ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1950/99

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 October 1999)

Subject: Euroteam misuse of EU aid

In its answer of 4 October 1999 to my written question P-1521/99(1) the Commission states, in connection with the Euroteam affair in Austria, that it has contacted the Austrian authorities to obtain information about the measures taken in response to this matter.

Can the Commission say whether its enquiries have brought to light any irregularities in the use of EU aid or led to admissions of such irregularities?

Can the Commission say what measures were taken in response to this affair?

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 107.

Answer by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 1999)

The Commission contacted the Austrian authorities on 3 September 1999 to ascertain what action had been taken in the event that Community aid had been misused by the Euroteam Vienna Group for training purposes and, more particularly, the corrective measures taken by the Federal Ministry for Labour, Health and Social Affairs.

This letter has remained unanswered. According to the information available, the Vienna public prosector's department is still investigating the activities of the Euroteam Vienna Group while the national audit office (Rechnungshof) is carrying out an inspection (Gebarungsüberprüfung) involving local enquiries (Vorortsprüfung). A draft report will not be submitted until early next year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0322/99

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: Investment in the pigmeat sector in Ireland

Given that EUR 100 million, 75 % of which is EU money, was spent in the Irish pigmeat sector in the last 15 years, can the Commission state whether it has carried out any studies to establish whether this investment has brought any benefit to farmers producing pigs, and will it agree that the European money has been used to create a monopoly of a small number of processors in the Irish market who are now abusing their position to make exorbitant profits?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 1999)

It is a condition of Community aid under successive legislation since 1977 that investments for processing and marketing must contribute to improving the situation of the basic agricultural production sector in question, and having regard to the specific nature of each sector, they must guarantee the producers of the basic products an adequate and lasting share in the resulting economic benefits (Council Regulation (EC) 951/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products(1)). Each application for funding under the Regulation has been examined in the light of this requirement. The Commission can agree that there has been some concentration in pig processing capacity in Ireland, but this is mainly due to acquisition rather than undue aid allocated to a particular group.

(1) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997 (Article 12).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2389/99

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Threats to European investments in Cuba

According to information from official sources, the Spanish undertaking Sol-Meliá has recently been subjected to pressure from the US authorities over its investments in Cuba.

Is the Commission aware of this pressure? Does it share the view that pressure of any kind on undertakings from a Member State amounts to a clear gesture of hostility to the European Union as a whole?

Has the Commission taken steps to examine the matter?

Should the existence of this pressure be confirmed, does the Commission intend to take any form of action in the framework of the agreements subscribed between the EU and the US?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

The Commission is aware that the American authorities have been conducting enquiries under the Helms-Burton Act into the activities in Cuba of certain Community companies, including Sol-Meliá.

The Community-United States understanding of 18 May 1998 represents a package of commitments by both sides that attempt a full resolution of the bilateral issues raised by the United States extra-territorial legislation. This package forestalls action by the Community in the World trade organisation (WTO) to have this legislation declared incompatible with the United States' multilateral trade commitments. Since that understanding was reached, there has so far been no action against Community companies or individuals under the Helms-Burton Act. The Community did, however, make it clear, at the time of the understanding, that its commitment not to seek to establish a WTO panel against the Helms-Burton or Iran/Libya Sanctions Acts only stood as long as no action were taken against Community companies or individuals under these Acts.

In recent high-level contacts with the United States, the Commission has made its position on the issue of Helms-Burton and the Community's concerns about the Sol-Meliá case unequivocally clear. The United States has been urged to honour its commitments under the 18 May 1998 package with regard to Title IV of the Helms-Burton Act.

The Commission is following this matter very closely and will keep the Parliament informed of any significant new developments.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2354/99

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Killing of cattle in the name of the EU

On 7 October 1999, five cows and one bull were destroyed on a farm in Bohuslän, Sweden, at the behest of the National Board of Agriculture. The farmer had flouted EU rules and not marked his animals. He wanted full financial compensation for the loss of his animals but, on 9 November 1999, the district administrative court ruled that the decision to shoot the animals was based on the rules that apply in Sweden following its accession to the European Union, so that the farmer is not entitled to compensation.

