ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0419/99

by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Air pollution in the buildings of the European Patent Office

For several years employees of the European Patent Office have been complaining of health hazards resulting from the air conditioning and air-borne toxic substances in their offices. After several staff members had made complaints of this kind the Patent Office commissioned a number of surveys, most of the results of which have not, however, been made public.

1. What will the Commission do to oblige the European Patent Office to make the results of the studies carried out into air pollution available to the authorities and the individuals concerned?

2. Can the Commission require the Patent Office to state whether the air conditioning in its offices was cleaned with chemicals (and if so, which) in the past?

3. What will the Commission do to ensure that the Patent Office carries out a standardised survey of all users of its premises in order to throw light on the "sick building syndrome" allegedly affecting them?

4. Will the Commission take the necessary measures to ensure that procedures before the invalidity boards are legally regulated?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 1999)

International health and safety law applies to agencies as to all other institutions.

The Commission, however, has no authority over the agencies since, in this respect, they are independent organisations. It cannot, therefore, answer the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0456/99

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Customs Union with Turkey

On 17 September 1998 the European Parliament approved a resolution (A4-0251/98)(1) on the Customs Union with Turkey, with a view to implementing action to enable Turkey to achieve economic and social development as part of the strategy to achieve alignment with the EC and strengthen relations.

Can the Commission tell me what measures it has taken or is going to take in order to implement Parliament's proposals, with particular reference to steps to strengthen Turkey's legislation on intellectual property or to bring it into line with EC legislation, so as to combat plagiarism?

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

(13 April 1999)

The Commission is following closely the steps Turkey is taking to meet its obligations under the Customs Union, in particular as regards the protection of intellectual, industrial and commercial property rights. In the most recent of its regular reports on Turkey(2), it stated that the standard of such protection has improved in Turkey since the Customs Union came into force, but that a number of measures still needed to be taken before 1 January 1999. It is examining measures recently taken by the Turkish authorities to this end.

To date the Commission has been informed of few infringements but it is ready to examine any submission of a properly reasoned specific case.

(1) OJ C 313, 12.10.1998, p. 176.

(2) COM(98) 711 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0722/99

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

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the average Community inhabitant are classed as "Objective 1 regions" and are entitled to substantial Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation, COM(98) 0131 final(1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in the Netherlands does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0438/99

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(4 March 1999)

Subject: Lack of transparency in the recruitment of staff at the European Central Bank

In his answer of 8 February 1999 to my Written Question E-3485/98(1) on the recruitment of staff at the European Central Bank (ECB), Commissioner de Silguy stated that "the Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the Honourable Member's question".

However, the ECB is funded out of the Community budget, is basically responsible for the smooth introduction of the euro which the Commission is so persistent in promoting and is supported by the Commission in its demands for financial support; at the same time the lack of transparency surrounding recruitment at the ECB and its general working methods have been the subject of very frequent comment both within and outside Parliament.

What measures does it intend to take to ensure that recruitment at the ECB will proceed with complete transparency, and that obfuscation which justifiably arouses the suspicions of European citizens will be avoided?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 1999)

The Commission has no competence for taking measures with respect to the recruitment of the European Central Bank. The Honourable Member may note that the European Central Bank is not funded from the Community budget. The acts of the European Central Bank are open to review or interpretation by the Court of justice.

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 76.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0085/99

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Packaging Directive

Is there to be any review or evaluation of the effectiveness of the Packaging Directive (i.e. achievement of targets, etc.) and, if so, when?

Will the Commission publish such a review?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 1999)

The implementation by Member States of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste(1), foreseen for 30 June 1996, has been delayed for more than a year on average. This means that at present an assessment of the practical situation in Member States would in general be done at a preliminary stage and not with all the packaging waste management systems in full operation.

The Commission adopted Decision 97/138/EC for the provision of data on packaging and packaging waste(2) on 3 February 1997. The formats should be completed on an annual basis, starting with the data for the year 1997 and should be provided to the Commission within 18 months of the end of the relevant year. The Commission has adopted Decision 97/622/EC concerning questionnaires in the waste sector(3), which includes one relative to the Packaging Directive. The first report will cover the period 1998 to 2000 inclusive.

