ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1710/98

by Edouard des Places (I-EDN) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Packing and bottling in the region of production

Annex II, entitled "Provisions to be notified to the European Commission and to be inserted in a subsequent bill", to the Agriculture Bill which the French Government is preparing to submit to the French National Assembly lays down that the following third paragraph shall be added to Article 115-6 of the Consumer Code:

"It (the National Institute for Designations of Origin - Institut National des Appellations d'Origine) may, at the request of the local organization concerned, provide that the product must be packed in a specific area. A Council of State decree shall lay down the implementing provisions in respect of this paragraph."

Is this article which, as worded, enables it to be made obligatory for wine to be packed, i.e. bottled, in the region of production, compatible with Articles 34, 85 and 86 of the Treaty and with the case-law of the Court of Justice established in Case 647/90, Delhaize Le Lion v. Promalvin?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 1998)

The Commission has not so far received any notification from France on the bill mentioned by the Honourable Member.

On the question of whether a law allowing the Institut national des appellations d'origine, on request by the local organisation concerned, to stipulate that a product must be packed in a specific area is compatible with Articles 34, 85 and 86 of the Treaty and with the decisions of the Court of Justice, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's reply to Written Question P-1657/98 by Mr Buffetaut(1).

(1) See page 65.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1461/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: Additional information concerning the EPAC restructuring and financial reorganization plan

In December 1997 the Portuguese Government notified the Commission of the measures contained in the EPAC restructuring and financial reorganization plan [EPAC = Agri-food and Cereals Company].

On receiving that notification the Commission asked the Portuguese Government to provide eleven additional pieces of information which it felt it needed in order to be able to analyse the plan in question and, therefore, to be able to assess the degree of compliance thereof with the EU Treaty.

Did the Commission consider the eleven additional pieces of information provided by the Portuguese authorities to be sufficient? What exactly was the substance of the information?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question no. P-1423/98 by Mr Novo(1).

(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2497/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Phthalates in baby toys

When does the Commission think scientists will have available a standard, verified method for testing for the leaking of phthalates in baby toys and does it not believe that, in the view of the risk, it ought to be employing the precautionary principle and banning these products now?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

Work that should provide the basis for a standardised and validated test method on phthalate release is under way. Various activities in this field are in progress, in Europe and elsewhere. In particular, at the initiative of the Dutch government, RIVM (the Dutch national institute of public health and the environment) has set up a group to develop a method to assess the phthalate release into saliva during sucking and biting from plasticised soft polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which is used in certain child care articles and toys. The work includes in vivo tests with volunteers and collaborative laboratory in vitro testing by the Joint research centre in Ispra and Dutch, British and German laboratories. A progress report was given to Member States experts and interested parties at the meeting on 14 July 1998 of the emergencies committee of Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety(1). The Commission intends to seek the opinion of the scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment on the results of this study in September 1998.

The Commission has already decided to put forward urgently a proposal for permanent Community legislation ensuring a high level of safety and health under harmonised conditions with regard to certain child care articles and toys in soft PVC containing phthalates. A proposal based on the advice of the scientific committee to restrict the marketing and use of certain phthalates in certain toys and child care articles is under preparation in the framework of Directive 76/769/EEC on restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations(2). The proposal will soon be finalised also taking into account the results of the studies mentioned above. Pending the adoption and application of Community legislation in this field, the Commission has invited in its Recommendation adopted on 1 July 1998(3), the Member States to take measures in order to ensure a high level of child health protection with regard to child care articles and toys intended to be put into the mouth in soft PVC containing phthalates. Restrictive measures must be notified to the Commission. Particular attention should be drawn to the two phthalates DINP and DEHP because they are the most commonly used. Member States should inform the Commission about testing methods used, the levels of migration found and the conclusions drawn from the findings. Member States are invited to co-operate in the development of a common Community testing method to measure the release of phthalates from these products.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(3) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1909/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: Powers of the Commission for the coordination of EU policy on economic and social cohesion and regional planning

In its recent report A4-0206/98, Parliament pointed out that, despite the absence of any specific provision in the Treaty attributing powers in the field of regional planning, it may be concluded from certain elements of the Treaty that the Commission is empowered to monitor and coordinate the regional effects of the Community policies (see Articles 129b, 130a, 130b, 130r and 130s) in the context of its powers of legislative initiative and implementation. The same report also recalls that, following the informal Council of Noordwijk, the Commission undertook a series of internal consultations of its departments, as a result of which it was concluded that it should be possible to set up permanent mechanisms for the monitoring, assessment and coordination of the regional effects of the various fields of Community activity.

Can the Commission state what measures it has taken or intends to take to fulfil this mandate, specifying, where applicable, the characteristics and mode of operation of these mechanisms?

