ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2749/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(3 September 1998)

Subject: European volunteer year for young people

Does the Commission see the serving of a European volunteer year as a possible alternative to the military and civilian service obligations in the Member States? What steps is the Commission taking in this respect?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 1998)

As the Honourable Member knows, issues concerning national military or alternative service obligations are in the domain of the Member States, and it is for the Member States to decide whether periods of voluntary service have any bearing on the legal obligations they place upon their citizens. As stated in the decision establishing the Community action programme European voluntary service for young people(1): "European voluntary service activities are not a substitute for military service, for the alternative service formulae provided in particular for conscientous objectors or for the compulsory civilian service existing in several member states".

However, the Commission recognises the relevance of the question, and is aware of the need to clarify the different approaches the Member States have adopted regarding their national services. During the conciliation procedure preceding the adoption of the European voluntary service programme decision the Commission agreed to undertake an in-depth study about the existing arrangements in various Member States. The aim will be to facilitate discussion concerning the relationship between European voluntary service and the different national service options.

(1) OJ L 214, 31.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2589/98

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: School trips within the European Union

At present, school trips within the European Union made by classes which include pupils who are not nationals of an EU Member State entail a disproportionate degree of bureaucracy and expense.

When a secondary school class from Dornbirn was planning a trip to other EU States, a list of pupils first had to be drawn up and passports and visas checked.

Those pupils from non-EU countries who did not have their own passports with valid visas had to provide an up-to-date photograph. The completed EU pupil travel forms, accompanied by photographs, had to be checked again by computer at the local authority offices and certified against payment of a fee.

1. Has the Council previously been made aware of complaints about the disproportionate bureaucracy involved in school trips within the EU? What has already been done regarding this issue?

2. What proposals are on the table and what initiatives has the Council undertaken or does it intend to take?

3. Would a certificate issued by the school management not be sufficient for cross-border travel within a united Europe?

4. When can schools in the EU expect to see a simplification of this bureaucracy?

Reply

(9 November 1998)

1. The Council has not received any complaints from citizens about school trips.

2. On 30 November 1994 the Council, considering that the granting of travel facilities for school pupils who are legal residents in a Member State is an expression of a common will to improve the integration of third-country nationals, adopted a Decision on a joint action concerning travel facilities for school pupils from third countries resident in a Member State(1). The aim of the joint action is to eliminate the visa obligation for pupils who are nationals of a non-member country residing in a Member State and who request admission to the territory of another Member State, either for a short stay, in transit or in the context of a school trip.

3. The aforementioned joint action stipulates that the list of pupils must be signed by the headmaster/headmistress of the school and certified by the authority responsible for matters relating to aliens. However, it is for the competent authorities of the Member State of departure to authenticate the list for the purpose of confirming that those participating in the trip have the right of re-entry to the territory of that State.

4. The Council periodically evaluates the said joint action. In the light of the results of such evaluations, the Council does not, at this time, feel that it is necessary to amend the legal arrangements applicable to such trips.

(1) OJ L 327, 19.12.1994, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2691/98

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: EU relations with Turkey and their impact on the trade in hazelnuts

The current strain in relations between the EU and Turkey lies behind measures such as the change to the autonomous tariff quota on hazelnut imports. The new Council Regulation No 1506/98(1) of 13 July 1998 suspends the exemption from import duties for a quota of 9060 tonnes of hazelnuts entering the EU market from Turkey.

Has the Commission assessed the potential impact on European producers, especially those in the Reus district, should Turkey react to the new regulation by abandoning henceforth the minimum price support for hazelnuts of approximately 4 dollars per kilogramme?

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

(9 October 1998)

As the Honourable Member points out, Council Regulation (EC) 1506/98 of 13 July suspends the autonomous tariff quota on 9 060 tonnes of hazelnuts imported from Turkey. This Regulation is a response to Turkey's continuing ban on all imports of beef and live bovines, including those from the Community.