A study on "European packaging waste management systems", is to be initiated in April 1999 and the final report should be ready by May 1999. Another study on the "Costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness of financial pool systems" is expected to start in March 1999 and the final version should be available by December 1999. Both studies are intended to be available for general distribution.

On the basis of the above, the Commission intends to prepare by July 1999 a report on the practical experience gained by Member States in the pursuance of the targets and the findings of scientific research and evaluation techniques such as eco-balances.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2) OJ L 52, 22.2.1997.

(3) OJ L 256, 19.9.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0502/99

by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: International Association for the Promotion of Cooperation with Scientists from the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (INTAS)

What is the relationship between the European Union and the International Association for the Promotion of Cooperation with Scientists from the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (INTAS)? Is it a recipient of Community funds, and if so how much?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 1999)

Following the break-up of the former Soviet Union, the Community wished to provide urgently needed support to the scientists concerned by promoting co-operation with scientists from the Member States.

The third framework programme for research and technological development (RTD) which was in operation at that time did not foresee such urgent support. It was therefore decided to set up INTAS in 1993 as a pilot action outside the framework programme in the form of an intergovernmental "association sans but lucratif" (ASBL) under private Belgian law. Members of INTAS are currently the Community, the Member States, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Israel.

In the fourth and the fifth framework programmes for RTD, INTAS has been mentioned as one of the instruments available to implement the specific programme in the field of cooperation with third countries and international organisations.

At present, INTAS is established for a period lasting until 31 December 2002. The role of the Commission is mainly to provide the funds for the financial assistance to projects and for the functioning of the secretariat; to follow-up and control all legal and financial aspects according to Community regulations; to chair the INTAS general assembly, in which the Community has a right of veto and to second a Commission official as secretary ( a few further officials have been also seconded).

The INTAS budget 1993-1998 totalled [fmxeuro] 121 millions of which [fmxeuro] 111,5 millions were for scientific activities leaving 7,85 % for administration. Around 95 % of the budget is provided from the second activity of the fourth framework programme (INCO programme). The remaining 5 % come from the annual contribution of Switzerland plus the INTAS member states' additional voluntary contributions. In the fifth framework programme of the Community on science and technology, INTAS has allocated from the INCO 2 programme (international cooperation) [fmxeuro] 70 millions of the [fmxeuro] 112 millions intended for actions involving the states of the former Soviet Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0033/99

by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 1999)

Subject: Veterinary checks by EU-veterinarians of third country poultrymeat-processing establishments

In view of the clear need to guarantee the safety of all meat products entering the EU from third countries, can the Commission confirm that, in the case of poultrymeat, it is EU-veterinarians and not the authorities in the third countries themselves, who now have responsibility for inspecting and approving all processing plants before they can be approved to export to the EU?

In this regard, can the Commission also indicate the exact number of poultrymeat processing plants in both Thailand and Brazil which are approved for export to the EU and indicate how many of these plants have been inspected by EU-veterinary inspectors within the last three years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 1999)

Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995(1) sets out the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorized to import certain products of animal origin, including poultrymeat and poultrymeat products.

The Commission is responsible for initial inspections of the third country and particularly its veterinary inspection service. Member States discuss their reports within the standing veterinary committee and if the committee gives a favourable opinion, the initial list of establishments is laid down by a Commission decision. Additions, deletions or modifications to the initial approved list may be made by the Commission, following the procedure set out in Council Decision 95/408/EC.

The routine amendments to these lists and inspections of third countries, their veterinary services and processing plants are carried out by the Commission.

Both Brazil and Thailand currently have 22 fresh poultry meat premises approved for export to the Community. For poultry meat products, Thailand has 30 approved premises and Brazil has 24.

During the last three years, the Commission carried out one veterinary mission to Thailand, during which five establishments were inspected.

