on the posting of workers
Since the beginning of 1997 a law on the posting of workers has been in force in Germany, one of the aims of which is to prevent social dumping and unfair competition by the posting of workers to other EU countries. This is a perfectly legitimate objective, but should not be used as a pretext for the introduction of new protectionist barriers.
A case in point is the problem of Luxembourg firms in the crafts sector offering their services in Germany (particularly in Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland), which have been placed in an impossible situation because their employees have to be insured both in Luxembourg and in Germany. Workers in the construction industry in Luxembourg have a statutory right to paid holiday, and the collective agreement provides for a holiday bonus of 11,77 % of gross pay. Luxembourg firms are now being required by the German holiday and pay compensation fund (ULAK) to pay the latter 14,25 % of the gross salary paid during the period spent working abroad as a holiday bonus. Luxembourg firms are at a clear disadvantage in relation to their German competitiors as a result of this dual liability (i.e the payment of simultaneous contributions to comparable institutions) and the high administrative costs involved.
Is the Commission aware of this problem? What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the German law on the posting of workers and the social insurance arrangements applying to the construction industry do not impede access to the market by firms from other EU countries?
Reply by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(20 November 1998)
The honourable Member has raised a number of questions concerning the compatibility of the German Law on the posting of workers (Arbeitnehmerentsendegesetz) with the freedom to provide services abroad, a fundamental freedom under Article 59 of the EC Treaty.
The interpretation of this freedom should take account of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services abroad (1) even though the deadline for the transposal of this directive is not until 16 December 1999. Under Directive 96/71/EC, all businesses providing services on the territory of another Member State and posting paid workers for this purpose should observe a ‘hard core’ of minimum requirements in force in that Member State. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/169
Germany’s holiday-fund measures should be examined in the light of these provisions. In February 1998, a German industrial tribunal submitted to the Court of Justice references for preliminary rulings on the present holiday-fund scheme in Germany. The Commission has also received numerous complaints from businesses in other Member States (but not from Luxembourg so far). Given that the German authorities have no intention of suspending the application of their scheme in the light of these references, the Commission is dealing with the matter under the procedure set out in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
(1) OJL 18, 21.1.1997.
(1999/C 135/210) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3118/98 by Winifred Ewing (ARE) to the Commission
(16 October 1998)
Subject: Vessel modernisation and rebuilding
Will the Commission state what sums for vessel modernisation and rebuilding have been advanced by Member States?
Which States have made such advances?
What amounts have been so applied and how many vessels have been affected?
Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf the Commission
(13 November 1998)
Following the preparation of the monitoring report in accordance with Article 11 of Council Directive 90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on aid to shipbuilding (1), four Member States (Denmark, Germany, Italy and Spain) have in recent years reported contracts for the conversion of ships (ie. the making of radical alterations) supported by state aid.
The most recent global figures available are, for 1995, 23 contracts for conversion with a total contract value of ECU 231,2 million supported by ECU 10,3 million of aid, and, for 1996, 29 contracts for conversion with a total contract value of ECU 484,9 million supported by ECU 19,3 million of aid. The amount of aid represents some 4,5 % of the contract value, the maximum ceiling authorisable by the Commission.
(1) OJL 380, 31.12.1990.
(1999/C 135/211) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3123/98 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission
(16 October 1998)
Subject: Definition of rejection
According to the Sole 24 Ore of Wednesday 16 September the Commission has revolutionised the confused European scenario as regards interpretation of the definition of rejection and in particular has identified new principles, thereby reopening the whole question of this complex affair.
1. What specifically are these new principles that could revolutionise the subject? C 135/170 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
2. Should the Commission’s statement be interpreted as meaning that, pending conclusion of the process of creating a consensus between the interested parties (as mentioned in the newspaper article) the Member States are no longer required to comply with the definition as interpreted by the Court of Justice?
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(4 November 1998)
The press article cited by the Honourable Member contains incorrect information. In particular, there are no ‘new principles’, neither are there elements which ‘revolutionize the subject’.
The definition of waste is contained in Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1). This definition, although useful and necessary in order to pursue the double objective of environmental protection and unity of the internal market, has given rise, in certain cases, to practical problems of interpretation. On 30 September 1998 the Commission opened a debate on this problem in the context of the committee set up by Article 18 of Directive 75/442/EEC. In particular, the Commission intends to discuss with Member States the possible usefulness for the Community of the results of the discussions held by the Organisation for economic co-operation and development between 1995 and 1998 on this subject and the possible follow-up to that. This does not mean that the Commission sees any change in the definition of waste, which must continue to be correctly transposed in national legislation according to the non-exhaustive but useful indications of the Court of justice.
A change of the present definition of waste would require a modification of Directive 75/442/EEC by the Council following a specific proposal by the Commission. The Commission underlines that no proposal has been made. However, the discussion in the committee represents a valid occasion in order to try to reach a clarification on the interpretation, wherever this is necessary. In the end, the exclusive interpretation of this definition remains a prerogative of the Court of justice.
(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(1999/C 135/212) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3137/98
by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission
(16 October 1998)
Subject: Market prices for training activities cofinanced under the ESF
In its reply to Written Question P-1145/98 (1) the Commission said that the services performed by a company for the consortium to which it is associated with regard to training activities under programmes co-funded by the ESF are legitimate, as is the charging of market prices for those services. It thus clearly confirms that the non-profitability obligation falls on the training body and not on its associates.
