ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2155/98

by Antoni Gutiérrez Díaz (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Professional career of a football player

It has been reported in the Spanish media that the young football player, Ivan de la Peña, who currently has a contract with FC Barcelona, has been the subject of negotiations concerning his transfer to one of two Italian clubs, Lazio and Inter Milan.

According to what has been divulged, it appears that, against the player's wishes, FC Barcelona is offering significantly more favourable terms and conditions to Lazio than to Inter Milan.

1. Does the Commission believe that a professional player can be regarded as a mere object to be traded and that, if the offer made by one team is matched by another, he should be allowed, as a human being, to exercise a preference?

2. Can it not be deduced from the general applicability of the Bosman judgment that the wishes of players in the management of their professional careers must be respected?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

The Commission cannot comment on the particulars of the proposed transfer of the player in question from a Spanish club to an Italian club, since it does not know the details of the negotiations concerning this transfer.

However, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that legislation governing the employment contracts of professional sportspersons falls within the competence of the Member States. European law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice (Bosman judgment)(1), recognises only that professional sportspersons, like any other workers, have the right to exercise freedom of movement. Consequently, the choice of a club and the conditions attaching to the transfer of a player, insofar as they do not constitute an obstacle to freedom of movement, are a matter for national law and the free will of the parties concerned.

(1) Case C-415/93 (1995) ECR I-4921.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2246/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Horse registration scheme

Given that in many parts of the European Union a sharp distinction is drawn between horses bred for meat and those used for recreation, has the Commission considered introducing a registration scheme whereby horses not destined for consumption could continue to be treated with medicines currently used to treat common ailments?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 1998)

Horses (and other domestic solipeds like donkeys and ponies) are used as "food-producing animals" in the Community. If they are slaughtered and their meat is intended for human consumption the rules of Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat(1) have to be applied.

It has been suggested that because horses kept for sporting purposes do not enter the food chain, they should be excluded from the "residue requirements" of Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products(2) and Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin(3). However, many horses enter the meat production chain at the end of their lives, irrespective of whether they were kept for meat production or recreational purposes. This is also the case with horses in countries where horsemeat is not usually consumed since these horses are often exported to other countries where they are slaughtered for human consumption. Separation of sporting or recreational animals from meat-producing animals is not easily achieved. Any system of control would need to be both straightforward and reliable. Simply relying on documentation (especially if such documentation just takes the form of a declaration by the horse's owner) will not fulfil these requirements. Indelible marking with microchips, branding and tattooing have all been suggested and discussions are still under way as to whether such marking systems are likely to be feasible and effective. It is clear that any solution will have to be valid for the whole Community and not for specific Member States.

At present, the Commission is seeking a solution for the existing problems, which takes the principles of consumer protection into account.

(1) OJ L 121, 29.7.1964.

(2) OJ L 317, 6.11.1981.

(3) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2622/98

by Niels Sindal (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Sale of proprietary pharmaceutical products

Directive 75/319(1) requires the Member States to ensure that the manufacture of proprietary medicinal products is subject to the holding of an authorisation. However, such authorisation is not required for preparation, dividing up and changes in packaging where these processes are carried out solely for retail supply by pharmacists in dispensing pharmacies.

This has prompted Denmark's national health board to impose a general ban on splitting up proprietary pharmaceutical products including multipacks. Should the splitting up of proprietary pharmaceuticals really be regarded as manufacturing medicinal products?

Is the Commission not of the opinion that Directive 75/319 confers a general right on dispensing pharmacists to split up packages of proprietary pharmaceuticals?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 1998)

Article 16 of Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products(2) obliges the Member States to require marketing authorisation for all processes for the dividing up, packaging or presentation of medicinal products. By derogation, such authorization is not required where such processes are carried out for retail supply by pharmacists in dispensing pharmacies.

However, Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets(3) specifies, without derogation, that all medicinal products must be sold with labelling and with a package leaflet conforming to the requirements of the Directive. Pharmacists who split up packages of proprietary medicinal products may therefore only supply patients with products from them if labelling and a package leaflet as laid down in Directive 92/27/EEC are also provided. This requirement has the effect of automatically making it, if not unlawful, then at least very difficult in practical terms for pharmacists to split up packages.

(1) OJ L 147, 9.6.1975, p. 13.

(2) OJ L 147, 9.6.1975.

(3) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2536/98

by André Fourçans (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Operation of European financial markets

The advent of the euro will result in the increasing integration of Europe's financial markets. The recent announcement of an alliance between the London and Frankfurt stock exchanges is an early indication of this.

Within this new framework which will gradually be established, does the Commission consider that a greater harmonization of the rules governing the operation of European financial markets is needed or rather that a European monitoring institution should be set up, modelled on the Security and Exchange Commission in the United States?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1998)

The euro will very quickly lead to an increase in the integration of wholesale financial markets. This change will be driven by the decision to conduct monetary policy through money market instruments, the connection of national money markets in real time through Target and the decision of national authorities to issue new debt in euro and to redominate existing debt from the beginning of 1999. The elimination of exchange rate risk and of currency matching rules will also have important implications for stock markets, and on the behaviour of corporate borrowers and for investors.

