ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3862/98

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 1998)

Subject: Television advertising

The "Television without frontiers" Directive regulates, among other things, television advertising, specifically as regards commercial breaks during programmes or films.

Can the Commission say whether the Member States and Spain in particular are complying with the Directive or any other rules that might apply?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 1999)

Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities(1) (Television without Frontiers Directive) contains provisions on the amount of advertising transmission time permissible on television (hourly and daily limits, Article 18), the number and manner of advertising interruptions (Article 11), and the content and presentation of advertisements (Articles 10 to 16). There are also specific rules on sponsorship (Article 17).

A number of complaints have been referred to the Commission regarding the alleged failure in some Member States to comply with advertising rules. These complaints, which are generally lodged by consumer associations, relate to the systematic exceeding of authorised transmission times. More specifically, the problems concern the practices in certain broadcasting organisations, in Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal.

The Commission is in the process of gathering the necessary information to assess the extent to which these alleged excesses could constitute infringements by the Member States concerned, in order to take the appropriate measures if necessary.

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3431/98

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Free movement of goods

The jewellery trade is overwhelmingly dominated by family-run SMEs which in principle enjoy support and incentives from the EU. In Spain, some 200 000 people are employed in the jewellery trade. As a result of the variations in legal standards amongst the Member States, intra-Community trade in articles of jewellery such as luxury watches and articles crafted from precious metals proves impossible. The inspections (i.e. hallmarking) conducted in the country of destination causes considerable damage to the articles, thus making their subsequent marketing impossible. What is more, in the case of Spain, inspections will already have been carried out by state bodies in accordance with the corresponding Spanish legislation.

What specific measures is the Commission drawing up to put a stop to this situation, which contravenes one of the European Union's underlying principles?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3326/98

by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: Irregularities in the authorisation to build an incinerator at Drogenboos (Belgium)

In March I asked the Commission (Question H-0329/98(1)) whether there should not be an enquiry into compliance with European rules by the Flemish Brabant Permanent Committee in its procedure granting an environmental permit for the construction of a waste incinerator at Drogenboos and, if appropriate, to bring infringement proceedings against the Belgian State (Flemish Region) if the authorities refused to comply with European law.

The Commission answered that a complaint on the same subject had been lodged and that, if examination of the case confirmed the existence of a breach of Community environmental law, it would be in a position to decide whether it would be appropriate to initiate the infringement procedure laid down in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

More than six months have passed. Will the Commission state whether its investigations have confirmed an infringement law and, if so, whether a decision to initiate the infringement procedure has been taken, and the grounds for such decision?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 1999)

The Commission is currently in the process of investigating a number of complaints concerning the incinerator referred to by the Honourable Member.

Following a request by the Commission for information, the Belgian authorities have submitted observations which are currently being examined.

Should the response by the Belgian authorities be deemed unsatisfactory, the Commission will not hesitate to pursue the matter under the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

(1) Report of Proceedings of the European Parliament(March 1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3660/98

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: The millennium bug

It has been established that the "millennium bug", a problem also known as the "year 2000 effect", may affect all types of programmable electronic systems (PESs), ranging from mainframe computers to microchips.

These systems are employed for all nature of industrial purposes at the various stages of the production process, in the transport sector, in the public services and so forth. Furthermore, the said systems are date-dependent and their reaction on the first day of the new millennium will be critical. For those reasons, it would advisable to pinpoint the risks involved.

Will the Commission provide guidelines on how to devise and implement a programme to combat this problem?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

Due to the complex nature of the Year 2000 computing problem, the various interfaces between different products and systems, and the enormous number of products which could potentially be affected, it is not possible to define one standard methodology to address all aspects of this problem.