As regards the attainment of uniformity of the checkable method referred to in datasheet No 4 (expenditure eligible under the Structural Funds), which of the following methods is compatible in respect of market prices:
(a) Calculated (entered in the accounts) costs equal to or lower than the parametres set by the European Union?
(b) Calculated (entered in the accounts) costs equal to or lower than at least two other offers made to the training body by other persons (as laid down in a decision by the European Court of Auditors in some previous cases)?
(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 80. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/171
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(30 November 1998)
Further to its answer to the Honourable Member’s written question No P-1145/98, the Commission would like to point out that the uniformity of expenditure on training is the subject of a specific provision of Community regulations. Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) 2084/93 (1) states that ‘the Commission shall ensure that Fund expenditure for training operations of the same type does not develop in different ways’.
To do this, in accordance with the committee’s opinion and Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) 4253/88 (2), it determines for each Member State, in agreement with that State, the indicative average amounts of expenditure according to the type of training involved. Comparable costs, subsequently defined in Ministry of Labour Circular No 98/95, are agreed at the place of establishment of the partnership, with reference to teacher categories, while Circular No 101/97 from the same Ministry defines the occupational categories and the relevant payment ceilings.
This means that the prices reported must comply with the parameters laid down in the Ministry of Labour circulars referred to.
(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. (2) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.
(1999/C 135/213) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3141/98 by Ana Miranda de Lage (PSE) and Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission
(16 October 1998)
Subject: Situation in Haiti
The Republic of Haiti has been in a state of institutional crisis for many months. The serious economic and social situation has been exacerbated by the catastrophic consequences of the devastating hurricane George.
The extreme weakness of the political, institutional and party system could render the Republic once again ungovernable and see the return of authoritarianism.
Can the Commission say what projects aimed at normalising democracy are currently being pursued with financial assistance charged to the budget headings for democratisation and human rights?
Can the Commission say what projects it supports to promote the modernisation of the State and in particular of the judicial system in Haiti, which is essential to guarantee equal treatment for all citizens, the majority of which feel excluded from the legislative process and by the system in general?
Can the Commission say what measures it intends to adopt to ensure that the forthcoming municipal elections are fair and to encourage a significant voter turnout and thus bring to an end the dangerous trend towards abstention registered at the last elections?
Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission
(13 November 1998)
The overall democratisation and good governance strategy established by the Commission and the Haitian authorities focuses on the justice system and on certain social sectors such as health and education. It is this strategy which governs the various financial instruments used, whether under the EDF or the Community budget. C 135/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
The budget heading for democratisation and human rights covers a number of projects focusing on the rule of law and access to the judicial system for underprivileged social groups. Some ECU 6,5 million has been committed since 1992 to projects including a project by the non-governmental organisation RCN (the citizens’ network) to grant legal assistance and train justices of the peace (ECU 640 000), support for the presidential elections in 1995 and ECU 1 million in support for the commission set up to prepare legal and judicial reforms (CPRDJ). The first of these projects, to set up legal assistance offices outside the capital, is helping gradually to restore the population’s confidence in the justice system, while the imminent and necessary reform of the judicial system has been underpinned by mechanisms to consult widely all sections of Haitian society.
In line with these projects, good governance is a focal sector of the national indicative programme for the 8th EDF, accounting for 12 % of programmable aid, or ECU 17,80 million. Three sub-sectors (education, health and justice) have been identified, and support projects for these are currently under appraisal. For these sectors, institutional capacity building will be provided to rationalise and redefine the role of the State and to support decentralisation.
Given the elections’ importance for consolidating the democratic process, support for them may be considered once more precise information is available. An identification mission will be undertaken with a view to assessing genuine needs and the scope for financing.
(1999/C 135/214) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3147/98 by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Commission
(8 October 1998)
Subject: Vladivostok psychiatric hospital
Since July 1997 the Vladivostok psychiatric hospital, the only centre of its kind in a city of a million inhabitants, has not received any funds. The governor of the far eastern region and the mayor of the city both refuse to accept financial responsibility for this institution, which has 515 patients and a staff of about a hundred.
The situation at the hospital is catastrophic: it lacks medicines and food, and hygiene conditions are intolerable (no soap or detergents), making the recovery of many patients increasingly doubtful by the day.
Is the Commission aware of this situation? Has it had already made contact with the head doctor, Mr Vladimir Uchakov, to assess the magnitude of the problem and the resources needed to tackle it, possibly in the form of special assistance from the EU?
Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission
(10 November 1998)
The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about the current situation in Russia and in particular about the conditions in the psychiatric hospital of Vladivostok.
The Commission has been providing humanitarian assistance to Russia the European Community humanitarian office (ECHO) since the early 1990s. This assistance has through focused on the victims of armed conflict (e.g. in the Caucasus region), disaster relief, medical assistance to Chernobyl victims and anti-tuberculosis projects. However, to solve the problem of widespread poverty and the often insufficient material resources of the country’s public health system would simply be impossible for a foreign aid agency, given the dimensions of Russia.
It does indeed seem that the general conditions in that the hospital mentioned by the Honourable Member are fairly bad by western standards. Unfortunately, this is not exceptional in Russia. It would be difficult to justify special measures in favour of one institution, while not providing the same level of assistance to all other institutions equally or worse affected. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/173
Taking into account the relatively limited funds available, the Commission has to identify priorities in areas which can reasonably be tackled. Large-scale material assistance to the public health sector as a whole being unfortunately an unrealistic goal and beyond available resources, the Commission has decided to concentrate its efforts on operations in the above-mentioned fields. Currently, the Commission is examining the feasibility of further expanding its tuberculosis treatment programmes, one of the most urgent public health priorities at this moment.
