ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0377/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: BSE

There is considerable concern about the risk of mad cow disease (BSE) being transmitted to human beings, an eventuality which, unfortunately, may have occurred already in the period before the introduction of specific controls; the European public is beginning to ask whether, in addition to measures rightly aimed at identifying and destroying affected animals and associated measures to prevent the spread of the disease, it would be possible to obtain an accurate estimate of the possible extent of the infection.

What kind of measures could be taken that would apply to the European public as a whole? Do tests exist that could be carried out in the course of a mass campaign to ascertain what percentage of the population is likely to have been infected by the disease? Is there any definite information concerning the transmission of the disease from one human being to another and the implications that might have for donations of blood or organs?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2001)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to Written Questions E-3746/00 by Mrs Paulsen and Mr Olsson(1), E-4087/00 by Mr Watson(2), E-0163/01 by Mr Zappalà(3) and others, and Oral Question H-0951/00 by Mr Alavanos during question time at Parliament's January 2001 part-session(4).

At present no valid tests are available for detecting the presence of a bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) agent in humans. However, several types of test are currently being developed.

Although there is scientific evidence linking variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) to BSE, there is neither certainty concerning the transmissibility of BSE to humans, nor the transmissibility via blood or organs of vCJD. However, the Commission is well aware of the potential problem of transmission of vCJD by blood and blood derivatives. The relevant Scientific Committees continuously monitor the latest scientific evidence in that area and the Commission will propose preventive measures as necessary. On 13 December 2000 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on quality and safety of blood(5). This Directive will, once adopted by Parliament and Council, set blood safety standards across the Community and also provide the legal basis for Community measures regarding the prevention of vCJD transmission by blood and blood derivatives.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 132.

(2) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 129.

(3) See page 53.

(4) Written answer from 16.1.2001.

(5) COM(2000) 816 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1877/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Ireland)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Ireland have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Ireland have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01, E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01, E-1882/01, E-1883/01 and E-1884/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2086/01

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Simplification of CAP administration

Could the Commission provide an update on the present situation regarding the simplification of CAP procedures following the decision to simplify direct aid payments, and does it have any plans to extend this scheme on a wider basis?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Following the adoption by the Council, on 19 June 2001, of the Commission's proposal(1) to simplify payments of small amounts to farmers, work has begun on the preparation of the necessary detailed implementing rules. A first meeting on these rules was held between the Commission and representatives of the Member States' administrations on 3 July 2001, and further meetings are planned.

The Council Regulation (EC) No 1244/2001 of 19 June 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy(2) provides for the simplified payments scheme to be applied from 1 January 2002, although it should be recalled that participation is voluntary for Member States as well as for farmers. Work on the implementing rules should be completed in time for those Member States which so wish to be able to apply the scheme as from that date.

In his declaration in the Parliament's plenary session of 14 July 2001, the member of the Commission responsible for agriculture stressed that this simplified payments scheme is for a trial period, and that it is hoped that a successful outcome will lead to the scheme being extended.

(1) OJ C 120 E, 24.4.2001.

(2) OJ L 173, 27.6.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/01

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Testing for cervical cancer

Each year, thousands of European women die from cervical cancer because of the inadequacies of the current testing system. Recent studies by the German Universities of Hanover and Tübingen reveal that more than half of all pap smears are inaccurate.

What measures, if any, does the Commission intend to take to improve the detection rate for cervical cancer? Will it encourage Member States to introduce systematic testing?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

Under the Europe against Cancer programme, a European network for screening for cervical cancer has been set up, which develops a consensus on the best practice for secondary prevention of cervical cancer by screening. To this end a consensus conference on screening for cancer including cervical, breast, prostate and other cancers was held in November 1999 in Vienna. The Advisory Committee on Cancer Prevention, which advises the Commission on all issues related to the prevention of cancer, delivered a set of recommendations on cancer prevention by screening. The Commission plans to propose Council Recommendations on Screening for Cancer, based on these recommendations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1484/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Catalan and the European Year of Languages

A study on Europeans and languages commissioned by the Commission's Directorate-General for Education and Culture is being carried out at INRA (Europe) and it was decided, for the purposes of this study, to add Turkish and sign language to the official languages of the European Union.

Since there are other official languages in Europe, such as Catalan, which is spoken in three EU countries (Spain, Italy and France) by a total of 10 million people, is the official language in a Member State of the UN (Andorra) and one of the official languages in Spain, can the Commission explain why it did not include Catalan in this study?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The objective of the survey in question was to obtain general information on Europeans' knowledge of and attitudes to languages and language learning. The survey was conducted according to standard Eurobarometer methodology, based on a random sample of about 1 000 people in each Member State. The list of languages coded in the survey was drawn up on the basis of previous experience with such surveys according to expectations of interviewee responses

that would give rise to statistically significant results. This list was not shown to interviewees, but used by interviewers to classify spontaneous answers to questions. Interviewees were not prompted. Answers citing languages other than those listed were classified as other language.

