ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3581/00

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Letter of 23 March 1998 from Commission Member Leon Brittan to Thabo Mbeki concerning the TRIPS agreement

There are reports of long-running conflict between many developing countries and the pharmaceutical industry on the production and/or purchase of low-cost medicines by developing countries. In accordance with the TRIPS agreement, concluded under the WTO Agreement in 1994, and which is binding on all WTO member states, such countries can, in certain circumstances, switch to producing or purchasing low-cost medicines.

1. Is it true that European Commission Member Leon Brittan wrote to South African Vice-President Thabo Mbeki on 23 March 1998 to prevent South Africa from taking up the option under the TRIPS agreement of producing low-cost medicines itself or buying them abroad?

If so, what was the precise content of the letter and what arguments are used to justify such action?

2. Has any other, comparable, action been taken by the European Commission?

If so, what?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

1. The Commission does not oppose the use by World Trade Organisation (WTO) Members of legitimate possibilities offered by the Trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) agreement. On the particular issue of compulsory licensing, the Commission acknowledges the WTO members' right to resort to this instrument, provided that the conditions set out in the TRIPs agreement are respected. A copy of the letter mentioned by the Honourable Member has been forwarded to the Parliament.

2. No.

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions E-2316/00 by Mr E. Meijer(1) and P-2672/00 by Mrs H. Maij-Weggen(2).

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

(2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3844/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Filmmaking in the EU

Does the Commission believe that the recent success of Danish cinema holds any lessons either for the MEDIA programme or for European filmmaking in general, and would EU subsidies be best directed at films with a broad appeal such as Babette's Feast, The Bear, Belle Epoque and Name of The Rose, rather than at abstruse arthouse products with very limited appeal? Could the Commission also say whether it believes that the practice of distributors requiring cinema owners to show a slate of studio-produced films if they wish to be offered the opportunity to show big Hollywood blockbusters is common within the EU, and, if so, is it consistent with current competition policy?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2001)

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the long and distinguished record of the MEDIA and MEDIA II Programmes and to the MEDIA Plus Programme, which has started on 1 January 2001. These programmes, with a mixture of subsidies and loans, are very firmly targeted at companies, filmmakers and films which are produced for the widest possible European and international market. The programme's efforts are particularly aimed at achieving the widest possible circulation for European films outside of their countries of origin.

Recently the MEDIA II Programme supported some 287 of the 457 European films in exhibition in 1999. The success of the selection and targeting of the programme is reflected in the fact that while these 287 films represented 62 % of the total number of European films shown in Europe in 1999, they achieved more than 90 % of the total admissions in the period.

The experience of the Media and the Media II programmes shows the widely divergent national characteristics of European film production. Both Babette's Feast (Babettes gæstebud, 1987) and Belle Epoque (1992) were recognised international successes following their winning of an Oscar award. Despite this, both films were only modest box office successes while a more recent winner, La Vita e Bella, has dwarfed all four films cited by the Honourable Member at the international Box Office. Other recent successes such as Todo Sobre Mi Madre, Asterix & Obelix, Festen, Breaking the Waves, Secrets & Lies, and the Fifth Element have all enjoyed strong support from the MEDIA Programme.

Agreements between distributors and cinema owners can, in principle, fall within the scope of the competition rules where they have a restrictive impact on competition. The practice described by the Honourable Member is capable of falling within this category but the Commission does not dispose of sufficient factual information to draw any conclusion as to whether or not it actually does. In particular, the Commission is unaware of how widespread the practice is and has received no complaints.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3606/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Antibiotics in eggs

In its reply to Written Question E-1093/00(1), the Commission referred to a report on the monitoring scheme which had not yet been forwarded to it by the Italian authorities. Would the Commission state whether it has obtained a copy of the report yet, and if so, what findings it contains in relation to the issue raised in that earlier Written Question? Would the Commission also state what action it has taken or intends to take?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 18.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC(1) requires the Member States to submit an annual report on residue monitoring in food of animal origin which includes eggs. The Member States can select each year which specific substances they will target for residue testing.

