ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0205/00

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Possible EU legislation on dangerous sports

Can the Commission state whether there is any specific legislation on the EU statute book relating to dangerous sports such as martial arts and the protection of the participants in those sports?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that there is no specific Community legislation on sport. The EC Treaty does not empower the Commission to legislate in this field. Regulations relating to sporting activities, including dangerous sports, are essentially the responsibility of the Member States. Several of them have adopted rules on instructor qualifications, access to activities, and safety standards, particularly in relation to sports regarded as dangerous. Sports federations also play a major role in organising and regulating their sports.

The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the Helsinki Report on sport(1) adopted by the Commission on 1 December 1999. In this report the Commission emphasises the need for a new partnership between sports federations, Member States and Community institutions while respecting the principle of subsidarity and the autonomy of sporting organisations.

(1) Helsinki Report on sport COM(1999) 644 final. Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0305/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Social benefits

Will the Commission say whether the Danish practice of allocating old-age pensions and government education grants on the basis of citizenship is consistent with EU law?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Each Member State is responsible for its own social security system and decides which benefits shall be provided, the conditions for eligibility and the value of these benefits.

There are, however, Community provisions for the co-ordination of these systems in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community(1) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(2) in order to ensure that employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their families do not lose their social security protection when moving within the Community and also to ensure that the basic principles of equality of treatment and non-discrimination are respected(3).

According to Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, people resident in the territory of one Member State shall be subject to the same obligations and enjoy the same benefits under the legislation of any Member State as the nationals of that State. Should nationals of other Member States not be granted the people's pension under Danish legislation on an equal footing with Danish nationals this would constitute a breach of Community law.

The Honourable Member refers also to education grants. In this respect, the principle of equality of treatment means that the university or college where a citizen of the Union wishes to study must accept students under the same conditions as nationals. Therefore, if

a grant is paid to nationals of the Member State where a citizen of the Union wishes to study, to cover course fees (tuition fees), he or she must be able to receive it.

However, the equality of treatment principle does not apply to support or maintenance grants intended to help the students pay their daily living expenses, unless the student is a migrant worker or a family member of a migrant worker. In this last case, he is entitled under Community law, namely Articles 7 and 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community(4), also to social advantages in the same conditions as the nationals. In consequence and as stated above, if the Danish legislation cited by the Honourable Member concerns these kind of grants, citizens from other Member States, which fulfil the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, should benefit from those education grants.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971 as last modified by OJ C 6, 10.1.1998.

(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972 as last modified by OJ L 323, 13.12.1996.

(3) OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(4) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0033/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Conference on the Biosafety Protocol

The Commission will be aware of the resumption of the conference on the Biosafety Protocol due to take place in Montreal on 24-28 January. Would the Commission give details of information which it has received from individual Member States in preparation for this meeting?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

The Council adopted on 13 December 1999 conclusions on the negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol(1) setting out the framework for the Community position. In line with these conclusions the Community managed to reach an agreement with 133 governments on the adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on 28 January 2000.

The resulting Protocol is a major international achievement, integrating environment, trade and development concerns in a balanced way with the full support of the developing nations. It addresses the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) that may have an adverse effect on biodiversity with a specific focus on transboundary movements. The Protocol establishes an advance informed agreement (AIA) procedure for imports of LMOs intended for introduction into the environment, an alternative procedure for LMOs intended for food, feed and processing (LMO commodities) and detailed information and documentation requirements. It specifically incorporates the precautionary principle. The Protocol also contains provisions regarding confidential information and information-sharing, capacity-building, and financial resources, with special attention to the situation of developing countries and those without domestic regulatory systems as well as an enabling provision for a future liability regime.

The Community's negotiation position was at all stages, in Brussels as well as during the negotiations in Montreal, established in close co-operation with all the Member States and based on strong internal coherence.

(1) Press Release: 409 No 13854/99.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0782/00

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Information for consumers on the health benefits of certain food products

Current legislation on food consumption does not allow consumers to be informed of the specific benefits which some foodstuffs have for their health. Modern consumers are clearly facing disinformation which may lead to an insufficient vitamin intake.

Bearing in mind how important it is to be able to reduce the risk of suffering certain illnesses thanks to the consumption of certain foodstuffs, and to purchase foodstuffs safely, will the Commission make any changes to the legislation in force in relation to nutritional information so that consumers may be informed of the specific benefits which certain food products have for their health?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-0232/00 by Mrs Thomas-Mauro(1).

(1) See page 164.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0469/00

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: European Union measures in the?le-de-France region

Can the Commission provide synoptic tables and comprehensive statistical information concerning the various aids and subsidies received by the Île-de-France and each of its departments for the period 1994-1999 from the various European funds (ESF, ERDF, EAGGF, etc.), from the EIB, from urban policy resources and other financial instruments and from other sources?

Can it indicate the extent to which these numerous measures have affected employment levels in the Île-de-France region and give estimates or, if possible, precise figures, by sector of activity concerning the number of jobs directly or indirectly created or saved as a result?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0469/00 and E-0470/00 given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0138/00

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Human rights violations in Tunisia

It has been reported that the Tunisian authorities continue to harass members of opposition groups and their families, with particular regard to restrictions on freedom of movement and the denial of passports.

