ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2527/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Political oppression in Burma

As the military dictatorship of Burma has carried out countless atrocities against the Burmese people and the population of the country lives in extreme poverty despite an abundance of natural resources, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Would the Commission advocate the imposition of economic and financial sanctions against the Burmese government?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 1998)

The Commission continues to press its partners to urge the government in Burma to engage in a substantive dialogue with the opposition. In particular, this has been an important issue in recent discussions with its Association of South East Asian nations (ASEAN) partners.

Under the common position, co-operation with Burma remains suspended and will continue to be so until substantial progress is made towards democratisation and the respect of human rights. Only humanitarian programmes will be funded.

In addition, outside the political framework, it has to be recalled that the Union has temporarily withdrawn Burma's access to the tariff preferences granted within the framework of the schemes of generalized tariff preferences (GSP) because of the practice of forced labour (Council Regulation (EC) 552/97 of 24 March 1997(1)).

The Union has decided to keep additional measures under consideration, whilst prolonging the common position on Burma. The decision regarding the imposition of further sanctions against the Burmese government has to be taken under the Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) framework and not by the Commission alone.

(1) OJ L 85, 27.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2172/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Castor shipments in breach of EU law

Can the Commission say what action it will take following the violation by Member States of EU legislation on radiation protection, namely Council Directives 92/3/Euratom(1) of 3 February 1992 and 96/29/Euratom(2) of 13 May 1996, in the case of the Castor shipments?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

It should be noted that Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation will only come into effect in May 2000. Directives 80/836/Euratom of 15 July 1980(3) and 84/467/Euratom of 3 September 1984(4) remain valid until that time. However, the Commission has no evidence of any breach of the provisions of any of these three directives or of Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community.

As to possible future actions, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its statement in the Plenary session of the Parliament of 17 June 1998(5).

(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992, p. 24.

(2) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 246, 17.9.1980.

(4) OJ L 265, 5.10.1984.

(5) Verbatim report of proceedings 17 June 1998, provisional edition, p. 20.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2146/98

by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Sale of medicinal products via the Internet

The safety, quality and effectiveness of medicinal products for human use are guaranteed by means of a number of directives such as Directive 65/65(1), which requires administrative authorization for the marketing of medicinal products in the Union, or Directive 92/27(2), which lays down the requirement for package leaflets to be included with medicinal products.

In view of the emergence of new marketing methods via the Internet (concerning in particular the marketing of medicinal products), the guarantees provided by Community law do not appear to be entirely effective.

Can the Commission say what action has been taken at European level to alleviate what has become a serious problem? Can it say whether the matter has been included on the European agenda for future trade negotiations with the USA and within the World Trade Organization (WTO)?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 1998)

The Commission remains concerned about such sale on the Internet, as this may constitute an infringement of Community law - whether of Directive 65/65/EEC (on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products) where the product in question has not been issued with a valid marketing authorization, or of Directive 92/28/EEC of 31 March 1992(3) which prohibits the public advertising of prescription medicines.

It may, additionally, violate national law - in those Member States which have exercised their right under Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997(4) (on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts) to ban the marketing of certain products by distance contracts where they adjudge this to be in the "in the general interest", and in those which have accorded pharmacists a monopoly of the sale of medicines.

Restrictive measures may be feasible where operators are established within the Community territory; not so where they are located outside it, as is frequently the case (given the trans-frontier nature of the Net). For this reason - and to ensure maximum efficacy for any measures taken by the Commission/Member States - contacts have been initiated with the WHO (which encompasses the countries most concerned by this phenomenon). This dialogue may lead to early publication of a guide for Internet users to the trans-frontier advertising and sale of medical products (including medicaments). Also, the action plan for safer use of the Net proposed by the Commission - dealing with a number of illegal or harmful activities on the Web and promoting general measures to restrict these - may extend to certain forms of distribution of illicit drugs or medicaments.

(1) OJ 22, 9.2.1965, p. 369.

(2) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 8.

(3) OJ L 113, 30 April 1992.

