ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0605/98

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 March 1998)

Subject: Closed season for breeding purposes in the waters of Morocco

Recently the Moroccan Government extended the closed season for breeding purposes in the waters of the Saharan fishing bank to include the months of March and April.

According to various representatives of the fisheries sector, this decision constitutes an infringement of the fisheries agreement between the European Union and Morocco, which allows adjustments to be made to the closed season but not extensions. Moreover, Morocco has not implemented the fisheries plan which was intended to restrict fishing for pregnant female cephalopods in the breeding area.

Instead, it appears that Morocco has actually increased its fishing activities, thus jeopardizing catch sizes as a result of over-exploitation of the stocks in the area and hence going against the recommendations of scientists as regards preserving the richness of the fishing bank's resources.

What does the Commission think of the action taken to increase the "closed season for breeding purposes" by two months in the Saharan fishing bank?

Does this closed season apply to Morocco's cephalopod fishing fleet? Is Morocco complying in this respect with its fisheries agreement with the European Union?

What action is the Commission prepared to take in order to prevent discrimination against other fishing fleets (particularly the Spanish one) when "closed seasons for breeding purposes" are imposed in the area?

What reports or studies are available which recommend an extension of the closed season for breeding purposes in the fishing grounds concerned?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 1998)

The Community has always attached the greatest importance to the conservation and rational management of fishery resources. Under its agreement with Morocco, the Community has always been in favour of developing an approach to responsible fishing that is capable of guaranteeing the long-term viability of the sector, in particular the cephalopod fishery which is of recognised importance to the fleets on both sides.

In this context, the Commission considers that the biological rest period is only part of an array of protective measures for conserving resources. This is why this measure must take its place within an operational context of safeguard measures which Morocco has committed itself to implementing and which affects both its industrial-scale and its small-scale cephalopod fleets, in the interests of both sides as already stated.

This view has always had the support of scientists and research workers in the field, who agree that periods of biological rest can reduce fishing pressure on young recruits to the stock but add that supplementary measures remain necessary.

With regard to the unilateral application by Morocco of an extension to the period of biological rest, which will affect both the Moroccan and the Community cephalopod fleets, the Commission is continuing its action to ensure that contractual commitments are observed and that any possible discrimination is avoided.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1329/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Effect of WTO deals on EU animal welfare provision

Concerns have recently been raised by relevant interest groups about the effect that certain WTO deals may have on EU animal rights legislation. In particular, it has been suggested by Compassion in World Farming in the UK that measures agreed by the EU banning imports of furs from countries using leghold traps and prohibiting the marketing of cosmetics tested on animals have come unravelled in the face of WTO challenges.

1. Does the Commission see a conflict between WTO agreements and EU animal welfare provision?

2. How does the Commission intend either to reconcile this conflict or to ensure that it does not arise?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

World trade organization (WTO) agreements do not prevent the introduction of measures which are considered to be necessary for the protection of animals on the territory of the Community. However, it is the Commission's view that it cannot unilaterally impose the Community's welfare-based production standards on third countries. Under WTO rules as currently interpreted there is a conflict between WTO agreements and Community animal welfare provisions if the Community's welfare-based production standards are made a condition for imports from third countries.

Such possible conflicts can be effectively avoided through the adoption of international welfare-based standards in the framework of bilateral or multilateral agreements. Furthermore, given the fact that animal welfare is becoming an increasingly relevant issue in terms of international trade, this issue may be raised in the WTO context in the future. The possibility of amending WTO rules to address welfare concerns will be addressed in the context of the determination of the Community negotiation objectives for the next stage of the WTO negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0666/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(10 March 1998)

Subject: Endocrine disrupting chemicals

Does the Commission agree that there is a need for standardized screening tests for new and existing chemicals for endocrine-disrupting potential and if so, what action is being taken to achieve this either at European or international level?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 1998)

The issue of endocrine disruption falls within the overall context of the existing Community chemicals legislation. At present, the specific detection of endocrine disrupting properties of chemical substances is not explicitly addressed in the relevant Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulation and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances(1), as amended. Several scientific conferences, organised by the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD), United States environment protection agency (USEPA), Community Member States and the Commission, recommended that a specific test strategy has to be developed for the detection of effects of substances suspected of producing endocrine disrupter effects on man and the environment. As part of this strategy, the need to develop a battery of screening tests was pointed out.

