ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0994/99

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(20 April 1999)

Subject: Responsibility for Fire Safety in the European Commission

Will the Commission please give full and precise details of which department(s) is/are responsible for fire safety in the European Union.

If this is more than one, would it please explain why such an important area of safety is not only poorly legislated for at a European level, but also managed by the Commission in such an apparently unconcerned and illogical manner, as if the lives of Europe's citizens are of scant importance?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0712/99

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.

The Director-General of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) disclosed at the meeting of Parliament's Subcommittee on Monetary Affairs of 17 February 1999 that the statistical data corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 already included the data corresponding to the hidden economy of the regions analysed, although he did not say exactly what criteria had been followed in order to estimate or assess this type of activity.

What proportion of the regional income corresponds to the "hidden economy" and what proportion to the "regular economy" in Murcia in each of the years in question?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0426/99

by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Charter flights

Following its answer to Written Question E-3115/98(1), would the Commission consider extending Council Directive 90/314/EEC(2) so that it protects passengers on package holidays against long delays to charter flights?

Will the Commission comment on what redress consumers have against these long delays?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1999)

Even though delays are not expressly covered by Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours, in principle the tour organiser's liability to compensate package tour consumers for differences between service offered and service supplied also covers delays. No further action is therefore foreseen on this matter at the present time.

When there is a basis for redress, the actual amount paid will depend upon the circumstances of the specific situation, and the Commission is therefore not in a position to answer more precisely on that aspect of the question.

Moreover, the Warsaw Convention also regulates air carrier liability in cases of delay, in particular by stating that "the carrier shall be liable for damage occasioned by delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage or goods" (article 19).

(1) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999, p. 86.

(2) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 59.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0510/99

by Ludivina García Arias (PSE) to the Commission

(8 March 1999)

Subject: Consumer protection with a view to the liberalisation of the electricity sector

On various occasions during debates and in response to parliamentary question on the liberalisation of the electricity sector, the Commissioners responsible for competition and energy policy have announced that the costs of the transition to competition which may be authorised should relate to real investment arising out of former universal service obligations under previous regulatory frameworks which it will probably not be possible to refund in future.

Does the Commission not feel that it is inconsistent with the principle of economic and social cohesion for domestic consumers and SME, who will not benefit from liberalisation in the medium term, to be the ones to have to meet the cost of investments made in order to comply with public service obligations?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0631/99

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Dos Aguas solid waste tip (Valencia, Spain)

Work to set up a municipal solid waste tip in Dos Aguas (Valencia) is continuing in spite of repeated protests from local residents. The tip could pose a serious danger of contamination, since it is to be sited close to a well that supplies drinking-water to a number of towns and villages on the Valencian coast.

Parliament recently endorsed the proposal for a Council Directive laying down a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. The tip project may be in breach of several environmental Directives including, for example, Directive91/156/EEC (on waste)(1), Directive 85/337/EEC (on environmental impact assessment)(2), and Directive 80/778/EEC (on the quality of water for human consumption)(3). When she addressed the House in the February debate on the landfill of waste, the Member of the Commission responsible for the environment agreed that minimum separation distances needed to be established between tips and population centres. In its answer to Written Question E-1261/98 the Commission stated that it would ask the Spanish authorities for information about the Dos Aguas tip(4).

In the light of the foregoing, can the Commission say whether the Spanish authorities have supplied the details required in order to ascertain whether any of the above Directives are being infringed on account of the tip?

What steps will it take to preserve the surrounding area and avert all danger to public health?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 1999)

After receiving the Honourable Member's written question E-1261/98(5) the Commission decided to launch a fact-finding procedure on its own initiative, which was recorded under reference number B-98/2202. While examining this matter the Commission asked for comments from the Spanish authorities on the situation described in the written question referred to above.

In reply to that request for information the Spanish authorities stated that the project in question had been subjected to the environmental impact assessment procedure required by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment. Studies certifying the hydrogeological suitability of the area chosen to house the tip were provided as part of that procedure. The project received a positive declaration of environmental impact issued by the environmental authority empowered to do so.

In view of the above, and on the basis of the information available on the situation described by the Honourable Member, the Commission has not identified any infringement of Community environmental law in this instance.

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(3) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980, p. 11.

(4) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 103.

(5) OJ C 402, 6.1.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0164/99

by Ludivina García Arias (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Existence of documents interpreting Directive 96/92/EC which have not been forwarded to Parliament

Can the Commission confirm that its services have already drawn up documents clarifying and interpreting Article 24 of Directive 96/92/EC(1)? Can the Commission specify which of its services have drawn up these documents and what legal status those documents have? When will the Commission forward them to Parliament or inform Parliament of their substance, given that the above directive was adopted under the codecision procedure?

