ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2348/00

by Véronique Mathieu (EDD) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Sixth Community action programme for the environment

At the Helsinki European Council of December 1999, the Commission was called on to prepare a proposal for the sixth Community action programme for the environment.

1. Does this programme (to be adopted for 2001) include provision for stronger action in environmental emergencies?

2. If so, in what form will the necessary environmental disaster prevention measures be linked to the Community action programme for civil protection established by the Council decision of 9 December 1999?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

The civil protection action programme is the most important platform of co-operation between the civil protection services at different levels in the Member States. However, practical experience from recent disasters both natural and technological indicated clearly the current shortcomings and the variety of threats for and from modern society. Therefore, the protection of people, the environment and property, including cultural heritage, from risks remains a substantial challenge for the governments of the Member States and the Community.

The accident risks need to be tackled by a global approach for assuring safety within a coherent and consolidated framework for assessing, managing, reducing and as far as possible, eliminating these risks in society. Furthermore, such a risk management regime must be made transparent and understandable outside expert circles in order to achieve active public participation and confidence. Within such a framework due account must be taken of the level ranging from local to Community at which action will be most effective from a practical perspective. Obviously, the local level must have the main direct responsibility for the safety of the citizens. The Community level can play a significant role in development of common guidelines and providing an important platform for exchange of experience as well as for co-ordination of transboundary accidents.

The Commission will reflect on whether and how environmental emergencies will be tackled within the framework of the new environmental action programme. Enhanced actions are envisaged within a future consolidated civil protection framework for dealing in a wider perspective with accidental risks, in particular those related to environmental emergencies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2831/00

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(6 September 2000)

Subject: Warner Jenkinson Europa, Oldmeadow Road, Kings Lynn, Norfolk PE30 4LA

This company has a plant within my constituency and used dimethyl sulphate (DMS) in the manufacture of its hair dye products, I understand that a risk assessment is currently being carried out on this particular chemical, and I should like to know what progress has been made to date and what is the possible outcome of the assessment on this particular chemical.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Dimethyl sulphate (DMS) is the subject of a risk assessment under Council Regulation (EEC) no 793/93 of 23 March 1993, on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances(1). The discussions on the risk assessment report (RAR) have been finalised by the group of Member State technical experts and the scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment (CSTEE) has delivered an opinion on the quality of the RAR.

For the environment the opinion of the CSTEE concurs with the conclusions of the RAR in spite of some limitations with its information database.

For human health the CSTEE also generally agrees with the conclusions in the RAR in spite of some limited disagreement on certain aspects (e.g. proposed classification of DMS only as a skin sensitiser, quantitative cancer risk assessment, risk characterisation of reproductive toxicity and the proposal in the RAR for occupational exposure limit values).

The RAR is scheduled to be published by the Commission Joint research centre (JRC) in the beginning of 2001.

The RAR has determined that DMS is mainly used as an intermediate and methylating agent in the production of many organic chemicals (dyes, perfumes and pharmaceuticals). Other uses reported are as a sulphating agent in the manufacturing of various products (e.g. dyes, fabric softeners).

The outcome of the RAR for workers is that there is a concern for respiratory tract irritation, mutagenicity and carcinogenicity as a consequence of inhalation exposure arising from production, processing and the use of DMS. Furthermore, a concern for adverse health effects as a consequence of repeated inhalation exposure to the pregnant worker arising from the use of DMS as an intermediate has been identified. There is no need for immediate action in relation to consumers or man exposed to DMS via the environment. In addition, the RAR shows that environmental risks are not expected.

Where unacceptable risks are identified the Commission will consider risk reduction measures, as appropriate, in those areas where concerns have been indicated.