Article 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement signed on 17 July 1995 (COM(95) 235 final) commits Tunisia to respect for human rights and democratic principles, and Parliament expressed its concern in its resolution on human rights in Tunisia of May 1996(1)

Is the Commission aware of the case of Ms Radhia Aouididi, whose movements have been continually restricted in Tunisia and who is denied a passport to leave the country?

Will the Commission ensure that human rights continue to be viewed as a crucial issue in its dialogue with the Tunisian Government?

(1) OJ C 166, 10.6.1996, p. 204.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Respect for fundamental freedoms is an essential element in the Association Agreement between the Community and Tunisia, and is no less important in our political dialogue. The second ministerial meeting in the institutional dialogue, which took place in Brussels on 24 January 2000, was an opportunity for the partners to take stock on the issue of respect for human rights.

The Commission, like the Member States in the context of the common foreign and security policy, is closely monitoring allegations regarding the protection of freedoms in Tunisia, in particular those citing restrictions on the freedom of movement. It believes that by means of constructive dialogue and positive support measures, and in line with commitments entered into under the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, the Community can work together with Tunisia in the process of human rights reform.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0047/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Cologne process: adjustment of the Poseima programme in the Azores with regard to suckler cow premiums

Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92(1) lays down a maximum of 78 000 head for the Azores dairy herd, although a recent census reveals a figure closer to 88 000 at present. Does the Commission intend to update this statistic in the aforesaid Regulation?

(1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0038/00, E-0043/00, E-0044/00, E-0045/00, E-0046/00, E-0047/00, E-0048/00, E-0049/00, E-0050/00, E-0051/00 and E-0052/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Honourable Member has put a whole series of questions regarding the Poseima Programme for the Azores.

The Commission is currently drafting a report on the measures to implement Article 299(2) (ex Article 227) of the EC Treaty.

At this stage, before the Commission has adopted that report, it is not able to reply to the Honourable Member's questions concerning its content.

Lastly, the Commission's Work Programme for 2000 provides for a report to be presented to the Council and Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products(1) (Poseima), together where appropriate with proposals for any adjustments that prove necessary to achieve the programme's goals. The set of measures relating to agriculture in the Azores will be considered in that connection.

(1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0246/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Increase in the premium for the Kaba Koulak classic group of tobacco varieties

During the 1992 revision of the tobacco regime the Kaba Koulak classic group of tobacco varieties (group VIII) was unfairly treated, since while this tobacco was considered to be of exceptional quality and exceptionally in demand, the premium was set at the same level as that for group V varieties which receive the least aid.

Since Greek tobacco producers suffer from this unfair treatment and the Community budget showed an overall surplus of some ECU 28,5 million for the 1993-98 period as a result of this measure, will the Commission say whether it intends to put an end to the unfair treatment to which the Kaba Koulak classic group of tobacco varieties has been subjected since 1993 and increase the premium by 15 % without any corresponding reduction in the quota?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

The Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco(1) places tobacco variety Kaba Koulak classic in group VIII.

The amount of the premium for this variety is laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 660/1999 of 22 March 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 and fixing the premiums and guarantee thresholds for leaf tobacco by variety group and Member State for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 harvests(2). This Regulation strikes a balance between guarantee thresholds and premiums for the various groups of varieties.

Nevertheless, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that a thorough analysis will be made of the special situation of Kaba Koulak classic producers in the framework of the report on the operation of the common market organisation for raw tobacco which the Commission must submit to Parliament and the Council by 1 April 2002.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0427/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Distribution by the Spanish Government of ERDF Objective 1 resources earmarked for Galicia

In his reply of 21 December 1433/99)(1) on the above subject, Commission Barnier said that, during the 1994-1999 period, Spain allocated to Galicia ERDF resources amounting to EUR 553,86 million. According to the information provided by the Commissioner, this is equal to 12,09 % of the total amount allocated to Objective 1 autonomous communities in Spain, given that Galicia accounts for 11,67 % of the population of those territories.

The Commission's reply only seems to take account of the funds which the Spanish Government was allocated for direct administration by the autonomous communities. However, given that these resources only account for 45 % of the total amount allocated to Spain by the European Union, my question referred in particular to the use of the 55 % set aside by the Spanish Government for centralised policies which, in many cases, have nothing to do with Objective 1.

Will the Commission therefore state what proportion of the remaining 55 % of ERDF Objective 1 funds received by the Spanish Government were allocated to Galicia in the 1994-1999 period? To what extent will this information be taken into account in approving the Community support framework for the 2000-2006 period?

(1) See page 2.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0389/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(16 February 2000)

Subject: Genetic tests on immigrants in Switzerland

On Sunday the Mise au Point programme broadcast by the Swiss French-language television channel TSR broke the news about a draft law which is already in the hands of the Federal Councillor Ruth Metzler.

According to the programme, would-be immigrants wishing to enter the country in order to join other members of their family will in future (if the law is adopted) be required to undergo genetic tests in order to establish kinship.