The Commission received the 1999 report from Italy in June 2000. In 1999, Italy did not target quinolones or sulfonamides.

Moreover the Italian authorities informed the Commission that they could not follow up the study carried out by Altro Consumo because of a lack of precise information on the origin of the eggs and the analytical methods applied.

In 2000, Italy has included these groups of substances in their residue plan for eggs. Results will be available as from April 2001.

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4139/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Colombian jail release - Tristan James Murray and Javier Nova

Bearing in mind Commissioners Nielson's and Patten's correspondence with Mrs Doyle in August and September on the subject of the disappearance of Tristan James Murray and Javier Nova, members of the Atlantis Community in Colombia and bearing in mind the horrific murder of Tristan James Murray and Javier Nova in Columbia at the hands of left wing guerrillas and given that the two Sanabria Guerrero brothers who carried out these murders have recently been released from prison in Colombia after serving just one month in prison, could the Commission through its Bogota office please contact the Fiscalia, the public prosecutor, for an immediate explanation the release of the Sanabria Guerrero brothers?

In the light of the EU's involvement in the Plan Colombia operation and in the light of the human rights record and the judicial system currently operating in Colombia, could the Commission confirm that it will make the grave concerns of Mrs Doyle, known to President Pastrana and use it's influence in the region to ensure that justice is done in this case?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2001)

As the Commission has already expressed on several occasions, it deeply deplores the murder of the young Tristan Murray and Javier Nova.

The Commission has already contacted the Fiscalía in Colombia. Mrs Carmen Gonzales, Director of the Investigation Department stated that the case is currently being examined. The Commission will, of course, follow up on this issue and keep the Honourable Member informed about further developments.

As to the grave concerns expressed by the Honourable Member and the problem of human rights violations in general, the Union will continue to stress the importance of making progress in this field to its Colombian interlocutors.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4106/00

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: State of affairs of farming in Apulia

In demonstrations lasting several days during the first half of November, in the city of Barletta and in villages in the Ofanto valley, farmers from Barletta mounted a strong protest against the steep increase in fuel prices, the extremely high fines imposed for planting vines which are held to be illegal, and the 35 % cut in aid for olive oil. The city and residents of Barletta suffered serious damage when the town hall was occupied, the main internal roads in the city itself were blocked and a tilting train was forcibly held at the city railway station; as a result of these protests three city guards who had intervened to curb the demonstration were wounded.

Therefore, will the Commission say whether farmers within Objective 1 regions may benefit from:

- the abolition of fines imposed for vines which are held to be illegal or, alternatively, the imposition of a token fine, as is already the case in Spain;

- non-implementation of the revised 35 % cut in aid to olive oil, or, if the revised cut is confirmed, a reduction below 35 %;

- a reduction in the cost of fuel used for agricultural purposes.

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2001)

The Council has laid down the only conditions under which unlawful vine planting can be regularised in Article 2(3) to (7) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1). The Member States are responsible for adopting any statutory measures to ensure that that Article is enforced. Where administrative penalties apply, i.e. in cases covered by Article 2(3)(a) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, the Council leaves it up to the Member State concerned to impose an appropriate administrative penalty.

As regards production aid for olive oil, the Commission has applied the provisions of Community legislation. Since estimated olive-oil production for 1999/2000 exceeds the national guaranteed quantity, the aid must be adjusted proportionally. Apulia is the foremost olive-oil producing region and its producers may accordingly be assumed to have benefited from the Region's high olive-oil production.

The Commission does not intend introducing any derogation from the Regulation in force, particularly as fixing the aid is the responsibility of the Council.

Apart from the standard rules governing the Single Market, the EC Treaty makes no provision for Community competence for the costs of inputs in agriculture. It is therefore not in any position to propose a measure to the Council to reduce the cost of fuel.