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997, p. 20.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0222/99

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 February 1999)

Subject: Problems encountered by Dutch building firms operating in Germany

On 3 July 1998, in answer to my Question P-1529/98(1) on the problems encountered by Dutch building firms operating in Germany, Mr Monti said that the Commission was currently examining the possibility of initiating infringement proceedings against Germany.

According to my information, the proceedings have now been initiated.

1. What stage has been reached in the proceedings?

2. Has anything concrete emerged yet?

Answer by Mr Monti On behalf of the Commission

(11 March 1999)

1. In serving formal notice on the German Government in November 1998, the Commission gave it an opportunity to comment on various aspects of German regulations on the posting of workers in connection with the provision of services in the building sector.

2. The German Government said that it would reply by the end of February 1999. Consequently, the Commission is not yet in a position to say whether and to what extent the German Government is ready to alter its current position.

The Commission would remind the honourable Member that a number of problems in connection with the German regulations have already been referred to the Court of Justice, especially with regard to the holiday fund measures in Germany since 1998(2).

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 45.

(2) Case C-49/98, "Finalarte".
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1026/99

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(20 April 1999)

Subject: Pesticide Lindane

In response to my Written Question 2860/97(1), the Commission stated that Directive 91/414/EEC(2) concerning the placing on the market of plant protection products provides for the review of active substances which were already on the market when the Directive entered into force.

Concerning the active substance lindane, which is one of the 90 substances covered under the first phase of the review, the Commission confirmed that it was waiting for the report of the rapporteur Member State, Austria. Upon receipt of this report an intensive scientific and technical examination with all the Member States was due to take place. The Commission would then take a final position on this active substance and consider options for further progressing the work.

What stage has this process now reached?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-154/99 by Mrs Pollack(3).

(1) OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 84.

(2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

(3) See page 76.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0062/99

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Granting of EU aid for the regeneration of Portman Bay (Murcia, Spain)

The Autonomous Community of Murcia has announced the intention of Commission Directorate-General XVI to undertake an in situ assessment of the Portman Bay regional regeneration plan, with a view to estimating how much EU funding should be allocated to it.

1. Will the Commission provide information on the contents of the regeneration plan?

2. Will it say whether the delegation of experts from the European Investment Bank has already conducted its inspection? If it has not, when does it intend to do so?

3. Does it know what amount the Spanish Government has earmarked for the plan in its budget?

4. Does it plan to draw the EU funding for the regeneration of Portman Bay from the 1999 budget?

5. What timetable has been established for granting aid?

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

(23 February 1999)

The Commission confirms that in 1998 the Spanish authorities applied for aid from the Cohesion Fund to part-finance the reclamation of Portmán Bay (Murcia).

An on-site visit in the company of the project promoters took place on 14 and 15 January 1999. On this occasion an engineer from the European Investment Bank (EIB) was also present, as part of the technical assistance made available by the Cohesion Fund.

The project is currently being studied. The Commission is unable to give further details at this stage of the procedure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0191/99

by Irene Soltwedel-Schäfer (V) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Fatalities caused by the new variant of Creutzfeld-Jacob disease (nvCJD) and the number of cases of nvCJD currently diagnosed in Great Britain

1. How many deaths were caused by nvCJD in Great Britain in 1996?

2. How many deaths were caused by nvCJD in Great Britain in 1997?

3. How many deaths were caused by nvCJD in Great Britain in 1998?

4. How many deaths were caused by nvCJD in Great Britain in 1999?

5. How many cases of nvCJD have currently been diagnosed in Great Britain?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 1999)

As appears from the press release of the British authorities (Department of health) issued on 1st March 1999 there were 3 deaths in the United Kingdom caused by Creutzfeld-Jacob disease (nvCJD) in 1995, 10 in 1996, 10 in 1997, 15 in 1998 and 1 in 1999. These official figures include deaths due to definite and probable cases. The attribution of a "definite" diagnosis refers to pathological confirmation, in most cases by post mortem examination of brain tissue. The attribution of a "probable" case is based on clinical diagnostic criteria but without pathological confirmation. However, to provide as complete data as possible on deaths due to nvCJD, "probable" cases are included.

As with any disease surveillance system, there are a number of living "suspect" cases of nvCJD under investigation at any time. They are not included in the official statistics since their number exceeds the number of subsequently "confirmed" cases by a ratio of about 4:1, and this ratio varies from month to month. Clinical diagnostic criteria have already been developed for the classification of suspect cases as "probable", "possible" or "unlikely to be nvCJD", but these criteria are not yet validated. If the criteria are accepted by the scientific community as providing reasonable diagnostic accuracy, it may be possible in the near future to provide meaningful information on the numbers of "probable" cases that are living.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0849/99

by Anne André-Léonard (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Subject: Reductions in old age pensions for those already receiving a pension in another Member State

In April 1998 it was reported in the press that proceedings were to be brought against Belgium before the European Court of Justice following complaints about reductions in old age pensions for persons already receiving a pension in another Member State.