Despite sophisticated statistical techniques aimed at ensuring even coverage of the whole territory of the Union, the survey could not be expected to produce statistically significant results for languages like Catalan, spoken by part of the population concentrated in a particular region. In response to the question What is your mother tongue?, 47 of the 1 000 Spanish interviewees cited a language not included in the list. For Europe as a whole, 1,8 % of answers to this question fell into this category.

However, the Commission has undertaken an in-depth study of regional and minority languages (the Euromosaic study) which contains information on the number of speakers of Catalan and other languages spoken in Europe that are not official languages of the Union. This information is available at the following web site http://www.uoc.es/euromosaic or in print form from the Official Publications Office.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1824/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 June 2001)

Subject: Decision-making and constructive abstention in defence matters

Title V, Article 23 of the Treaty of Amsterdam [Treaty on European Union] states that Decisions under this Title shall be taken by the Council acting unanimously. This article also enshrines the principle of constructive abstention. How does the Commission interpret this passage? Can the Treaty be interpreted as meaning that even a single Member State may in accordance with the requirement for unanimity prevent the deployment of the Crisis Management Force for particular duties if it votes against the decision and does not favour abstaining from taking a decision?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Theoretically, the unanimity rule does indeed mean that a single Member State could block a Council decision. However, constructive abstention was introduced into the Treaty expressly to prevent such stalemates. Any member of the Council abstaining is not obliged to apply the decision, but must accept that the decision commits the Union. In a spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned refrains from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision and the other Member States respect its position.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1658/01

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Corporate social responsibility

In the conclusions to the European Council Summit meeting in Stockholm, the Council welcomes the initiatives taken by businesses to promote corporate social responsibility (paragraph 31). It also emerges from the conclusions that the Commission intends to present a green paper in June this year on corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR comprises a number of areas which were and could continue to be covered by agreements reached through collective bargaining or by Community legislation.

Can the Commission explain how it sees its role in the development of CSR? What areas does it consider should be dealt with by agreements reached through collective bargaining or by Community legislation, and what areas should be covered by voluntary commitments as an aspect of CSR?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis. They are thus expected to contribute to the strategic goal decided during the extraordinary European Council at Lisbon, 23 and 24 March 2000: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.

Being socially responsible means not just fully meeting legal expectations, but also going beyond compliance by investing more into human capital, the environment and relations with stakeholders.

The main contribution of a European approach to CSR would be to add value to and complement existing activities by providing an overall European framework on CSR practices, and by supporting best practice approaches to evaluation and verification of CSR practices.

The Commission hopes that the Green Paper on corporate social responsibility which it intends to present in July 2001 will further stimulate the debate at European and national level among all the actors involved. The concrete formulation of the role of the Commission in the development of corporate social responsibility will have to take account of the outcome of this debate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1775/01

by Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: German packaging regulation - inadequate protection for free movement of goods and drinks importers

The amended version of the German packaging regulation provides for a compulsory deposit on containers for certain drinks. This will de facto reinforce a barrier to trade for foreign drinks importers which has existed for more than ten years.

This and similar cases demonstrate that the principle of free movement of goods - which is enshrined together with the principle of environmental protection in Directive 94/62/EC(1) and is equally important - is not effectively safeguarded. Effective protection also calls for prompt enforcement and implementation. Deliberations over regulatory provisions and the introduction of a procedure - e.g. in the case of the related Danish ban on cans - usually took several years hitherto, whereas compulsory deposit may drive a drinks importer out of business within a few months.

Does the Commission consider that this principle has been adequately upheld in the light of the duration of the deliberations and the procedure so far?

Does the Commission take the view in the light of experience to date that packaging Directive 94/62 is effective as legislation in preventing barriers to trade?

Will the Commission, in revising Directive 94/62, provide for measures to guarantee effectively and promptly the operation of the internal market as well as a high level of environmental protection?

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1774/01, E-1775/01, E-1776/01, E-1777/01 and P-1823/01 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The draft second amendment to the German regulation on packaging - notification of which was given in connection with Directives 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste(1) and 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(2) - was examined by the Commission in the light of the relevant provisions of Community law.

The points mentioned by the honourable Member were also considered by the relevant departments of the Commission.