Calls have been made in Sweden for more flexible Swedish national rules to be drawn up on how to implement the European directive. The Agriculture Minister has said that she will check with her counterparts in other Member States to ascertain whether the rules can be modified.

What are the Commission's views on this? Is it correct practice to kill animals that are not marked in accordance with European rules? Or has the National Board of Agriculture gone too far in its interpretation of the European directive?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question n E-2042/99 by Mr Sacrédeus(1).

(1) See page 121.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2104/99

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Internet news service

On the occasion of the Austrian parliamentary elections, the following commentary appeared on the Commission's Internet news service:

Haider's second position in elections confirmed, mldr Austrian far right ahead of mldr

The Commission thus appears to have joined the chorus of international press reaction following the Austrian parliamentary elections.

The following questions are asked in relation to the value judgments implicit in the above commentary:

1. Who has access to the above news service?

2. How does the Commission define the Austrian far right?

3. How does the Commission arrive at the conclusion that Dr Jörg Haider or the FPÖ (Austrian Freedom Party) are on the far right?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2000)

The comments to which the Honourable Member refers were supplied by press agencies and do not necessarily reflect the Commission's views.

The specific questions raised beg the following remarks:

1. The Commission's Europaplus intranet is accessible to all Commission staff.

2. and 3. It is not for the Commission to define the term to which the Honourable Member refers.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2369/99

by Luís Queiró (UEN) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Support for the reconstruction of East Timor

It has been announced that the Joint Assessment Mission led by the World Bank has already completed its job of assessing the short-term needs (for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002) for the reconstruction of East Timor.

The Commission has initially estimated the cost of the relevant reconstruction work at approximately US $ 200 million.

In view of the fact that both the Commission and the High Representative for the CFSP have stated on several occasions that the EU definitely intends to offer effective assistance and support for the reconstruction work in East Timor and Parliament promised appropriate financial support when it debated and adopted the 2000 budget at first reading, can the Commission say how it intends to coordinate with the World Bank and the UNTAET the measures for the support and reconstruction of East Timor and, in particular, what position it will adopt at the conference of donors to be held in Tokyo on 17 December next?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

As regards the Commission's position on support for the reconstruction of East Timor, the Honourable Member should be aware that the Community provided immediate humanitarian assistance for the return of refugees and food aid to East Timor.

The Commission is also committing M 10 to the new trust fund of the United Nations transitory administration in East Timor (Untaet), offering basic administrative and logistical support for future transitional administration and humanitarian assistance.

From a development perspective, a coherent rehabilitation and reconstruction strategy for the relatively small territory of East Timor will require extensive co-ordination among all parties. The recent joint assessment mission led by the World Bank in which the Commission participated actively will provide a basis for developing a blueprint for concrete long-term action that will be discussed at a donors' meeting in Tokyo on 17 December 1999. The Commission is currently evaluating the joint mission's summary report with a view to identifying areas where the Community can best contribute in order to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of its aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2195/99

by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Transport between airport terminals

The issue of transport between airport terminals which arose recently in connection with the planned transfer of flights from Linate to Malpensa also arises for passengers who fly into Athens on an airline other than Olympic Airways and are obliged to continue their journey on that carrier, which serves most domestic destinations.

Arrangements for transport between terminals at Athens airport are left entirely up to the passengers themselves who are obliged to bear the cost of a journey that takes them outside the airport boundaries (unlike at Malpensa, where the transfer is made inside the airport itself by means of a complimentary shuttle service). This situation may prompt passengers flying into Greece to opt for Olympic Airways rather than another carrier, so as save time and trouble, and therefore places Olympic Airways in a privileged position.

Is this situation in keeping with EU law?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1999)

According to the information we have at the Commission there is a paying shuttle service at Athens-Hellenikon airport between the East terminal, where all carriers not belonging to the Olympic Airways group fly from, and the West terminal, used by Olympic Airways.

