ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1503/99

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Situation of the fishing fleet belonging to EC-Argentinean joint enterprises

Before the fisheries agreement between the EU and Argentina expired, the Argentinean Government unilaterally adopted a series of measures which blatantly discriminate against the EU fleet, thereby infringing and contradicting the provisions of the agreement. They concern the allocation and reduction of fishing quotas, the establishment of marketing areas applicable to the freezer fleet only, a reduction in the number of Community crew members, restrictions making it difficult for Community workers to obtain visas, etc. This situation prompted Community ship-owners mainly in Galicia to lodge a complaint with the European Court of Justice against the European Commission, on the grounds that the Commission had failed to offer the fleet adequate legal protection, in that the EU institutions were powerless against the measures adopted unilaterally by the Argentinean Government.

Can the Commission say what steps it intends to take to safeguard the interests of EU-Argentinean joint enterprises in Argentinean waters? By what date does it envisage adopting them? Why has the EU hitherto never made any efforts to this end?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1999)

In the last few years, catches of Merluza hubbsi in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of Argentina have risen substantially, threatening the conservation of this stock. Faced with this situation, the Argentinian Government declared an emergencia pesquera and adopted a series of management and conservation measures.

Some of these measures have had an impact on the activity of vessels operating under the fisheries agreement between the Community and Argentina. Their adoption without consulting the Community has led the Community to consider that they affect the general balance of the agreement.

The Commission has several times made its position clear to the Argentinian side, in particular with regard to the difference in treatment between freezer ships and vessels taking fresh fish. Payment of the balance of money for scientific and technical assistance under the fisheries agreement between the Community and Argentina has been blocked.

Despite the fact that this agreement and the rights and obligations arising out of it for the contracting parties expired on 24 May 1999, and that both the joint enterprises and vessels transferred under the agreement are entities in Argentinian law, the Commission is maintaining regular contact with the Argentine authorities and is following developments closely.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1659/99

by Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 September 1999)

Subject: Krsko nuclear power station

In his hearing before the European Parliament, Commissioner-designate Günter Verheugen stressed that the accession to the EU of individual applicant countries would be dependent on the decommissioning of unsafe nuclear power stations and the submission of plans for withdrawing from the production of electricity generated by nuclear power in stations posing risks. Mr Verheugen emphasised that, on the matter of the safety of nuclear power stations, there was not the slightest room for compromise. However, the nuclear power station in Krsko, Slovenia was not included among those listed by the Commissioner-designate, although it is situated in an earthquake fault zone and therefore poses a huge threat.

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that this unsafe nuclear power station in Slovenia, a country applying for accession, is decommissioned, removing the threat which it poses in particular to the adjoining Austrian Länder of Carinthia and Styria?

Will the Commission attach the same conditions to the decommissioning of Krsko as those set out by Commissioner-designate Verheugen regarding the unsafe power stations to which he referred?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 1999)

The Commission has already stated that the Soviet designed nuclear power plants (NPP) considered non-upgradable operating in candidate countries, should be closed at the earliest practical date, in accordance with agreed timetables. This is the case of the Ignalina NPP in Lithuania, units 1-4 of the Kozloduy NPP in Bulgaria and Bohunice V1 in Slovakia. Towards this objective, the Commission is negotiating with these three countries through joint working groups.

The case of Krsko in Slovenia is different. It is a plant of Western design, similar to other plants of this type operating in the Community and other Western countries. Slovenia continues the safety improvement programmes of the plant. Agenda 2000 states that Where Western-designed plants are in operation (Romania and Slovenia), developments should be monitored to ensure that operations comply with the appropriate safety standards. Technical assistance can be provided if necessary.

The accession partnership with Slovenia identifies two medium-term priorities in this field namely the strengthening of the nuclear safety authority and the adjustment of the Slovenian nuclear policy and investment plans in line with the results of the seismic risk assessment to be carried out in the surroundings of the Krsko nuclear power plant.