(4) OJ L 144, 4 June 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2010/98 by José APOLINÁRIO to the Commission. Cohesion report and studies on regional income



Official Journal C 118 , 29/04/1999 P. 0014



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2010/98 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (30 June 1998) Subject: Cohesion report and studies on regional income Can the Commission explain why it has not publicized the studies on regional income which it drew up for the cohesion report? If it has in fact done so recently, can it supply the author of this question with a copy of the relevant document?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2765/98

by Giacomo Santini (PPE) to the Council

(11 September 1998)

Subject: Application of a surcharge ("sovrapprezzo") to imports of Community sugar

In its judgment of 21 May 1980, in Case 73/79, the Court of Justice of the European Communities ruled that Italy had infringed Article 95 of the EC Treaty by imposing a surcharge on imports of Community sugar, a provision introduced by the Interministerial Prices Committee (CIP No 3661 of 22 June 1968). The surcharge was deemed to discriminate between importers and domestic producers thereby entailing an unacceptable distortion of the principle of free competition. The surcharge was ruled illegal in that it constituted a charge which, "although levied at the same rate on sugar produced in Italy and sugar from other Member States, does not constitute a uniform imposition on those products".

Will the Council say:

1. whether it still considers the surcharge levied by the Italian state under provision CIP 3661 of 22 June 1968 to be illegal?

2. whether the surcharge paid by Italian importers should be refunded since it was illegally levied and could not be reclaimed?

3. whether the body concerned (the Sugar Equalisation Fund) can, if necessary, ask importers to pay any difference between the surcharge paid and the amount of aid legally granted by the Italian state?

4. whether the state may determine the amount of direct or indirect aid granted to industry independently and without supervision by any other authorities?

5. whether the Sugar Equalisation Fund can, by means of retrospective application of the law, request a refund of the illegally levied tax if this has already been repaid to the importer?

6. whether importers will be subject to the burden of proof requiring them to show that the surcharge has not been passed on to other operators in order to secure the right to reimbursement as provided for in law 429/90?

7. whether the illegal nature of the surcharge can be deemed to be offset by the fact that it has been transferred to the consumer?

Will the Council call on the Italian Government to annul/repeal Article 29(2) and (7) of law 128/90?

Reply

(3 November 1998)

It is not for the Council to comment on action taken by the Italian State following the Judgment of 21 May 1980 by the Court of Justice in Case 73/79. If the Judgment is not being fully respected, it is for the Commission, in accordance with Article 171 of the Treaty, to take the necessary steps to ensure that it is implemented.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2727/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Impact of proposed directive on taxation of savings income (COM(98) 295)

Following a General Affairs Council meeting in July 1998, Mr Jacques Poos was reported as having called for a study by an independent firm of the potential effects on capital markets of the introduction of the measures set out in this proposal.

Can the Commission confirm that such a study will be commissioned? If not, can it explain why it does not consider that such a study would be necessary or useful?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2276/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Criminal financial assets

What steps is the Commission planning to take to utilise the unique opportunity available to identify criminal financial assets at the instant of the conversion from national currencies to the euro?

Are there plans to enlarge Europol's remit to set up a financial unit to enable Europe-wide coordination and cooperation, particularly with regards to drug monies?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

All Member States have mechanisms in place to prevent misuse of the financial system to launder the proceeds of criminal activities. These mechanisms are based to a large extent on Council Directive 91/308/EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering(1). As it stands, the Directive prohibits only the laundering of the proceeds of drug trafficking. However, all Member States have made the laundering of money derived from a wider range of criminal activities a criminal offence. The Commission is currently examining the possibility of updating the Directive and widening its scope.

The obligations arising from the Directive will continue to apply in full at the time of the changeover to the euro and will cover the exchange of notes and coins denominated in national currencies. The Commission expects the banks to maintain their usual vigilance during the period preceding the introduction of euro notes and coins and during the transition period itself, with a view to detecting any suspicious transactions. It is continuing to examine the implications of the introduction of the euro for the combating of money laundering, and it has been agreed that the issue will be discussed in the contact committee set up in accordance with the above Directive.