In view of the fact that at its meeting of 13 July 2001 the Bundesrat accepted a proposal for a resolution put forward jointly by several Länder and did not vote in favour of the draft as notified to the Commission, the issue of the proposed draft's compatibility with Community law no longer arises.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1777/01

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Threat of trade barrier to drinks industry shipments to Germany

The proposal for a second regulation amending the German packaging regulation provides for the introduction of a compulsory minimum deposit for disposable drinks containers.

Of the products sold, the proportion of disposable drinks containers among imported drinks is much higher than among drinks produced domestically. A deposit on cans and non-returnable bottles therefore constitutes a disadvantage for drinks companies exporting to Germany.

Drinks manufacturers are already extremely concerned that the introduction of a deposit on cans and non-returnable bottles would prompt customers in Germany (particularly marketing chains) to stop stocking their products in disposable containers.

In addition, because of the plans to introduce a deposit system for the German market, drinks suppliers would have to set up separate production and distribution facilities which would result in additional costs and a competitive disadvantage.

The introduction of a compulsory deposit cannot be justified on ecological or environmental grounds as it is not conducive to achieving the desired objective, i.e. promoting the use of refillable containers, and because there are insufficient scientific grounds for considering that the non-returnable containers covered by the regulation are environmentally unsound.

What is the Commission's position on this threat to meddle with the principle of the free movement of goods, which creates a barrier to trade on the European internal market, and which cannot be justified either on the basis of environmental arguments or current Community legislation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1774/01, E-1775/01, E-1776/01, E-1777/01 and P-1823/01 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The draft second amendment to the German regulation on packaging - notification of which was given in connection with Directives 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste(1) and 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(2) - was examined by the Commission in the light of the relevant provisions of Community law.

The points mentioned by the honourable Member were also considered by the relevant departments of the Commission.

In view of the fact that at its meeting of 13 July 2001 the Bundesrat accepted a proposal for a resolution put forward jointly by several Länder and did not vote in favour of the draft as notified to the Commission, the issue of the proposed draft's compatibility with Community law no longer arises.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0754/01

by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Subject: Lazio Region's Leader+ programme

Lazio Region's Leader+ programme for the period from 2000-2006 has been submitted to the Commission, which has declared it inadmissible. Can the Commission explain why it has done so and say what guidelines it has given to enable the document to be redrafted in accordance with the criteria governing the initiative, thus ensuring that the economic players and communities concerned suffer no further disadvantages?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

The Honourable Member's question relates to the admissibility of the Lazio Region Leader+ programme.

On 16 November 2000 the Italian Permanent Representative submitted the Lazio Region programme under the Leader+ Community Initiative, in accordance with Article 21(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (the general Regulation)(1) and with point 42 of the Commission notice laying down guidelines for the Leader+ Community Initiative(2).

Article 28 of the general Regulation and point 35 of the Leader+ notice state that the Commission is to approve Leader+ programmes within not more than five months of the date of receipt, provided that all the requirements which the general Regulation and the notice stipulate have been met.

On carrying out a basic overall check after receiving notification of the Lazio Region's Leader+ programme, the Commission found significant deficiencies and a lack of information with regard to several relevant provisions of the notice.

On 14 December 2000 the Commission accordingly wrote to the Italian Permanent Representative, stating that the programme was inadmissible and asking the Italian authorities to meet the regulatory requirements by incorporating into the proposed programme all the information required for it to deem this programme admissible as soon as possible.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ C 139, 18.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0809/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Thameslink 2000 project

Railtrack PLC, a London-based company, has proposed the Thameslink 2000 scheme, at present the subject of a Transport & Works Act public inquiry, requiring the construction of a series of new steel and concrete viaducts through the Borough Market. The project involves the total demolition of 16 buildings, nine listed Grade II (including the whole of the Georgian Terrace designed by Sir Robert Smirke, architect of the British Museum) and the reconfiguration of a further eight, seven of which are listed, in the heart of the Borough Street Conservation area.

The Borough Market is the oldest municipal fruit and vegetable market still trading on its original site, where Shakespeare acted and Dickens lived, and has recently seen a remarkable regeneration with the establishment of Tate Modern and Shakespeare's Globe Theatre. It is of such unique environmental significance and quality that there should be a presumption against permitting the irreparable damage the project would cause. In the light of the 1954 European Convention and the 1985 Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, will the Commission intervene and investigate the matter?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty gives the Community the power to encourage co-operation between Member States in the sphere of culture. The question raised by the Honourable Member is not within the Community's jurisdiction; by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity, it is the exclusive responsibility of the Member State.

Moreover, the Community is not a party to the European Cultural Convention of 19 December 1954 or to the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe of 3 October 1985; it is therefore not within the Commission's remit to examine possible infringements.