ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2216/97 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) (30 June 1997)

Subject: Satellite technology

The use of satellite technology is of great assistance to those remote rural regions whose economies are often dependent on SME's. It is therefore important for them to follow this technology's development in order to benefit from it.

However, there have been claims that price agreements are common practice among satellite space segment sellers which have kept prices high and uniform.

Is the Commission aware of such a practice and if so, has this been taken into account in the preparation of the new action plan for satellite technology?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1997)

The Commission Communication entitled 'European Union Action Plan: Satellite Communications in the Information Society' ((Doc. COM(97) 91. )) is a response to the urgent need for political action to create the conditions necessary for the rapid development of a competitive market in European satellite communications.

The Action Plan, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, concentrates on completing the Community's internal market, strengthening the European position at an international level and increasing support for the European research and development sector.

Actions A1 and A6 refer, among other things, to provisions on competition law, in particular to provisions on pricing agreements (Article 85 of the EC Treaty):

- A1 'The Commission will step up efforts to achieve full implementation of all EU legislation relevant for satellite communications [...]',

- A6 '[...] The Commission will continue to review developments concerning the International Satellite Organisations and [to] take the appropriate steps with a view to ensuring that these developments contribute to the achievement of a fully competitive satellite communications marketplace'.

The Commission is indeed seeking to increase the level of competition amongst satellite operators and the satellite service providers. One way in which it is doing this is to support the restructuring of the intergovernmental satellite organisations (Intelsat, Eutelsat and Inmarsat) on a more commercial basis in the light of the entry of new satellite operators into their markets. In addition, the Commission will investigate fully any complaint about practices which appear to infringe the Community's competition rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2496/97 by Alan Gillis (PPE) to the Commission (11 July 1997)

Subject: Sects

Given the frightening increase in the activities of various cults and sects in our society and the mind control they impose on their members would the Commission consider launching an investigation into such organizations - their practices, recruitment methods and treatment of their members - and where necessary take steps to ban such organizations from operating in the EU

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Question E-3443/96 by Mr Ferber ((OJ C 186, 18.6.1997. )) and to Oral Question H-524/97 by Mr J. Fitzsimons ((Debates of the Parliament (July 1997). )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1837/97 by Winfried Menrad (PPE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: Special social security schemes in the public service

In connection with the right of free movement, an extension of the provisions for coordination under Regulation 1408/71 ((OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.)) on compulsorily insured employed and self-employed persons to other groups and social security systems is imminent. One question now being discussed is how the special public-service schemes are to be included in the Regulation (see, for instance, the proceedings before the European Court of Justice).

Can the Commission indicate:

1. Which EU Member States have special social-security schemes for public-service employees (officials' pensions)?

2. Which of those states seek to protect the special schemes for officials or other pensioners by means of 'pension reserves'?

3. When it expects the pensions of persons in public service to be included in the coordination system under Regulation 1408/71?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1997)

1. The social security systems of the Member States are coordinated by Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and No 574/72 ((Amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997). )). It must be noted, however, that the regulations aim only to coordinate and not to harmonize the national social security schemes. Member States are free to decide how to organize and how to finance their different social security systems.

2. A study recently carried out by the European institute of public administration ((Civil Service in the Europe of the Fifteen, Maastricht 1996. )) shows that most Member States pay civil servants' pensions from their own state budget. In the Netherlands the special scheme is financed through a special pension fund and in some Member States pensions are paid partly from the dedicated part of the state budget and partly with money taken from a special pension fund (Portugal and Sweden).

3. The Commission submitted a proposal in 1992 to extend the material scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to the special schemes for civil servants ((OJ C 46, 20.2.1992. )). It has not yet achieved the unanimity required within the Council.

