ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2208/01

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2001)

Subject: Discrimination

Having received a letter from a Portuguese citizen asking for help in clarifying a situation which he considers to be unfair and, indeed, discriminatory, the author of this question asks the Commission to state whether it believes there is any basis for this view.

The Portuguese citizen concerned is aged 33 and suffers from a motor deficiency in his lower limbs (he contracted polio at 14). He submitted his candidacy under recruitment competition EUR/C/160/2000 for Portuguese-language typists. His application was refused on the grounds that he did not have four years' professional experience subsequent to having obtained his general secondary education qualification (see dossier PERS/SC/DQ/CB-No 112 250).

He has twelve years' unbroken professional experience as a typist for the Lisbon city council. However, owing to force of circumstance (the constraints arising from his disability, such as the need to spend periods in physical rehabilitation centres and the lack of support structures for persons in his situation), he was only very recently able to complete his studies. He therefore wishes to know the reasons for the existence of a condition under which a person with four years' professional experience following completion of his studies is considered better qualified than another person with twelve years' professional experience in the category for which he is competing, for a public body, simply because one of them completed his studies after having acquired the professional experience. He is deeply distressed at the fashion in which he was excluded, since while the Member States receive Community funds aimed at promoting education, reducing educational failure rates and stimulating vocational training, an institution such as the EU applies rules to exclude candidates which he feels are extremely unfair, discriminatory and contrary to those same objectives.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2001)

The Honourable Member refers to the inter-institutional open competition EUR/C/160/2000, organised jointly by the Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions in order to recruit Portuguese-language typists.

The Parliament is the Appointing Authority in this case, and the Parliament consequently has sole responsibility for the organisation of this competition. The Commission is therefore unable to comment further on this matter and suggests that the Honourable Member addresses the question to the General Secretariat of the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1487/01

by Jean-Claude Martinez (TDI) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Fraud involving animal meal

In order to combat BSE or mad cow disease, France imposed a ban on animal meal intended for cattle in July 1990 and, in July 1996, stepped up this measure by excluding specified risk material (SRM) such as the brain, the spleen or the spinal cord.

However, a case has recently come to light revealing the manufacture and fraudulent trade of several thousand tonnes of animal meal intended for cattle which appears to have continued after 1996.

Given the gravity of the situation and the public health risk involved, what steps will the Council take?

In particular, does it intend to strengthen cooperation between animal health and anti-fraud inspectorates?

Reply

(21 November 2001)

Regarding the situation described by the Honourable Member, the Council would point out that the Member States are responsible for enforcing Community and national rules on the use of animal meal and for punishing breaches of those rules in accordance with national law.

That said, the Council had problems of control very much in mind when it decided temporarily to ban the use of animal meal in animal feed.

Regarding cooperation between animal health inspectorates, the Council would point out that such cooperation is governed by Directive 89/608/EEC of 29 November 1989(1). []

A proposal to strengthen Community legislation on official inspections of animal feed (Directive 95/53/EC) was submitted by the Commission and its adoption is imminent.

Nevertheless, cooperation between different inspectorates within an individual Member State is the sole responsibility of that State.

(1) OJ L 351, 2.12.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1981/01

by Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Marco Galucci, a European Union aid worker arrested in and deported from Israel

On 8 June 2001 Mr Marco Galucci, who is working on a Commission-funded humanitarian aid project, was arrested at Ben-Gurion Airport and, although he was able to show clearly why he had come to Israel, questioned for several hours. He was not allowed to telephone his consulate, his computer was searched, his diskettes confiscated, and he was eventually sent back to Italy.

Will the Commission respond to the actions of the Israeli authorities, bearing in mind that this kind of behaviour severely impedes the smooth running of Union-funded humanitarian projects to aid the Palestinian population hard pressed by war?