Nevertheless, the Commission's Year 2000 world wide web site (http/www.ispo.cec.be/y2keuro) contains links to web sites of Member States' governments and relevant industry sectors which provide various guidelines on how to address the problem.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4055/98

by Roy Perry (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Raphael Programme

With regard to the Raphael Programme's call for proposals in 1998:

1. How many applications were made?

2. How many of these applications were submitted to the independent jury?

3. On what criteria were decisions made to submit applications to the independent jury and who took these decisions?

4. Who were the successful applicants?

5. On what criteria were the successful applicants chosen?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 1999)

1. In response to the call for proposals published in the Official Journal(1), 490 applications were received for the Raphael Programme in 1998. Taking all of the actions together, requests for financial assistance amounted to some EUR 56 million.

2. The 180 applications that passed the formal pre-selection procedure were submitted to a group of independent experts.

3. The formal pre-selection procedure is carried out by the Commission on the basis of the eligibility criteria specified in the call for proposals. These relate, for example, to partnership (the involvement in the project of partners from at least three Member States), the cultural heritage involved (Action I) (sites distributed over at least three Member States combining similar typology/technique of construction and/or similar historical or architectural context), financing (ability to raise funds to match the Community contribution, which may not exceed 50 % of the total cost of the project), compliance with financial ceilings, deadlines for completion and topics specified in the call for proposals, and deadline for submission of the application.

4. In the end 75 projects were selected to receive Community support in the 1998 operation. The list of successful applications is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

5. The group of experts assesses the projects on the basis of merit and their European significance. Among the factors taken into account are the importance of the heritage site involved, the innovative measures planned in terms of conservation or restoration, the transfer of knowledge between operators and development of new techniques in the heritage field prompted by the project, the dissemination of the results among professionals, the socioeconomic impact of the project and the extent to which cultural heritage is accessible to the public.

(1) OJ C 97, 31.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3313/98

by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: British quarantine

Is the Commission aware that the British government has sought and obtained an opinion from a committee of experts chaired by Professor Ian Kennedy?

Does the Commission share the opinion of that committee that in fact quarantine does not protect public or animal health?

Has the Commission also taken note of the committee's proposal to grant only residents of the United Kingdom unimpeded entry to, and exit from, the country?

Does not the Commission regard this proposal and the quarantine system - which serves no public or animal health purpose - as discriminatory and as distorting the market?

Does the Commission not feel the time has come to advise the United Kingdom to withdraw this measure which has a distorting effect on tourism, hunting and animal breeding in the Union?

If so, how will it do this?

If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

The British government has forwarded to the Commission the report of the advisory group on quarantine, chaired by Professor Ian Kennedy, which was published on 23 September 1998.

This report, based on an independent assessment of the risk of introduction of rabies into the United Kingdom, is definitely in favour of a change in the current policy of quarantine. The Commission considers the recommendations to be a major step forward and the British government is sympathetic to a change in the regulations along the lines of the report, even if the result of the consultation of the public and organisations involved must be awaited.

Under the new system proposed by the advisory group, pet owners from the Community would no longer have to submit their animals to quarantine, providing conditions were imposed to ensure protection of health.

Concerning the establishment of the internal market, conditions for the placing on the market (conditions for commercial exchanges) in the United Kingdom and Ireland of dogs and cats originating from other Member States have been laid down in Council Directive 92/65/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3673/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: Financing agreements with the Czech Republic

On the occasion of his visit to the Czech Republic in early October Commissioner van den Broek signed three financing agreements with the Czech Finance Minister, Mr Svoboda, involving payments of ECU 36,9 million to the Czech Republic from PHARE funds. Part of this money is to be spent on projects concerning democratisation and the protection of minorities.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Do these projects include funding for the German-speaking minority?

2. Is the conclusion of the financing agreements connected with obligations concerning improving the rights guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights (annulment of the Bene[scaron] Decrees)?

3. Does the Commission believe that the Bene[scaron] Decrees, which are still in force and which violate international law and human rights, satisfy the Copenhagen criteria (respect for and compliance with human rights)?