Besides funding several research projects on endocrine disruption, the Commission is, at this stage, working together with other countries at OECD level to define a common strategy and to define the objectives and priorities related to testing methods development. A major outcome of a first meeting was a consensus on the conceptual framework for the investigation of the effects of possible endocrine disrupter substances. This framework includes a screening level of testing for priority setting and to characterise the mechanism of action. This approach requires the development and validation of specific in vivo and in vitro screening tests as well as the enhancement of existing test methods and their validation. Further work on this will allow selection of the appropriate screens and initiation of the work for its validation.

(1) OJ 196, 16.8.1967.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1243/98

by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission

(9 April 1998)

Subject: Subsidy granted to Burgos City Council under the EEA financial mechanism

In December 1996 the European Investment Bank granted a subsidy of Ptas 350 million for a project to restore the site of the castle in Burgos. Since it was demolished by Napoleonic troops, all that is left of the castle are ruins, which give an indication of what it was like in the past and which are protected as a cultural monument.

The Burgos city councillor in charge of culture and responsible for the project in question has announced his intention to switch the subsidy to another project involving the construction of a new castle on the existing ruins. If this goes ahead it will have a major impact on the landscape and will spoil the views of Burgos Cathedral, which has been declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Could the Commission say whether or not it is possible for a body which has been granted a subsidy under the EEA financial mechanism (involving a contract concluded with the EIB) can unilaterally switch the subsidy to a different project?

What does the Commission think of the fact that EU financial sources intended for heritage protection can be used for precisely the very opposite purpose?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 1998)

As part of an overall grant of ESP 5,200 million provided in October 1996 under the European economic area financial mechanism for urban renewal in Castilla y Leon, the financial mechanism committee allocated ESP 310 million to the municipality of Burgos for excavation and consolidation works on the ruins of Burgos castle.

The Commission can confirm that the municipality of Burgos may not unilaterally change the objective of the grant and the design and implementation of the project for which the grant was made. The Commission can also assure the Honourable Member that the financial mechanism committee has taken the necessary steps to ensure close monitoring of the project's progress by the European investment bank.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1421/98

by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission

(28 April 1998)

Subject: Blue flags

As summer approaches a huge number of blue flags will doubtless be awarded. Since the Commission is not totally uninvolved in the process of awarding these flags, in that it provides information about the quality of bathing water, etc., can it say what kind of checks it intends to devise to prevent possible abuse in the award of the flags?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 1998)

The blue flag campaign is administered by a non-governmental organisation called Foundation for environmental education in Europe (FEEE) located in Copenhagen, Denmark. They have associated organisations in the Member States which assess the beaches which are candidate for a blue flag. This assessment is made for four major issues, for which both imperative and guideline criteria are established: environmental education and information, environmental management, water quality (based on the guideline values of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water(1)) and safety and services.

The Commission does not envisage any particular control measures to prevent abuses of the attribution of blue flags. Before flags are awarded to particular beaches, their candidacy is assessed by the national blue flag jury of the participating countries. Depending on the country, this jury not only includes members of the national blue flag organisation, but also experts in water quality, environment protection and safety or representatives of the national authorities. If the national jury cannot agree on a particular candidacy, the decision is taken by the European jury of FEEE, composed of members of the executive board of FEEE and a representative of the Commission.