What specific steps will it take?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

Following the incident that occurred to Mr Marco Gallucci, a humanitarian aid worker employed by the Italian non governmental organisation (NGO) CRIC, on 8 June 2001, the Commission's Delegation to the State of Israel on 19 June sent a Note Verbale to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressing strong protest against the unjustified behaviour towards a European citizen employed by an NGO whose humanitarian project is entirely funded by the Commission and asked the Ministry's assistance to allow Mr Gallucci's entry and facilitate his humanitarian mission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0955/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

(29 March 2001)

Subject: Cooperation policy Latin America

What are the Swedish Council Presidency's guidelines/strategies for its Latin America development-cooperation policy?

Reply

(20 November 2001)

As the Honourable member is aware, it is the Commission's role to provide leadership on development policy formulation and to prepare initiatives to promote the coordination of policies between the Community and Member States.

The objective of Community development cooperation policy is to foster sustainable development designed to eradicate poverty in developing countries and to integrate them into the world economy. To this objective the Community pursues policies that promote the consolidation of democracy, the rule of law, good governance and the respect for human rights.

In line with Articles 177 and 178 of the EC Treaty the Commission shall strive to maximise the impact of its work on poverty, make Community development cooperation efficient and facilitate complementarity, coordination and coherence in relation to both other policies pursued by the Community and to development policies pursued by Member States and other international donors.

Concerning development cooperation the Swedish Presidency stated in its programme that effective development cooperation is an essential aspect of external relations and an important matter for the Presidency. It is also a component of the Commission's reform program. Greater consensus on external policies should be secured. The EU will strengthen its position as a player acting responsibly and in solidarity in the international arena. The fight against poverty will be at the heart of our development policy.

In relation to Latin America and the Caribbean, the Swedish Presidency pointed out in its Programme that in the Union's relation with Latin America and the Caribbean, the Presidency will seek to promote peace, democracy and human rights particularly in Colombia, Peru and Cuba. Economic relations between the region and the EU offer considerable potential for growth and development. As Presiding country Sweden will give special priority to the free trade negotiations with Mercosur and Chile.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1899/01

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Subject: Hybrid bison

Could the Commission state whether hybrid bison (sometimes referred to as cattalo or beefalo) are eligible for beef premium and/or suckler cow subsidies? If so, what is the official definition of a hybrid?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal(1) does not provide for the granting of beef premiums to bison.

Only bovine animals defined as live animals of the domestic bovine species falling within CN codes ex 0102 10 and 0102 90 05 to 0102 90 79 come within the scope of application of that Regulation.

These sub-headings include all animals of the bovine species, including buffalo, of the genera Bos and Bubalus of domestic species, regardless of their purpose, with the exception of pure-bred animals intended for breeding purposes. They also include the beeffalo, which is the result of a cross between a bison and a domestic animal of the bovine species.

In conclusion, beeffalo are eligible for the financial assistance granted in the beef and veal sector.

Conversely, subheading CN 0102 90 90, which corresponds to non-domestic animals of the bovine species including bison (Bison bison) and buffalo, does not come within the scope of application laid down by the above Regulation.

There is no official definition of a hybrid animal applicable to animals of the bovine species. However, Council Directive 88/661/EEC of 19 December 1988 on the zootechnical standards applicable to animals of the porcine species(2) contains a definition of a hybrid animal which may be of use in considering the question from the Honourable Member.

This definition is as follows:

Article 1(b): hybrid breeding pig: any animal of the porcine species which fulfils the following criteria:

1. It is produced by deliberate cross-breeding:

- between pure-bred breeding pigs of different breeds or lines,

- between animals which are themselves the outcome of a cross between different breeds or lines,

- or between pure-bred animals and animals belonging to one or other of the above categories;

2. It must be entered in a register.

Moreover, Commission Decision 90/255/EEC of 10 May 1990 laying down the criteria governing entry in flock-books for pure-bred breeding sheep and goats(3) contains provisions on hybrid animals.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 382, 31.12.1988.