Can the Commission state to what extent this mandate was taken into account in the drawing-up of the proposals for the reform of the Structural Funds adopted by the Commission on 18 March 1998?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 1998)

The Commission is currently preparing a report on spatial planning and Community policies. Its objective is to clarify the mechanisms by which Community policies take into account spatial planning-related issues, to assess whether the policy aims set out in the first draft of the European Spatial Development Perspective can constitute a useful set of guidelines to integrate territorial differences better in sectoral policies, and to consider co-operation models and institutional mechanisms for improving the spatial consistency of Community policies.

The report is being prepared in the framework of the interdepartmental work of the Commission on spatial planning. It is due to be discussed by the Commission early next year and will constitute one of the key inputs to the Forum on spatial planning scheduled for February 1999.

In addition, the Commission departments responsible for each Community policy are closely associated in the preparation of the thematic transnational seminars on spatial planning.

The proposals for the Regulations to govern the Structural Funds, approved by the Commission on 18 March 1998(1), provide among other things that one of the three planned Community initiatives will concern crossborder, transnational and interregional cooperation and will seek to encourage the harmonious and balanced development and spatial planning of the European territory. In addition, a number of studies and innovative projects dealing with issues linked to regional development planning may be launched at the instigation of the Commission.

(1) COM(98) 131 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2074/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Restricted access to commercial buildings

In various parts of Rome buildings are designed in such a way that access to them is impossible for disabled and elderly people. This is not only the case in public buildings but also in a great many private buildings used for commercial purposes which are frequented by so many people that in some cases they actually constitute public facilities.

In the light of the above, will the Commission say whether:

1. there are any directives stipulating that access to buildings must be provided for the disabled?

2. such directives also apply to private buildings used for commercial purposes?

3. Italy has transposed them?

4. it will state its general position on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

There are no Community directives concerning access to public buildings for people with disabilities.

In its communication on equality of opportunity for people with disabilities(1), the Commission noted that many public buildings continue to be inaccessible or accessible only with difficulty for disabled people. At the same time, the Commission noted that the principles of "design for all" and universal access would have cross-sectoral benefits for people with disabilities as well as other groups. The Commission remains committed to those principles.

(1) COM(96) 406 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1791/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Social dialogue and police measures

In his answer (dated 19.1.1998) to my Written Question No 3605/97(1) Commissioner Flynn states: "The dialogue between the social partners greatly contributes to shaping the economic and social environment and has become one of the cornerstones of our model of society." In the same answer he goes on to say: "...the Luxembourg guidelines (21.11.1997) recommend close involvement of the social partners at all stages of the process." This is intended to promote social cohesion.

The Greek Government has refused to hold a dialogue with employees regarding the sale of the "Ioniki Trapeza" (the Ionian Bank), a subsidiary of the "Emboriki Trapeza" (Commercial Bank), thereby violating the principle of the social dialogue, and on 24 May 1998 sent in the police to deal with bank employees at the Computer Centre in Piraeus, thereby opting for direct confrontation.

Will the Commission give its official views on this unprecedented action by the Greek Government which constitutes a flagrant violation of the commitments it has assumed within the framework of the EU regarding the social dialogue?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 1998)

The Commission has the task of promoting the social dialogue at Community level. These responsibilities are set out in Article 118b of the EC Treaty and in Article 3 of the Agreement on Social Policy.

The Commission has also put forward numerous proposals for fleshing out the Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers. For example, it takes the view that worker information and consultation form an essential part of a very widely shared culture of industrial relations in Europe.

The model of industrial relations that the Commission is responsible for promoting at European level therefore draws its inspiration from an approach based on dialogue and partnership.

As regards the events mentioned by the Honourable Member relating to an industrial dispute at national level, they are the responsibility of the Member States alone. The Commission is therefore not in a position to judge national practices in these areas.

(1) OJ C 174, 8.6.1998, p. 85.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2261/98

by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: The EAGGF Guarantee Section in Denmark from 1986 to 1995

Can the Commission indicate the total amount received by Denmark under the EAGGF Guarantee Section from 1986 to 1995 and provide a breakdown of expenditure:

- by heading (arable crops, sugar, fibre plants and silk worms, other plant products, wine products, tobacco, milk and milk products, beef/veal, sheepmeat and goatmeat, pigmeat, eggs and poultry, other measures concerning animal products, refunds on certain goods obtained by processing agricultural products, refunds in connection with Community food aid, distribution of agricultural products to deprived persons, accompanying measures, rural development measures linked to markets, other measures, income aid, and the European Fisheries Guarantee Fund); and

- by type of aid (export refunds, price compensating aids, acreage aid, aid for livestock, guidance premiums, private storage aid, withdrawals and similar operations, monetary compensatory amounts, measures accompanying reform of the CAP, and public storage costs)?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2060/98

by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Delays in commercial payments

The European institutions have frequently raised the issue of the slowness with which commercial debts are settled. The adverse effects of this, in the form of financial and administrative charges, mainly affect small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), whether it is the public or the private sector which is the guilty party. By means of the laws devised in response to this issue, an attempt is being made to impose deterrent measures and appeal procedures designed to ensure that uncontested debts are paid within the stipulated time limit, and the idea of a reserve fund has even been put forward.