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4102/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: The EIB and the Århus Convention

Does the Commission consider that the European Investment Bank (EIB) is covered by the obligations contained in the Århus Convention?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

The United Nations Economic Commission of Europe's Convention on access to Justice, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (the Aarhus Convention) has been signed by all the Member States and by the Community. It will only enter into force when the minimum number of ratifications (16) has been reached. This is not yet the case.

A declaration in the Convention, made at time of signature by the Community, provides the following:

Within the institutional and legal context of the Community and given also the provision of the Treaty with respect to future legislation on transparency, the Community also declares that the Community institutions will apply the Convention within the framework of existing and future rules on access to documents and other relevant rules of Community law in the field covered by the Convention. The Community will consider whether any further declarations will be necessary when ratifying the Convention for the purpose of its application to Community institutions.

A legislative proposal for a Regulation prepared by the Commission(1) is at present being discussed by the Parliament and the Council. It is based on Article 255 (ex Article 191A) of the EC Treaty and regards the access to documents of the Community institutions. This proposed Regulation concerns the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which are the three Community institutions foreseen by the same Article 255.

The European Investment Bank (EIB) has informed the Commission that it is committed to the Community objective of transparency, taking into account the conditions determined by the Bank's particular nature and specific mission. It aims to keep its information policy in step with evolving best practice in the banking sector and to disclose information to the maximum extent possible. In doing so, the EIB will take into account the general spirit of the Aarhus Convention and of any other relevant international legal instrument. This is without prejudice to any future obligations, which may derive from the Community legislative process.

(1) COM(2000) 30 final (OJ C 177 E, 27.6.2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0005/01

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Distribution and use of Community financial aid in the Auvergne region 1994-2000

During the programming period 1994-2000 Clermont-Ferrand and the Auvergne region benefited from Community aid and subsidies under the structural funds, and also under other Community programmes in the fields of culture, education, research, the environment, aid to SMEs and small industry, etc.

1. Can the European Commission say what programmes Clermont-Ferrand and the Auvergne region benefited from during the 1994-2000 programming period?

2. Can the Commission say what sums were allocated to Clermont-Ferrand and the Auvergne region and their beneficiaries each year between 1994 and 2000, if necessary making a distinction between commitment appropriations and payment appropriations?

3. Is the Commission satisfied with the implementation of appropriations under the various Community programmes in Clermont-Ferrand and the Auvergne region during the period 1994-2000?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0442/01

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: UK responsibility for dealing with the BSE crisis

Does the Commission not consider it essential to bring an action before the European Court of Justice to ensure that the United Kingdom answers for the negligence and misconduct which caused the spread of BSE?

Such action appears all the more justified following publication of the report by the committee of inquiry chaired by Lord Philips and in view of the high number of victims who live in Member States other than the United Kingdom and are not covered by the British compensation scheme.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

The Commission can only bring a Member State before the Court of Justice for failure to comply with an obligation under the EC Treaty if the conditions laid down in Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty are fulfilled.

These conditions are as follows:

1. The Commission has to believe that the Member State has failed to comply with a Community law obligation;

2. The Member State must firstly be given the opportunity to submit its observations;

3. The Commission should thereafter have delivered a reasoned opinion which the Member State has failed to comply with.

Furthermore, the Commission does not normally open or pursue infringement proceedings in respect of cases where, following the Commission's initial intervention, the Member State concerned subsequently complies with its obligations.