In this context, over one M has been allocated in the framework of the PHARE programme to support the safety authority, notably through transfer of methodologies and procedure from Community nuclear safety regulators. Also in the framework of the PHARE programme, and with the aim of re-evaluating the seismicity of the area and its potential impact on the plant design, 500 000 is being provided to the Krsko nuclear power plant. The first results of the study are expected by the end of the present year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1802/99

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Lindane

In connection with Council Directive 91/0414/EEC(1) the Austrian authorities have produced a monograph covering the health and environmental effects of the pesticide lindane. In the monograph they recommended the suspension of the use of lindane across the EU pending the submission of further data. Furthermore, they called for lindane to be classified under category 3 of carcinogenic substances and for the label to contain the phrase possible risk of irreversible effects under Directive 67/0548/EEC(2).

Given the recommendations in the report and the fact that Sweden and Denmark have already banned lindane, what action will the Commission be taking regarding this product? Will it fully accept the recommendations put forward by the Austrians, particularly in the light of the precautionary principle?

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

(2) OJ 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1801/99 and E-1802/99 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 1999)

For the current state of the examination of the dossier concerning lindane, the Commission would refer to its answer to Written Question E-154/99 of Mrs Pollack(1).

The Commission will follow the procedures established in Commission Regulation (EEC) 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/0414/EEC concerning the placing

of plant protection products on the market(2) and will as soon as possible, and after all consultations are finalized, forward a proposal to the standing committee on plant health. This may require a review of the classification and labelling of lindane under Directive 67/0548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances(3).

A lot of progress has been made since the adoption of Directive 91/0414/EEC of 15 July 1991(4), in particular the development of implementing legislation, technical background documents and confidence building between Member States. The Commission however shares the view that the review process should be speeded up.

Therefore a new strategy, within the possibilities for Commission action provided in Directive 91/0414/EEC, is under discussion. It is expected that this would result by the end of 1999 in the adoption of further implementing measures for the review of the remaining existing active substances. The Commission has no intention to lower the safety standards of the Directive.

(1) OJ C 325, 12.11.1999, p. 76.

(2) OJ L 366, 15.12.1992.

(3) OJ L 196, 16.8.1967.

(4) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1613/99

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 September 1999)

Subject: Anti-landmine campaign

The previous European Commission played an active part in the campaign against landmines.

What action will the new Commission take in continuing to support that campaign?

Is the Commission prepared to convene another international conference in this connection, and if so when and where will such a conference be held?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 1999)

In line with Council Resolution 11913/96 and Parliament Resolution A4-0149/95 the Commission intends to strengthen its contribution to international efforts for overcoming the global problem of landmines, by referring specifically to the commitments of the Ottawa Treaty. A draft regulation on action against anti-personnel landmines, accompanied by a communication to the Council and the Parliament on the same topic, will be submitted to the Parliament and the Council by the end of 1999.

In this context, special emphasis is being given to intensified coordination of activities at Commission, Member State and international levels, including support to the United Nations concerning its overall coordination role. Any major Commission activities such as the organisation of international conferences

will be considered in the context of the new regulation to be adopted, and in close cooperation with the United Nations and other actors in this area. It is currently not envisaged to hold a major international conference in the near future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2054/99

by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Abolition of European aid payments for the distribution of milk in schools

Reports are widespread of the Commission decision reducing, then abolishing, Community subsidies for the distribution of milk in schools.

According to child nutrition specialists milk is an essential food for child development. The distribution of milk in schools is, moreover, still useful today in reaching certain sectors of the population who do not enjoy a balanced diet.

This plan is disturbing in terms of both agriculture and public health.

As the Agriculture Council on 14 and 15 June 1999 took the view that milk consumption should be encouraged because of its nutritional value, in particular for children and young people, why is the Commission taking a decision that runs counter to the Council's opinion?

At a time when public health has just been given the status of a horizontal Community policy under the Treaty of Amsterdam, how can the Commission risk endangering the health of European children who benefit from this nutritional supplement in schools?

Can the Commission therefore deny the information that has been published and reassure the citizens of Europe?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2029/99 and E-2054/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1665/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Misappropriation of IMF funds for Russia and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

At the end of July the Chairman of the International Monetary Fund, Michel Camdessus, granted a loan of US$ 4,5 billion to the Russian Federation, although he knew about a report by Price Waterhouse confirming that Moscow's Central Bank had for some time been diverting part of the funding to financial institutions abroad.

