ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0117/99

by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 1999)

Subject: Persecution of the Baha'i Faith in Iran

Will the European Commission make strong representations to the Government of Iran about the continuing persecution of members of the Baha'i Faith, the country's largest religious minority? The persecution of the Baha'is, who are regarded as "unprotected infidels", has included the execution of more than 200 members since 1979, imprisonment, the denial of jobs and pensions, dismissals from government and academic posts and a recent attempt to close the Baha'i Institute of Higher Education.

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 1999)

The Commission follows with deep concern the issue of human rights in Iran. In the comprehensive dialogue between the Union and Iran, questions regarding human rights in general are always raised by the Union side.

As far as the situation of the treatment of members of the Baha'i faith in Iran is concerned, the matter was specifically raised by the Union Troika during a meeting with the Iranian government on 18 December 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0158/99

by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Refugees in Díli (East Timor)

Is the Commission able to confirm or deny press reports to the effect that hundreds of people have sought refuge in Díli as they flee from armed civilian groups who are spreading panic amongst the population in various parts of East Timor? Can the Commission take any action to support the refugees on the basis of earlier decisions concerning humanitarian aid to the people of East Timor?

Through which organisations would such aid be channelled?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 1999)

The Commission confirms that various militia groupings attacked civilians in Dili recently. There are reports about 5000 people being threatened and seeking refuge in churches. In the days following the incidents the situation did not get out of hand and tension has now eased.

The Commission and the Member States have pledged their commitment to provide continuing support to help the people of East Timor. The Commission has shown and will continue to show its preparedness to respond to events calling for emergency aid.

In the meantime the delegation in Jakarta will closely follow, in close concertation with Member States, the development of events and advise the Commission of any measures which would be instrumental to alleviate new problems.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0365/99

by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Combating the black economy

In December 1998 the social partners in the cleaning industry - the EFCI (employers) and EURO-FIET (trade unions) - sent a communication to the Austrian Minister for Social Affairs and Health and President-in-Office of the EU Social Affairs Council and to the European Commissioner with responsibility for the same policy areas. In the said communication they announced that they had signed a joint statement containing an undertaking to combat moonlighting and called on the Member States of the Union to adopt specific measures providing business and unions with the means with which to avoid this type of illegal work, without which any such undertaking would prove worthless. There are approximately 47 000 undertakings in the European cleaning industry employing about 2,3 million workers.

Can the Commission say whether it has taken or intends to take any measures in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 1999)

The joint statement by the European social partners in the cleaning industry, the European Federation of the Cleaning Industry (EFCI) and the International Federation of Employees and Technicians (Euro-Fiet), on the black economy, adopted in October 1998 in the framework of their European social dialogue, follows up the Communication from the Commission of 7 April 1998 on undeclared work(1). In this joint statement the social partners endeavour to make a joint contribution to the employment strategy and in particular the employment guidelines for 1999(2), adopted by the Council on 22 February 1999.

The EFCI and Euro-Fiet thought it necessary to express their desire to combat undeclared work, which they consider harmful both for the sector and for job creation in the Community. In their joint statement they undertake to contribute actively to combating undeclared work. They also testify to their desire to encourage employment and hope that their appeal will be heard and that the guidelines adopted at European level will lead to concrete results.

The Commission believes that the problem of undeclared work could be addressed by Member States under several of the proposed 1999 guidelines, such as redesigning tax and benefit systems to make work more attractive, reducing overhead costs and administrative burdens for businesses; reducing non-wage labour costs on relatively unskilled and low paid labour, and recognising more diverse and flexible work patterns. Sanctions and compliance controls also have a role to play.

The importance of this issue was recognised by the Member States in the explanatory memorandum which accompanies the employment guidelines for 1999. The Commission will continue to monitor policy developments in this area.

(1) COM(98) 219 final.