Nevertheless the Commission is also aware that the introduction of the euro will make remaining gaps and loopholes in the internal market in financial services more visible. To develop all the benefits of the introduction of the euro it is essential that the functioning of financial services markets be streamlined. In order to ensure that this is the case, the Commission, in line with the conclusions of the Cardiff European Council in June 1998, will table by the end of the year a "fremework for action" to improve the single market in financial services. This framework will examine the effectiveness of the implementation of current legislation, identify weaknesses which may require amending legislation, and outline the Commission's opinion on the modernisation of financial market regulation. This strategic review will draw on a wide range of inputs from market operators, representative bodies, regulators and supervisors.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2666/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Relations between the Council and Parliament

Both preceding Council presidencies have anticipated the Amsterdam Treaty by extending Parliament's rights of consultation under the third pillar.

1. How will the new presidency implement this practice?

2. What is the presidency's position on the call for Council representatives to be present during discussions in Parliament's committees and to be authorized to speak on behalf of the Council?

3. It would enhance the coherence and continuity of Parliament's work if each presidency were to submit a written final report on its work. What view does the Council take of this proposal?

Reply

(27 November 1998)

The Council intends to continue the practice it has followed to date in applying the first and second paragraphs of Article K.6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) as regards informing and consulting the European Parliament and taking its views into consideration. In this connection the Austrian Presidency, like its two predecessors, will continue to consult the European Parliament on legally binding acts in the areas covered by Title VI of the TEU.

Regarding the presence of Council representatives at parliamentary committee meetings, it may be noted that the Council Presidency regularly attends parliamentary committees to discuss the issues referred to in Title VI of the TEU.

The Council wishes to point out that, as in previous years, it will present a review of its action under Title VI of the TEU to the European Parliament at the end of 1998, at the annual debate held pursuant to Article K.6. In addition, a report on the progress of the European Union, especially in the justice and home affairs field, is submitted to the European Parliament every year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2888/98

by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Works of art as debt payments to the Community

In certain instances, and for various reasons, undertakings and individuals alike are obliged to repay sums to the EU Exchequer.

On occasion, the difficulty created by the financial situation in which undertakings or individuals find themselves, aggravated further by a shortage of liquidity, makes it preferable for them, as a last resort, to pay off their debt by handing over works of art under their ownership.

Can the Commission specify whether it is possible to use works of art to pay off debts to the European Union, as is the case in the Member States when undertakings or individuals contract debts with their national exchequers, whether regulations exist to cover such an eventuality, and whether it is legally empowered to deposit such works of art in national museums in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3728/98

by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: The need for an overhaul of the working time directive

Ericsson's decision to transfer printed circuit production to Scotland and close down operations in Norrköping has provoked a debate on how UK application of Directive 93/104/EC(1) on working time could encourage social dumping. In the case of Ericsson's transfer of production to Scotland, it appears that the derogations which the UK Government secured from this Directive in the past directly influenced the company's decision to close down its operations in Norrköping in order instead to use a subcontractor in Scotland, where the Directive is applied as per the UK derogation. All in all, this matter cannot be viewed as anything other than a case of social dumping.

Will the Commission therefore state whether it sees a need for urgent revision of the UK derogation from the working time directive so as to prevent instances of social dumping such as has occurred in the case of Ericsson's transfer of manufacturing activities to Scotland. If so, does it intend to bring forward its revision of the UK derogation so that it takes place before 2003?

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-3727/98 and P-3728/98 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-1128/98 by Mr Sjöstedt during question time at Parliament's December 1998 part-session(1).

(1) Debates of the Parliament (December 1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2385/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(17 July 1998)

Subject: Continuing shipments of Italian waste for disposal in the special waste incineration plant in Biebesheim (Germany)

On several occasions since 1997, the Darmstadt administrative district authorities have granted the Italian firm 3 R Servizi S.p.A authorization for shipments of Italian waste to be disposed of at the Biebesheim special waste incineration plant (SAV) pursuant to Articles 4(2)(a) and 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) 259/93(1) on waste shipments. The importer of the waste is the Hessische Industriemüll GmbH (HIM).

As of 24 June 1998, authorization had been granted for the shipment of at least 7 000 tonnes of waste from Italy for disposal in Germany. Further applications for authorization by 3 R Servizi S.p.A have been notified. The competent authorities of the relevant Land consider that, under Community law, they are unable to prevent these imports.

Under the Land of Hesse's legislation on waste, in order to dispose of this Italian waste HIM requires official exemption from the provisions of the Land's refuse management plan. Recently, however, the requirement to obtain such exemption has been dropped, as the authorizing authority considers that it is incompatible with Community law.

Does the requirement to obtain authorization for the shipment of waste for disposal pursuant to Articles 4(2)(a) and 5 (1) of the Regulation on waste shipments affect the right of the Member State of destination to require the consignee of the waste to obtain exemption from the provisions of the waste management plan? If so, how?