Will the Commission say what progress has been made in this matter?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 1999)

It seems that the question posed concerns the application by the Belgian National Pensions Office of national anti-overlapping? rules to reduce the amount of the supplement added to a mining worker's old-age pension when the person was already receiving one or more pensions of the same kind from one or more Member State.

In its judgment of 22 October 1998 in case C143/97 - Conti v ONP, the Court of Justice found for Mr Conti, holding that a national rule such as the one in question constitutes a reduction clause? within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 as amended by Regulation (EC) 118/97 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community(1).

(1) OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0726/99

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 Denmark 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-0442/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 1999)

Subject: Harp seals

Is the Commission aware of the number of mutilated Harp seals recovered from the Archangel area of the White Sea in Russia?

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

(26 March 1999)

The Commission is unfortunately not aware of the fact put forward by the Honourable Member and has no information at its disposal on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0848/99

by Tony Cunningham (PSE) to the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Subject: Barbarity of the fur trade in China

Is the Commission aware of the barbaric treatment of animals in China, in particular of Alsatian dogs, involved in the production of fur for the international market?

Can the Commission supply details of any fur trade between the EU and China and provide assurance that it has no connection with the perpetrators of this horrific aspect of the trade?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 1999)

The Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member that animals should not be treated in a cruel manner, notably in order to produce fur for international trade.

However, the Commission is not collecting any specific information concerning trade and processing of dog fur in China. It is therefore not possible to confirm whether this business is growing.

Given that animal welfare is becoming increasingly relevant in terms of international trade, this issue may in the future be raised in the World trade organisation (WTO) context. The possibility of amending WTO rules to address welfare concerns more generally will be addressed in the context of the determination of the Community's negotiating objectives for the next stage of the WTO negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0909/99

by Bernard Lehideux (PPE) to the Commission

(8 April 1999)

Subject: Action taken by the Syrian Government in response to the resolution of March 1998 on Lebanese prisoners in Syria

In March 1998, when human rights organizations were regularly condemning the arbitrary imprisonment of numerous Lebanese citizens in Syria, without charges being brought against them and without their families being informed of their fate, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on Lebanese prisoners in Syria (B4-0324/98)(1), calling on the Syrian Government to publish a full list of Lebanese prisoners in Syria, to release those prisoners against whom no charges had been brought and to transfer the others to Lebanon.

1. A year on from this resolution, does the Commission know whether this list has been published and whether the Syrian Government has complied with the other recommendations?

2. If no satisfactory response is received from Syria, what will the Commission do to ensure that these human rights violations are taken into account in the European Union's relations with Syria?

(1) OJ C 104, 6.4.1998, p. 238.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0297/99

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Special diet foods

The use of foods designed for low-calorie diets for weight reduction is widespread and, therefore, requires particular attention in order to protect consumer health. Moreover, because of the nature and purpose of these special diet foods, the Commission has laid down standards in respect of their composition and labelling in Directive 96/8(1) of 26 February 1996.

Has Greece notified the Commission of the necessary legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions it has adopted to comply with the above directive and, if so, when? What measures will the Commission take if the Greek authorities prove not to have duly implemented those provisions?

(1) OJ L 55, 6.3.1996, p. 22.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0296/99 and E-0297/99 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 1999)

The Greek authorities have informed the Commission of the adoption of national measures to implement these three directives on the foodstuffs sector intended for particular nutritional uses.

Commission Directive 96/4/EC, Euratom of 16 February 1996, amending Directive 91/321/EEC on infant formulae and follow-on formulae(1), has been transposed by Ministerial Decree, as adopted on 12 November 1997 and published on 25 November 1997.

Commission Directive 96/5/EC, Euratom of 16 February 1996 on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children(2), has been transposed by Ministerial Decree, as adopted on 12 November 1997 and published on 25 November 1997.

Commission Directive 96/8/EC of 26 February 1996 on foods intended for use in energy-restricted diets for weight reduction(3), has been trnsposed by Ministerial Decree, as adopted on 15 October 1997 and published on 13 March 1998.

After an initial examination of the different texts, the Commission believes the Greek authorities have implemented the directives in question in a satisfactory manner.

(1) OJ L 49, 28.2.1996.

(2) OJ L 49, 28.2.1996.

(3) OJ L 55, 6.3.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0667/99

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

(26 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

Regions whose per capita income is less than 75 % of the average Community per capita income are described as "Objective 1 regions" and they receive significant amounts of Community aid.

To determine whether or not this threshold has been exceeded, the draft Council Regulation COM(98) 131 final(1) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds states that the figures corresponding to the last three years for which Eurostat has data available will be used.

At the moment the only figures available are those for the 1994, 1995 and 1996 financial years.

What are the figures for those years for Extremadura?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0728/99

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 Finland 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.