4. Has the Commission ever raised the question of the Bene[scaron] Decrees in the acquis screening?

5. If not, why not? If so, with what result?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 1999)

1. On 12 October 1998 the Czech Finance Minister and the responsible member of the Commission signed documents related to the 1998 national Phare programme for the Czech Republic, which includes a project supporting the further integration of Roma into Czech society.

2. Phare assistance is conditional on the Czech Republic's respect of its commitments under the Europe agreement, further steps towards satisfying the political and economic criteria established by the Copenhagen European Council of June 1993 and progress in implementing the accession partnership of March 1998.

3. The implementation of the European Human Rights Convention (EHRC) is the responsibility of the Council of Europe. Questions on the compatibility of the Benes decrees with the EHRC can only be answered by that organisation. Furthermore, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the provisions of the Czech-German Declaration of January 1997.

4. and 5. No questions related to the issues raised by the Honourable Member have arisen under the negotiating chapters already examined during the screening exercice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3627/98

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Reservation by the Czech Republic with regard to the right of individual recourse

The Czech Republic has signed the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the protocols thereto.

In view of the accession negotiations, how does the Commission view the fact that the Czech Republic has made a reservation with regard to the right of individual recourse, pursuant to which individuals cannot bring proceedings for infringements of the right to liberty of movement or of the prohibition against individual or collective expulsion if such infringements took place before the convention and the corresponding protocol came into force with regard to the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic?

Does the Commission believe that it is undesirable from the legal and political point of view for there to be restrictions on the extent to which the Czech Republic is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, having regard to current events in Europe, for example in former Yugoslavia?

Does the Commission share the view that in a united Europe, and in the European Union in particular, all Community citizens should enjoy the same protection of their fundamental rights and freedoms and that there is no legal or political justification for differences in the level of protection, particularly in the field of human rights?

Has the Commission taken formal note of the fact that this means that even after the Czech Republic accedes to the European Union a substantial number of Community citizens whose human rights have been infringed will be unable to assert and enforce their fundamental human rights and freedoms?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

According to information available to the Commission the Czech Republic has not made a reservation of the type mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the Honourable Member's additional questions do not apply.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3780/98

by Manuel Escolá Hernando (ARE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Slump in the pigmeat sector

As part of the measures adopted by the European Union to confront the slump in the pigmeat sector, the Commission has approved the provision of 100 000 tonnes of pigmeat in food aid to Russia.

The said aid will result from the withdrawal of 1,2 million pigs from the market and, combined with other ad hoc measures, will bring some relief to a sector whose plight has reached the extreme.

However, the Commission has yet to indicate how this withdrawal of meat from the market is to be shared out amongst the producer countries.

What criteria does the Commission intend to adopt to share out the aforementioned 100 000 tonnes of pigmeat amongst the producer countries? Will it take into account the production levels in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 1999)

The detailed rules for the food supply programme for Russia are at the moment under preparation and will be published in the Official journal as Commission regulations in the near future.

The Commission will obtain the agreed quantity of pigmeat from the markets through a tender system, which will give the operators in Member States the possibility to make offers in the context of the food supply programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3199/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Fisheries sector inquiry

It is public knowledge that some months ago, the Commission decided to carry out an inquiry involving various trade union and employers' organisations within the European Union's fisheries sector.

1. What organisations were contacted in each Member State, and how many of them replied?

2. What organisations were contacted in Portugal, and which of them replied?

3. Were there organisations in Portugal which, although not originally contacted in connection with the inquiry, nonetheless sent in opinions, and if so, how many organisations are concerned and what are their names?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 1998)

In March 1998 the Commission sent a total of 347 questionnaires on the "common fisheries policy after 2002" to fishermen's organisations, fish processors and traders, to those working in aquaculture, to scientific researchers, trade unions, consumers' associations and environmental organisations, the lists of which had been agreed with each Member State. The Commission received 172 replies.