On 22 November 1995 the Court of Justice ruled that the existing lack of coordination of special schemes was an obstacle to free movement which should be overcome by a Council decision. In this, the Council is free to depart in some respect from the mechanisms currently provided by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 in order to take into account the specifics of the special schemes for civil servants ((Case C-443/93, VOUGIOUKAS, ECJ law report 1995, I-4033. )). The Council is still discussing the possible solutions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1987/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: Projects for cetificates of quality for beef and veal

At a recent meeting held in Venice in April by the European Quality Beef association, it was announced that the first 13 projects for certificates of quality for beef and veal were to be launched, using ECU 18 million of the ECU 32 million provided overall by the European Union.

Can the Commission supply documents relating to these projects?

As a new Community regulation (No 820/97) ((OJ L 117, 7.5.1997, p. 1. )) has been published on this subject, what connection is there between that regulation and the funding for self-certification and voluntary cooperatives?

Answer given by Mr. Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

By a decision of 8 April 1997 the Commission approved 13 quality beef promotion programmes for the 1996/97 marketing year. These are being funded at a rate of 60%, i.e. ECU 11 million will be paid of their total cost of ECU 18.5 million. Further information can be obtained from the competent bodies of the 15 Member States (Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 1318/93 ((OJ L 132, 29.5.1993. ))).

The new Regulation (EC) No 820/97 ((OJ L 117, 7.5.1997. )) is not concerned with promotion of quality beef. It establishes a general system for identification and registration of bovine animals and also covers labelling of beef and beef products. It thus has no bearing on the funding to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission has sent the Council a proposal ((COM(97) 70 final. )), now under examination by Parliament, for a Regulation on promotional action for quality beef. This provides for funding of an information campaign on the new Community labelling system.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1864/97 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Study of the impact of the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption

In its answer to my written question E-2838/96 ((OJ C 83, 14.3.1997, p. 77. )) concerning the existence of an objective study of the impact of the Commission proposal for a directive on chocolate products on the working of the single market and the economic implications for the developing countries, the Commission states in paragraph 3 that it is carrying out a macroeconomic study into the impact on the economy of Cameroon of fluctuations in cocoa prices and of the revision of the European directive on the composition of chocolate. This study relating to Cameroon could subsequently be extended to include other countries, in particular the ACP states. The study's conclusions were expected towards the end of 1996.

1. Has the Commission already completed the above study and, if so, when can publication of the conclusions be expected?

2. Can it indicate what the main conclusions of this study are?

3. Does it plan, as heralded in its answer to my written question, to extend the study relating to Cameroon to the other cocoa-producing ACP states? If so, when may the conclusions of such a study be expected?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (9 July 1997)

The study the Commission referred to in its answer to written question No E-2838/96 was entrusted to outside experts. Thus far, only intermediate results have been obtained, and since these do not altogether correspond to the mandate given to the experts the Commission will be asking that the study be taken further.

It is the Commission's intention to provide a tool which will help substantially in arriving at the most accurate assessment possible of the impact of the proposal for a directive.

Once it has examined the study, the Commission could extend its scope to other cocoa producing countries, chiefly in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP).

The Commission is as yet unable to say when the conclusions will be published.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2521/97 by Renate Heinisch (PPE) to the Commission (22 July 1997)

Subject: Level of European Union funding awarded to universities and research institutes in Baden-Württemberg in 1996

For what measures was Community funding given to universities and research institutes in Baden-Württemberg in 1996 and what amounts came from

1. the 4th framework programme on research, technological development and demonstration,

2. Community programmes in the energy and environment sectors,

3. Community Initiatives, especially the Interreg programme,

4. the Socrates, 'Leonardo da Vinci' and 'Youth for Europe' programmes,

5. the Regional and Structural Funds and

6. other Community programmes?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (7 August 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2287/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Live exports of cattle

Compassion in World Farming has set up a petition campaign, urging the Commission to withdraw the export refund grants for live exports of cattle from Ireland.

Last year 5,000 Irish cattle were stranded off the Egyptian port of Alexandria and 1,130 cattle off the Libyan capital Tripoli for several weeks with inadequate food supplies. There have been numerous other reports of animals suffering and dying as a result of live exports to the Middle East and North Africa.

The draft Treaty of Amsterdam suggests a protocol stating that 'in formulating and implementing the Community's agriculture, transport, internal market and research policies, the Community and Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals'.

