ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0884/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Radiological sampling at military ranges where depleted uranium munitions have been tested

What plans does the Commission have, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter III of the Euratom Treaty, to conduct radiological sampling at military ranges or other sites in the UK and France where depleted uranium munitions have been tested?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0884/01, E-0979/01, E-0980/01 and E-0981/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

Test ranges of depleted uranium munitions may be either terrestrial or in a marine environment.

In the case of marine test ranges, the Commission stated on several occasions - most recently in its reply to Oral Question H-0055/01 by Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou during question time at Parliament's February 2001 part-session(1) - that no contamination of the marine environment which could be distinguished from naturally occurring uranium concentrations would result from this activity. It is the Commission's understanding that this issue has so far not been addressed under the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Convention.

As far as terrestrial test ranges are concerned, under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty the Commission has a right of access to the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the air, water and soil, hence in the environment, for verification purposes. The Commission has thus no access to nuclear or military sites as such, and the Commission would request access only in so far as on-site monitoring facilities are necessary for the assessment of the impact on the environment beyond the site perimeter.

The Commission maintains a watching brief on the situation with regard to levels of radioactivity in the environment on the basis of the information received under Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty, site specific data provided by Member States authorities, and other sources of information brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission was not aware of the British study with regard to the Solway Firth, nor of a similar study conducted by France.

On the basis of the existing Community legislation, mechanisms ensuring monitoring of radioactivity in the environment already exist. The implementation of such provisions does not highlight a particular need for these to be augmented by the Commission conducting environmental sampling for depleted uranium.

(1) Oral reply of 13.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1464/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Illegal fishing in Mauritania's EEZ

I recently returned from a visit to Mauritania, where I met the country's Minister for Fisheries. Mr Zamel complained bitterly that 30 to 40 boats regularly operate illegally inside the country's exclusive economic zone. These vessels, most of which are from Asian countries, apparently use the Spanish port of Las Palmas as a base, even to unload fish illegally caught in Mauritanian waters. These illegal fishermen would therefore seem to be competing unfairly with European fishermen, who operate in the Mauritanian EEZ within the framework of the existing fishery agreement.

Can the Commission confirm this information received in Mauritania? What steps does it intend to take to stop this illegal trade and hence contribute to sustainable protection of Mauritania's fishery resources?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

The Commission has not officially received information from Mauritania concerning illegal fishing operations by Asian boats in the Mauritanian exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

In the framework of the fisheries agreement between the Community and Mauritania, the Commission is informed about the arrests of Community-flagged vessels. The Commission believes that fisheries enforcement and control within the Mauritanian EEZ are quite effective. The Commission has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to the sustainability of Mauritanian fisheries resources

While there exists Community legislation in the control and enforcement area, its implementation is the responsibility of the Member States. However, the activities of a third-country vessel in waters outside of Community jurisdiction are not covered by such legislation. Moreover, Mauritania has not made any approaches to the Community or, to its knowledge, to Spain concerning this matter. If such an approach were made, it would have to be considered on its merits.

Moreover, it should be noted that both the Community and Mauritania have very recently expressed their support for the adoption by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the International Plan of Action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. This Plan indicates that States should undertake comprehensive and effective monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) of fishing from its commencement, through the point of landing to final destination .
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0853/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Fiscal policy in the Member States

Does the Commission consider that there are any financial circumstances in which a Member State government might legitimately pursue a pro-cyclical fiscal policy? If so, what are they?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2001)

The economic policy framework set up by the Maastricht Treaty and complemented by the Stability and Growth Pact requires that Member States avoid excessive deficits and reach budgetary positions close to balance or in surplus over the medium term. The co-ordination of economic policies takes, among others, the form of a set of Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPG), which must be implemented by the Member States. Concerning the issue of pro-cyclical fiscal policy, the BEPG 2000 specify that given expected output growth above the potential rate, a pro-cyclical stance of budgetary policy should be avoided.