(1999/C 135/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3148/98 by Rainer Wieland (PPE) to the Council
(19 October 1998)
Subject: Proposal for a directive concerning the prohibition of the advertising of cars and other products
Is it true, as claimed in several press reports (including one by the Bild am Sonntag on 19 July 1998), that the Council is considering the possibility of prohibiting or restricting the advertising of motor vehicles?
If so, in what form are these deliberations taking place, and what action is the Council planning?
Is the Council also considering the possibility of prohibiting the advertising of any other products or services?
If so, in what form are these deliberations taking place, and what action is the Council planning?
Reply
(20/21 December 1998)
The Council has to date received no proposal from the Commission for a Directive prohibiting or restricting the advertísing of motor vehicles.
As the Honourable Member must certainly be aware, Codes of Conduct, applied on a voluntary basis in certain Member States, encourage advertising agencies and the motor vehicle industry to limit advertising which is considered likely to act as an incentive to motorists to drive dangerously.
The Council is not aware of any Commission initiatives to introduce such a code on a Community scale or, a fortiori, to propose mandatory provisions.
(1999/C 135/216) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3150/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission
(16 October 1998)
Subject: Renewable energy sources and wind farms
Wind farms make a valuable contribution to producing clean forms of energy. However, setting up wind farms to exploit the potential wind power of a given area should not be detrimental to the natural environment or residential areas. Nevertheless, attempts are often are made to set up wind farms on sites adjoining permanent or summer residences, which spoil the landscape and probably create noise which emanates from the wind-powered generators.
What action will the Commission take to compel the Member States to set up wind farms in such a way that the environment is not spoiled by haphazard sites? C 135/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(12 November 1998)
Wind farms may cause environmental damage by spoiling the landscape and creating noise and are therefore included in the infrastructure covered by Annex II to Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. (1) Annex II projects are subject to environmental impact assessment based on criteria or requirements to be laid down by the Member States regarding their size, location and specific characteristics.
The new Directive must be transposed by the Member States by 14 March 1999 at the latest.
Moreover, certain wind farms are covered by the provisions of the present Annex II(3)(a) to Directive 85/337/EEC if they are ‘industrial installations for the production of electricity’.
(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(1999/C 135/217) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3155/98 by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Council
(19 October 1998)
Subject: Natural gas consumption
Recent data shows that the consumption of natural gas is being reduced significantly in Member States such a Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Finland and Austria, while it is increasing significantly in Greece and Spain. Does the Council know of any socio-economic reasons for this difference? In this connection also, what are the Council’s forecasts with regard to the consumption of natural gas in the region of Extremadura?
Reply
(20/21 December 1998)
Consumption of natural gas has varied over the years and will continue to do so due to different factors, including weather. However, the general trend in the European Community indicates a steady growth. The Council expects this trend to be reinforced by the entry into force of the Directive on natural gas.
The Council has not discussed the consumption of natural gas in any specific region.
(1999/C 135/218) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3167/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission
(27 October 1998)
Subject: Safety checks on amusement park attractions
In its reply to Question H-0669/97 (1) the Commission stated it had given a mandate to the European Standardization Organisations to draw up a European standard for technical specifications for fairground equipment. Has this now been done, and does the Commission not agree, that technical specifications are fine as far as they go, but the crux of the matter which needs to be addressed is minimum standards for regular inspection of these attractions to ensure safety is observed at all times?
(1) European Parliament debates (September 1997). 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/175
Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission
(23 November 1998)
Work on the preparation of safety standards for amusement parks, under the mandate given to the European Standardisation Committee (CEN) by the Commission following the abandoning of plans for a directive taking account of the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council in 1992, is proceeding according to the timetable adopted by the CEN. An initial document will be presented to the national members of Technical Committee No 152 before the end of 1998. Owing to the procedures involved, the CEN does not expect its members (the national standardisation bodies) to vote formally to adopt the standards until 2000.
Various activities combine to ensure the safety of amusement parks, including regular inspections. For this reason an inspection procedure is currently included in the information annexes to the draft standards.
(1999/C 135/219) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3179/98
by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission
(27 October 1998)
Subject: Social clauses for PHARE
The PHARE programme has become an instrument for providing support for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in preparing them for accession.
It would seem appropriate to ensure, when this programme is implemented, that the funds are used in accordance with European social policy and that they respect fundamental social rights, within the meaning of the Social Charter, on the basis of the acquis communautaire.
Can the Commission answer the following:
1. What means are there for ensuring compliance with fundamental social rights when PHARE programmes are granted?
2. What would happen if there was found to be a contravention; i.e. what procedures would be activated?
3. Have there been any instances of problems of this nature occurring?
Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(18 November 1998)
1. One of the prime concerns of the Phare programme is adherence to basic social rights which are part and parcel of the acquis. Hence not only those areas in which there are explicit regulations on labour law, social dialogue, equal treatment, social protection, public health, health and safety at work and for migrant workers, but also in those ‘soft law’ areas of European social legislation derived from the social charter, are part of the accession driven re-oriented Phare strategy. Whenever draft programmes or individual projects within Phare are received for approval, due consideration is also given to conformity with the wider definition of the social acquis of the Community.