In the case of Brazil, three veterinary missions were carried out by the Commission in 1995, 1997 and 1998, during which 15 poultry establishments were visited

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0412/99

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Use of the designation "Port" on wines produced in the United States

I believe that there is a bilateral agreement between Portugal and the United States which dates from 1910 and which bans the use of the designation "Porto" on wines produced in the US. I also believe the information to be correct that the United States, by refraining from using the term "Porto" but using the term "Port", considers that the agreement signed with Portugal is being complied with even though it is in fact using a "semi-generic" designation (a geographical designation used for a product which does not originate in the place in question).

Moreover, Article 24(4) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) permits the continued use of geographical indications for wines which do not originate in the geographical area in question provided that those indications have been used "in good faith" and/or were used for at least 10 years before 15 April 1994.

1. Is the Commission aware of the above bilateral agreement between Portugal and the United States? Does it consider that use of the term "Port" instead of the designation "Porto" tallies with the concept of "good faith" in accordance with Article 24(4) of the TRIPS agreement?

2. Does the TRIPS agreement make provision for a transitional period as regards ending the possibility offered by Article 24(4)? If so, what transitional period applies in the case of wines produced in the United States and designated "Port"?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 1999)

1. The Commission is aware of the bilateral agreement of 1910 between Portugal and the United States to which the Honourable Member refers. It confirms that, in the United States, the designation "Porto" is reserved for wines originating from that region of Portugal. However, under US law the term "Port" (without the letter "o") is viewed as a semi-generic name which may be used for products not originating in Portugal. The United States has said that this semi-generic name is used there in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and with the conditions referred to by the Honourable Member in particular.

2. The TRIPS agreement does not lay down a transitional period in which names may be used in accordance with Article 24(4). It should, however, be noted that the Commission hopes to negociate a bilateral protection agreement with the United States with the aim of increasing the protection afforded to geographical indications and designations of origin of wines and putting an end to any generic or semi-generic use of Community indications.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0362/99

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Human rights in Latvia

I have been informed that, on 15 February 1999, the civil rights activist Tatyana Zhdanok of Riga, Latvia, will be prosecuted in the Riga Appeal Court on the grounds of her membership of the Communist Party and that she may well be dismissed from her post of City Councillor in Riga. Will the Commission study the case and draw the Latvian Government's attention to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and, in particular, Article 25 thereof?

In the Commission's opinion, can such a country be allowed to accede to the European Union when it cannot guarantee respect for the human rights of all the people living on its territory?

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

(18 March 1999)

The Commission has studied the case of Riga city council deputy Ms Tatyana Zhdanok.

On 15 February 1999, the Riga regional court concluded that Ms Shdanok was active in the Communist party after 13 January 1991. Since people active in the Communist party after this date are not eligible accoding to Latvian election laws, Ms.Shdanok's mandate will be revoked.

The Office for democratic institutions and human rights (ODIHR) of Organisation for security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE) expressed concern at the parliamentary elections in 1995 that "aspects of the election contravene Article 7.5 guaranteeing to respect the right of citizens to seek political or public office, individually or as representatives of political parties or organisations, without discrimination" of the OSCE commitments of the Copenhagen document 1990. Article 7.5 of the Copenhagen document corresponds to the provisions in article 25 of the International covenant on civil and political rights mentioned by the Honourable Member.

At the parliamentary elections in Latvia in 1998, the ODIHR concluded that "in general the various legal and administrative provisions provide the necessary framework for participation in the electoral process and for their proper conduct and administration". It was,however, pointed out that the restrictive provisions as regards eligibility to stand and be elected on people who took part in support of the Communist party and related structures after 13 January 1991 were still applicable, meaning the spirit of the OSCE commitments "is still not fully upheld".