The annual meeting provided for in Decision No 1/98 of the EC-Turkey Association Council took place in Reus, Spain, on 10 September. Representatives of the Commission, the Turkish Under-Secretariat of Foreign Trade, Community traders and Turkish hazelnut exporters discussed the hazelnut market and its prospects.

At the meeting the Turkish authorities told the Commission that they intended to continue their current policy of intervention and price support.

(1) OJ L 200, 16.7.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2297/98

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Millennium bug in East European nuclear reactors

There is widespread concern about potential problems with computer failures as a result of the beginning of the new millennium.

A spokesperson for Russia's Atomic Energy Ministry reportedly stated that Russia will "deal with the problem in the year 2000".

Is the Commission monitoring this situation in Eastern Europe?

What financial and technical assistance is being offered by the EU to East European countries to prevent a catastrophe in the year 2000?

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

(18 September 1998)

The Commission is aware of the potential threat from the "millenium bug" and has actively promoted awareness in many areas. In the nuclear safety area, the Commission has promoted discussion of the threat among nuclear regulators.

For example, the matter was on the agenda of the meeting of the Concert group in Ljubljana 17-18 June 1998 funded by the Commission. The group (consisting of the nuclear safety authorities of the Community, the Central and Eastern European States and of the New independent states which accepted an invitation to became group members) meets twice a year to discuss and exchange information and experience on regulatory matters. The meeting showed that this matter is recognised as a source of concern by the different regulatory bodies in the group. All the regulators are well aware that the threat has to be addressed before the year 2000.

In general the protection, instrumentation and control systems on East European nuclear power plants (NPPs) exhibit a less extensive level of computerisation than their Western European counterparts. The task of assessing the safety impact of potential failures caused by the millenium bug, although recognised as urgent, should therefore be correspondingly smaller.

No specific request for technical and financial assistance to address this problem has been made to the Commission in the context of Phare and Tacis nuclear safety support programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2456/98

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) and James Janssen van Raay (UPE) to the Council

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Threats against white Dutch nationals in Surinam

1. Today's edition of "Weekkrant Suriname" (Suriname Weekly News) carries a report that, when the ex-dictator and current national adviser of Suriname, Desi Bouterse - a man suspected by the Netherlands judicial authorities of being a large-scale international drugs dealer - was arrested, it was said that no white Dutch national was now safe in Suriname. What consequences does the Council expect that threat to have?

2. Is the Council aware that that threat, made by a staff member of the NDP, the political party of which Bouterse is President, might seriously damage relations between Suriname and the European Union?

3. Is the Council prepared to call on the Commission to carry out a detailed review of relations with Suriname, with particular regard to aid projects involving funds from the European Union, now that it is clear that the constitutional state of Suriname is dominated by a man suspected of being a large-scale international drugs dealer?

Reply

(7 December 1998)

The Council has not discussed the matters raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3136/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(9 October 1998)

Subject: Cancellation of European Commission open competition for the recruitment of officials

Very serious allegations have been reported in the press and made directly by a number of candidates in the open competition organised by the Commission and held in various European centres on 14 September 1998.

Some candidates reported that copies of the logical reasoning and mathematics test papers had been obtained in advance but that the invigilators for the selection tests failed to act on this information.

In the Brussels centre there were a number of complaints that candidates had been able to use mobile phones in the toilets between tests and fill in the answers on the optical reader form.

In the Rome centre, during the French test, different test papers were handed out to candidates in different examination rooms. As a result, whilst photocopies were being made of the same documentation for all the candidates, candidates had time to contact people outside by various means and fill in the optical reader form with additional answers, exceeding the time limit set for each test.

There have been reports on the Internet concerning the massive blunder at the Milan centre where the tests were held near Assago instead of the location stated in the letter of convocation.

After these allegations were confirmed, following the initiative of several MEPs, the European Commission decided on 24 September to cancel the competition.

Given the serious nature of these events which severely undermine the credibility of the European institutions, can the Commission:

- state its reasons for cancelling the tests?