Besides amplifying output fluctuations, implementing a pro-cyclical fiscal policy in the upper part of the cycle could also imply a pro-cyclical tightening in slowdowns, especially for Member States with too high a deficit and which risk breaching the 3 % reference level. In this case, the EC Treaty foresees that a Member State could be urged by the Council to improve its budgetary position, which would result in a pro-cyclical stance. This clause represent a deterrent to prevent bad fiscal behaviour and the pro-cyclical effects are considered to be less critical than achieving sound budgetary positions.

Nevertheless, exceptions to the guidelines to avoid pro-cyclical fiscal policy can be accepted when the temporary increase in the deficit is due to a major tax reform (for example in Germany) provided that is does not imply a risk of breaching the reference value for deficit levels and does not exacerbates inflationary pressures.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1770/01

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Pure antibiotic powder - publication of research results

Given that at present most pharmaceutical companies only make pure antibiotic powder available to researchers on the written undertaking that the researcher will not publish research results without prior authorisation from the company and given the importance of research into the whole field of antibiotic resistance, will the Commission consider drawing up rules of good practice whereby researchers may be able to publish their results after a set period, perhaps 6 to 12 months, without further consultation with the pharmaceutical companies?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

The issue of antimicrobial resistance forms an inherent part of the Community's health strategy and comprises actions in all the relevant sectors, public health, veterinary and phytosanitary. The Commission has adopted on 20 June 2001 a communication setting out a Community strategy against antimicrobial resistance from this multisectoral perspective(1).

With respect to the specific question on access to antibiotic powder for researchers, and having contacted several companies who may be concerned, the Commission understands that it is standard practice for pharmaceutical companies who supply antibiotic powder free of charge to researchers to request undertakings from these researchers that the research is legitimate and appropriate and to request sight of the results in advance of publication. The Commission is not aware that, in practice, publication of the results of such research is restricted. The Commission considers that the manner in which the pharmaceutical industry supplies antibiotic material for academic research is, in general, appropriate, but is not in a position to comment on individual contractual arrangements between a specific company and a specific academic institution. The Commission is willing to address the question of the need for good practice guidelines with the appropriate associations representing the European pharmaceutical industry.

(1) COM(2001) 333 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0184/01

by Florence Kuntz (UEN) to the Council

(5 February 2001)

Subject: Consequences of the use of munitions containing depleted uranium

The national federation representing French servicemen and women, concerned for their well-being and that of their European comrades in arms, has called for a clinical case definition of the Gulf War and Balkans syndromes.

In view of the various statements made by the medical authorities in the various countries of the European Union, would the Council state its views and its position as soon as possible on the possible or known effects on public health of the use of munitions containing depleted uranium, i.e. the Balkans syndrome affecting some French servicemen and members of the armed forces of other European Union countries who have served in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

Could the Council state, as speedily as possible, the exact number of European servicemen and Yugoslav civilians affected by the use of such munitions, and the areas of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia concerned?

If a direct link is established between the use of this type of munitions and the Balkans and Gulf War syndromes, could the Council state what priority public health measures it intends to propose to the Member States as a matter of urgency?

Reply

(31 May 2001)

During its discussions on the occasion of its 22 January 2001 meeting, the Council acknowledged the great concern of public opinion and expressed its commitment to seek full clarity on the issue of depleted uranium. There was general agreement that in the first instance it was for NATO, as the institution organising crisis management in the Balkans, to assemble the information from participants on the use of depleted uranium, on the locations of troops and on medical data. The Council also called for full transparency and open exchange of information between the authorities of the Member States, as well as with other organisations investigating this matter.

The Council also noted that several bodies (UNER, WHO, NATO, the committee set up by the Commission) were examining this issue. Conclusions of the report from the Expert Group of article 31 of Euratom Treaty, were issued on 6th March 2001. Other reports are expected to be published shortly. The Council has agreed to re-examine this issue in the light of those reports in order to assess whether any specific initiative or measures at EU level are warranted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0722/01

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

(9 March 2001)

Subject: Possibility of European rules on safety reports for engineering works such as tunnels

These questions arise from the fire in the ski tunnel in Kaprun in Austria.