(2) COM(98) 574 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0954/99

by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission

(13 April 1999)

Subject: EC terminology and the difference between "mentally handicapped" and "with a learning disability"

Will the EC cease to use the term "mentally handicapped" and instead use "with learning disabilities" which is less pejorative?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 1999)

The Commission aims to avoid the use of such terms as "mentally handicapped", "handicap", or "handicapped" in English language texts being aware that people with disabilities consider them to be pejorative terms in English. The preferred usage is, respectively, "with learning difficulties", "disability" and "disabled".
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0010/99

by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission

(8 January 1999)

Subject: Meat hygiene legislation in Rhineland-Palatinate

Under the meat hygiene legislation in the German Land of Rhineland-Palatinate the inspection costs for animals for slaughter are extremely high. The current average costs, DM 11,60 per pig and DM 23,10 per head of cattle, are appreciably greater than the fixed EU rates of DM 2,50 and DM 8,60 respectively. The most recent act adopted by the Rhineland-Palatinate Landtag to implement the meat hygiene legislation is also contrary to EU law because it does not set the flat-rate charges required by the 1985 EC Directive on fees. The Directive stipulates that any deviations from the standard rates must be subject to compliance with efficiency criteria, which have to be laid down by law. The new Rhineland-Palatinate law likewise fails to cover that point. Slaughter volume is not considered an admissible criterion under EU law, but is recognised as such in Rhineland-Palatinate's meat hygiene enforcement law. Consequently, as far as Europe-wide competition is concerned, meat-producing firms in Rhineland-Palatinate are being forced to suffer severe disadvantages on account of their location. Since the law applies retrospectively as from 1 January 1991, fees have to be paid back after the event, and the firms' survival is thus being placed in jeopardy.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is it aware of this deliberate infringement of EU law?

2. How does the Rhineland-Palatinate Government explain and justify the infringement?

3. What steps will the Commission take to rectify the infringement?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 1999)

1. Council Directive 85/73/EC, as last amended by Directive 96/43/EC, introduces flat-rate Community fees for inspections and health controls on fresh meat carried out during slaughter and in connection with cutting operations and the storage of fresh meat.

However, on certain conditions (including in particular that the total fees charged do not exceed the actual cost of inspection), Directive 85/73/EC also authorises Member States to charge amounts exceeding the levels of the Community fees laid down by the Directive (see in particular Article 5(3) of Directive 85/73/EC and point 4 of Annex A).

The Commission cannot deliver an opinion on the possible breach of Community law referred to by the Honourable Member since it was unaware, prior to this question, of the existence of a new law on veterinary fees in the German Land of Rhineland-Palatinate.

2. Nevertheless, on the basis of the details given by the Honourable Member, the Commission intends to ask the German Government to forward a copy of the new Rhineland-Palatinate law together with an explanation of why that Land is charging amounts that diverge so widely from the Community fees.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0441/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 1999)

Subject: Human rights - Egypt

Is the Commission aware of the mass detention and torture of Egyptian Christians from the El-Kosheh village in Sohag Governate, upper Egypt? If so, does the Commission intend to make representations to the Egyptian authorities about this?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 1999)

The Commission is aware of the controversy surrounding recent events in El-Kosheh (Sohag Governorate; Egypt) and the alleged maltreatment of Christian villagers by the local police. The events have been reported in both the European and Egyptian press and were the subject of extensive analysis by the Egyptian organisation of human rights and other human rights organisations.

The head of the delegation of the Commission in Egypt, together with his colleagues of the Member States, has followed this and other similar issues carefully and the government of Egypt is well aware of the importance that the Union attaches to the respect of human rights. On the basis of facts presently known to the Commission, there appears to be little evidence for the allegations in some quarters that the events in El-Kosheh were essentially or exclusively religious in nature. However, every allegation is handled on its own merits. The Commission, in the framework of the common foreign and security policy, does not hesitate to raise specific issues with the relevant Egyptian authorities in coordination with the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0802/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: EU buildings

Varying information appears from time to time in the press about the buildings owned by the EU institutions.

I should therefore like to ask the Commission:

1. Which buildings in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg are in the sole ownership of the EU institutions or the Commission?

2. What is the value of these buildings (broken down by individual building)?

3. Which buildings are partly owned by the EU?

4. What is the value of these buildings and what is the EU's share in their ownership?

5. By what contractual arrangements has the EU obtained the use of additional buildings which are not in the ownership of the EU but in which EU institutions' offices are situated?

6. How much is the EU required to pay in respect of these buildings (broken down by building and institution occupying it)?