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2167/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Rowdy behaviour by KFOR troops in Skopje

According to FYROM press reports, KFOR troops on leave in Skopje have been causing trouble on the streets and bars of the city, assaulting passers-by, particularly young women. Most of these incidents are caused by the excessive consumption of alcohol by the troops on leave. The population of Skopje almost always suffers as a result of this behaviour, but the KFOR military police takes a very relaxed attitude. This conduct by KFOR troops is an insult to the hospitality shown by FYROM to the KFOR troops, but above all damages the image of the peacekeeping effort undertaken at enormous cost by NATO and the EU in particular, which is involved through broader agreements in FYROM and in the normalisation of the situation in Kosovo.

How does the Council intend to protect the reputation of the EU in the FYROM in the face of the unacceptable conduct of KFOR troops so as not to cast a shadow over the contribution it is making to peace in the region?

Reply

(7 November 2000)

The behaviour of KFOR troops is a matter for KFOR commanders, NATO and the national authorities of the sending states. For its part, the EU is naturally concerned that the behaviour of all representatives of the international community working together to restore stability, security and multiethnic democracy in accordance with UNSCR 1244 should be exemplary whether in Kosovo or outside. It is confident that its own representatives generally conform to this high standard and that this is well understood by the population in Kosovo as in neighbouring countries they may visit on duty or leave.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2713/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Venture capital

Will the Commission please estimate the amount of capital supplied to start-up and early-stage growth companies (i.e. venture capital) in each Member State for each of the last five years?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 2000)

The Commission does not have comprehensive figures on venture capital supplied to start-up and early stage growth companies in each Member State for the last five years.

The venture capital market in Europe has continuously expanded in recent years. Venture capital funds are one of the main sources for supplying capital to new and growing companies but informal investors (business angels) also contribute significantly to the venture capital market's total volume. In addition, venture capital is increasingly provided through corporate venturing (funds closely linked to big companies). It is estimated that venture capital investments made by informal investors at least match those made by venture capital funds.

The table attached showing venture capital investments made in the Member States for the past five years is based on statistics of the European Venture Capital Association (EVCA) which produces an annual yearbook on private equity in Europe. Figures published by EVCA are based on a survey in 17 European countries.

All figures are taken from the EVCA yearbooks 1996-2000 and refer to the investments made by Member State in the respective years. All figures refer to either early stage investments (seed and start-up phase) or expansion and development investments. They do not include replacement investments or management buy in or management buy out (MBI/MBO) investments which, by definition, are not part of venture capital investments. EVCA statistics also do not include investments made by informal investors and through corporate venturing.

On the Community level, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF) are significant providers of risk capital finance. The EIB commenced risk capital operations in 1997 under the Amsterdam special action programme (ASAP). It has been authorised by its governors to earmark 2 000 million of its surplus to support so-called risk-sharing operations. To date, signatures under risk capital operations already exceed 1 000 million. The EIF acts as the venture capital arm of the EIB. In addition to own resources equity investments (approximately 90 million), it manages

the above risk capital resources of the EIB, as well as risk capital funds on behalf of the Community. Under the 1997 Growth and employment Initiative, sponsored by the Parliament, the EIF manages the European technology facility (ETF) start-up scheme (indicative budget 150 million over 3 years), which is the first higher-volume Community risk-capital instrument with specific features to encourage allocation of benefits to early-stage and innovative or technology-oriented companies.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3692/00

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 November 2000)

Subject: The toxic nature of the Shu Gan Wan pill

Is the Commission aware of the toxic nature of the Shu Gan Wan (or Shu Kan Wan) pill, a traditional Chinese medicine? The pill is used to treat stomach or liver disorders and contains dangerous levels of mercury. What action does the Commission intend to take to protect consumers against this health risk?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2000)

No medicinal product may be marketed in the Community unless it has received a marketing authorisation and documentation has been submitted to enable its quality, safety and efficacy to be evaluated. Marketing authorisations are granted either through the centralised procedure for medicinal products

from biotechnology or for those which are particularly innovative, or through the national procedure. In the former case, the competent authority is the Commission, and in the latter, it is the authorities in the Member States.