Thirty nine (39) Portuguese organisations were consulted, two of which replied. The Commission also received a contribution from an organisation which had not been consulted directly.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3447/98 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. European textile industry



Official Journal C 207 , 21/07/1999 P. 0066



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3447/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (24 November 1998) Subject: European textile industry With reference to the Commission Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions relating to a plan of action to increase the competitiveness of the European textile and clothing industry (COM(97) 454 final), will the Commission channel a substantial part of the future research and development framework programme towards support for innovation, creation and the use of information technologies (CRAFT and Eureka innovation procedures)? The textile and clothing sector should also be eligible for the new "Growth and Employment" financial engineering measures established at the Luxembourg Summit in order to promote cooperation amongst businesses, the establishment and take-over of businesses and the introduction of new technologies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3821/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Lithuania's accession to the European Union

The assessment reports drawn up by the Commission on the progress made over the past year by the countries applying to join the European Union conclude that Latvia might begin the accession process at the end of 1999 but that Lithuania will have to continue its efforts to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria. Is the Commission aware of the possible economic and political repercussions if Lithuania is the only one of the three Baltic countries to be excluded from this process, despite the progress made, which the Commission itself recognises?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 1999)

The Commission's regular reports on the candidate countries' progress towards Community accession have been prepared according to the conclusions of the Luxembourg and Cardiff European Councils which asked in particular the same criteria to be applied to all candidate countries. The Vienna European Council confirmed that each country would continue to be judged on its own merits.

The conclusions of the 1998 Commission's regular report on Lithuania do not prejudge the possibility of proposing by the end of 1999 the opening of negotiations with Lithuania. This, however, will depend on Lithuania's commitment to address the issues identified in the report rapidly and effectively.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3471/98

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

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Regulating fishing activities in the south-west Atlantic

In its answer of 26 January 1998 to Written Question E-3951/97(1), drafted against the backdrop of the seizure of the Community vessel Arpón and stemming from the need to clarify the Argentinian EEZ, the Commission reported that "the European Community and Argentina are involved in a joint project to create a multilateral system of cooperation in managing and protecting the resources of the south-west Atlantic. The Commission will raise the problem in this context, at the most appropriate time".

In view of the fact that no significant headway has been made on this matter since then, that consequently the legal uncertainty in the zone persists, owing to the inadequate demarcation of the Argentinian EEZ, and that setting up a multilateral international organisation (SAFO) in the zone serves as a guarantee for developing Community fishing activities in international waters:

1. Will the Commission provide information on the current state of the negotiations?

2. What reasons lie behind the failure to make significant headway in the said negotiations?

3. When does the Commission expect the negotiating period to end, thus enabling the SAFO to be set up?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

On 19 January 1998 the Council adopted a negotiating mandate for establishment of a framework for managing fishery resources in certain south-west Atlantic high-seas waters.

Since then the Commission has been maintaining contact with Argentina for the purpose of defining what framework is in fact best suited to the nature of the region. These talks are progressing normally.

Since the aim is to establish a multilateral framework, a meeting of all interested parties will be called when the time is right for this.

(1) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 5.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3965/98

by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Zoonosis directive

In its answer to my Question H-0943/98(1) on the zoonosis directive, the Commission concedes that the directive has been implemented inadequately in the Member States and that the zoonosis reporting system could be improved significantly.

It is therefore hard to see why the Commission wishes to submit a proposal designed to give it extra time to consider what should be done. That is not reasonable. The Commission has a duty to ensure that EU rules are implemented, and failure on the part of Member States to implement the zoonosis directive properly should immediately result in the Commission taking action against them.

Does the Commission not take the view that public health considerations mean that the zoonosis directive must be implemented without further delay?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 1999)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions E-3175/98(2) and E-3865/98 from Mrs Riis Jørgensen(3).

(1) Verbatim report of proceedings (November 1998).

(2) OJ C 325, 12.11.1999, p. 2.

(3) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999.