During the bathing season, the national and the European blue flag organisation make, unannounced, control visits to the beaches awarded with a blue flag. If they detect breaches of the blue flag criteria, the flag will be taken down, until the situation is remedied. Moreover, the whole blue flag campaign is based on large public awareness, participation and education. It is therefore expected that beach visitors will react to the national and European blue flag operators if they notice anomalies.

However, in the more than ten years existence of the campaign, very few real abuses have been reported.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1273/98

by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Access to knowhow and information technology

Large multinational companies like Siemens-Nixdorf and IBM have prohibited access to the internet for their employees despite the fact that these companies make a living from selling information technology.

Does the Commission not believe that an EU initiative should be taken to ensure that European wage- earners are not restricted in their use of information technology and access to knowhow?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 1998)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that access to information technology and to knowhow are indispensable for companies and organisations of all sizes, and their employees.

Even where the necessary network infrastructure is in place, a company may however conclude that it does not wish to allow unrestricted access to the Internet to every single one of its employees, bearing in mind a number of factors.

In the first place, the company has to bear the cost of provision of the necessary bandwidth for connection to the Internet. European costs for leased lines are still unfortunately much higher than equivalent costs in the United States even if telecommunications liberalisation should add to downward pressure in prices. There may also be questions about the load on corporate networks caused by Internet traffic.

Companies may also be worried about the possible security issues of downloading computer viruses, about liability attached to downloading pornography or unlicensed software and about possible "time-wasting" by employees using company time to consult sites which are not strictly business-related.

It does not appear appropriate at this stage to attempt to lay down rules at European level as to how companies should approach these issues. The Commission would however look favourably on initiatives by companies which are faced with similar issues to discuss practical solutions in common and with their employees or their representatives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0995/98

by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 1998)

Subject: European Union relations with Equatorial Guinea

Last year, the President of the Guinean Government, Toedoro Obiang, met the President of the Commission, Jacques Santer, with a view to establishing fresh arrangements on cooperation between the European Union and Equatorial Guinea.

The tenor of Obiang's talks with Santer are flatly contradicted by his government's active policy of repression, involving the rape of Bubi women, indiscriminate killing on a daily basis, and the arrest and extremely summary trial of 300 prisoners all belonging to the Bubi people and mostly associated with NGOs and the Movement for the Self-Determination of the Island of Bioko (MSIB), the major Bubi political party.

Furthermore, the Community aid received by Equatorial Guinea to assist with democratization and enhanced respect for human rights was withdrawn when the country did not meet its commitments.

1. What is the Commission going to do to make the Obiang Government fulfill its commitment to democratization and respect for human rights?

2. What is the Commission's position as regards the mockery of justice represented by the extremely summary trial currently being prepared by the Government Equatorial Guinea, a trial which, it is feared, will result in a large number of death sentences?

3. What line will the Commission be taking with regard to cooperation with Equatorial Guinea?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 1998)

The Commission is aware of the problematic transition to democracy in Equatorial Guinea, particularly where the basic freedoms of the opposition are concerned. It is closely monitoring political developments in the country and has been in contact with the government over the incidents to which the Honourable Member refers. It has made clear to the government its deep concern at the grave violations of human rights by the police and army, which became involved in these incidents.

Following various representations, the Guinean authorities have told the Commission that the perpetrators of human rights violations will be tried and punished. Those responsible for the events last January will be brought before a public trial which observers from the EU and representatives of Amnesty International may attend.

The gradual resumption of cooperation with Equatorial Guinea still depends on the real progress it makes towards respecting human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, in accordance with Article 5 of the fourth Lomé Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0967/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(30 March 1998)

Subject: Transport of freight through Austria and transit permits

The Greek state company PYR-KAL frequently transports goods through the territory of Community and third countries. Recently when it organized the transit of two consignments of freight (from Greece to Belgium and from Slovakia to Greece), it found that the Austrian authorities still require a transit permit, exactly as they did before Austrian accession to the EU.

The freight in question is "RID Class 1 - Cargo" and is classified as "Euro 1 certificated": it is transported by rail. Belgium and Germany (Member States of the Union) through which it also passes do not require any transit permit.