Does the Commission know whether EBRD funds as well as IMF funds have been misappropriated?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 1999)

On the general issues of alleged financial corruption in Russia, the Commission's view remains as set out in its statement in Parliament on 16 September 1999. On the particular question by the Honourable Member, the Commission hereby transmits the information available to it in its capacity as the representative of the Community in the board of directors of the European bank for reconstruction and development (EBRD):

Illegal capital flight is a criminal activity and its perpetrators will therefore attempt to conceal their activities from official view, including that of the EBRD. Therefore the EBRD has an anti-money laundering policy, and requires that financial institutions to whom it extends credit make representations, which are designed to reduce the likelihood of the Bank becoming unwittingly involved in such activities. In addition, all EBRD payments to and from Russia are covered by appropriate Central Bank licences.

Approximately a quarter of all EBRD financing is with Russian counterparties. The EBRD's activities with Russian counterparties are restricted to financing of approved projects where use of funds is closely defined. Strict disbursement controls are in place at EBRD which mean that funds are paid directly to contractors wherever this is possible. Where other disbursement mechanisms such as Special Accounts are used, these accounts are reconciled regularly to ensure that funds are used for the intended purpose.

Regular staff briefings are held by the anti money laundering officer, appointed by the Bank in 1996.

Following the recent Bank of New York case, the EBRD has conducted its own review of Russian exposures and has asked its auditors to conduct a review of specific Russian projects which could be vulnerable to money laundering activities. Although the external review is continuing, the Bank's preliminary assessment from its own review is that there are no projects which exhibit prima facie conduct or transactions that would indicate laundering.

The Commission has no evidence, which could put in doubt the above information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1838/99

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(13 October 1999)

Subject: Food safety shortcomings in Spanish ports

At the end of August 1999, the European Commission published a report of veterinary inspections carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) in Spanish airports and ports from November 1998 to March 1999. During these inspections serious deficiencies were discovered in the sanitary procedures at some Spanish border posts charged with carrying out checks on food safety.

Taking into account the conclusions of the report, to be found on the web site of Directorate-General XXIV, what action does the Commission plan to take against the Spanish authorities in order to remedy the situation denounced by the FVO report?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1999)

Two recent visits have been made to Spain by the Commission's Food and veterinary office (FVO), one in November 1998 and one in February 1999. The results of the missions have been published in their final form on the web site of the Health and consumer protection directorate general, including comments and reactions to the findings in the draft report from the Spanish authorities. Written responses to the deficiencies identified in this report have been received by the Commission, which is still in discussion with the Spanish authorities regarding specific recommendations.

The Spanish authorities have indicated that as regards inadequate facilities they are making the necessary modifications or planning new facilities. In the case of deficiencies in the procedures carried out at the border posts, immediate administrative action has been taken to improve matters.

Recommendations for change to the listing of border inspection posts from either the FVO or by Member States are considered regularly several times each year by the Commission, with a view to amending the published list of border posts (Commission Decision 97/0778/EC of 22 July 1997 drawing up a list of border inspection posts (BIPs) agreed for veterinary checks on products and animals from third countries, laying down detailed rules concerning the checks to be carried out by the experts of the Commission and repealing Decision 96/0742/EC(1)). The list of border inspection posts was recently amended by Commission Decision 1999/0577/EC of 20 July 1999(2).

(1) OJ L 315, 19.11.1997.

(2) OJ L 219, 19.8.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1596/99

by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 September 1999)

Subject: Human rights in Uzbekistan

Concerned Christians in the European Union are continuing to draw attention to alleged abuses of human rights in Uzbekistan. They have pointed out that cases of Pastor Rashid Turibayev, Parhad Yangibayev, Iset Tanishiev and Nail Asanov who, they claim, have been jailed on false charges of drug possession.

Is the Council monitoring the human rights situation in Uzbekistan particularly in regard to the treatment of converts to Christianity and what representations has it made to the Government of Uzbekistan in relation to the above-mentioned four prisoners?