In view of the fact that an Agreement exists between the European Union and Switzerland:

1. What is the European Union intending to do about disturbing evidence of a xenophobic attitude towards foreigners which, in this particular case, brings Nazi practices to mind?

2. What will the Council do in the light of the fact that many foreign nationals live in Switzerland, including nationals from a number of EU Member States?

Reply

(13 April 2000)

It is not for the Council to express an opinion on broadcasts by the television channel mentioned by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0266/00

by Reino Paasilinna (PSE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Future of European stamps of philatelic value

The production and ownership of postage stamps has in the past generally been the monopoly of state postal services. However, as a result of wider social trends, state postal services too are being privatised.

Philatelists own large collections of stamps, the value of which rests upon the rarity, condition and inherent interest of the stamps. The most valuable stamps constitute a significant investment. With the privatisation of the postal services, the stocks of old stamps held by state postal services are being transferred to private ownership. Stamps owned by state postal services have hitherto been reckoned as perpetually out of circulation on the market. That being so, these stocks of stamps will constitute a threat to philately, if as a result of privatisation new collections of old stamps the value of which is in principle the same as the stamps in national collections and on the market appear on the market in addition to known stamps. Indeed, there are no longer any known limits to the quantity of these rare stamps, and even large collections could be ruined in a moment by a collapse in their value.

What measures has the Commission taken, or can it take, to ensure that the conditions for the pursuit of philately, stamp collection and related investments are preserved and strengthened in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The collections of postage stamps that post offices may currently have in stock form part of their assets. Should a Member State decide to privatise its public postal service, it must also determine, as for its other assets, what happens to these collections, taking into account the market for them.

As the Commission is responsible neither for determining ownership arrangements in Member States nor for organising how stamps are issued, it cannot intervene regarding what is done with these stamp collections when such a change of status occurs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0095/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Construction of vessels by the Astano shipbuilding company

Could the Commission set out the conditions required for the Astano shipbuilding company in Galicia to be able to resume operations and thus escape the discrimination to which it has fallen victim?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

As the Commission explained in its replies to written questions E-1432/99(1) and E-2051/99(2) by the Honourable Member, the continued closure of the Astano yard to shipbuilding was one of the conditions of substantial state aids for the publicly-owned shipyards in Spain approved by the Commission in 1997.

It should be noted that under the terms of the Commission's decision approving the aid, the combined total shipbuilding capacity of all the yards involved was limited to 210 000 compensated gross registered tonnes (cgrt) for a period of 10 years. The Astano yard formerly had a shipbuilding capacity of 135 000 cgrt. Against that background it is very difficult to see under what circumstances the restrictions on Astano's activities could be relaxed.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 66.

(2) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 141.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0026/00

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Arms trade

The unregulated trade in arms is a scourge with a destabilising effect. In various regions of the world the excess supply of arms on the local market sometimes in the literal sense of the word is a permanent breeding ground for terror and violence.

Underhand practices such as diamond smuggling, extortion and the drugs trade often go hand in hand with illegal arms dealing. Accordingly, any country governed by the rule of law seeks to divert the arms trade into legal channels and to impose restrictions on it, albeit in different ways, resulting distortion of competition.

Which Member States have banned arms trade with countries in conflict?

Which Member States ban exports to countries which do not respect human rights and/or are engaged in internal armed conflicts in their territory?

Which Member States permit any form of arms exports to NATO countries?

What initiatives are being taken to prevent distortion of competition?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2000)

Up to now, on the basis of Article 296 (ex Article 223) of the EC Treaty, trade in arms has been exempt from the scope of application of Treaty rules. There has therefore not been any basis for Community action.

The arms trade is currently dealt with in the context of the Common foreign and security policy (CFSP), with which the Commission is fully associated. A code of conduct was agreed in 1998. First experiences have been positive but also show that there is room for strengthening both the code and its implementation.

However, the Commission possesses neither the authority nor the means to monitor arms sales by Member States and to confirm or deny possible violations of embargoes. Full responsibility for the licensing of arms exports belongs to national governments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0016/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: News concerning the rules on state aid to undertakings in deprived urban areas

With reference to OJ Notice No 97/C 146/08 and to my previous question P-3945/97(1), can the Commission say:

1. which European countries have taken advantage of the above regulation to grant aid to undertakings in deprived urban areas?

2. whether there are any surveys or reports on this matter?

3. whether there any examples of good practice in this regard?

(1) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 99.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Only France has so far granted aid under the Guidelines on State aid for undertakings in deprived urban areas(1).

With regard to the other questions, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to her written questions P-2628/97(2), P-3945/97(3) and E-173/99(4). The Guidelines in question lay down the criteria on the basis of which the Commission examines whether State aid to deprived urban areas is compatible with the common market, but they do not require Member States to grant such aid.

The fact that these Guidelines have been applied to only a limited extent means that it is not at present possible to draw up a report or produce a list of good practices.

(1) OJ C 146, 14.5.1997.

(2) OJ C 82, 17.3.1998.

(3) OJ C 18, 16.6.1998.

(4) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999.