(3) OJ L 145, 8.6.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2063/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: Deliberate prevention of BSE tests

1. Is the Council aware that the industry is using the Internet to encourage farmers to leave dead animals unattended for several days and only then to inform their vets in order to circumvent the rules governing BSE tests, thereby ensuring that any case of BSE go undetected?

2. Does the Council received from the Member States details of when animals have died and when notification of deaths was received?

3. What steps has the Council taken thus far to halt this circumvention of the rules governing BSE tests and what steps does it plan to take in the future?

Reply

(27 November 2001)

Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies(1) stipulates that any animal suspected of being infected by a TSE is to be notified immediately to the competent authorities and that Member States are regularly to inform the Commission of the cases of TSE notified.

The Council is not informed of notified TSE cases.

It is therefore for the Commission to ensure compliance with Community law and, in accordance with the provisions of that Regulation, to see to it that Member States implement the measures adopted.

(1) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2437/01

by Mario Borghezio (TDI) to the Council

(4 September 2001)

Subject: Risk of former Italian Military Internees being excluded from German compensation

Former Italian Military Internees (IMIs) and those employed as slave labourers in Germany during the Second World War are at serious risk of being unlawfully excluded from German compensation schemes. An incorrect legal definition of Italian military internees, which fails

to take account of the fact that these prisoners, who were employed as slave labour in German factories, were not covered by the Geneva Convention, has apparently prompted Germany to exclude them from compensation schemes. This discrimination is extremely serious, not least because the rights of former Italian military internees were certainly included in the protection referred to in the European Parliament's resolution B2-1475/85 on compensation for persons formerly employed as slave labour in German industry.

What urgent measures does the Council intend to take to remedy this situation?

Reply

(6 December 2001)

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the reply to Question E-2155/01 on compensation from Germany for former Italian military internees.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2676/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2001)

Subject: Patents on genetic tests

The European Patent Office recently granted the American company Myriad Genetics a monopoly on patents on genetic tests to screen for predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer. The Institut Curie, a well-known French research centre which has the backing of the French Government, has decided to take legal action in the matter, arguing that the existing patents system is ill-suited to deal with public health issues. What position does the Commission intend to adopt on this matter and what action does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

The Commission considers that there are no compelling reasons for it to lodge opposition, since the disputed patent does not seem to violate basic ethical standards but concerns rather the scope of protection which can be granted to an invention relating to a DNA sequence.

It should be noted that this patent seems to be of scientific interest. It should enable improved screening for female breast cancer. However, as a result of the appeals lodged against this patent by third parties, it is for the Opposition Division and Boards of Appeal to decide on the patentability of the patent awarded and on the scope of protection to be granted.

The Commission will study in detail the question of the scope of protection for inventions relating to genetic sequences and will send its observations to the Council and to the Parliament in the reports provided for under Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions(1).

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2638/01

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 September 2001)

Subject: Further questions concerning case law in relation to the Belgian State Pensions Service

On 16 July I submitted questions (E-2263/01)(1) on the subject of non-compliance by the Belgian State Pensions Service with the case law of the Court of Justice.

The Commission has since given a reply to those questions.

With reference to the Commission's reply:

1. Has the Belgian Government responded to the Commission's request for clarification?

2. Has the Belgian Government's reply led to a procedure under Article 226 of the EC Treaty being initiated?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 230.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it has not yet had a reply to its letter of 18 July 2001 requesting information within two months on the follow-up of the Court's case law established in the judgment delivered in the Engelbrecht case, C-262/97.

Consequently, the Commission has sent the Belgian authorities a reminder. The Honourable Member will be kept informed of the outcome.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2885/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Gambling on the Net

Figures show that gambling on the Internet is one of the most flourishing of all Internet businesses. This year, users will spend about 3 000 million dollars on bets, although this figure is dwarfed by analysts' forecast figures for 2015, namely 177 000 million dollars world-wide. The forecast rise in the number of gamblers is equally spectacular. There are currently some 7 million, a million of them in Europe, but by 2005 are expected to be 15 million world-wide. Gambling sites, encouraged by these prospects, have doubled in numbers over the last year, going from 800 last year to 1400.