There are also Phare programmes which deal exclusively with the social acquis in a more narrow sense. Consensus deals with social security reform in the Central and Eastern European countries, and the Lien and Partnership programmes deal with non governmental organizations in the spheres of minority and disadvantaged groups and of socio-economic operators respectively. C 135/176 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
The accession partnerships also set as a medium-term priority preparation of the CEECs in the area of employment and social affairs. Allocation of funding is linked inter alia to respect of these priorities.
2. and 3. The Commission is not aware of any Phare programme or individual project violating the social acquis of the Community. If it notices or becomes alerted to any such occurrence, the Commission will not hesitate to rectify the situation with the appropriate means without delay.
(1999/C 135/220) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3190/98 by Arthur Newens (PSE) to the Commission
(27 October 1998)
Subject: Trade between the EU and certain Asian countries
Would the Commission provide figures to show the changes which have taken place in overall EU imports and exports to each of the following countries over the past three years: Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China and Japan?
Could the Commission also give a breakdown of imports and exports between individual Member States and these countries?
Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission
(7 December 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the Eurostat publication ‘External and Intra- European Union Trade − Monthly Statistics’ (pages 42-43 and 88-95) (1).
(1) Eurostat 10/1998-6B.
(1999/C 135/221) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3204/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission
(16 October 1998)
Subject: Incitement to murder in Pakistan
Will the European Commission express its grave concern to the Government of Pakistan over the appearance in the daily ‘Juraat’ newspaper of an advertisement on behalf of militant clerics offering large sums of money in return for the murder of Salman Rushdie, Mirza Tahir, Gohar Shahi and Janti Lal? This action − an incitement to murder − would be a criminal offence in any of the European Union’s Member States, and the Government of Pakistan must prevent similar advertisements appearing if it wishes to be regarded as a civilised and law-abiding state.
Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission
(13 November 1998)
The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member on this matter, of which it was not previously aware. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/177
For the information of the Honourable Member it would appear that ‘Juraat’ is an Urdu language, limited circulation, local daily newspaper published in Karachi. Despite enquiries with the National library of Pakistan it has not been possible for the delegation of the Commission in Islamabad to obtain a copy of the edition cited in order to verify the precise text.
Further enquiries by its delegation in Islamabad have failed to trace any reaction to the advertisement, whether from the government of Pakistan or from Pakistan based human rights organisations.
(1999/C 135/222) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3210/98
by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission
(16 October 1998)
Subject: Consequences of the abolition of duty-free arrangements
At the meeting of Economic and Finance Ministers of 19 May 1998 in Brussels, the Irish proposal to make an EU-wide study of the implications of intra-Community duty-free sales was rejected. The German government had explicitly supported the Irish proposal on the basis of the relevant decisions of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. Given that the proposal did not find a majority, the Commission agreed to submit a working document on possible instruments to cushion the impact of the abolition of duty-free sales.
Can the Commission say:
1. When will the working document on the instruments available at regional level in connection with the abolition of duty-free sales be available?
2. Is the Commission prepared to envisage further special regional assistance, going beyond the existing regulations, within the framework of the Structural Funds or new special measures?
3. In what way have the coastal regions affected, almost all of which are EU-assisted areas, been supported since the decision on the abolition of duty-free sales in 1991/92?
4. Does the Commission expect duty-free sales to end in the middle of 1999 as agreed?
Answer given by M. Monti on behalf of the Commission
(20 November 1998)
1. The Commission paper clarifying the instruments available to Member States to address possible consequences of the abolition of intra-Community duty-free sales on 1 July 1999 will be presented as soon as possible and in any event before the end of this year.
2. The Commission is prepared to consider any proposals put forward by national and regional authorities for assistance in the eligible areas and under the structural funds pursuant to the existing rules of procedures.
3. Given that not all structural fund programmes have a specific regional character, the Commission is not in a position to provide the Honourable Member with a precise figure for the contribution from the structural funds to coastal regions. It estimates however that, for the current programming period (1994- 1999), this contribution could be in the order of ECU 100 000 million (in 1994 prices).
4. Yes. C 135/178 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/223) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3214/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(26 October 1998)
Subject: Operating licence for quarry in area protected by Natura 2000
Environmental organizations − which have also lodged an appeal with the State Council − claim that the Ministry of Agriculture has granted an operating licence for a marble quarry on Mt Falakron in the region of Drama. The Drama Forest Inspectorate has already designated it a protected area because of its exceptional beauty; it also forms part of the Natura 2000 network as a designated ‘B’ area and there are indications that it is the site of an ancient settlement.
Will the Commission say:
1. whether the requisite environmental impact assessments have been carried out to take account of all the environmental effects of operating the quarry, and
2. whether it intends to ask the Greek authorities to revoke their decision in order to preserve the ecological balance and the exceptional beauty of the area?
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(19 November 1998)
1. In the region concerned, a site known as ‘Koryfes Orous Falakro’ under Code GR 1140004, is contained in the list of sites of Community importance (SCI) put forward by the Greek authorities under Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), for inclusion in the Natura 2000 European ecological network. Under Article 6.3 of that Directive any plan or project that is likely to have a significant impact on an SCI must be subjected to an appropriate assessment of its impact in terms of the intentions regarding site conservation. The authorisation decision is subject to the results of that assessment. However, that site has still not been selected as an SCI.
