ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3618/98

by Nelly Maes (ARE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Delayed and indifferent response of the European Commission to the ECHO affair

On 14 July 1998, Commissioner Gradin stated before the plenary sitting of the European Parliament that, "during last week" (i.e. the week beginning 6 July 1998), suspicions that had arisen against one official on the ECHO staff were strong enough to allow the Commission to initiate legal proceedings. The UCLAF report on the inquiry into the four suspect ECHO contracts was completed on 15 May 1998.

1. What was the Commission doing between 15 May and 14 July?

2. Is it true that, as long ago as 9 February 1998, the official concerned had made a very extensive statement to the UCLAF investigators that the four ECHO contracts were bogus and had been used to pay the salaries of external staff? If so, why did the Commission wait until July 1998 before taking disciplinary and legal proceedings?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3613/98

by Nelly Maes (ARE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Real scale of the ECHO affair

The European Commission says that only BEF 20 million was actually involved in the ECHO affair and not BEF 96 million, as some people claimed.

How can the Commission make this statement? If UCLAF establishes that the four contracts were bogus and that payments were made on the basis of bogus documents, we can only assume that all the expenditure, i.e. the entire BEF 96 million, was paid out in a totally irregular manner. Is that true? Is the Commission prepared to demand repayment of the entire BEF 96 million?

Then can the Commission confirm that the ECHO affair does not extend beyond the four bogus contracts for humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslavia and the Great Lakes region in Africa? Can it state with any degree of certainty that bogus invoices and bogus contracts were not used on other occasions? Is the current ECHO affair an exception to the rule, or were there other similar cases?

The Commission stated that, in previous years, the company involved was awarded contracts worth almost one billion (Belgian) francs. Has an inquiry now been carried out in order to ascertain whether the other contracts which the Commission concluded with the company involved were executed in a regular manner?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4093/98

by Ole Krarup (I-EDN) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: The Danish pre-retirement system and residence requirements

Does the Commission consider that the revised Danish pre-retirement system is compatible with the principles of EU legislation, and in particular with Article 48 of the EC Treaty, Article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68(1) and the principles laid down in Regulation 1408/71(2) on the preservation of rights after crossing borders within the Community?

Under the new as well as the old pre-retirement rules, pre-retirement is payable only to persons resident in Denmark. It cannot be exported to another Member State. Under both the new and the old rules on the acquisition of pre-retirement rights, nationals of other countries cannot take their rights with them to Denmark. The rules prevent other EU nationals moving to Denmark after they are 35 from acquiring Danish pre-retirement rights. Danes who have settled in other EU Member States and returned after the age of 35 will, on the other hand, be allowed to purchase such rights provided they have worked for at least one year in Denmark. Under the new rules, rights are acquired by paying a contribution to the Danish unemployment insurance scheme between the ages of 35 and 60. The old rules normally require membership of the scheme for 20 years preceding the age of 60.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-1235/98 by Mr Bonde during question time at Parliament's January I 1999 part-session(3).

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.

(2) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

(3) Debates of the Parliament (January I 1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3343/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: The Raspberry Ice Cream War

It has been reported in the British press that 75 000 copies of a children's comic entitled "The Raspberry Ice Cream War", produced by the Commission, have been withdrawn from circulation in the UK.

Can the Commission please confirm whether this is true, provide further details and estimate the cost of producing and pulping this comic?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 1999)

It is correct that the Commission decided not to distribute in the United Kingdom the 65 000 copies of the publication mentioned by the Honourable Member (production cost ECU 0,30 a copy) but it was not necessary to pulp them, due to demand for the english language version outside the United Kingdom.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2791/98

by Claude Desama (PSE) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Town twinning scheme in 1998

A number of Belgian local authorities have recently received documentation detailing the town-twinning scheme for 1998.

Sadly, it is clear from reading the said documentation that if what they have to offer in terms of culture, sport, tourism or folklore is excluded, these towns will find it all but impossible to qualify.

All of the local authorities concerned are dismayed at the failure of the scheme's priorities to match the wishes of their citizens.

