ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0811/99

by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: Selection of 81 research facilities

The Commission has selected 81 research facilities in the European Economic Area that it considers to be the most important for high-quality research. A list of the said facilities has been published(1), with a view to helping European researchers gain access to them.

Can the Commission say:

1. What form the selection procedure has taken?

2. What selection criteria have been employed?

3. Whether support of any kind from the European Union is available for those European researchers interested in gaining access to the said facilities?

4. What the European Union is doing to promote research work within the Union? Are economic and/or other measures in place to support those individuals wishing to devote themselves to research work?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

Contracts for researchers supported under the access to Large-scale facilities (LSF) activity of the Training and mobility of researchers (TMR) programme are intended to pay for the use of an existing facility by research teams (and individual researchers) who would not normally have access to the facility. Research teams will be eligible for support if they are conducting research in the Community or an associated state. Community financing is intended to cover 100 % of the travel and subsistence costs of entitled users coming essentially from countries other than that where the facility is located. Community financing also covers up to 100 % of the additional costs of providing users with access to the facility.

The process and the criteria under which successful proposals from research facilities have been selected can be found in the TMR work programme, published by the Commission in 1996(2). More detailed information can be found in the information package and in the evaluation manual for the TMR-LSF activity, both of which are available on the TMR programme homepage on the Internet (http://www.cordis.lu/tmr/src/alsf1.htm).

More general information about the Improving human research potential (IHP) programme, which is the successor to the TMR programme, can be found in the IHP work programme which figures on the recently set up programme homepage on the Internet (http://www.cordis.lu/improving/home.html).

(1) OJ C 36, 10.2.1999.

(2) ISBN 92-827-7173-3.
In their contacts with leading figures of the Kosovo Albanian community, EU Representatives have
underlined in clear terms that the persecution of Kosovo Serbs, Roma and other ethnic groups isunacceptable and has to stop immediately.
The International Community will make every effort to facilitate the return of refugees and displaced
persons. In the meantime, the EU continues to provide humanitarian assistance to a large number ofrefugees in Serbia. ECHO has recently allocated 56,1 million euro for humanitarian assistance to this effect.
(2000/C 27 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1476/99
by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Postal tariffs
Some national postal authorities charge a different rate for letters sent to an address in the same country
(however far away) than to an address in another Member State (however close by). Is this compatible withthe Treaty, notably the provision on non-discrimination on grounds of nationality?
Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission
(6 October 1999)
The Commission is in favour of cost-based prices for each of the services involved in providing the
universal postal service, as called for in Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Councilof 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postalservices and the improvement of quality of service (
1).
The costs incurred by certain postal operators for distributing a letter in the same Member State may differ
from those incurred for a letter sent to another Member State, whereby the distance travelled has only a
marginal impact. A purely domestic service involves a single operator with his network historically
adapted to that service, whereas a cross-border service involves different operators, each of whom providesa part of the service using his own network, thereby increasing the complexity and cost of the distributionprocess.
In view of the impact of costs on the rates, it cannot therefore be excluded that domestic and cross-border
situations are treated differently. Since postal services have not yet been liberalised, it is for the MemberState and the postal operator concerned to show that the difference in rates is justified. This requires anexamination of the individual case pursuant to Articles 49 (ex Article 59) and 86(2) (ex Article 90) of theEC Treaty.
(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.
(2000/C 27 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1477/99
by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Council
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Administrative detention
Would the Council inform me as to what efforts they are making to try to ensure the Israeli government
meets international standards regarding the practice of administrative detention, and in particular Article 9
of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights?
I would like to remind the Council of the case of Bilal Dakrub, one of 22 Lebanese detainees held by
arbitrary detention in Israel, prisoners who are held either without trial or long after their sentences haveexpired.C 27 E/86 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0132/99

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) to the Commission

(2 February 1999)

Subject: Year 2000 problem

It is a requirement in the USA that every product carry an indication as to whether it can cope with the changeover from 1999 to the year 2000, i.e. every electronic appliance, be it a computer or television set, must be marked to indicate whether or not it is year-2000 compatible. So far there is no such requirement in Europe.

What deliberations have taken place within the Commission with a view to resolving this problem in the light of the need to protect consumers?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 1999)

The Commission gave an initial analysis of the Year 2000 problem in its Communication of 25 February 1998(1).

In the context of the attention which must be paid to the various consequences of the problem, the Commission is particularly interested in the possible repercussions for consumers.