Because of the documented suffering which live exports has caused for many animals, would the Commission be prepared to withdraw the export refund grants for live exports of cattle?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1997)

The Commission accepts that serious animal welfare problems have come to light in respect of a number of reported incidents involving shipments of livestock from the Community to the Middle East and North Africa.

The Commission has examined the possibility of linking the payment of export refunds to the observance of adequate animal welfare provisions.

In this connection the Commission has recently presented a proposal ((COM(97) 161 final. )) to the Council under which the payment of export refunds would be subject to compliance by trade operators with the provisions of Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC ((OJ L 340, 11.12.1991. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1756/97 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Proposals for the road haulage sector

The crises created by the transport sector some months ago in France and in Spain in February have led Commissioner Kinnock to express concern, and the 'International Road Hauliers Union' (IRU) has called for the immediate application of compensation arrangements and the 'immediate restoration of normal traffic conditions'.

What proposals is the Commission drawing up with a view to avoiding similar situations arising in the future? Has the IRU put forward proposals and does it agree to take responsibility for responsible behaviour on the part of its members?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1756/97 and P-1959/97 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1997)

The Commission has no effective legal right or ability to intervene in a national dispute between employers and employees unless a Member State can be shown to be negligent in its duty to comply with its obligations under the EC Treaty. One such duty is, of course to uphold the right to freedom of movement of goods and people.

The Commission can urge Member States to take all measures necessary to guarantee this freedom and has done so frequently at times when the conduct of disputes has impeded the freedom of movement.

Compensation for losses incurred by operators is a matter for Member States. When governments have established schemes the Commission however repeatedly emphasises that Member States should act quickly to ensure that operators receive appropriate compensation without delay.

The Commission has not received any proposals from the IRU (International road transport union) on this subject. However the Commission understands that this organisation also intervened to help to put an end to the road blockages, and to try to obtain compensation for its member companies.

In the recent period, the Commission drew the attention of the French Minister of Transport to the fact that a very large number of complaints has been received and that this called into question the effectiveness of the current compensation arrangements. The Commission has, therefore, asked the French authorities for an urgent report on all the compensation claims submitted, to include details of the number of claims received, what stage they are at and those cases where compensation has been paid. No response has so far been received.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2417/97 by Laura De Esteban Martin (PPE) to the Commission (11 July 1997)

Subject: Med-Campus

Can the Commission specify how the funding under the budget line earmarked inter alia for the Med-Campus programme is being used?

Can it also give details of the projects financed by this budget line in the last phase?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1997)

Prior to the Commission's decision to suspend decentralised cooperation programmes at the end of 1995 following the Court of Auditors' special report 1/96 ((OJ C 240, 19.8.1996. )), the Med-Campus programme cofinanced 103 inter-university cooperation projects over the academic year 1994-95. The catalogue of those projects is being forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

43 projects covered economic development, 27 the environment, 21 management and 12 culture.

The financing proposal adopted by the Commission in 1994 after the Med Committee had given its approval was for a grant of ECU 8.9 million from budget item B7-4080, which funds activities promoting multilateral and regional or sub-regional cooperation in the Mediterranean.

Med-Campus will be launched afresh in the last quarter of this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0950/97 by Niels Kofoed (ELDR) to the Commission (5 March 1997)

Subject: Seed certification - Council Directive 66/401/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of fodder plant seeds

Can the Danish State oppose the testing of seeds at officially recognized (ISTA) test stations in other Member States as a prerequisite for the payment of EU support and the approval of seeds for certification?

Can the provisions of Danish administrative law on competence to act be used as a basis for preventing employees of private seed companies from being accredited to perform 'official' seed certification tasks as provided for by Article 1(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 66/401/EEC ((OJ 125, 11.7.1966, p. 2298. ))?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 June 1997)

Further to its answer of 24 March 1997, so far as the first part of the question is concerned, Directive 66/401/EEC on the marketing of fodder plant seed would not seem to prevent the official testing of seed in a Member State different from that in which it will be finally certified. Although this has, so far as the Commission is aware, occurred only in a few cases in the past, there is no objection to Member States assisting each other administratively as regards the sampling, testing and the giving of information on the results of the examination. Thus, it would seem that Denmark is not justified in refusing to accept the results of official seed testing carried out in another Member State for the purpose of official certification in Denmark, provided that the methods of sampling, testing and reporting used are in compliance with Community provisions.