A candidate country should fulfil the political criteria as defined in Copenhagen as a precondition for the opening of negotiations. In its regular report the Commission concluded that Latvia meets the political criteria, though there remain some issues where further work is required. As part of the assessment of the progress made by the candidate countries towards membership of the Community, the Commission will continue to monitor the human rights situation in Latvia. It will continue its dialogue with the Latvian authorities on human rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0729/99

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

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the average Community inhabitant are classed as "Objective 1 regions" and are entitled to substantial Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation, COM(98) 0131 final(1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in Germany does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1090/99

by Francis Decourrière (PPE) to the Commission

(21 April 1999)

Subject: Objective 1 - relocation within the European Union

The firm Pontiac Coil, which manufactures solenoids (electromagnetic coils), decided to open a factory in February 1998 on the Fonds Saint-Jacques industrial estate in Feignies.

The Group of Communes of the Sambre Valley (Communauté de communes du Val de Sambre (CCVS)) had premises built for the use of Pontiac Coil, funded partially by an Objective 1 subsidy of 1,6 billion francs in the framework of Priority 1 (Stimulation of economic activity) - Sub-priority 1 (Industrial competitiveness) - Measure 3 (Business start-up structure and premises).

Pontiac Coil itself received funding of 2,8 million francs from the European Union, under FDPMI/Resider, towards the cost of its plant (15 million francs).

Over a weekend, without informing the local authorities concerned or its staff (10 employees, 2 of them with contracts of indeterminate duration and 8 with a promise of employment at the end of their access-to-employment traineeships), Pontiac Coil moved its equipment to England with a view to concentrating its activities there.

1. How does the Commission propose to remedy this situation, which is extremely damaging to the CCVS since it had no budget to cover the premises built for Pontiac?

2. How can the CCVS become the beneficiary of the funds?

3. What steps will the Commission take to ensure that Pontiac Coil repays the funding received?

4. What measures and guarantees are available to the Commission to prevent a company that behaves in this unprincipled way from receiving European funding again?

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

(6 May 1999)

Study of the file on Pontiac Coil's move from Feignies (Nord Pas de Calais) to the United Kingdom, and the position concerning the Community grants for which the company was eligible, suggests that the grant of FRF 2,8 million (towards total expenditure of FRF 9,33 million) initially earmarked from the development fund for small and medium-sized enterprises has not yet been paid. This operation will be de-programmed at the next Monitoring Committee meeting.

In the case of the assistance towards factory premises, the Group of Communes of the Sambre Valley has qualified for a grant of FRF 1,6 million within a volume of FRF 7,87 million. The Group can keep this funding, in the hope that a new tenant will be found.

On a more general note, the regulations currently in preparation for the new programming period (2000-06) will take account of this issue of business relocations, so as to improve the rules on regional assistance. The new provisions, which will include in particular a minimum-stay clause for investments, will aim to concentrate budget resources in employment blackspots while avoiding competition and grant escalation between different areas.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0612/99

by Bernie Malone (PSE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Double taxation agreements

Is it the Commission's policy to scrutinise double taxation agreements to ensure that there is no discrimination on the basis of nationality? Is the Commission aware of the provision in the Ireland-UK double taxation convention dealing with taxation of a foreign income dividend? Does the Commission consider this position to be discriminatory?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 1999)

Member States are responsible for the negotiation and conclusion of bilateral double taxation agreements. Such agreements must respect Community law, in particular the basic freedoms and the non-discrimination principle. The Commission does not systematically scrutinise national tax legislation and double taxation agreements, but it examines their compatibility with Community law when a case is brought to its attention.

It is understood that both the United Kingdom and Ireland have recently amended their laws concerning the tax treatment of dividends. It is also understood that a protocol to the Convention between Ireland and the United Kingdom entered into force from 1 January 1999 for corporation tax purposes and will come into force on 6 April 1999 for income tax purposes and that this includes a new article dealing with the tax treatment of dividends.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0361/99

by James Moorhouse (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Violation of human rights in Burma

Given the Burmese regime's continuing reprehensible policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide against ethnic minorities, what action is the European Union taking against Burma?

Anwer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 1999)

The Commission continues to follow closely the repressive measures imposed upon the Burmese people by the military regime.

The Commission fully supports the continued and consistent application of the Union Common Position with regard to Burma. Recent events in Burma give no reason for any change in the Union position and its measures against Burma are therefore maintained.