7. Are there buildings owned by the EU which are used by other institutions? If so, what is the value of such buildings and what income does the EU gain from them?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1999)

In response to the Honourable Members'question, most of the information he has requested is available in Volume 1 "Total revenue" of the budget for 1999 in Part D Buildings of the European Union (tables 1 + 2).

The Commission in Brussels fully owns:

>TABLE>

It is also acquiring over time (normally 27 years - however, in the case of Breydel II full ownership will occur in 1999) the following buildings (the value in brackets is that of the outstanding payments to be made):

>TABLE>

For its other needs in Brussels, the Commission rents buildings on a contractual basis under Belgian law, generally for periods of 3, 6, 9 or 12 years. Three buildings are, however, rented on a 27 year lease. The total rental budget for 1999 is [fmxeuro] 91 036 633.

It should be noted that the Commission continues to pay the rent for the Berlaymont (included in total) in exchange for the provision of 10 buildings for which the Belgian Régie des Bâtiments pays the rent.

These buildings are:

- Belliard 28

- Belliard 68

- Science 14

- Trèves 120

- Beaulieu 1, 5 and 9

- Beaulieu 24

- Triomphe

- Genève 12

- Genève 1 (A + D)

- Nerviens 85

The Commission in Brussels does not occupy any buildings which are the property of another Institution.

The Commission in Luxembourg does not own buildings.

The following buildings are rented in some case partially by the Commission (see % in brackets) and other institutions located in Luxembourg:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/99

by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Possible illegal subsidies to Irish mushroom growers

On 11 October 1998, the London "Sunday Telegraph" reported that Irish mushroom farmers had benefited from EU subsidies, grants under the "Leader" programme and British tax concessions to such an extent that the British market was flooded with cheap Irish imports. Can the Commission state whether it believes that such subsidies and tax concessions in Ireland do constitute unfair competition? If so, what is the Commission doing about it?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 1999)

Community funded aid is available to horticulture growers, including mushroom growers, in Ireland under the operational programme for agriculture, rural development and forestry 1994-1999. The rates of aid agreed are in conformity with Community legislation.

For the food processing sector, Community aid is available through the food sub-programme of the operational programme for industry 1994-1999. The rates of aid are in conformity with Council Regulation (EC) 951/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products(1). A small number of mushroom processors have benefited from this aid.

Leader II may not give aid for mushroom growing in Ireland but 3 projects have been identified for related activities (feasibility study on exotic mushrooms, composting services).

The Commission cannot confirm the figures in the article quoted by the Honourable Member. The figure of IR£ 14 million is not correct.

On the other hand an on-the-spot control of European social fund (ESF) aid to a particular company under the industry operational programme has found that training aid awarded to a particular mushroom company was not used for that purpose. The Commission is following up this case.

For the purpose of completeness, it should be noted that in 1994 the Commission found state aid granted under the market development fund to be incompatible with the common market. Commission Decision 94/814/EC of 14 September 1994 on aid in respect of exports of mushrooms, granted in connection with the market Development Fund in Ireland was published(2). Following this negative decision the Irish authorities were obliged to abolish the aid and to recover the aid amounts paid in disregard of Community provisions. About 80 % of the aid concerned, plus interest, has been recovered. The Irish authorities are to keep the Commission informed on the recovery of the remaining 20 %.

(1) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997.

(2) OJ L 335, 23.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0566/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Recognition of alternative medicine

There are various organizations in Italy, such as the Accademia "Homo Sapiens", the MC4 Association, etc., which carry out research into and promote "alternative" medical and scientific disciplines such as phytotherapy, homeopathy, yoga, acupuncture, naturopathy, kinesiology and bioenergetics.

Although they are frequently viewed as a valid alternative to "official" medicine, these disciplines do not appear to be recognized and/or regulated in any way.

Can the Commission state:

1. whether there are any studies and documentation on this subject at EU level;

2. whether there are any laws or regulations governing this sector in the other Member States;

3. how it views this matter overall?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1999)

1. The Commission is not aware of Community-wide studies on the subject of "complementary" or "alternative" or "parallel""medicines", whether by such terms products or services are implied. Several national studies on these matters do, however, exist, which contain information on the situation concerning selected practices and products in a number of Member States, such as the King fund report and the University of Exeter report to the Department of health presented in 1997 and the report in 1998 by the Académie nationale de médecine on behalf of the Federation of the academies of medicine of the European Union.