In relation to the matter of aid, Regulation (EEC) No 1674/72 ((OJ L 177, 4.8.1972. )) laying down general rules for granting and financing aid for seed provides that once seed meets the requirements of the directive, it is in principle eligible for aid.

So far as the second part of the question is concerned, Directive 66/401/EEC provides that official measures shall be taken:

'a) by State authorities, or

b) by any legal person whether governed by public or private law, acting under the responsibility of the State or

c) in the case of ancillary activities which are also under State control, by any natural person duly sworn for that purpose,

provided that the persons mentioned under b) and c) derive no private gain from such measures.'

By virtue of this provision, Denmark is in line with current Community law in preventing private employees of seed companies from carrying out official tasks.

Under Article 13a of Directive 66/401/EEC, which provides for temporary experiments to be carried out at Community level, the Commission is examining the question of seed testing, as it has already done with field inspections (neither of which are regarded by the Commission as ancillary activities), with a view to introducing alternatives to certain of the current rules in the future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1093/97 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Requirements concerning packaging and packaging waste in the EU

The environmental protection measures adopted in Germany some years ago are having economic and environmental repercussions in other EU countries, especially Spain, because of the requirements concerning packaging and packaging waste.

The Töpffer law aimed to ensure that crates and pallets used for exports of fruit and vegetables were recycled and then reused by the exporters themselves instead of being turned into waste on German soil.

This requirement imposed an additional cost on Spanish exporters of fruit and vegetables, who are obliged to use an expensive product, which is, moreover, manufactured by a German company which has a monopoly on sales of the product (plastic crates).

All this is having serious economic repercussions on exporters and the packaging industry.

Does German policy in this area comply with Directive 94/62/EC ((OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10. )), in particular Article 7 thereof?

Does the Commission plan to take any action on this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The German packaging ordinance of 1991 is the subject of infringement proceedings opened by the Commission. The Commission, in its letter of formal notice, held the view that elements of the German legislation are not in conformity with Article 30 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission, however, does not share the view of the Honourable Member that paragraph 4 of the German ordinance is in contradiction with Community law. It is to be stressed that Article 7 of Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste obliges Member States to ensure that systems are set up to provide for the return or collection of used packaging or packaging waste and the re-use or recovery including recycling of the packaging or packaging waste collected. This applies also to transport packaging. Paragraph 4 of the German ordinance sets up the obligation to return this type of packaging and to re-use or recycle it. Paragraph 11 provides that this obligation can also be fulfilled by a third person. There is therefore, according to the Commission, in this respect no specific burden on importers of packed products. Consequently, this provision is in conformity with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1788/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Barbarous killing of sheep in France

Press reports have highlighted the fact that during the Moslem feast of Eid-el-Kebir sheep were killed in various forms of 'ritual slaughter' which did not involve the use of approved slaughter houses. Is the Commission able to comment on steps that might be taken under EU law to prevent this happening?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1690/97 and E-1788/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1997)

The Commission has received information that on 17 and 18 April 1997 sheep were slaughtered in France in the open air in connection with the Muslim festival of Eid-el-Kabir and that amongst them there were sheep born in the United Kingdom. Directive 93/119/EEC ((OJ L 340, 31.12.1993. )) requires ritual slaughter to be performed in an abattoir and imposes certain requirements on the treatment of animals before and at the time of slaughter.

The Commission has received complaints from animal welfare organisations about this matter and will give further consideration to the issues raised.

If it appears that the French authorities did not comply with Directive 93/119/EEC, then the Commission will consider taking further action to ensure the respect of Community law including, if appropriate, opening infringement proceedings under Article 169 EC Treaty.