Moreover, measures to prevent and combat counterfeiting will be needed in order to protect the euro. The Council is currently working, with the Commission's active participation, to devise a comprehensive approach including the various parties concerned: Europol, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Commission, particularly its anti-fraud unit (UCLAF). In this context, the Commission adopted on 22 July 1998 a specific communication to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Central Bank on combating euro counterfeiting(2), in which it puts forward a number of suggestions for further consideration.

(1) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991.

(2) COM(98) 474 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2634/98 by Otto von HABSBURG , Hiltrud BREYER , Charles GOERENS , Klaus-Heiner LEHNE , Claudia ROTH , Wilmya ZIMMERMANN , Karl HABSBURG-LOTHRINGEN to the Council. Visa requirements for Bulgaria and Romania - expert reports



Official Journal C 135 , 14/05/1999 P. 0084



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2634/98 by Otto von Habsburg (PPE) , Hiltrud Breyer (V) , Charles Goerens (ELDR) , Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) , Claudia Roth (V) , Wilmya Zimmermann (PSE) and Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (PPE) to the Council (1 September 1998) Subject: Visa requirements for Bulgaria and Romania - expert reports Several commissions of experts have recently visited Bulgaria and Romania to consider the visa problem there. No reports have yet been published on these visits. If such expert reports already exist, when will the Council be submitting them to Parliament? What conclusions has the Council reached in this matter? If a report or reports of this kind have not yet been drawn up, when will they be compiled? Reply (16 November 1998) Since it is not associated with the expert commissions mentioned by the Honourable Members, the Council has no knowledge of the existence or otherwise of any reports drawn up by such commissions.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2983/98 by John McCARTIN to the Commission. Excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland



Official Journal C 135 , 14/05/1999 P. 0149



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2983/98 by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission (8 October 1998) Subject: Excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland Is the Commission aware of the excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland and does it consider that this is due to lack of competition in the Irish market?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2442/98

by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Threat to monuments of Kosovo

It has been reported in the European press ("Le Soir", 30.6.1998) that unique treasures of the European and world cultural heritage are unprotected and face total destruction Kosovo. Roman monuments, Christian monasteries and churches, Byzantine icons from the Fourteenth Century and rare manuscripts and Muslim places of worship of particular architectural value are under direct threat in the regions affected by the conflict.

Can the Commission examine the possibility of sending experts to assess the state of these monuments and artefacts and to take measures to save these invaluable monuments of Europe's cultural heritage?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 1998)

The Commission is aware of the press articles concerning the protection and threat to the cultural heritage monuments and artefacts in Kosovo and is very much concerned. The Commission does not however have the competence to send an experts'mission to assess the state of these monuments and artefacts and to take measures for their protection.

In the Commission's opinion, the matter should be discussed by the relevant ministers within the framework of the Council. Furthermore, in the framework of its cooperation with the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization (UNESCO) and the Council of Europe, the Commission would be willing to consider offering assistance, should these organisations undertake an initiative concerning the matter raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2391/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Motor vehicle pricing policy

Is the Commission aware of the high cost of motor vehicle tax imposed by the Irish Government on private motor vehicles, and does it believe that this tax distorts the market in such vehicles and puts many businesses in Ireland at a serious disadvantage compared with competitors outside Ireland?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1998)

The Commission is aware of the tax on cars under Irish legislation (vehicle registration tax, ranging from 23,2 % to 29,25 % of the "market price"). In the absence of Community tax harmonisation in this sphere, this type of tax is at present governed by national legislation. The Commission considers that at the present stage of Community law the actual level of the tax does not infringe Community tax provisions since there does not seem to be any discrimination involved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2524/98

by Niels Kofoed (ELDR) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Low producer prices for pigmeat

At present European pigmeat prices are at an extremely low level, with heavy losses for the pig producers. It is expected that this situation will deteriorate further in the coming months. Because of increased production, this year an additional amount of some 800 000 to 900 000 tons of pigmeat will come onto the European market. At the same time we are seeing the European pigmeat industry lose important and traditional markets like southeast Asia and Russia, due to fierce competition from countries like the USA and Canada. In many cases these exports are only possible because of government support. On the European market every ton of pigmeat exported means one ton less on the internal market and more consumption of beef, which costs about ten times more to take off the internal market.