2. All Member States have provisions covering aspects of these practices and products whether in the context of medical education, training and profession, or in the context of products or services.

Community legislation(1) provides for a general system of recognition of diplomas which also applies to these practices (see answer to written question no 1743/98 by Mrs Kestelijn-Sierens(2)). In the area of medicinal products, Community provisions exist for homeopathic medicinal products(3). Moreover, the Treaty provisions on the free circulation of products and services also apply to these products and services.

3. The practices and products covered under these terms are counted in thousands and have different meanings in the Member States. They are also the object of rapid change both in terms of understanding of underlying processes and in terms of regulatory development covering educational, training, and professional aspects. The Commission is following this evolution with a view to action, if necessary, at Community level. It has also requested the relevant scientific committee to review the situation and provide advice as to risks and health protection measures that might be deemed necessary at Community level.

(1) Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC .

(2) OJ C 386, 17.12.1998.

(3) Directives 92/73/EEC and 92/74/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 306/99 by David BOWE Radioactive waste



Official Journal C 341 , 29/11/1999 P. 0088



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0306/99 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (17 February 1999) Subject: Radioactive waste Since the break up of the former Soviet Union, there has been an alarming increase in the number of discoveries of orphan radioactive sources in the EU. These discoveries have often been made by accident. Does the Commission agree that, in order to tackle this problem, efforts should be increased to train border staff and equip borders with detection equipment in order to improve the detection rate?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0330/99

by Alexander Falconer (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Subject: Costs of EU information services

What are the total costs to date of the European Library Plan and its successor information science funding programmes including e.g. INFO 2000 etc., including all administration and assessment costs and overheads?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 1999)

The cost of the library components of the Commission's telematics programmes under the third and fourth research and development (R& D) framework programmes (1991-1998) amounts to 52,9 millions euro for over 100 projects and accompanying measures, including related publications and external support. In addition, it is estimated that the cost of internal staff involved in administering the work was approximately 4,4 millions euro.

While the INF0 2000 activities mentioned by the Honourable Member have not in fact covered libraries, it is true that under the IMPACT programme (1989-1991) approximately 2,1 millions euro was allocated to precursor projects and studies undertaken to prepare for the library activities under telematics.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1951/99

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(19 October 1999)

Subject: Equality between registered partnerships and marriage in connection with employment regulations

In connection with the Staff Regulations, when does the Commission intend to bring in equality between registered partnerships (marriage between two persons of the same sex in accordance with the relevant Member State rules) and marriage between two persons of different sexes so that, as soon as possible, European Community employees living in a registered partnership and their families can enjoy the same rights under the Staff Regulations as married employees?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 1999)

In their current form the staff regulations relating to officials and other servants of the European Communities are specific in linking certain welfare rights and allowances to the status of married persons. Including registered partnerships in such provision would require amendment to the text of various existing provisions of the staff regulations and such changes would have to take the form of a Council Regulation. As the Honourable Member will know, differences exist in the laws of Member States in relation to marriage and registered partnerships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, as regulated and recognised in law in some Member States.

In 1997 the Commission adopted various measures that gave some recognition to stable relationships so as to be able to grant heterosexual and homosexual non-married couples (officials or other servants) a number of administrative facilities that are not covered by the staff regulations and are neutral in money terms. In this connection, the Williamson group's report on modernising the staff regulations suggests that the Commission should give thought to the issue of registered partnerships and to their potential recognition. In the light of the contents of that document, and in the context of the current deliberations on reform of relevant parts of the staff regulations, the Commission envisages the possibility of tabling a proposal along the lines indicated by the Honourable Member that would also take account of legislation in the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2018/99

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Powers delegated to the nation states of the European Union

I am aware of course of innumerable ways in which the European Union (formerly the European Community, formerly the European Economic Community and before that the Common Market) has removed powers from the nation-states of the Union in almost all aspects of their internal and external affairs.

Please may I have a complete list of those powers which the European Union or any of its predecessor bodies have ever specified shall remain with the nation-states and shall not be transferred at any time to the European Union.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 1999)

The only powers the Community has are those conferred on it by the Member States in the Treaties.