- indicate exactly what irregularities occurred?

- say in how many and in which centres these irregularities occurred?

- indicate how much it cost the Community budget to organise the tests?

- say what measures it intends to take vis-à-vis those responsible?

- state whether similar allegations have been made following other competitions in the past?

- list all the allegations made following other competitions and the action taken on them?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2785/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(9 September 1998)

Subject: Presidential elections in Togo

In connection with the presidential elections in Togo, the Commission funded media observation projects by Reporters Without Frontiers (RSF) in the sum of ECU 110 000, and an electoral observation mission coordinated by Electoral Reform International Services (ERIS) to the tune of ECU 560 000.

In funding these projects from heading B7-7020, lacking a legal basis, the Commission felt free to ignore a number of rules.

Is this why, in its reply of 24 July 1998 to Written Question P-2187/98(1), the Commission says that "the projects were submitted by the bodies in question and were approved in accordance with the arrangements appropriate to the management of this budget heading"?

Does this mean that ECU 560 000 were allocated to ERIS and ECU 110 000 to RSF without any selection procedure being used?

If there was no selection procedure, and since these two organisations were well-known to be close to the Togolese opposition, how does the Commission justify taking this politically sensitive decision?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 1998)

The use of budget appropriations for those headings still without a legal basis is subject to the stringent provisions of the Financial Regulation that governs the budget as a whole. The projects cited by the Honourable Member are a case in point. The Commission is therefore unable to accept the contention that it felt "free to ignore a number of rules".

The budget heading funds projects submitted by partners: non-governmental organisations, associations or international organisations. After examination and appraisal, projects satisfying the criteria laid down for the heading's use are the subject of a formal decision by the Commission under the financial rules in force.

The Commission would also point out, as emphasised in its answer to Question 2187/98, that the two projects cited by name formed part of a coherent programme of support for the electoral process. The programme was set up at the request of the national authorising officer, in accordance with Parliament's resolution of November last year on Togo and on the basis of requests from a number of partners.

The Commission believes that the activities it financed contributed to the success of the elections. It also believes that the partners who carried them out worked with efficiency and without bias.

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 132.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2706/98

by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: EU subsidy for school milk

Can the Commission verify that the current level of subsidy for schools in the UK is 11,98 p per pint of milk? If so, given the importance of milk as a source of calcium for children, is this an adequate level of subsidy or does it need to be reviewed?

Can the Commission confirm what channels primary schools have to use in relation to the Intervention Board in Reading in the UK in order to access this subsidy? Can the Commission investigate whether there is an unnecessary amount of bureaucracy in accessing it and if so, how this procedure can be simplified?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

Following an adjustment of the United Kingdom green rate on 3 May 1998, the level of subsidy for whole milk distributed under the Community school milk scheme now amounts to 11,67 pence per pint. This subsidy, which amounts to 95 % of the target price for milk, is higher than any other subsidy granted in the framework of the common market organisation for milk and milk products. The Commission is convinced that this level of subsidy is adequate.

A primary school in the United Kingdom wishing to participate in the scheme should contact the Community school milk subsidy scheme section in the intervention board in Reading, which is responsible for implementing the scheme in the United Kingdom. As regards the practical arrangements for the scheme, the Commission's role is confined to checking their conformity with the existing Community legislation. The administrative procedures as such fall under national competence and, therefore, their possible simplification should be discussed with the British authorities in the first instance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2889/98

by Bernard Lehideux (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Possible resumption of EU accession negotiations with Malta following the change of government there

Mr Eddie Fenech Adami's National Party has just won the early elections held on 5 September in Malta.

This is the third term of office as prime minister for Mr Adami, who has always expressed his intention of bringing Malta into the European Union. He was the originator of Malta's membership application, subsequently shelved by the Labour government of Mr Alfred Sant which came to power in 1996.

The new prime minister seems to wish to relaunch Malta's application for membership of the European Union.