Though traditional Chinese medicinal products such as Shu Gan Wan or Shu Kan Wan are presented as medicinal products with therapeutic benefits, they have no marketing authorisation under the centralised procedure. According to the data available, certain traditional Chinese medicinal products are contaminated by heavy metals such as mercury.

Since the Commission is not competent with regard to medicinal products which do not come under the centralised procedure, the national authorities are responsible for ensuring that only those medicinal products which have been properly authorised are marketed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2962/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Right-wing extremism in the Member States

Austria has a law subjecting any form of national socialist revival activity to criminal prosecution (1947 prohibition statute, StGBl. No 13/1945, BGBl. No 25/1947); this law ranks equally with the constitution.

Paragraphs 3 to 3i list the various criminal offences and matching penalties. Penalties range, according to the offence, from one year to life imprisonment. Responsibility for implementing the procedure rests with the district courts sitting as jury courts.

Will the Commission state:

- which Member States have comparable legislation?

- what differences exist between the Member States in terms of offences and penalties?

- whether it is necessary in the light of common European values to prosecute national socialist revival activity as a criminal offence?

- whether it is planning uniform European legislation banning national socialist revival activity?

The Commission is asked to forward to the author, where appropriate, the various comparable laws.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2000)

The Joint Action of 15 July 1996 concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia(1) requires Member States to treat certain types of racist or xenophobic behaviour as offences or, failing that, to undertake in these cases to derogate from the principle of double criminality. Such behaviour includes public incitement to violence or racial hatred, public condoning of crimes against humanity and human rights violations, public denial of crimes, public dissemination or distribution of material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia, and participation in the activities of groups, organisations or associations which involve discrimination, violence or racial hatred.

The first evaluation report on implementation produced in 1998 showed that behaviour covered by the Joint Action was liable to criminal penalties in most Member States and that in those where it was not, the legislation was being amended. Judicial cooperation instruments can be applied in this area without any difficulty.

A second report is being prepared by the Council. In the light of this report, the Commission will ascertain whether additional EU rules are needed, in particular with regard to the use of the Internet for racist or xenophobic purposes.

(1) OJ L 185, 27.7.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2043/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: On the defence of officials unfairly blamed

In his answer to Written Question P-1049/00(1) of 23 May 2000, the Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Kinnock, emphasises that Where there are serious unfounded accusations against the professional integrity of an official, the administration is required under Article 24

of the Staff Regulations to take all necessary steps to restore the good name of the official concerned. In such cases the administration enjoys a wide discretion, subject to review by the Community judicature, regarding the choice of the ways and means of providing the official with assistance. It must refute those allegations and do everything possible to restore the good name of the official concerned. Assistance under Article 24 can therefore take various forms depending on the type of threat or action and the wishes of the victim.

Does the Commission intend to follow through all the implications of the above statement in a number of cases pending where officials are the subject of defamatory allegations? Furthermore, can the Commission rule out the existence of requests from officials to whom it has omitted to give an answer pursuant to Article 24 and in line with the above statement?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 15.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2000)

The Commission confirms its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question P- 1049/00(1), in which it stressed that it is required under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations to assist any official who, by reason of his position or duties, is subjected to threats, insulting or defamatory acts or utterances, or any attack to his person or property.

In each of the cases brought to its notice, the Commission examines whether Article 24 of the Staff Regulations applies. In doing that it has considerable discretion, subject to supervision by the Court of First Instance, in deciding which measures are the most appropriate.

Each case is examined individually and dealt with on its own merits. A request for assistance may be turned down because the acts about which the official complains do not fall within the category in respect of which assistance can be provided. Alternatively, the Commission may decide to provide assistance in a form which differs from that requested.

The Staff Regulations provide the official with means of redress in respect of any decision taken under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that requests for assistance are still pending and that a reply will be given as soon as they have been fully examined taking into account, in particular, the individual circumstances of each official.