An ad hoc working party of the Consumer Committee - the Commission's advisory body for the management of consumer policy - has discussed the problem and issued an opinion on the identification of situations which consumers are likely to face and recommendations seeking to minimise the impact of the Year 2000 on the economic interests, health and safety of consumers.

Labelling schemes are voluntary initiatives of manufacturers or distributors, sometimes in collaboration with the public authorities.

The Consumer Committee believes that they can help protect consumers, especially when linked to the statutory guarantee regulations which already exist in the Member States. For example, in the Danish scheme "2000 Ready", the seller declares that a particular product can cope with all dates in the 20th and 21st centuries and promises to deal with any complaints arising until 31 January 2001 (whatever the expiry date of the guarantee).

However, in the absence of a universal standard demonstrating that a product is 2000-compliant and given the difficulty of obtaining certification of products by an independent or public-sector body - because no-one wants to the assume the consequent legal responsibility - labelling should not be seen as the only response to the Year 2000 problem.

For the same reasons, the Commission does not envisage any proposals on a European-level labelling scheme.

(1) COM(98) 102 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0668/99

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 Galicia?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0232/99

by Ana Miranda de Lage (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Increase in tariffs on European exports to the United States

The trade dispute between the European Union and the United States over the banana market is generating a wave of trade reprisals targeted at European production sectors which have nothing to do with the dispute in question. For instance, the market share of the Spanish biscuit sector is being severely threatened by the 100 % tariff increase introduced.

What will the Commission do to protect this European sector from arbitrary reprisals of this kind?

Will the Commission give details of the total number of products affected, the estimated volume of exports, the loss of market share and the countries which may stand to benefit from measures taken against European products?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0231/99 and E-0232/99 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the statement it gave in Parliament's plenary meeting on 9 March 1999 on the commercial dispute between the European Union and the United States of America concerning bananas.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0665/99

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 Castilla la Mancha?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0673/99

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 the Basque Country?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0240/99

by Ulf Holm (V) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: The UK's rebate from the EU

Why does the UK receive a rebate on its contributions to the EU?

Will the Commission say how much rebate the UK has received altogether since it was first introduced?

How big is the rebate expressed as a percentage of the annual contribution?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 1999)

The Honourable Member is referred to the own resource report(1). In particular, answers to the questions raised and many other related details can be found in chapter 2 and annex 4 of that report.

(1) COM(98) 560 final - http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg19/index_en.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0094/99

by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Community statements on the border agreements between Argentina and Chile

The age-old border disputes between Argentina and Chile have been reduced to a minimum because a succession of appropriate agreements has helped to remove the permanent tension between the two countries.

The momentum thus generated in the sphere of coexistence that is the Southern Cone is a matter of the utmost significance because the agreements are the sign of a new political and diplomatic trend, opening up new prospects for peace, cooperation, and closer links and ties between the countries concerned and, by extension, other countries that might still be embroiled in border disputes of a similar kind.

What Community statements have been made by the Commission or other EU institutions in response to the above-mentioned border agreements between Argentina and Chile and in recognition of the improvement in relations between the two countries at the political and diplomatic level?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 1999)

The Commission warmly welcomes the recent positive solution to the dispute between Chile and Argentina; it has overcome a number of difficulties in relations between the two countries over the area of the hielos continentales and has clearly contributed to consolidating security in Latin America's Southern Cone.

In its agreements with Latin American countries, including those with Chile and Argentina, the Community has always sought to promote closer relations between countries in a single region with the chief political aim being to establish permanent links and create an area of peace and stability. In more precise terms, Article 4 of the 1990 agreement between the Community and Argentina stipulates that Community cooperation should support the process of regional integration on which Argentina had embarked with other Latin American countries, taking account of the problems raised by border areas.

This aim underlies the Commission's activities in Latin America, particularly in the Southern Cone, and has been expressed in the form of support for the process of regional integration, encouraging synergy and convergence between national economies, promoting better trade, and developing political and inter-parliamentary dialogue. In the setting of the Rio Group, the Community has established political dialogue on issues including confidence-building and security, discussed at seminars in Punta del Este, Quito and Santa Cruz de la Sierra which produced stimulating exchanges of views on the major security concerns in Latin America and Europe.