Which are the Member States most affected by this problem, and which are least affected?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

In its report on late payments in commercial transactions(1), the Commission has collected information from different sources on payment periods in the countries of the European economic area. According to one survey(2) used as reference in the communication, the actual average payment period (time between delivery of the goods or services and actual payment) in Europe is 54 days whereas the average contractual payment period (time between delivery of the goods or services and the due date) is 39 days. This means that payments were on average 15 days overdue. The longest average payment periods were reported in Greece (94 days), Portugal (91 days) and Italy (87 days). The shortest average payment periods were in Norway (27 days), Finland (29 days) and Sweden (32 days).

Another survey confirms the above with slightly different results(3). The average payment period in Europe was 61 days. The longest payment period was in Greece (85 days), followed by Italy (83 days) and Spain (73 days). The shortest payment periods were in Finland (29 days), Norway (33 days) and Denmark (35 days).

In order to address this problem, the Commission has recently proposed a European Parliament and Council directive combating late payment in commercial transactions(4). Parliament has already given it its first reading and it is currently being considered by the Council.

(1) OJ C 216, 17.7.1997.

(2) Payment Habits Survey 1996, Intrum Justitia, Amsterdam, April 1997.

(3) European Business Survey, Grant Thornton International, London, May 1997.

(4) OJ C 168, 3.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1583/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Slate industry and barriers to international trade

Replying on behalf of the Commission to my previous Written Questions Nos. E-4009/97 and E-4011/97(1), Sir Leon Brittan speaking, pointed out that the Commission had launched a new initiative in November 1996 concerning the strategy and prospects for access for the Community industry to third-country markets with a view to identifying and eliminating barriers to Community exports. In this connection, Commissioner Brittan called on the slate industry to play an active part in this initiative as regards identifying barriers to international trade.

Will the Commission say what specific form this initiative has taken and what progress it has made, and give details of how the slate industry might participate?

(1) OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 56.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2460/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Delays in payment under subprogramme A of Pronorte

At the end of June 1998, the Portuguese media reported on the concerns expressed by various local authorities concerning long delays in payments under the Pronorte programme.

Some of the local authorities concerned announced that they would have to suspend some of the work co-financed under subprogramme A of Pronorte since, even though they had sent the relevant payment requests to the government authorities in good time, they had still not received the funds corresponding to the work carried out.

Some government authorities and their representatives have publicly suggested that the delays experienced in payments under the above Pronorte subprogramme were caused by difficulties in releasing appropriations from the Community budget, which they attribute to the Commission.

With a view to providing full public information on this matter and ensuring that it is dealt with in a properly transparent manner, can the Commission provide information on the following:

Has the Commission delayed the transfer of funds to cover payments requested by the national authorities in order to fulfil commitments arising from works being undertaken under subprogramme A of Pronorte? If so, what are the reasons for the delays? If not, what information does the Commission have on the delay experienced in Portugal between the transfer of Community funds and their being received by the local authorities?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 1998)

There are no delays in the Commission's payments for this programme. The Commission has asked the national authorities for information concerning any delays in transferring funds to the local authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1865/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: Complaint No 97/4397 - Alleged use of stray cats and dogs for research in Belgium

In the past few months, the Commission has made public the results of its investigation into this matter. Despite the Commission's investigation, however, there remains serious cause for concern about this situation in Belgium.

1. Is the Commission satisfied with remedial action taken by the Belgian laboratories that were the subject of the above complaint?

2. According to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), it appears that the use of non-purpose-bred animals is common practice in Belgium. While European law does not prohibit the use of non-purpose-bred animals, Directive 86/609/EEC(1) does make it clear that such use should be the exception and not the rule. Does the Commission believe that this Directive is being applied correctly in Belgium?

3. Has the Belgian Government provided the Commission with evidence that the conditions in which animals are kept in research laboratories comply with the requirements of this Directive?

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1834/98 and E-1865/98 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 1998)

In response to the Commission's request for information, Belgium has indicated that its authorities have investigated the three establishments which are the subject of the complaint mentioned by the Honourable Member and that they have taken appropriate remedial action where necessary.

As to whether the action taken by the Belgian authorities has adequately ensured that non-compliant establishments now comply with the directive, the Commission will raise the matter once more with Belgium with a view to gaining the necessary assurances in that respect.

It maybe noted in this connection that the Commission does not at present have any evidence showing that the use of non-purpose-bred animals is common practice in Belgium. In order to appraise the situation, it will request the Belgian authorities to inform it of the exemptions issued in pursuance of the directive allowing establishments to use non-purpose-bred animals.

Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes does not include provisions requiring Member States to inform the Commission of the origin of the animals used for experiments.