Can the Commission say whether the scheme is designed to strengthen ties amongst all of the citizens of Europe, or whether only some of them are to be targeted through certain chosen themes?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

The 1998 information note on the criteria for awarding grants to twinning schemes was adopted by agreement between the representatives of all the national schemes of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions and of the World Federation of United Cities, who met in Brussels on 21 January 1998.

Since the programme was adopted in 1989, 24 800 town twinnings have been supported.

At the next meeting on the award criteria for 1999, scheduled for December 1998, the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (Belgian section) will have an opportunity to submit its proposals.

The Commission examines each file carefully before it decides to reject or accept it, and it feels that various European themes should be treated during a town twinning ceremony.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3184/98

by Jan Lagendijk (V) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Infringement of the Habitats Directive by the construction of a dam in the Ems

Is the Commission aware that work started on 17 September on the construction of a dam in the Ems near Gandersum?

What is the Commission's response to the fact that building work has started despite the Commission's request to the German government to forward information in view of a possible infringement of the Habitats Directive and the Wild Birds Directive(1)?

Has the Commission received the information it requested from the German government?

If not, does the Commission intend to wait for the information while work on the dam goes ahead?

In the present instance, what does the Commission regard as a reasonable deadline for forwarding the information?

Is the Commission prepared, on the basis of the information already in its possession, to start infringement proceedings forthwith in order to prevent the dam being a fait accompli when the Commission appeals to the Court?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 1998)

As has been stated in the reply to Written Question E-2382/98 by Mrs Van Putten(2), the construction of a dam on the Ems German-Dutch border is the subject of a range of complaints. The Commission has recently been informed of the fact that the work started on 17 September 1998.

As the Honourable Member states, the Commission has invited the German authorities to take a position on the matter. On the basis of more substantial information put forward by the complainants, the Commission has recently sent a further letter to the German authorities and asked them to comment also on this additional information. The awaited reply will help the Commission to decide whether to open infringement proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty. The Commission has not yet received a reply. Therefore the Commission has not yet taken a decision.

In case of complaints where the Commission considers that there might be an infringement, it invites the national authorities to take a position. In these cases the Commission generally allows two months for a reply. This is also the case here.

If the Member State does not respect the said deadline, the Commission takes the appropriate measures to ensure the proper handling of the case. This might include, in case of a systematic refusal to provide information, the opening of infringement proceedings under Article 5 of the EC Treaty which obliges Member States to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the obligations resulting from action taken by the Commission in its role as guardian of the EC Treaty.

(1) Answer to Question E-2382/98, see page 6.

(2) See page 6.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2449/98

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

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Distance between residential areas and livestock farms

The current expansion in intensive livestock farming, involving significant efforts to modernise and adapt to Community legislation, has led to a situation in all Community countries where farm buildings are situated in close proximity to residential areas.

Links between stock-farming and residential activities have therefore become the norm.

Does the Commission believe that the current regulations governing conditions for livestock farming are sufficient to ensure their development in conjunction with residential uses?

What regulations apply in the various countries of the European Union with regard to the preservation of such farms in proximity to rural areas for residential use?

Has the Commission considered the possibility of regulating the coexistence of these two forms of land use (residential and livestock farming) throughout the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1998)

It is up to Member States and local authorities to take any decision on how close intensive livestock farming can be to a residential area. The Commission does not hold information on Member States' regulations about this.

However, there are certain rules at Community level which may affect what an intensive livestock farmer can do:

- Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources(1) imposes restrictions on the intensity of livestock production when it poses a threat to the quality of surface waters or drinking water;

- Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (amended by 97/11/EEC(2)) requires an environmental impact assessment to be carried out before certain intensive pig or poultry installations can be set up;

- Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control(3) aims at achieving pollution control for industrial installations over a certain size, including in the pig and poultry sector.

The Commission does not consider it appropriate to suggest any harmonising legislation in the area of planning permission, as it considers that this is an area where subsidiarity calls for a very localised approach.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3415/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Liver transplants

Does the Commission have data concerning the incidence of liver transplants in each of the Member States?

Does it agree that it is necessary, in view of the importance of and increasingly frequent recourse to this procedure, to conduct a survey on the basis of which to draw up rules and initiatives that are the same for everyone?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3670/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(4 December 1998)

Subject: Mission expenses for EU officials

Press reports suggest that there are plans to increase mission expenses for EU officials by up to 30 %.