2. Nevertheless, the site includes several types of natural habitat and priority species and it should thus automatically be accepted for the Natura 2000 network in accordance with the Directive’s criteria. Therefore adequate action must be taken by the Member State concerned in order to avoid any deterioration of that site with a view to its future designation. On the basis of what has been said above, the Commission will contact the Greek authorities to order to establish whether the impact studies which should be conducted in pursuance of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) have taken sufficient account of the ecological value of the site concerned by the project in question.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(1999/C 135/224) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3215/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(26 October 1998)
Subject: Data on fires in Greece
Pursuant to Regulation 308/97 on protection of the Community’s forests against fire, the Member States forward data on the number, extent and duration of fires, etc. to the Commission’s responsible departments.
This data is considered especially useful for monitoring and evaluating preventive and protective measures for forests in the Member States, as also indicated in the extremely interesting report entitled ‘Community system of information on forest fires 1985-87’, published by the Commission’s department responsible for forests. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/179
With a view to enhancing the reliability of the data supplied by the Member States, can the Commission confirm that a uniform method is used to record the data concerning the number, extent and duration of the fires and the time-lapse between initial alarm and intervention etc.
Do the Member States notify the Commission’s departments of any change in the manner of recording events?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(26 November 1998)
The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his interest in the report on the Community system of information on forest fires 1985-1987 (1).
The reliability of the data supplied by the Member States is guaranteed by Commission Regulation (EC) 804/94 of 11 April 1994 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) 2158/92 as regards forest-fire information systems (2), which details the set of information that Member States must transmit to the Commission each year under the Community forest-fire information system.
Any changes made by the Member States to their national data collection systems must comply with the conditions laid down in this Regulation.
(1) Not yet published. (2) OJ L 93, 12.4.1994.
(1999/C 135/225) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3218/98 by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission
(26 October 1998)
Subject: Treatment of Irish third-level students
Is the Commission aware that returning Irish emigrant families (net immigration to Ireland last year was some 30 000) are being discriminated against when they try to put their Irish-born children through third- level education systems, since even though the students were born in Ireland, hold EU passports, are registered voters and their families have no address other than in Ireland, they are deemed to be ‘overseas students’ or non-EU citizens under an EU regulation because they fail to meet the three-year residency requirement before applying to university with the result that they are being made to pay full tuition fees, etc?Is there any provision in EU law to ensure equal treatment for such people?
Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(14 December 1998)
The level of tuition fees paid by students in order to follow higher education courses and the criteria for grants or other financial assistance applied in the Member States, are for the Member States themselves to determine.
Community law, as interpreted by the Court of justice, imposes on Member States a duty to apply the same criteria and levels of fees to Community nationals as they do to their own nationals, on the basis of the principle of non discrimination on nationality grounds.
The principle of non discrimination on nationality grounds also covers possible differentiated treatment between nationals who did not use their right to free movement within the Community and those nationals who did use this right (e.g. Irish nationals who returned to Ireland after emigration to another Member State). However, this principle does not cover the case of Irish nationals who return to Ireland after emigration to third countries. C 135/180 OfficialJournalof the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/226) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3225/98
by Roberto Mezzaroma (PPE) to the Commission
(26 October 1998)
Subject: Russian submarines
Is the Commission aware − as I have been informed − that many nuclear-powered submarines are moored in Russian fiords close to other countries’ frontiers, and that they receive little or no maintenance, although their nuclear reactors are still active?
− if so, which directorates-general are dealing with the problem?
− what action has been taken by the European Union on this issue?
− what is the attitude of the countries concerned?
− what are the realdangers?
− and, finally, which officials are dealing with the problem?
Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(13 November 1998)
The Commission is perfectly aware that spent nuclear fuel from submarines and from icebreakers represents a high risk to the environment in the Russion Federation and neighbouring countries. This problem is of particular importance in the North-West of the country.
The Commission attaches great importance to the issue of nuclear safety in the Russian Federation. The Community is the largest contributor to technical assistance in the field of nuclear safety in Russia. Of the ECU 470 million of bilateral assistance committed since 1992, the Community has contributed close to ECU 300 million (63 %).
The Commission is already supporting a range of projects addressing the issue of radioactive waste management and fuel including undertaking an inventory of all the radioactive waste and spent fuel in North-West Russia, an internationalproject to remove spent nuclearfuelfrom the ship ‘Lepse’ which is used to store spent fuel, the development of casks (containers) for the spent fuel, and providing technical assistance in the management of spent fuel(storage, transport, disposal).
The Commission, along with Norway and the United States, has signaled willingness to participate in a broader concerted internationaleffort to address this issue, providing the Russian Federation removes the obstacles concerning nuclear liability, customs and tax issues in the implementation of the projects and grants access to sites and data, as appropriate.
Up to now, the Russian Federation has not removed these obstacles. The Commission uses all the mechanisms and bilateral meetings to insist on the urgency of the question. Regular meetings of involved countries and the Russian Federation take place in the framework of the contact expert group, created under International atomic energy agency auspices. The next meeting is scheduled to take place in November 1998 in Murmansk. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/181
(1999/C 135/227) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3229/98
by Edith Müller (V) to the Commission
(26 October 1998)
Subject: Competitions
Can the Commission provide the following statistical information in respect of each of the staff recruitment competitions held over the last five years: number of applications, number of candidates admitted to the written tests, number of candidates admitted to the oral tests and number of successful candidates, with the figures in each case being broken down by sex and nationality?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(25 November 1998)
At the end of 1998 the Commission will present a three-year report on the recruitment requirements of the Community institutions on the basis of Article 2 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations. The report will include the statistics requested by the Honourable Member.