The Commission will continue to work towards extending and consolidating relations between the Community and Latin America with the central aim of maintaining peace and security.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0795/99

by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission

(22 March 1999)

Subject: Transport of animals for slaughter

In the 1999 budget of the European Union - Chapter B2-511 - there is a reference in the commentary to the expenditure of EUR 2 500 000 on the monitoring of animal protection provisions during the transport of animals for slaughter inside and outside the EU. This same entry appeared in the budgets for 1997 and 1998. Can the Commission explain why none of this money has yet been spent on this important matter even though there has been ample time to prepare suitable proposals?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

The Commission created within the Directorate general for consumer policy and consumer health protection (DG XXIV) the Food and veterinary office with the task of carrying out controls in the Member States and in third countries, including controls on the application of the European legislation on animal welfare that are laid down in Council Directive 91/628/EC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC(1).

The Commission is examining solutions and administrative means to make available the amount in the budget line B2-511 to the Food and veterinary office to reinforce controls on the transport of slaughter animals inside and outside the Community.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0629/99

by Anne McIntosh (PPE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Working-time Directive

Has the Commission assessed the impact on the transport industry of the proposed extension of the Working-time Directive?

Does the Commission not consider that the cost involved would be prohibitive, and risk putting some road hauliers out of business?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1999)

The Commission assessment of the impact on the transport industry of the proposed extension of the working time Directive is indicated in its proposal(1) under "Impact of the proposal on business, with special reference to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)". This assessment concludes that a precise estimate of the costs and benefits of implementing the Directive is not possible. The best indication of the likely order of magnitude of the net impact of the proposal is in the region of a net cost of 0,2 % of the wage bill. Taking into account the benefits of the proposal (better social conditions and increased road safety) it is not considered that the Directive, once adopted, would lead to prohibitive costs or bankruptcy in the road transport sector.

(1) OJ C 43, 17.2.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0465/99

by Ulla Sandbæk (I-EDN) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Arms and Morocco

Morocco has illegally occupied Western Sahara since 1973 and it is common knowledge that it was previously spending $1 million a day on that war, will the Commission, therefore, say:

1. precisely how much Morocco spends on maintaining its illegal occupation at the present time,

2. what proportion of the EU's aid is spent on arms,

3. which Member States sell arms to Morocco, and

4. how this is consistent with the EU's policy of cohesion?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 1999)

The Commission has no figures on Morocco's expenditure within Western Sahara.

Community aid to Morocco is earmarked for supporting economic transition and economic and social development, so no funds are given for armaments.

Arms exports from the Member States are not governed by any Community act, so the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to consult the United Nations Register of Conventional Weapons, which was set up by UN General Assembly Resolution 46/36 L of 9 December 1991, and which commits UN members to notifying imports and exports of conventional weapons by 30 April of every year.

The Commission is in a position to inform the Honourable Member that according to public data for 1997 available to it, the Member States which sold armaments to Morocco (goods in nomenclature chapter 93, "arms and ammunition, parts and accessories thereof") were France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0642/99

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(16 March 1999)

Subject: Denmark's ban on lead crystal imports

1. Does the Commission know whether lead in ionic form can be released from lead crystal?

2. What is the Commission's assessment of the notification of an "Order concerning a ban on the import, sale and manufacture of lead and certain products containing lead" by the Danish Government in the light of the ban on importing lead crystal that it contains?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 1999)

While lead-crystal products are being manufactured at very high temperatures, their lead content becomes an integral part of the glass matrix, and displays a high degree of chemical and physical stability. Leaching of the lead is currently covered by an (ISO) standard governing the release of lead from lead crystal tableware. It sets limits of 2,50 parts per million (ppm) of lead (Pb) for large holloware and 5,00 ppm of Pb for small holloware.

A revised standard is currently being prepared and will set limits of 0,75 ppm of Pb for large holloware and 1,50 ppm of Pb for small holloware. The International Crystal Federation has already adopted these new levels as voluntary standards which are being applied and met.

Indeed, on 31 December 1998, as part of the procedure laid down by Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998, consolidating Directive 83/189/EEC and its successive amendments, which lays down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(1), the Danish authorities notified the Commission of a draft decree banning the import, sale and production of lead and of certain products containing lead.

The notification procedure laid down by the above Directive is intended to prevent any unjustified barriers to trade between the Member States. A particular aim of the draft decree covered by the Danish authorities' notification is to ban the import of certain crystal products that contain lead. The effect of that ban is to prevent the placing on the Danish market of crystal products that have been legally produced or marketed in the other Member States. Such a barrier may be considered to be incompatible with Article 30 of the EC Treaty unless it is demonstrated that it is proportionate and justified in objective terms and, in this instance, is intended to protect human health or the environment.

At this stage the matter is still under discussion and the Commission has still not adopted any final position.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.