1. Are there really any such plans?

2. What is the justification for this increase?

3. What form will the increase actually take?

4. What additional charge to the EU budget is likely to result from this?

Reply

(22 and 23 February 1999)

1. The Council can confirm that the proposal(1) for a Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) "adjusting the daily subsistence allowance rates for officials on mission within the European territory of the Member States of the European Union laid down in Article 13 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities" is currently being examined by the relevant Council bodies.

As stated in the explanatory memorandum, the proposal ensues from the proposal for a Regulation "adjusting the daily subsistence allowance rates for officials on mission within the European territory of the Member States of the European Union laid down in Article 13 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and introducing an annual adjustment procedure" submitted by the Commission on 23 September 1996(2), on which the European Parliament delivered its Opinion on 12 March 1997(3).

2. The explanatory memorandum to the Commission proposal also states the reasons for the adjustment, arguing in particular that "the current allowances were set by the Council on 22 July 1991 (Regulation No 2232/91) following a survey of hotel rates and restaurant prices. [...] The scales fixed then no longer reflect prevailing economic conditions and this [...] means that the daily subsistence allowance rates and the ceilings for the reimbursement of hotel expenses for missions within the Member States urgently need revision."

3. The scale for the proposed daily subsistence allowances is given in detail in Article 1 of the said proposal.

4. The financial statement attached to the proposal evaluates the budgetary impact referred to in point 4 of the Honourable Member's question at ECU 9,8 million.

(1) Sent by the Commission on 17 July 1998 (COM(98) 455 final, not published in the Official Journal).

(2) COM(96) 451 final, OJ C 349, 20.11.1996, p. 8; proposal amended on 31 July 1997 (COM(97) 429 final,OJ C 277, 12.9.1997, p. 4).

(3) OJ C 115, 14.4.1997, p. 77.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3634/98 by Peter TRUSCOTT to the Council. Registration and licensing of hairdressers



Official Journal C 182 , 28/06/1999 P. 0113



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3634/98 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Council (4 December 1998) Subject: Registration and licensing of hairdressers Will the Council consider introducing compulsory EU-wide registration and licensing for professional hairdressing salons and hairdressers in the European Union? At present, only the UK, Greece and the Republic of Ireland do not license hairdressers, who may be untrained, unqualified and uninsured in those countries. This issue has serious health and safety implications for the citizens of the countries concerned. Reply (22 and 23 February 1999) The Council would like to underline that the Member States are competent for the organisation, structuring and regulation of professions. Accordingly, as far as the profession of hairdresser is concerned, each Member State is entitled to determine the level of competence required to exercise the profession and establish specific requirements of registration and licensing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3877/98

by Riccardo Garosci (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Statements made by EU experts at the joint EP/Commission conference on food safety and the BSE crisis

At the joint EP/Commission conference on food safety following the BSE crisis held in Brussels on 30 November 1998, several speakers, including members of the SSC and the SCAN, expressed doubts about the countries with no cases of BSE, maintaining that the disease does not stop at borders and that checks in those countries are minimal, which is why few cases have been recorded. Given that there was much talk during the conference of "transparency" and information, such allegations are extremely serious.

Annex 6 to the second quarterly report of the BSE monitoring committee states that only 3 countries have had an extremely limited number of cases of BSE: Denmark (1), Luxembourg (1) and Italy (2). In view of the above, would the experts provide more information on the doubts voiced at the meeting? It is unacceptable for people in their position to make unsubstantiated allegations of this kind.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 1999)

At the joint EP/Commission conference on 30 November and 1 December 1998, the verbatim report of which is already available on the Commission's internet site, the scientific experts present made known their views on the situation in the Community as regards bovine spongiform encephalopathy and its likely trend. They spoke in complete independence and openness. The Commission cannot therefore respond on their behalf to the Honourable Member's request.

Under Commission Decision 98/272/EC of 23 April 1998 on epidemio-surveillance for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Decision 94/474/EC(1) a first review of surveillance for TSEs will be made in spring 1999. On this occasion the Commission, in order to check that the purposes for which the Decision was adopted have been attained, will carefully examine the programmes set up by Member States.

