ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1712/98

by Antoine-François Bernardini (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Compatibility of the players' agent licensing system

I have received a letter from a French citizen contesting the compatibility with Community law of the players' agent licensing system.

FIFA (the International Federation of Association Football) has imposed two requirements on all players' agents, they must:

- hold the appropriate licence, and

- provide a bank guarantee of SFR 200 000 certified by a Swiss bank.

Would the Commission kindly inform me whether or not these two requirements, which are laid down by FIFA in its rules, are compatible with European law?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 1998)

The Commission has received a complaint against FIFA (the International Federation of Association Football) concerning the regulations governing players' agents adopted by that organisation. Under those regulations, anyone wishing to act as a players' agent must take an examination in order to obtain the FIFA licence and must provide a bank guarantee of CHF 200 000 certified by a Swiss bank. The complainant argues that the regulations in question are in breach of Articles 48, 59 and 85 of the EC Treaty. The Commission has launched an investigation in response to this complaint.

Working on the basis of the information provided by the parties, the Commission has completed its preliminary examination as to whether the FIFA regulations are compatible with the competition rules of the EC Treaty.

The Commission's preliminary finding is that the regulations constitute a breach of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty. Although it is possible that they may generate benefits which offset their anti-competitive effects and thus qualify for exemption under Article 85(3), FIFA failed to put forward sufficient arguments in that respect in its correspondence. Accordingly, the Commission wrote to it in January 1998 asking it to put forward arguments regarding the applicability of Article 85(1) and (3) to the regulations at issue. The Commission is currently examining FIFA's reply.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1645/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Introduction of scheme to designate a "Port of Europe"

The system of designating a "cultural capital of Europe" has been an unqualified success, affording the peoples of Europe the opportunity to familiarize themselves with one another's culture.

The EU has a large number of important ports making a vital contribution to transit trade in a united Europe. As part of the EU's efforts to advance the process of integration and deepening of relations between its peoples, the key role played by ports should be duly recognized and the services they provide should be improved - by enhancing their profile - thereby boosting the crisis-stricken European shipping industry.

Could the Commission introduce a scheme along the lines of the "Cultural capital" to designate an annual "Port of Europe", bestowing this honour first on Piraeus, the oldest port in Europe which has been in operation continuously from ancient times to the present day and whose contribution to the development of the shipping industry in Europe is universally accepted and acknowledged?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 1998)

The "European City of Culture" scheme, which was launched on an intergovernmental basis in 1985 and over the years has proved increasingly popular with the people of Europe, has recently been the subject of a Commission proposal for a Parliament and Council Decision to establish a Community action(1). The proposal is currently under examination by the Community institutions.

Neither the current arrangements nor those proposed by the Commission to safeguard the future of the scheme after 2001 contain any provision which prevents ports from applying to become the European City of Culture or from being selected under the designation system; nor are there any plans for such a provision.

Ports have been selected in the past and several ports are among the current applicants for designation as European City of Culture. The Greek authorities are therefore perfectly entitled to put forward the city of Piraeus as a candidate, should they so wish.

For these reasons there would seem to be no need to set up a second scheme specifically for European ports.

(1) COM(97) 549, amended by COM(98) 350 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2534/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Car prices in the EU

In responding to my earlier Written Question E-1851/98(1), the Commission states that it "has been dealing with many complaints from individual consumers related to the purchase of right-hand-drive cars".

1. In total, how many such complaints has the Commission received in the last five years?

2. To which Member States do the complaints relate, and how many complaints have been received per Member State over the same time period?

3. To which manufacturers do the complaints relate, and how many complaints have been received per manufacturer over the same time period?

4. Does the Commission have an estimate of the volume of sales that have been affected by the difficulty experienced in purchasing vehicles in another Member State by UK consumers?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 1998)

1. Complaints related to the purchase of right hand drive (RHD) cars arose only from mid-1997. Since then, approximately 250 individual consumers have contacted the Commission.

2. The majority of the complaints concern the Netherlands and Belgium. A smaller number concern Germany, France and Spain.

3. The largest number of complaints concerns Volkswagen, followed by Mercedes-Benz, and to a lesser extent Rover, BMW, Audi, and Peugeot/Citroën. A small number of complaints concern Japanese manufacturers, notably Honda, Subaru and Mitsubishi.

4. Due to the fact that British consumers only inform the Commission in cases where they have problems, the Commission does not know how many successful parallel imports of RHD cars take place. However, figures supplied by three prominent manufacturers indicate an increase in RHD parallel imports in 1997/1998.

As mentioned in the Commission's reply to the Honourable Member's earlier Written Question E-1851/98, certain car manufacturers in Europe have designated telephone lines for people who experience problems trying to buy a car abroad. The Commission is awaiting feedback on how well these "hotlines" function, and will keep the Honourable Member informed of progress in this area.