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 15.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2697/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Bulgaria

1. What is the Commission's estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support policies were extended to Bulgaria on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2692/00, E-2693/00, E-2694/00, E-2696/00, E-2697/00 and E-2698/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

To estimate the extra annual cost of agricultural support resulting from the access to the Community of Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania it would be necessary to know with a reasonable degree of certainty the date, the terms and conditions of the accession. These aspects will have to be defined in the accession negotiations with these countries, the agricultural chapter of which has not yet been opened for negotiation. Consequently, any cost estimate made on the basis of assumptions indicated by the Honourable Member would necessarily be of a highly hypothetical, speculative and uncertain nature. At the present stage of the negotiating process the Commission is therefore, not in a position to answer the questions asked by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2271/00

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Banana import fraud

Forged import licences for bananas have been in circulation on European territory for almost a year. 164 000 tonnes of bananas have entered our market in this way. The volume of fraudulently imported bananas and the length of time over which this practice has gone on have caused prices to collapse, and pose urgent questions as to the efficacy of controls.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to improve controls on the issuing of import licences?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-2237/00 by Mr Fruteau(1).

(1) See p. 93.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3027/00

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE), Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) and Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Notice on town-twinning grants

In the context of the award of town-twinning grants, people from all parts of Europe have in the past sat round the table together in order to get to know one another, exchange experiences, work out projects and seek common solutions to problems. There is no doubt that the flexible promotion of town-twinning up to now has helped to develop close ties between people in Europe.

In its notice on town-twinning grants(1), the Commission has however announced that the previous procedure will be changed and that it will issue before the end of the year 2000 a call for proposals focusing on priority topics, with clearly defined selection criteria for the award of grants.

This notice has aroused a great deal of uncertainty in the communes of Baden-Württemberg over the arrangements which the Commission intends to make in future for the promotion of town-twinning.

Can the Commission answer the following questions in particular?

1. How will the closing date for applications be calculated in future (up to now it has been a three-month period)?

2. How many calls for proposals for town-twinning will it issue each year?

3. What precisely does it mean by priority topics and will this make it more difficult to establish new town-twinning arrangements or to revive existing ones?

4. Is it aware, in addition, that the application procedure is disproportionately complicated, especially for small communes, and can it see any way of simplifying that procedure?

(1) OJ C 238, 22.8.2000, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2000)

The Commission continues to be very much aware that the town-twinning assistance programme needs to be managed effectively if it is to be a complete success.

In view of past difficulties and the needs arising from them, and given the large number and variety of proposals received, the Commission is introducing a new procedure which should help to improve effectiveness.

An information meeting on this new call for proposals procedure was held on 23 October, to which representatives of the CEMR, the national associations of the 15 Member States, the central and eastern European countries, Malta, Cyprus and Turkey, the UTO and the Assembly of European Regions were invited.

The questions raised by the Honourable Members have already been dealt with in the new call for proposals.

The Commission notes the concerns voiced by the Honourable Members and will keep Parliament informed of developments relating to the new procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2464/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: WHO sanctions (bananas)

When will the Council vote on the proposed European Union banana trade arrangements?

Reply

(7 November 2000)

1. At its meeting on 10 and 11 July 2000 the Council noted a report by the Commission on the talks it had held to resolve the banana dispute. It asked the Commission to examine the possibility of managing the market using a first come, first served quota system and to report back after investigating the possible solutions, including the tariff solution and its implications. The Council will take a decision when it has seen that report.

2. It may be noted in any case that the Commission's proposal for amending Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas is based on Article 37 of the Treaty, which means the Council cannot take a decision until the European Parliament has delivered its Opinion.

3. The Council reiterates its concern that the banana dispute should be settled as soon as possible in accordance with WTO rules and having regard for the interests of Community producers and the Union's commitments towards the ACP States, especially the weakest among them.