(1) OJ L 122, 24.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2418/98 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Monsanto and the terminator gene (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)



Official Journal C 207 , 21/07/1999 P. 0002



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2418/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (27 July 1998) Subject: Monsanto and the terminator gene What legal avenues are open to the EU to persuade or force Monsanto not to use its terminator gene? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (28 September 1998) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3911/98

by Jean-Claude Pasty (UPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Tariff and statistical nomenclature and the common customs tariff in respect of truffles

Commission Regulation (EC) 2261/98(1) amends Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) 2658/87(2) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the common customs tariff in respect of truffles. Truffles crop up in several places in that Annex - under code NC 0709 52 00 "Truffles", which gives an indication of the excise duty, and under code NC 0712 30 00, which covers "Mushrooms and truffles".

Despite its immense merit, the nomenclature is not specific enough as regards "truffles". That one word may actually encompass a dozen or so varieties of widely differing quality (and, hence, price), such as tuber melanosporum, tuber magnatum, tuber aestivum and tuber uncinatum, to name but the most widely marketed varieties.

Accordingly, with a view to establishing accurate statistics about the numbers being marketed, to setting appropriate tariffs and, not least, to ensuring consumer safety, does not the Commission feel that the "truffles" line should be expanded while it exists and, in particular, while there is no general approach, for example in respect of quotas, to "Mushrooms and truffles"?

Furthermore, could not the French standard for "fresh truffles", which was adopted two years ago and includes a precise classification of the various varieties marketed, serve as a working basis for this issue?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 1999)

The tariff and statistical nomenclature currently has three headings referring to truffles: 0709 52 ("fresh" truffles), 0712 30 (mushrooms and truffles, provisionally preserved but unsuitable in that state for immediate consumption) and 2003 20 (truffles, prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid).

The volumes and value of trade in the goods of codes 0709 52 and 2003 20 are fairly low, at EUR 270 000 and EUR 140 000 respectively (1997). In the case of the mushrooms and truffles of code 0712 30 the value of imports is a higher EUR 66 million. Though it is not possible to divide the statistics between mushrooms and truffles, the fact that the output of a valuable item like the truffle cannot be high suggests that truffles do not account for a large proportion of the amount in question.

Because (i) the Commission has embarked on simplifying and modernising the tariff and statistical nomenclature and (ii) increases in the number of statistical headings place an added administrative burden on companies, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), further subdivision to separate truffles and mushrooms does not seem an appropriate step.

(1) OJ L 292, 30.10.1998, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3958/98

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Counterfeit goods

According to reports by the UN Economic Commission for Europe, Central and Eastern Europe have become a thriving market for counterfeit goods, as Asia has been for some time, and such goods are reaching the EU's internal market via those regions. Counterfeit goods production is also a major obstacle to increases in EU investment in Eastern Europe, as businesses see that they will not enjoy the requisite legal protection in the countries concerned.

How will the Commission step up its efforts to combat the manufacture and distribution of counterfeit goods in Eastern Europe? What will the Commission do to improve cooperation with the authorities of Eastern European countries in this regard?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 1999)

The lack of sufficient and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) is of concern to the Commission. The Commission agrees that piracy and counterfeiting activities are important obstacles for foreign investment.

Under the Europe agreements the CEECs have committed themselves to provide a level of intellectual property protection similar to that existing in the Community. The combat of counterfeiting production is primarily the responsibility of each of the countries concerned, but the Commission is closely monitoring the evolution of intellectual property protection in Central and Eastern Europe. In general, there is good co-operation between the authorities of the CEECs and the Commission. Progress has been made in all countries, in particular in Poland, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic where new legislation or practical measures within the police force, customs authorities and the judicial system have recently been introduced. The Commission has regularly raised, in its contacts with the CEECs, the issue of counterfeiting practices and piracy and it will continue to do so. Moreover, since 1992 the Commission has given technical assistance to the national authorities through the Phare programme, in particular through the multi-country programmes concerning intellectual and industrial property. Legal support and training of prosecutors, judges, customs and police officials are important features of its assistance.