In the immediate future, the Commission is sending the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariat a set of (not necessarily complete) statistics on the A and B open competitions organised and managed by the Commission in the period 1993-97.
(1999/C 135/228) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3244/98
by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission
(28 October 1998)
Subject: Action to preserve the Monastery of St Andrew in occupied Cyprus
According to recent reports, the historic Monastery of St Andrew in the Turkish-occupied sector of Cyprus has fallen into a dire state of repair due to being completely abandoned and the failure to carry out necessary maintenance work.
This information is also confirmed by reports in the Turkish Cypriot press (the newspaper Kibris), which describe the state of the monastery as very poor and point out that it is in immediate need of repair.
What action can the Commission take to remedy the unacceptable state of the island’s cultural heritage?
Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(13 November 1998)
The Commission is aware of the state of the Monastery of Saint Andrew in northern Cyprus. For the time being, however, the Turkish Cypriot authorities refuse to have any dealings with EU representatives, and the leader of the Turkish Cypriot Community broke off bi-communal contacts at the end of last year. This rules out any operation in northern Cyprus and the Commission is therefore unable to consider specific heritage conservation measures. C 135/182 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/229) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3254/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE)to the Commission
(28 October 1998)
Subject: Recruitment to the European Environment Agency (EEA)
The European press has on several occasions scrutinised the manner in which the Commission approaches matters relating to recruitment to the Commission itself and to the decentralised agencies under its supervision. It is an extremely serious issue which affects the public image of the entire EU and does not lend itself to ‘tongue-in-cheek’ remarks as Commissioner Bjerregaard, who is normally quite a responsible person, suggested in her answer to my written question E-2566/98 (1). Furthermore, particularly after the recent ludicrous events involving the annulment of competitions to recruit officials and the allegations of lack of transparency in recruitment procedures, one might expect a more serious approach to the whole matter from the Commission and the Commissioners.
Apart from the apparently rather ineffective ‘advice’ which the Commission gives the EEA on its recruitment procedures, what practical measures does the Commission propose to take to eliminate the imbalance in the spread of nationalities among its officials and does it intend to ask the Executive Director of the EEA for full and detailed information whenever staff are to be recruited in order to avoid the exclusion of candidates from countries which are under-represented among the staff of the above- mentioned bodies?
(1) See page 73.
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(25 November 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Questions E-1007/98 (1) and E-28/98 (2)and to its answer to Written Question E-3236/97 by Mr Papayannakis (3). These explain that the Agency is an independent body under Council Regulation (EEC) 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the European environment agency and the European environment information and observation network (4), and that the Commission has no competence in terms of personnel matters or recruitment to the Agency.
The Commission confirms that it will remind the executive director of the Honourable Member’s concerns and will request a report from the management board of the Agency, with particular reference to how the proposed recruitment procedures will operate in 1999.
(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 56. (2) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 19. (3) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998. (4) OJ L 120, 11.5.1990.
(1999/C 135/230) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3278/98 by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR)to the Commission
(30 October 1998)
Subject: Application of Article 171(2)
To date, in howmany and whichcases has the Commission made use of Article 171(2)?
Howmany fines has the Commission imposed, and howmuch money has it collected? 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/183
Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(30 November 1998)
The Court of Justice has never yet ordered any Member State to make a penalty payment for failure to comply with an earlier ruling by the Court. However, there have been 12instances where the Commission has proposed to the Court that it order a Member State to make such a payment.
In six cases, the Commission decision to propose a penalty payment prompted the Member State to conform and the dispute was settled before the application was submitted to the Court:
− Italy − Protection against radioactivity. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intended to propose to the Court was ECU 159 300 per day.
− Italy − Waste-management plan. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intended to propose to the Court was ECU 123 300 per day.
− Germany − Underground water. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intended to propose to the Court was ECU 264 000 per day.
− Belgium − Wildfowl. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intended to propose to the Court was ECU 7 750 per day.
− Greece − Frontistiria, nationality requirement for opening of private schools. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intended to propose to the Court was ECU 61 500 per day.
− France − Defective products. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intended to propose to the Court was ECU 158 250 per day.
In one case, the Commission has not yet submitted its application, as a solution is now being found:
− Greece − Public service contracts. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intends to propose to the Court is ECU 39 975 per day.
In two cases, the Commission submitted an application, but the Member State complied before the Court took its decision:
− Germany − Surface Water − Case C-122/97. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intended to propose to the Court was ECU 158 400 per day.
− Germany − Wildfowl − Case C-121/97. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intended to propose to the Court was ECU 26 400 per day.
Lastly, in the following three cases, applications have been submitted, the infringements have still not been settled and a Court ruling is pending:
− Greece − Waste − Village in Crete − Case C-387/97. The amount of the penalty which the Commission has proposed to the Court is ECU 24 600 per day.
− Greece − Higher education diplomas − Case C-197/98. The amount of the penalty which the Commission has proposed to the Court is ECU 41 000 per day.
− France − Wildfowl − The amount of the penalty which the Commission has proposed to the Court is ECU 105 500 per day.