However, most of the Member States have enacted no legislation governing gambling on the Internet. Nor does Directive 2000/31/EC(1) on e-commerce contain any relevant provisions, although experts regard gambling as simply another form of e-commerce.

Does the Commission intend to do anything to plug this gap in legislation, given that the size of the turnover of the private virtual gambling sector demands some kind of legal guarantee?

(1) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2001)

The Honourable Member notes that internet gambling is growing in amplitude. It is also true that Directive 2000/31/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce)(1) does not cover this particular form of information society service. However, the Commission recognises that, following the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice certain gambling activities fall under Article 49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty. The same jurisprudence has also recognised the right for Member States to restrict the cross-border provision of the gambling services examined.

Within the context of its policy to establish an Internal Market for services and, more particularly, in the framework of its Communication on An Internal Market Strategy for Services(2) that the Commission adopted in 2000, the Commission will be examining whether and what form of harmonisation may be required in this area. It should be noted in this respect that national lottery operators have also noted that internet gambling activities are de facto cross-border in nature and thus require consideration at the European level.

Finally, the Commission would wish to point out to the Honourable Member that internet gambling activities are subject to national gambling laws since the latter make no distinction as to the media over which a gambling service is advertised and/or offered. It follows that it is incorrect to suggest that such activities are not already regulated. It is the fact that these activities are regulated differently across the Member States that gives rise to Internal Market barriers that require consideration.

(1) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000.

(2) COM(2000) 888 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1843/01

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Cryo-cell (Commission answer to Written Question E-1079/01)

In its answer of 6 April 2001 to Written Question E-1079/01(1) on commercial action for the storage of umbilical cord blood for obtaining stem cells the Commission writes that it has no information on the existence of similar commercial organisations in the Community.

However, if the Commission had visited the website I referred to (www.cryoc.com), it would have seen that the firm Cryo-cell is active in a number of Member States.

I therefore ask the Commission to visit the website in order to examine the activities of this organisation more closely.

I also call on the Commission, in accordance with the suggestion made in its abovementioned answer, to submit this question to the European Ethics Group (EEG) and to inform me of the outcome.

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 166.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The Commission has no information about Cryo-cell other than that available on the firm's Internet site and already known to the Honourable Member. Nor does the Commission have any information about other similar firms in the European Union.

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for raising this matter. It believes that the services offered by Cryo-cell do indeed raise serious ethical questions and has asked the European Ethics Group to look into the ethical aspects of this type of activity as part of its current work on the ethical aspects of the patentability of inventions arising from research into human stem cells.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1406/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Effects of foot-and-mouth disease on the use of EU funding

Will the European Council allow European money which is allocated for diversification to be used for the re-establishment of businesses which have been severely affected by the consequences of foot-and-mouth disease?

Reply

(27 November 2001)

1. At its meeting on 23 and 24 March 2001 the Stockholm European Council expressed its concern about the severity of the situation in the agricultural sector and its solidarity with farmers and others in rural communities. It also stated that it was determined to contain and ultimately eradicate foot-and-mouth disease and BSE and stressed that Community measures needed to respect the financial perspective.

2. Prior to the abovementioned statement, the Commission, after receiving a favourable opinion from the Standing Veterinary Committee, took a number of measures to prevent the spread of those diseases, in particular to restrict the movement of animals and to begin the slaughter of animals at risk. Furthermore, the Commission proposed various types of measure, both veterinary and common market organisation-related, involving a Community financial contribution.

3. As regards the veterinary sphere, the Commission envisaged co-financing 60 % of the cost of the eradication measures which had been taken to halt the spread of foot-and-mouth disease.

Moreover, those measures would be additional to those already put in place (adopted by the Agriculture Council at its meeting in June 2001) to support the beef and veal market following the BSE crisis.