However, the Commission takes the view that the low cost of this shuttle (DRA 250/ 0,75 from 5 a.m. to midnight and DRA 500/ 1,25 from midnight to 5 a.m.) and the journey time (10 minutes) are unlikely to prompt passengers travelling to a Greek island or a provincial town in Greece served by Olympic Airways to opt for an international flight with this carrier rather than another.

In any event, the Commission notes that following the liberalisation of access to intracommunity domestic links (1 April 1997) and the liberalisation of access to links with the Greek islands (1 April 1998) Olympic Airways is faced with certain competition on the domestic market from newly established Greek carriers (e.g. Cronus Airlines, Air Greece). These carriers all fly from the East terminal, so passengers using the international services of carriers operating from this terminal can take connecting flights without having to change terminal.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2481/99

by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Interpretation of the number of vessels which should have abandoned the use of drift nets in compliance with Regulation (EEC) No 1239/98

In its reply of 23 November 1999 to question 2067/99(1) on compliance with Regulation (EEC) No 1239/98(2), the Commission insists that the said Regulation is being complied with, since in monitoring compliance it is taking account of all vessels which used one or more drift nets, albeit for only one spell at sea, in each of the years of the period in question, namely 1995-97. This interpretation, if correct, would imply that only 60 % of all the vessels which fished in the aforementioned three-year period would have been eligible to fish in 1998. The number of vessels authorised to fish in 1998 would thus be appreciably higher than the actual number which, according to the Commission's own figures, fished in the year in which the ban was established.

Can the Commission say, then, whether the literal meaning of the Regulation can distort the resolve of the legislator B which was to eliminate one form of fishing gear gradually B with the result that it is bringing about an increase in the fleet using the said gear rather than the reduction sought?

However, should both this interpretation and, as the Commission reply suggests, the use of the average number of vessels which fished in the 1995-97 reference period as the basis for calculation prove incorrect, can the Commission explain how it is interpreting Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1239/98 (Regulation (EC) No 894/97, Article 11a(3)) and is thus able to affirm that the Regulation is being complied with?

(1) See page 82.

(2) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2000)

In accordance with Article 11a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 894/97 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources(1), every vessel which used driftnets during the reference period set in that Regulation must be taken into account when compliance with the 60 % percentage provided for in paragraph 3 is checked.

The Commission has no information to suggest that the rules made explicit in the above Regulations have been infringed. It should also be borne in mind that the article referred to provides for the use of driftnets in tuna fishing to be abolished from 1 January 2002. The elimination of this form of gear is thus guaranteed.

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2501/99

by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Messina territorial pact

By a Ministerial Decree of 20 January 1999 the project for a holiday and study centre Giardino di Sicilia, designed to offer a combination of educational and recreational activities for the European general public, was approved in the context of the Messina territorial pact (government project to promote employment). Membership of the pact was formalised with the Messina Chamber of Commerce, the authority responsible for administration, together with Sogepat (the company managing the pact), on 23 March 1999. The first instalment of funding should have been granted within two months of that date, but this has not yet happened, thereby jeopardising the whole project, which was scheduled to start in spring 2000. The lengthy procrastinations in the administration of the Messina pact are calling into question the very concept of partnership underlying the territorial pacts.

Can the Commission investigate the causes of these incomprehensible delays, which are creating problems for the local operators involved in the Messina pact?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The granting of funding under the territorial pact for the development of Messina and the relevant procedural and payment deadlines were determined under a national procedure laid down by the Interministerial Committee for Economic Planning. The Commission is not therefore in a position to reply, the matter being the exclusive responsibility of the competent national authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2576/99

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Dietary and natural health products

Could the Commission please indicate whether there is any intention to harmonise legislation with regard to dietary supplements and natural health products?

Could the Commission also outline the differing positions of the Member States regarding the classification of health products as medicines?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2000)

The Commission had intended to put forward a proposal for a Parliament and Council directive on food supplements containing vitamins and minerals early in the year 2000.