(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1756/98

by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: Application by Cuba to accede to the ACP-EU Convention

In Written Question E-0816/98(1) of 26 March 1998 on the application by Cuba to accede to the ACP-EU Convention, the Commission was asked what its response had been to the application and in what terms it would be commenting on it.

The answer received on 27 April referred to the answer to Written Question E-0832/98 by Mr Cabezón Alonso which, however, fails entirely to address the issues raised in the written question of 26 March. Can the Commission therefore answer that question directly and say whether it has responded to Cuba's application?

If so, who gave a response on behalf of the Commission, when, to whom, and in what terms?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 1998)

The Commission has indeed responded to the letter sent to it on 26 January by Cuba's Minister of Foreign Affairs in which Cuba applied to take part in negotiations for the new convention between the Community and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states.

In its reply to the Minister, dated 20 March, the Commission took due note of Cuba's application and its positive view of the cooperation links between the Community and the ACP states. It confirmed that the application would be treated with all due attention in accordance with the procedures laid down by the Lomé Convention.

The matter was subsequently discussed both by the group of ACP States and by the Council. During these discussions the Commission declared itself in favour of Cuba's participation as an observer in negotiations for the new convention with the ACP countries, without prejudging whether or not there would be agreement on Cuba's accession to the next convention.

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 27.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2596/98

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Take-up rate of appropriations from Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund

What is the overall take-up to date of appropriations (absolute amounts and percentages) from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund by each Member State: in relation to the total amount of appropriations for the current period (1994-1999), and in relation to the schedule up to the present point in time?

Supplementary answer

given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1776/98

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: Echelon spying system

A European Parliament STOA document and European press sources have reported the existence of an industrial spying computer network called Echelon to which the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia belong.

According to the STOA document, unlike other electronic spying systems in the UKUSA network, the Echelon system is directed mainly against non-military objectives of governments, organizations and companies in every country.

1. Does the Commission not think that the Echelon programme, in which a Member State is one of the main participants (in the UK there are reputedly two bases out of six (at Mentmith Hill and Morwanatow)), manifestly violates solidarity between the Member States of the Union?

2. Does it not think that industrial spying conflicts with the Treaties and could distort competition?

3. Does it not think that industrial spying violates Article 51 of the UN Charter?

4. What immediate action will the Commission take to put an end to this form of industrial espionage?

5. What emergency measures does the Commission intend to take against the United Kingdom, the United States and the other countries involved in the Echelon industrial espionage system?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

The Commission has noted the interim study: An appraisal of technologies of political control from the scientific and technological options assessment from the Parliament. The Commission does not have any evidence or complaint that a particular Member State is infringing the EC Treaty in this respect.

Nonetheless the Commission remains vigilant to defend the Community interests and continues to make efforts to improve the security of its data networks. Furthermore, the Commission condemns all attempts to breach the integrity and confidentiality of information held or transmitted by the institutions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1582/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Customs tariffs for slate

Will the Commission give details of the respective customs tariffs applicable to EU imports of slate from each of the third countries not covered by preferential tariff arrangements for this product and say how these might develop or change in future?

Will the Commission give details of the respective customs tariffs applicable to the Community exports of slate to each of the countries which themselves export slate to the EU and are not covered by any preferential tariff arrangements in this sector and say how these might develop or change in future?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1032/98

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Ramsgate Ferry Tragedy: failure of Swedish companies to pay fine

In September 1994, a walkway between a dock at Ramsgate ferry terminal and a ship waiting to depart suddenly collapsed; 6 passengers were killed and 7 others injured. The Swedish companies who manufactured the walkway, FEAB and FKAB, were subsequently found guilty in British courts, who imposed a fine of £1 million for negligence.

These Swedish firms have failed to pay this fine. The companies have recently stated on British television that they have no intention of paying it. They claim that, because the incident occurred before Sweden joined the EU, they are not bound by Community law.

Will the Commission join me in condemning these Swedish firms, FEAB and FKAB, for showing no respect for British law or for the victims of the diaster or their families? Will the Commissioner further join me in calling on the companies to pay the fine in full and apologize for their behaviour to date?

Answer given by MrKinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 1998)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform him of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1999/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: Regulation No 258/97 on novel foods

1. Will the Commission please explain how the provisions of Article 8 of Regulation No 258/97(1) will work in practice. In particular:

2. What form of words is recommended to comply with the provisions of the last subparagraph of Article 8(1)(a), which require labelling to indicate the characteristics or properties modified and the method by which the characteristics or properties were obtained?

3. What criteria will be applied to the assessments required under Article 8(1)(b) and (c) (special health implications and ethical concerns) and who will apply them?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 1998)

1. The authorities of the Member State responsible for carrying out the initial assessment will check the application, as well as the proposal for the presentation and labelling, in accordance with the requirements of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients. As part of the assessment all Member States and the Commission will have the opportunity to ensure appropriate labelling. In case of notifications (Article 5) labelling has to follow the provisions laid down in Article 8 as well. If necessary the Commission would prepare a decision following the procedure laid down in Article 13.