(1999/C 135/231) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3281/98 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission
(26 October 1998)
Subject: Transfer of Macao to Chinese administration − death penalty
The recently renewed EU-Macao agreement contains a commitment for the parties to respect human rights. C 135/184 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
In recent statements, the Member of Parliament and member of the Preparatory Commission Vitor Ng has accepted the reintroduction of the death penalty in that territory following its reintegration into the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China.
Nevertheless, the territory’s penal code −which recently came into force after being adopted with the assent of the Chinese side in the Joint Liaison Group and the remaining in force of which (together with all other legislation applicable at the time of the transfer of sovereignty) was the subject of a commitment given by the authorities of the People’s Republic of China in the Sino-Portuguese joint declaration and in the Basic Law of the Special Administrative Region of Macao −not only makes no provision for the death penalty but expressly provides for its prohibition and abolition.
How does the Commission assess the implications of the possible reintroduction of the death penalty in Macao from the point of view of the CFSP and EU trade policy, which must respect human rights?
Answer given by Sir Brittan on behalf of the Commission
(17 November 1998)
The Commission notes that the statement speculating on the possibility of reintroducing the death penalty in Macau after transfer of its sovereignty to the People’s republic of China had been made to the local press by Vitor Ng, member of the Macau preparatory committee, in a personal capacity.
The Commission considers that Mr Ng’s reported statement runs directly counter to the legal provisions which govern both the present and future administration of Macao.
The Joint Declaration adopted on 26 March 1987 and the provisions of the Macanese Basic Law, both negotiated with and agreed by the Chinese authorities, explicitly state that the rights and freedoms currently guaranteed in Macao will continue without change after the handover. Article 39 of Macao’s present penal code specifically prohibits the application of the death penalty.
Thus the Commission considers that the safeguards against the introduction of the death penalty in Macao are firmly in place. The Commssion will continue to monitor carefully the preparations for the handover of sovereignty in Macao.
(1999/C 135/232) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3299/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission
(10 November 1998)
Subject: Construction of a golf course in wetlands in Greece
Environmental organisations in Greece, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), local government authorities and other bodies have put forward substantiated objections to the Greek Tourist Board’s plans to build a golf course at Mesonisi in the Stavronikita or Nea Fokaia wetlands in Chalkidiki in Greece. These wetlands are the among the most important in Greece, since they harbour a wealth of bird life: 123 species of birds have been identified there, including the white-eyed pochard (aythia nyroca), the black-winged stilt (himantopus himantopus), the Mediterranean gull (larus melanocephalus), the black stork (ciconia nigra) and the Dalmatian pelecan (pelecanus crispus). The wetlands are also home to three species of tortoise (testudo hermanni, testudo graeca and testudo marginata ) which are covered by Annex II of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) as ‘animal and plant species of Community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation’.
It should be pointed out that the wetlands of Chalkidiki which used to be very extensive have shrunk owing to drainage. The few remaining wetlands (including those mentioned above) represent the last hope for the survival of wildlife in the region: their destruction would completely upset the balance of nature. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/185
Will the Commission say whether it is aware of the above state of affairs, what action it intends to take and whether it is possible to include the above region in the European network Natura 2000, a move which would make a vital contribution towards protecting these valuable wetlands from plans to convert them into a golf course?
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission
(5 January 1999)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-1164/98 by Mr Tamino during question time at Parliament’s December 1998 part-session (1).
(1) Debates of the Parliament (December 1998).
(1999/C 135/233) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3328/98 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission
(10 November 1998)
Subject: European guarantee fund for pensions
Continuing speculation about the future of pensions has prompted a number of Member States to set up a public reserve fund to finance pensions in the medium and long term.
The fund will come into operation if the social security system becomes inadequate, because of the ageing of the population, to cover possible future discrepancies between contributions and benefits.
Does the Commission consider that it should devise a European version of this by creating a common fund for the whole European Union, in an attempt, by analogy with the aforementioned national funds, to avoid any future imbalances which may arise in any Member State by introducing a Community system based on solidarity for the future of all the existing pension schemes in the Member States of the Union?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(16 December 1998)
In the area of social protection, Member States are free to fix their own policies on the organisation and operation of social security schemes, provided they comply with Community law on equal treatment for men and women and on social security for migrant workers.
Consequently, Member States may agree to set up a public reserve fund to finance pensions in the medium and long term, if they so wish. The Commission has no intention of promoting the idea of a common fund of this nature for the whole Community.
(1999/C 135/234) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3396/98 by Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission
(17 November 1998)
Subject: Commission competition held on 14 September 1998
Competitions are intended to select from among the candidates those who are most suitable (thus deemed to be the best) for filling responsible positions at the Commission. That objective is therefore vital both for C 135/186 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
the Community and consequently for the citizens of Europe. The organisational failings which emerged during the tests held on 14 September 1998 cannot but put the sense of responsibility of those who ran the tests in an unfavourable light. Will the Commission state what steps it intends to take to ascertain responsibility for the bad management of an operation which was nonetheless extremely expensive and what measures it plans to take to ensure that such regrettable episodes do not happen again?
Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission
(25 November 1998)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to Written Questions P-2922/98, P-2974/98, E-3053/98, E-3079/98, P-3101/98, P-3106/98, P-3136/98 and E-3253/98 by Mrs Napoletano and others (1).
(1) OJ C 118, 29.4.1991, p. 164.