The Commission continues to keep the compliance by the United Kingdom with its obligations under Community law in relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) under the closest scrutiny and would not hesitate to open infringement proceedings if some new or continuing deficiency in relation to such compliance were to be discovered.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0208/01

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Fleet renewal and overcapacity

The OECD estimates that 1,3 billion was spend in 1997 to subsidise the European fisheries sector. A large proportion of this was used for fleet renewal and modernisation. Considering the large overcapacity of the EU fleet, does the Commission consider that this was money well spent? What safeguards are in place to make sure that the funds are not used to fuel overcapacity?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0177/01 and E-0208/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2001)

According to OECD estimations, only 10 % of EU public subsidies to the fisheries sector were applied in 1997 to fleet renewal and modernisation. For the 1994-1999 FIFG (Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance) period, public money (Community and Member States) spent on renewal and modernisation of the fleet was 593 million, or about 22 % of the total public aid given to the sector during this period. In contrast, 894 million (33,5 % of total public aid) were allocated to financing fishing vessel decommissioning schemes with the aim of reducing over-capacity. One of the main objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is to adjust fisheries resources to fleet capacity, as well as to provide a sustainable and profitable fisheries industry. Community rules are in place to prevent the allocation of aid for new vessels or modernisation if a Member State has not achieved the target for capacity reduction set in the Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes for fleet restructuring.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0397/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Criticism of exclusive dealership arrangements in the automobile sector

At the recent international conference on the automobile industry held in Madrid, extensive criticism was levelled at the current vehicle distribution system, which gives too great a role to suppliers in the production line. Arguments were also put forward for a distribution system which would abolish the requirement for exclusive dealerships for individual car makes, unlike the system in force at present, and which would encourage free competition in the market.

Does the Commission believe that the existing distribution system in the automobile sector in the European Union is a barrier to free competition in the Community market? What arguments can the Commission bring to bear in favour of the new system proposed for this sector?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2001)

The current Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995(1) applicable to motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements expiring on 30 September 2002, grants to the industry a block exemption from Community competition rules. In contrast to what may have been said to the Honourable Member, car manufacturers are obliged to allow their dealers to sell more than one brand, provided that dealers respect certain strict conditions specified in that Regulation(2).

The Commission adopted on 15 November 2000 a report evaluating the application of this Regulation, and organised a hearing on this issue for all interested parties on 13-14 February 2001(3). This report is a factual analysis of the current regulatory regime. It will form an essential basis for the forthcoming discussion about the future regulatory framework for motor vehicle distribution and servicing during which the adequacy of the current conditions imposed on the dealers who want to sell more than one brand will have to be closely examined.

As to the question of effective competition in the motor vehicle industry, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to its reply to his Written Question E-4003/00(4).

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.

(2) See Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 which provides that a dealer can be obliged not to sell new motor vehicles offered by persons other than the manufacturer except on separate sales premises, under separate management in the form of a distinct legal entity and in a manner which avoids confusion between makes.

(3) See IP/00/1306 of 15 November 2000 concerning the adoption of the Report and IP/01/204 of 14 February 2001 concerning the hearing. The Report itself is available on the Competition Directorate-general's website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/car sector, where also other valuable information can be found.

(4) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0417/01

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Job losses at Corus plants in the United Kingdom

The steel producer Corus announced last week that 6 000 workers are to lose their jobs at the company's plants across the United Kingdom with about 3 000 of these redundancies occurring at the company's plants in Wales.

Will the Commission now investigate the procedures and actions undertaken by Corus which have led to their announcement in order to ensure that the company has complied fully with all relevant European legislation presently in place and, if such an investigation shows that Corus did breach European law, what action can the Commission take?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(1) stipulates in Article 2 that where an employer is contemplating collective redundancies, he shall begin consultations with the workers' representatives in good time with a view to reaching an agreement.

These consultations shall, at least, cover ways and means of avoiding collective redundancies or reducing the number of workers affected, and of mitigating the consequences by recourse to accompanying social measures aimed, inter alia, at aid for redeploying or retraining workers made redundant.

The Directive also stipulates that Member States shall ensure that judicial and/or administrative procedures for the enforcement of obligations under Community law are available to the workers' representatives and/or workers.

In view of the above, and since the United Kingdom has transposed the Directive in question into national law, it is up to the national courts and/or administration to recognise and resolve any contentious issues that may arise in this particular case.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.