Does the Commission agree that automatic fire-extinguishers using water or gas are more effective than dry-chemical devices which require manual operation? Are there any European rules on the fire safety of trains using tunnels, other than the obligation to carry dry-chemical extinguishers? If so, what rules? If not, does the Commission not think there is a need to give consideration to this at European level?

What is the Commission's view of the desirability of European rules on safety reports for tunnels and other underground engineering works?

If the Commission feels a European approach is necessary, when will it submit a proposal to this effect?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

The Commission considers that the adoption of European technical recommendations on the safety of road and rail tunnels would allow the general level of safety in existing and future tunnels to be improved. It has already launched preparatory activities, which should produce results in 2002.

With regard to rail safety, specifications for high-speed rail infrastructure (including tunnels) and rolling stock are due to be adopted by the end of 2001. They contain technical requirements applying to all new projects and all upgrading, including a number of provisions relating to fires and passenger evacuation.

In the spring of 2001, Parliament and the Council should also be adopting a directive on the interoperability of conventional railways. This directive should provide for the adoption of technical safety specifications, the first few of which might be ready in 2004.

Since the specific application of automatic systems on trains is inaccessible places such as the engine compartment, dry powder extinguishers are still, generally speaking, the most effective for areas accessible to people. Research is also under way to make it possible to install fixed automatic extinguishing systems in tunnels.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0962/01

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

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Presence of SRM in meat from Dutch slaughterhouses

Following the recent inquiry in the Netherlands prompted by the discovery in Great Britain of SRM in meat from a number of Dutch slaughterhouses, I should like to ask:

Can the Commission indicate whether SRM has been found in other Member States in meat processed by slaughterhouses?

What ideas does the Commission have for encouraging inspections of compliance with existing rules by the slaughterhouses referred to above?

Why is it that only inspections in Great Britain have revealed the presence of SRM?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

The Commission has been gathering information about the implementation of Commission Decision 2000/418/EEC of 29 June 2000 regulating the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies(1), by Member States since the entry into force of the main provisions in October 2000.

Since December 2000, the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office has carried out missions to eleven Member States, to assess the implementation of the main bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) Community measures. Decision 2000/418/EC was included in the scope of these missions. Further missions are currently taking place. Once the corresponding final reports have been completed, in accordance with the official procedures, they will be transmitted to the Parliament and published on the internet site of the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection. From the information contained in the draft reports, it appears that in most of the Member States visited the controls carried out by the relevant authorities regarding the removal of specified risk material (SRM) at slaughterhouses were considered to be inefficient and in need of improvement, if the presence of SRM, particularly spinal cord, is to be totally excluded.

Protection of consumer health is one of the prime objectives of the Commission. Any potential health risk relating to BSE is taken extremely seriously. To this end, a comprehensive series of Community measures has been put in place. The removal of SRM is considered by the Commission as being the most important measure to protect public health. Member States are responsible for its implementation and enforcement, as it is generally the case for other Community rules. As mentioned above, this is then audited by the Food and Veterinary Office.

From the information available to the Commission, the British Food Standards Agency has issued instructions to local authorities and to the Meat Hygiene Service to step up checks on imported meat arriving at licensed meat cutting plants in the United Kingdom. This action has been decided first to ensure continued consumer protection from potential health risks, particularly those associated with BSE, but also in anticipation of a possible increase in imported beef because of the current foot and mouth outbreak.

(1) OJ L 158, 30.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1136/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Football Transfer Fee

In view of the changes that have recently been made to the football transfer fee system, could the Commission indicate whether it considers that other sports' transfer systems across Europe comply fully with the European Treaties?