(1999/C 135/235) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3408/98 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission
(17 November 1998)
Subject: Retirement provisions for pilots and flight attendants
The Italian government has recently raised the minimum retirement age for flight attendants and pilots. This decision does not seem to have taken due account of the particularly damaging side-effects of flying, including disruption of sleeping patterns, exposure to dry and ozone-rich air, and exposure to levels of cosmic radiation three times higher than those to which radiographers are exposed. The combination of these factors over a period of many years has the effect of reducing the average life expectancy of air crew on retirement to considerably less than the general average. Yet at present no adequate scientific data is available on the subject, partly because the results of the research that has been carried out by the airlines have not been divulged to staff and unions.
In view of the foregoing, would the Commission state:
1. whether any Commission data or studies exist on the subject?
2. whether there are any directives or other documents relating to retirement provisions for employees in this sector?
3. what are the other Member States’ provisions in this area?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(21 December 1998)
1. The Commission does not have any data or scientific studies on the life expectancy of this category of workers, and there is no specific directive relating to their retirement provisions.
2. In the area of social protection, Member States are free to establish their own policies on the organisation and operation of social security schemes, provided they comply with Community law on equal treatment for men and women (Article 119 of the EC Treaty, Council 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), and Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes (2) as amended by Directive 96/97/EC (3)) and on social security for migrant workers (4). This means that Member States are free to set the retirement age for pilots and cabin crew, provided the above- mentioned Community provisions are complied with. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/187
3. As far as trends and policies in the other Member States are concerned, the Commission publishes comparative tables of social security schemes in a general context (MISSOC), but these do not refer specifically to pilots or cabin crew.
(1)OJ L 6, 10.1.1979. (2)OJ L 225, 12.8.1986. (3)OJ L 46, 17.2.1997. (4)Regulations (EEC)1408/71and 574/72 (as updated by Regulation (EC)118/97− OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).
(1999/C 135/236) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3425/98 by Dietrich Elchlepp (PSE)to the Commission
(24 November 1998)
Subject: Breakdown of EU subsidies for Baden-Württemberg
1. What subsidies from EU programmes flowed to Baden-Württemberg in 1995-1997?
2. What amounts were involved, for what projects and in what places?
Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission
(30 November 1998)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
(1999/C 135/237) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3428/98 by Hugh McMahon (PSE)to the Commission
(24 November 1998)
Subject: Budget Item A-3029
Can the Commission indicate which organisations receive grants from budget item A-3029 and the sums available to each organisation?
Can it also inform Parliament of the criteria applied when projects/organisations are selected under this item?
Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(14 December 1998)
The list of organisations receiving grants in 1998 from budget item A-3029 ‘Assistance for non- governmental international youth organisations’, showing the amounts allocated to each, has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat-General.
The eligibility and selection criteria for beneficiary organisations were published in the Official Journal (1).
(1)OJ C 374, 10.12.1997. C 135/188 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.1999
(1999/C 135/238) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3537/98 by Richard Corbett (PSE)to the Commission
(25 November 1998)
Subject: Budget line 3029
Could the Commission publish a list of organisations benefiting from grants given under budget line 3029 over the last five years?
What is the Commission’s response to criticisms that there is a bias in such subsidies towards Catholic organisations, whereas non-religious organisations and left-of-centre organisations, even with large memberships, have benefited far less?
Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(14 December 1998)
Every year the Commission has sent to the Parliament the list of organisations receiving grants from the budget item relating to ‘Assistance for non-governmental international youth organisations’ (currently item A-3029). The lists of beneficiaries since 1995 have been sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat-General.
The eligibility and selection criteria applied were published in the Official Journal in the call for the submission of proposals (for the 1998 selection procedure) (1). These criteria do not make any reference to the religious or non-religious nature of organisations. It can be seen from the list of beneficiaries that organisations representing a number of religions are included, and that they make up only a small proportion of recipients: in 1998, fewer than 10 % of the organisations receiving assistance described themselves as being primarily of a religious nature. If most of these are Catholic, this is because a larger number of applications for subsidies were received from Catholic organisations. It should be noted that no application from a non-Catholic religious organisation has been rejected in the last few years.
Furthermore, one of the selection criteria is the representativeness of the organisation concerned; this criterion has of course also been applied with regard to political organisations.
Finally, it is clear from the list of beneficiary organisations that most are neither religious nor political in nature and are instead focused on other objectives, such as certain types of activity for young people, or students’ organisations.
(1) OJ C 374, 10.12.1997.
(1999/C 135/239) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3555/98 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI)to the Commission
(1 December 1998)
Subject: St. Teresa di Lerici sailing school
On 30 December 1993, the local authority in Lerici approved the above project, financed by the Liguria regional authority and the Community’s Reneval programme.
On 16 April 1997, work on the project was completed for the local authority in Lerici.
To date, five years after the funds for the project were approved and 18 months after work on the project was completed, the local authority has still not managed to make the sailing school operational. Furthermore, the fact that the school has remained unused for an extended period has led to the deterioration of the buildings, which have also been damaged by vandals. 14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/189
1. Is the Commission aware of the reasons for this disgraceful delay and does it know where responsibility for the delay lies?
2. Is it in a position to assess whether the expenditure on the implementation of the project tallies with the funds made available? 3. Can it state how much funding was made available for the project under the Reneval programme?
4. Do the rules in force stipulate a deadline for the implementation of a project once aid has been granted? 5. What are the consequences of a deadline not being observed?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (10 December 1998)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.