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2805/98

by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Auto-Oil programme

Under the Auto-Oil proposals agreed in June 1998, leaded petrol will be prohibited in the EU from 1 January 2000, with the option of a derogation for Member States until 2005. Could the Commission inform me which Member States have requested a derogation and if Ireland is among those countries. Could the Commission also inform me of the criteria used to decide upon such derogations?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 1998)

Article 3, para 3 of the Directive 98/70/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998(1) relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC(2) provides that by way of derogation, a Member State may be allowed, upon a request to be submitted to the Commission no later than 31 August 1999, to continue to permit the marketing of leaded petrol, until at the latest 1 January 2005.

The Member State has to demonstrate that the introduction of a ban would result in severe socio-economic problems or would not lead to overall environmental or health benefits because inter alia of the climatic situation in that Member State.

So far, no Member State has submitted a request for such a derogation.

(1) OJ L 350, 28.12.1998.

(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2370/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Calves eligible for premiums in Spain

Why has the increase in the number of bull calves eligible for premiums in Spain promised by the Agriculture Council in October 1997 (650 000) been cut to 603 000 as decided by the Agriculture Council in June 1998?

Is the Commission aware that these figures, that originally promised and that finally decided, are nowhere near the actual number of calves slaughtered in Spain?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 1998)

The number of 603 674 male bovine animals eligible for premiums corresponds to the figure agreed by the Agriculture Council in October 1996, which implies an increase of 9.5 % in relation to the ceiling applied previously. This figure has to be seen against a decrease of about 20 % in the Member States as a whole. The same Agriculture Council also undertook, as part of the long-term reform and with a view to entry into force on 1 January 1997, to examine, in particular, the case of those Member States which have applications significantly in excess of their regional ceilings and where the ratio between the ceiling and the number of animals slaughtered is lower than the average in the Community.

In order to comply with the deadline established by the Council, the Commission proposed in the 1998/99 price package and related measures that the ceiling for calves eligible for premiums be raised to 649 896. This figure represents an overrun of at most 10 % on the number of applications for premiums for bovine animals notified by Spain. The Agriculture Council of June 1998 withdrew that proposal by once again deferring a decision on the matter, in the case of Spain and Portugal, to discussions within the framework of Agenda 2000(1) and it established as the deadline for implementation the marketing year commencing 1 July 1999.

The Commission is well aware of the situation in Spain, hence its proposal in the abovementioned price package.

(1) COM(97) 2000 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3298/98

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: Directive on the construction of shooting ranges

It is understood that the Commission is planning a directive setting out uniform rules on the construction of shooting ranges throughout Europe. Besides safety requirements, new financial provisions concerning high security deposits are also under discussion. A deposit of this kind might threaten the construction of a new shooting range.

In view of the subsidiarity principle laid down in Article 3b of the EC Treaty it has to be asked how such a directive can be adopted at EU level?

Is it in fact true that a Commission initiative aimed at harmonising the construction of shooting ranges is planned?

If so, what are the details?

How does the Commission justify the inclusion of this sphere in its terms of reference?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 1999)

The Commission has no plans for a directive setting out uniform rules on the construction of shooting ranges.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2840/98

by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Caulerpa taxifolia seaweed

Can the Commission say how the work to extract caulerpa taxifolia seaweed, funded by the Life financial instrument, has been progressing this year?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1998)

In 1995 the LIFE instrument accepted a multinational project to monitor the expansion of Caulerpa Taxifolia in the Mediterranean (and not for its extraction). This was coordinated by the French scientific body known as the Posidonie Scientific Interest Group (SIG).

Up to 50 % of that project involving a total eligible cost of ECU 968 000, is funded by the Community. It comprises four activities covering the detection and monitoring of newly planted seaweed (public documents requesting evidence, predictive expansion model, progress reports on that expansion); the demonstration of seaweederadication techniques using in particular, hot brine, copper ions via electrolysis and ion-exchange membranes; the identification of caulerpenine decay products and of their possible accumulation throughout food chains, awareness campaigns directed at the public and decision-makers, and the training of scientists in Malta, Tunisia and Algeria to recognise and monitor the seaweed.

The project is progressing normally and is intended to end in February 1999. The project co-ordinator regularly publishes updating documents on their activities and on the expansion of the seaweed.

Of the most recent publications the following are likely to interest the Honourable Member:

- Meinesz A., Cottalorda J.M., Chiaverini D., Cassar N. & Vaugelas J. de, 1998 - Monitoring the invasion of the Mediterranean by Caulerpa Taxifolia seaweed: situation as at 31 December 1997 - LEML-UNSA Publ. - 238 pages (in print);

- Boudouresque C.F., Meinesz A. & Gravez V., 1998 - Scientific papers and documents dealing with the Caulerpa Taxifolia seaweed introduced into the Mediterranean. Tenth edition. GIS Posidonie publishers, Marseille, Fr - 66 pages.

It is also possible to contact the project co-ordinator direct (Professor C.G. Boudouresque - GIS Posidonie - Parc scientifique et technique de Luminy - Case 901 - F13288 Marseille cedex 09).