Has the Commission already investigated any other transfer fee systems, or does it intend to do so in the future?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2001)

The Commission assessed the compatibility of the Fédération internationale de Football Associations (FIFA) transfer rules with Article 81 (ex Article 85) of the EC Treaty because it has received complaints about some provisions of such rules.

As regards Article 81 of the EC Treaty, each international transfer system must be assessed in its legal and economic context taking account of the particularities of each sport.

The Commission has not received any complaint challenging the compatibility of other sport's transfer systems with Community law.

The Commission has therefore, at present, no intention to launch enquiries in this regard.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0383/01

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Milk cooperatives

If several milk-buying cooperatives and/or dairy farmers' cooperatives decide to merge, and if that enables them to influence the milk price in a Member State, is there any EU legislation that would affect this decision? Is there a limit on the percentage share of the raw milk market in a Member State that a cooperative could hold, or is this a matter for individual Member States? Are there any circumstances in which the EU would become involved?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2001)

If several dairy farmers' co-operatives merge, the new entity has to be scrutinised under the Community Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings(1)) if the transaction has a Community dimension. This means that the Commission will have jurisdiction over the transaction if it fulfils the definition of a concentration and meets the turnover threshold set out in the Community Merger Regulation.

The Merger Regulation assesses the possibility of a merger creating or strengthening a dominant position, which could significantly impede effective competition, and requires a prospective analysis. As the assessment is always done on a case-by-case basis there is, in principle, no specific limit on the percentage share of the raw milk market that a co-operative could hold if a merger in the milk sector were assessed. Dominance is not an absolute concept. Market power may be found to exist to a greater or lesser extent and the conclusion will depend on the structure of the market, i.e. the strength of the competitors, barriers to entry to the market, legal requirements and many other elements.

It should be noted that the Commission could also have jurisdiction in accordance with Article 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty, after any merger has taken place. This would be the situation if the merger co-operatives were found to hold a dominant position on a relevant market and to behave in such a way as to abuse that position, with the behaviour affecting trade between Member States.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0932/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Commission sponsoring of Generation Europe

How much was spent, and under what budget headings, in sponsoring Generation Europe in 1998, 1999 and 2000, and what will be the size of the sponsorship contribution for 2001?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2001)

Generation Europe is an organisation which has received subsidies from the Commission for producing a school diary.

The subsidies awarded by the Commission by way of sponsorship for this diary have been as follows:

- 1998/1999 academic year: 32 000 (budget heading B3300; commitment introduced in 1998 by the Directorate-General for Information, Communication, Culture and Audiovisual Media, formerly DG X);

- 1999/2000 academic year: 38 000 (budget heading B3306; commitment introduced in 1999 by the Directorate-General for Education and Culture);

- 2000/2001 academic year: as no call for proposals was issued as part of the activities of the Directorate-General for Press and Communication, no subsidy was awarded from the 2000 budget, nor will any be awarded by that Directorate-General from the 2001 budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0815/01

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) and Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: INA insurance company merger

The board of directors of INA, the Italian insurer acquired by Assicurazioni Generali, has decided to restructure the company and hive off its life assurance activities to a new company set up specifically for this purpose called INA-VITA. The parts of the company not transferred to INA-VITA are then to merge with the controlling company Assicurazioni Generali.

What steps does the Commission intend to take in order to safeguard the jobs at INA and to ensure that its activities in Rome are not jeopardised?

What does it intend to do in order to protect the job security and professional status of workers of INA?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2001)

The Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, ensures that Community law is correctly applied.

Industrial restructuring, including the preservation of the level of employment, remains, in principle, a matter for the Member States.

However, in such restructuring operations, the provisions on the rights of workers, as referred to in Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses(1), amended by Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998(2), and in Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(3), especially concerning the area of information and consultation, must be complied with.

In view of the above, it is primarily the responsibility of the national authorities and courts to resolve any disputes that may arise from this matter.

(1) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977.

(2) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998.

(3) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.