Will the Commission say whether Austria is entitled to require a transit permit for freight of Community provenance (which the other Member States of the EU do not require) and what action it intends to take to ensure that Austria complies with its contractual obligations as a Member State of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 1998)

The Commission confirms that under the terms of Council Directive 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail(1) the consignor has to notify in a written form the transport of some dangerous goods being certified as "radioactive immune diffusion (RID) class 1 - cargo". As the Honourable Member does not state in detail the kind of goods being forwarded, the Commission cannot clarify whether the "transit authorisation" requested by Austrian authorities complies with the existing Community legislation. However, the carriage of class 1 goods such as explosive substances and articles is subject to approval by the competent authority.

(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1442/98

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Euro 1999

The Commission communication on the practical aspects of the introduction of the euro (COM(98) 61 final, p. 13) refers to the two Regulations on the euro, based upon Article 235 and Article 109, which neither explicitly authorize nor explicitly prohibit conversion charges, and states: "However, other legal principles in the Regulations and in national legislation would restrict banks" ability to charge: for example, charges would not be permitted for the conversion of incoming payments, and for the conversion of accounts at the end of the transitional period. Similarly, charging a higher fee for a service denominated in euro than for the same service denominated in the national currency unit, would undermine the legal equivalence between the euro and the national currency unit. The Commission considers that such practices would be unlawful.'

In the Commission's view, what measures could national central banks and/or governments adopt to guard against such practices?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1186/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Waste of money on the report on waste

Is the Commission aware that the report on waste drawn up by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies on behalf of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre was sent to MEPs individually from Spain, by express mail, at a cost of 620 pesetas per MEP?

Does not the Commission consider that such a waste of money is inappropriate, even for a report on waste?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

The Honourable Member believes the Commission has overspent (total postage costs: ECU 456) in distributing the report "The legal definition of waste and its impact on waste management in Europe" to the members and alternates of Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection.

The report was drafted following a request from the Chairman of that Committee to the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) at the end of February 1997. It had to be submitted to Parliament in time for the public hearing on waste on 26 November 1997. The quality control procedure employed by the IPTS and the scale of the study made this a very tight deadline.

Work proceeded as follows:

- start in March 1997;

- first working paper completed in June 1997;

- circulation for consultation to some 150 European experts in July 1997;

- final replies received at the beginning of September 1997;

- second document in October 1997 and second expert consultation. Deadline for replies: beginning of November 1997;

- completion of final version, translation into French and reproduction in a sufficient number of copies, 14 November 1997;

- documents dispatched during the week of 17 November 1997;

- documents received and distributed to Committee members around 21 November 1997.

In view of this schedule, and the fact that normal postal services could not guarantee delivery within the deadline, express mail was the only way of ensuring the MEPs concerned would receive the report in good time.

Also, the report was only sent to the members of the relevant Parliamentary Committee, and not to all MEPs as the Honourable Member suggests.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1395/98

by Fernand Le Rachinel (NI) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Harmonization of audiovisual licence fees in the hotel industry

In view of the wide disparities between audiovisual licence fees in the hotel industry in Europe, does the European Commission plan to harmonize or approximate national laws in order to avoid distortions of competition?

These wide disparities (full rate for up to 10 TV sets in France, 1 TV licence for the first 15 TV sets in the United Kingdom) are contrary to free competition and equal treatment in the area of hotel services.

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 1998)

The protocol(1) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States which it was agreed in Amsterdam to annexe to the EC Treaty confirms the competence of the Member States to define the public service remit of the broadcasting organisations and to organise its funding.

It is thus not within the Commission's competence to assess the national provisions concerning the raising of the broadcasting licence fees and to try to harmonise them. Such measures fall within the general fiscal powers of the Member States and could only be harmonised by the Council in accordance with Articles 99-102 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ C 340, 10.11.1997.