1. What procedures will the new Maltese prime minister have to follow in order to resubmit his country's application?

2. When might such an application result in Malta's accession to the European Union?

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

(3 November 1998)

1. The new Maltese Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs met the Austrian Foreign Minister in Vienna on 14 September 1998 and officially presented a request for the reactivation of Malta's application for Union membership.

2. At the General Affairs Council of 5 October 1998 the Council asked the Commission to present an update of the 1993 opinion on Malta's request for Union membership. It should be recalled that any decisions concerning accession negotiations with Malta are for the Council to take.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2932/98

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Recognition of official rules governing alternative medicine

In view of the fact that the European Community recognises the existence of official rules governing alternative medicine in certain Community countries, according to information received from the Organization of Natural Medicine and Organic Therapies in Portugal, which is affiliated to the Open International University, can the Commission say what recognition the European Community gives natural medicine and whether there are any specific forms of financial support or higher training courses promoted or encouraged by the Community institutions?

Answer by Mr Monti On behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

There are no binding Community texts recognising and governing activities in the field of alternative medicine. If there is no harmonisation at Community level, the recognition and any control of an activity are in the first place the responsibility of each Member State, as far as the requirements for training, entry and practice of the activity are concerned. Furthermore, Article 129 of the EC Treaty on public health leaves the matter of treatment and care to the Member States.

The situation of natural medicine in the Member States varies tremendously, since activities related to such treatment may or may not be recognised by the Member States and may be practised solely by qualified doctors or by other practitioners as a form of treatment that is alternative or complementary to traditional medical care. With regard to this matter, the honourable Member is referred to the resolution on the status of non-conventional medicine adopted by Parliament on 29 May 1997 (A4-0075/97). This resolution described the situation of non-conventional medicine in the various Member States at the time the text was adopted.

The question of the recognition of diplomas is worth mentioning. When an activity in a Member State is not restricted to a qualified doctor, the general system for the recognition of diplomas and professional qualifications (Directives 89/48/EEC et 92/51/EEC)(1) is intended to apply to a qualified professional desiring to exercise in any Member State the same activity for which he is qualified in his Member State of origin. In this connection, the honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-317/94(2), by Mr Kostopoulos, on training standards for osteopaths. The content of that answer is - mutatis mutandis - applicable to all forms of natural medicine.

With regard to financial support from the Commission for courses of higher education in this field, the Socrates programme - and especially its Erasmus project - provided help in 1996-97 for the joint development of a master's degree in paraclinical sciences. This programme is coordinated by the University of Kent at Canterbury and also involves the Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen and the Université de Lille II, which specialises in law and medicine.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989 and L 209 of 24.7.1992.

(2) OJ C 376, 30.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2886/98

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Trade with Russia

The agreement signed on 23 July 1998 on bilateral trade in textile products between the EU and Russia abolished some 30 quotas on Russian exports. Has an assessment been made of the potential impact of the said agreement on the textile sector in the EU as a whole, and in Spain in particular?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 1998)

The agreement between the Community and Russia concluded on 20 July 1998 abolishes textile and clothing quotas previously maintained by both parties. It also confirms that the provisions of the Cooperation and Partnership Agreement with Russia apply equally to the textile and clothing sector, thus providing a clear and stable legal framework for trade in textiles.

At this stage it is difficult to assess precisely what impact abolishing the 28 Russian quotas will have on Russian exports, since the full statistics are currently available only for the first five months of 1998.

Given the low level of use of most of the Russian quotas when they were in force, and the downward trend in Community imports of textiles from Russia (ECU 246 million in 1997, ECU 244 million in 1996 and ECU 277 million in 1995), the elimination of 28 quotas will probably not result in a significant increase in Community textiles imports.

Since Russia's share of total imports of textile and clothing products is also falling (0,44 % in 1997, 0,51 % in 1996 and 0,61 % in 1995), it is unlikely that Russian textile exports will have a serious impact on the EU textile sector.