2. In Regulation (EC) 1139/98 of 26 May 1998 concerning the compulsory indication of the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC(2), the proposed labelling formula was "produced from genetically modified", which informs the consumer both about the modified characteristics and method of obtainment. The Regulation also foresees that the words "produced from genetically modified" may be abbreviated to "genetically modified".

This formula would be used in case of all comparable products. If for other products such labelling proves to be inadequate, decisions would have to be made on a case by case basis.

3. Until now experience in Europe has been limited to a small number of applications for authorisation and notifications on novel food and novel food ingredients. Therefore it is too early to give an exhaustive answer. However, for example, the presence of an allergenic substances, or modifications, which have implications for certain groups (vegetarians) or on religious practices or beliefs, would clearly require appropriate labelling according to Article 8.1 b) and c).

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 159, 3.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2005/98

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin

Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90(1) lays down a procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin.

The implementation of this regulation in practice raises the following questions:

1. Does it follow from the Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits that medicinal products for animals generally lose their licences if they are not tested or if those limits are exceeded?

2. Has account been taken of the fact that, because medicinal products for horses constitute such a small market, it is not worthwhile for manufacturers to conduct expensive pharmacological studies in order to renew their licences for such preparations, with the result that an increasing number of medicinal products are losing their licences?

3. Is the Council aware that, consequently, non-food-producing horses are also being deprived of necessary medical treatment?

4. Should not such animals be excluded, therefore, from the scope of the regulation, so that they can continue to be treated with medicinal products that exceed the permitted residue limits?

5. Is account taken of the fact that, in some countries, it is only very rarely that horses are intended for consumption?

6. Is it not necessary to distinguish between horses used for sport or recreation, the medical treatment of which should not be subject to restrictions, and horses for slaughter, the treatment of which should be so restricted?

7. Would it not be possible for every horse to be classified either as a riding horse or a horse for slaughter?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question No 1495/98 by Mr Kindermann(2).

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 42.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1504/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion

In her appearance before Parliament's Committee on Regional Policy on 23 January 1997 in connection with the presentation of the Commission Communication on cohesion and the information society (COM(97) 7 final of 22 January 1997), Mrs Mathies, Commissioner, mentioned that the Community's research and development policy should also help to facilitate the transition to the information society.

Could the Commission provide information regarding all the projects relating to the information society which have so far been financed by the Commission under the Fourth R& D Framework Programme (and also the third and fifth programmes)? What are the forecasts for the Fifth Programme in terms of the beneficiary regions, the total cost of implementation and the extent of Community co-financing?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Several projects jointly funded by the Commission under the 4th framework programme for research(1) contribute either entirely or in part to the development of the information society.

The Commission has therefore drawn up a non-exhaustive list of those projects. Owing to the extent of an answer including several tables it will send this direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of Parliament.

A list of this kind cannot be drawn up in respect of the 5th framework programme(2) since that programme has so far not been adopted.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.

(2) COM(97) 47 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1711/98

by Antoine-François Bernardini (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Kaleidoscope Programme

I have received a letter from the "Compagnie Coline" Association concerning an application for a subsidy under the Kaleidoscope Programme.

The Commission justifies its refusal to grant a subsidy on the grounds that, if it granted the subsidy requested, it would overrun its budget. However, after studying the relevant arrangements with the persons concerned, I have come to the conclusion that the Commission is wrong.

Could it therefore supply more detailed information concerning this application (K98 - A1/F-431), together with information on selection procedures?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 1998)

The Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member that its decision relating to the project in question, presented by the "Compagnie Colline", still stands. The project (termed a main project on the form) was rejected by the Commission at the pre-selection stage because, in the light of its overall budget, the percentage of Community support requested did not meet the requirements set out in Decision No 719/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 March 1996 establishing a programme to support artistic and cultural activities having a European dimension (Kaleidoscope) (see paragraph 6 of the Annex to the Decision)(1).

The Commission is willing to give the Honourable Member a full explanation of the budget technique used here if he so wishes.

With regard to the selection procedure, it should be recalled that a call for applications for projects to be carried out in 1998 was published in the Official Journal(2). The deadline for the presentation of applications was 1 December 1997.

There are two stages in the selection procedure. The aim of the pre-selection procedure carried out by the Commission is to ensure that applications meet the eligibility criteria of the programme (European dimension, balanced budget). Organisers of projects turned down at the pre-selection stage were informed by letter of the reason for rejection.

The pre-selected projects were then submitted to a group of independent experts for their opinion on the quality and interest of the projects from a cultural point of view. On the basis of the opinion of the group of experts, the Commission designated the projects which would receive support under the Kaleidoscope programme for 1998.

The organisers were informed by letter whether their projects had been accepted or rejected and a press release was published on 13 May 1998.

(1) OJ L 99, 20.4.1996.

(2) OJ C 253, 19.8.1997.