Reply

(29 November 1999)

The Council is closely monitoring the human rights situation in Uzbekistan.

The EU is regularly raising this issue with the Uzbek authorities. In a demarche in Tashkent in July 1999 and in the First Cooperation Council EU-Uzbekistan on 13 September 1999, the Union expressed concern on the freedom of religion and in particular the ill-treatment of Christians in Uzbekistan. It encouraged the Uzbek government, in the framework of the recently concluded Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and in the light of Uzbekistan's OSCE commitments, to respect the international principles of freedom and religion. The EU also expressed strong concern about imprisonment on the grounds of political or religious belief and about prison conditions in Uzbekistan.

The Council will continue to closely monitor the human rights situation in Uzbekistan in all its aspects and address the issue regularly with the Uzbek authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1695/99

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: EU coordinator Hombach

For weeks, the EU's international coordinator for reconstruction of the Balkans, Bodo Hombach, has been publicly suspected of involvement in bribery cases with considerable ramifications (relating to his private house in Mülheim and his luxury home in Canada). On 27 August 1999, in response to these serious allegations, he decided of his own volition to resign from his party posts.

In view of this situation, which still remains very unclear, as well as the utterly incomprehensible plan to locate his office in Brussels rather than in the immediate vicinity of the region to which his duties pertain, which will hardly be conducive to efficiency, the following question is surely inescapable: does the Commission intend to suggest to Mr Hombach that he should resign from his highly responsible post as EU representative for the democratic and economic reconstruction of the Balkan region?

Under the circumstances, it would moreover be desirable, in the interests of transparency, to announce publicly what remuneration was promised to Mr Hombach when he took up the post. Will the Commission do so?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1999)

According to the Treaty on European Union (Article 18 ex Article J8), the appointment of special representatives is the responsibility of the Council.

The requested elements relating to the remuneration of the special representative are established in a financial statement which, in accordance with Article M of the inter-institutional agreement regarding financing of the Common foreign and security policy of 16 July 1997, is communicated by the Council to the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2174/99

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Legislative acts which may affect competition

What would the Commission's opinion be of a situation where a regulation granted a tariff reduction on the raw materials used by only one firm in a certain sector, without clear justification?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 1999)

It is not Commission policy to answer hypothetical questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2046/99

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Full list of allowances claimable by the President and the European Commissioners

Can the Commission list, in full, all allowances that are paid to or can be claimed by the President and the Commissioners in addition to their salaries?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2778/98 of 17 December 1998 amending Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom determines the emoluments of the President and members of the Commission, of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice, and of the President, Members and Registrar of the Court of First Instance(1).

Under the terms of that legislation, the remuneration of the Commissioners, the President and Vice-Presidents may comprise, in addition to a basic salary, family allowances and other allowances. Family allowances are granted after deduction of any sums of the same nature that the Commissioner would receive from other source. Clearly, the total remuneration of each Commissioner will depend upon the allowances to which he or she is entitled.

The family allowances to which Commissioners, the President and the Vice-Presidents are entitled monthly consist of a household allowance of 5 % of basic salary (if there is a dependent spouse), a childrens' allowance of 213,62 per dependent child, and education allowances which vary according to the child's age and stage of academic development (36 %, 50 % or 100 % of 190,90 respectively for primary, secondary and university education).

A residence allowance is paid, equal to 15 % of the basic salary.

There is a representation allowance, currently 607,71 for Commissioners, 911 for Vice-Presidents, and 1 418 for the President. Expenditure incurred for reasons of representation is reimbursed after presentation of the invoice. Reimbursement is limited annually to 11 347 for most members of the Commission. For the Vice-Presidents and members with external relations responsibility, the ceiling is 17 023 and for the President it is 22 694.

When first taking up duty, a Member of the Commission (unless he or she is Belgian) is entitled to an allowance to cover his or her installation expenses, equivalent to two months basic gross salary (i.e. currently 31 209 for a Commissioner), reimbursement for travel expenses for himself or herself and dependent family, and reimbursement of the cost of moving personal effects (insurance included).

(1) OJ L 347, 23.12.1998.