1. Is the European Commission aware of the effect on the beef market of extra pigmeat coming onto the European market?

2. Is the Commission willing to introduce export refunds on pigmeat products, which until last year were exported in large quantities to important markets like Japan, South Korea, Eastern Europe, etc., in order to try to prevent a further fall in pigmeat prices and to help the European pigmeat industry to face the aggressive competition on third country markets?

3. Which other measures could the Commission envisage to prevent a further fall in pig prices to producers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 1998)

1. The Commission regularly assesses the links between different meat markets. However, the link between beef and pigmeat is certainly not as clear-cut as suggested by the Honourable Member.

2. The Commission has followed the situation closely and already reacted by introducing export refunds for carcasses and bone-in cuts on 14 May 1998. Certain boneless cuts were added to the list of eligible products for export refunds on 3 August 1998 and an increase to the refund levels was made.

3. The market organization for pigmeat has only two measures available for supporting the market. These are export refunds, which are limited by the World trade organisation (WTO) agreement, and aid for private storage. At present, the Commission is supporting the market by a strengthening of the export refund policy.

The Commission is willing to consider further measures to support the market if necessary and possible, but it can do little about the basic problem of increased production. It is up to farmers to decide whether they will adapt production and thereby improve the market price.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3095/98

by André Sainjon (ARE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Aid granted by the IMF to South Korea and its repercussions for shipyards

In his letter of 3 March 1998, Sir Leon Brittan stated that the Commission would exercise vigilance and verify that the aid granted by the International Monetary Fund to South Korea was not used to save bankrupt shipyards.

Could the Commission inform me of its progress with this verification and its initial findings?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1998)

The Commission is keeping a close watch on developments in the financial crisis in South Korea and its impact on the European shipbuilding industry.

At the meeting between Asia and Europe (ASEM II) in April 1998, the shipbuilding issue was raised with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. He acknowledged that overcapacity in the sector was the result of inappropriate allocation of funding and that his Government's policy was to apply market principles more stringently and hence not to support bankrupt firms in the sector. Consequently no aid from the IMF should be used for shipyards in difficulties.

The IMF's plan, which South Korea accepted, is intended only to stabilise the financial and banking system and in no way to fund industrial sectors.

Although the Commission does not sit on the IMF, it is carefully monitoring the situation. It has repeatedly raised a series of questions with the South Korean authorities on the utilisation of IMF funding. These questions have been discussed at bilateral talks, such as the May 1998 high-level consultations between the Commission and the South Korean authorities. A number of assurances have been given. None the less, the Commission has asked for further clarifications on the restructuring of the sector, the support given by Korea Eximbank for exporting vessels and for clarifications about allegations of local subsidies to shipyard sub-contractors.

The Commission continues to monitor developments closely. To date, however, it has received no information indicating that South Korea has failed to comply with its international obligations in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2696/98

by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: European definition of heavy goods vehicles

The total authorised loaded weight for heavy goods vehicles in France is subject to a limit of 40 tonnes, whereas the corresponding limit in neighbouring European countries ranges from 44 to as much as 50 tonnes.

The European Union has been looking into a common definition of road transport vehicles with a view to harmonising the rules applicable to them in the light of the opening of borders to the transport of goods by road and establishing the weight, dimensions and environmental standards to which such "European" vehicles should conform.

Can the Commission say what progress has been made on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 1998)

In 1993, the Commission adopted a proposal to harmonise the maximum weights and dimensions of lorries throughout the Community(1) for international and national transport operations.

The proposal contained, inter alia, a maximum weight limit of 44 tons for 6 - axle lorry combinations fitted with air suspension and a maximum weight limit of 40 tons for 5 - axle lorry combinations.

Whilst certain aspects of the proposal (chiefly those relating to maximum vehicle dimensions for all transport and weight limits only for international transport) were adopted as Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996(2), there was no agreement in the Council to harmonise maximum vehicle weights for national transport.

This part of the Commission's proposal consequently formally remains with the Council for consideration and there are currently no plans to withdraw the proposal.

(1) OJ C 38, 8.2.1994.

(2) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.