The term natural health product is not defined in Community legislation and the Commission has no intention to propose specific measures regarding these products. Existing Community pharmaceutical legislation makes no distinction between natural or non-natural products. According to Article 1 of Council Directive 65/65/EEC, of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products(1), any substance or combination of substances presented for treating or preventing disease in human beings or animals shall be regarded as a medicinal product. Likewise, any substance or combination of substances which may be administered to human beings or animals with a view to making a medicinal diagnosis or to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in human beings or animals, has to be considered a medicinal product. The decision whether a natural health product falls under the above definition of medicinal product and therefore needs to be authorised as medicinal product must be taken by the national authorities on a case by case approach, taking into account both the ingredients and the presentation of a concrete health product.

It is up to the regulatory authorities in Member States to apply the above principles of Community pharmaceutical legislation and to take concrete decisions on authorisations and restrictions (e.g. medical prescription) for specific products. The Commission is not considering a proposal to change that approach.

In the context of this question, the attention of the Honourable Member is also drawn to the answer already delivered by the Commission to Written Question P-2317/99 by Mr Fitzsimons(2) on regulatory control on herbal medicinal products in the Community.

(1) OJ 22, 9.2.1965.

(2) See page 97.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2697/99

by Rosa Díez González (PSE) to the Council

(3 January 2000)

Subject: Information on European Union citizens condemned to death

Is the Council in possession of information on the numbers, the identities, the legal situations, the conditions of detention and the personal and family situations of nationals of Member States of the European Union condemned to death in other countries? Has it attempted to obtain this information, and, if so, will it forward it to the author of this question and to the European Parliament?

If the Council is not in possession of such information, does it not agree that steps need to be taken to establish a system for keeping proper records of these cases? What action does it intend to take to remedy this lack of information?

Reply

(28 February 2000)

The Council is not in possession of the information requested concerning the number of European Union citizens condemned to death in third countries.

The European Union, which is campaigning resolutely for the universal abolition of the death penalty, regularly intervenes to prevent third countries concerned from imposing or executing the death penalty, in particular following initiatives taken along such lines within the Council, by its members and/or its Presidency.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1571/99

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Illegal marketing of genetically modified maize by the Pioneer seed company

At the beginning of May 1999 it became known that the Pioneer Hi-Bred seed company in southern Germany had purchased genetically modified maize that had not received approval.

1. Was the Commission informed of this infringement of EU regulations and of the infringement of the German law on genetic engineering?

2. On what date was the Commission informed about the infringement?

3. What measures will the Commission take and what conclusions will it draw from this infringement?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 1999)

The Commission was informed on 31 May 1999 that, in southern Germany, seed was distributed which possibly contained genetically modified seed that had not received approval in the Community. The genetically modified organisms (GMOs) mentioned have been found in sacks of supposedly GMO-free Pioneer maize. The alleged infringement of Community law has yet to be confirmed. The infringement of German law does not have to be assessed by the Commission (as far as Community law is not concerned).

The Commission has invited the German authorities to take a position. As tests to confirm whether there were unauthorised GMOs present or not are still ongoing, there is no reply as yet. It should be added that for the time being, it appears to be premature to use the word infringement, since the question still needs to be assessed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1636/99

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(20 September 1999)

Subject: Working in Europe over the age of 60

Is the Council aware that France is refusing to adopt one of the joint aviation regulations, which allows holders of airline transport pilots licences to continue to fly up to the age of 65?

France has refused to recognise this new age limit and, as a result, no pilot over the age of 60 may fly over or into France while in charge of a public transport operation. What pressure will the Council put on France to ensure compliance with joint aviation regulations? What obligations are the Member States under as regards the mutual recognition of licences?

Reply

(22 November 1999)

Article 4(5) of Council Directive 91/0670/EEC of 16 December 1991 on mutual acceptance of personnel licences for the exercise of functions in civil aviation lays down that the validation of pilot's licences is authorised where the bearer satisfies the special requirements laid down in the Annex to the Directive. The Annex stipulates an age limit of 60.

If a Member State refuses to let holders of airline transport pilots licences continue flying up to the age of 65, its authorities are correctly applying Directive 91/0670/EEC.

A similar approach is taken by the International Civil Aviation Authority. Annex I to the Chicago Convention prohibits pilots from taking the commands of commercial flights after the age of 60. Any relaxation of that rule does not have binding effect.