ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2034/98

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Reduction in working time

How is it possible for the Commission to recommend in its document COM(98) 279 on the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and the Community that "a compulsory and across-the-board reduction in working time ..(..).. may have adverse consequences and should therefore be avoided" when it knows that two Member States have already decided to introduce a 35-hour working week?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1998)

The Commission has no intention of interfering in the policies of the Member States where these are purely a matter of national competence. It intends to abide by the principle of subsidiarity.

However, the Commission is the guardian of the Community interest, including as regards economic policy. The European Council and the Ecofin Council have called on it to secure greater coordination of economic policies so as to guarantee the success of the single currency and a significant increase in employment in the Community. It was with this aim in mind that the Commission drew up its 1998 recommendation on the broad guidelines of economic policy.

The Commission is therefore entitled to issue independent opinions on any economic policy initiatives which may have a marked effect on the Community economy as a whole or on the achievement of the objectives assigned to economic policy by Article 2 of the EC Treaty. A reduction in working time falls into that category. It is only natural therefore that the Commission should express its views on the matter, while abiding by the principle of subsidiarity.

The Commission takes the view that the reduction in working time must not adversely affect the competitiveness of European firms. However, it is true that this general principle is not incompatible with national initiatives which adapt the reduction in working time with the aim of maintaining European competitiveness.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2409/98

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(17 July 1998)

Subject: Commission presence in Macao

The European Parliament's delegation for relations with the People's National Assembly of China undertakes a visit to the People's Republic of China approximately every two years. The most recent visit took place this year at the end of May and during the first week of June.

As on previous occasions the Commission's office in Peking provided assistance in various ways, from logistical support to information meetings. In particular, the Commission representative attended several of the official meetings and one of the office's staff accompanied the delegation throughout its visit to Dalyan.

Since it was set up, Parliament's delegation has on two occasions included Macao in its itinerary: in 1991 and also this year, from the evening of Saturday, 6 June to mid-afternoon on Sunday, 7 June, during which time it held meetings with the Governor, the Macao Legislative Council and the leaders of various projects to which the EU is contributing. Throughout the day in Macao, nobody attended from the Commission's office in Hong Kong, despite the fact that Macao falls within its jurisdiction.

Does the Commission not consider that sending a representative to Macao was something which falls within the Hong Kong office's area of responsibility? Was it not thought worthwhile to send a representative? Since the Hong Kong office attended the meeting with consuls in Hong Kong, why did it not send a representative to Macao?

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

(17 September 1998)

The office of the Commission in Hong Kong is also accredited to Macau. The Commission office in Hong Kong maintains close contact with the Macanese authorities and has been active in following a number of programmes which the Commission maintains in Macau.

The Parliament delegation to which the Honourable Member refers visited Macau and Hong Kong 6-8 June 1998. The office of the Commission in Hong Kong organised the programme for that delegation in close cooperation with the Parliament Secretariat. Meetings of the Parliament delegation with local authorities and institutions both in Hong Kong and Macau were arranged with the cooperation of the office of the Commission in Hong Kong.

The office particularly organised and participated in the meeting of the Parliament delegation with the Union heads of mission in Hong Kong, the agenda of which covered topics relating both to Hong Kong and Macau.

Unfortunately, for staffing reasons, the Commission's office in Hong Kong was unable to be represented at the meeting in Macau.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3089/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Turkish military blockade of Orthodox Monastery

The Orthodox Monastery of Mar Gabriel in Turkey is one of the most ancient in the world, being over 1 600 years old. The Orthodox faith and the Aramaic language have been taught there down to the present day and it is the spiritual home of three million Syrian Orthodox Christians. Over the last few months major American newspapers (such as the Los Angeles Times, on 21 August 1998) have reported that the Islamist regional governor of the region, Fikret Güven, has been attempting by various stratagems to put an end to the teaching of the 30 students at this monastery.

Having implemented Turkey's infamous racist law banning non-Turkish citizens from being ordained, the Turkish authorities are now seeking completely to deprive the monastery of teachers of the Christian faith. The Turkish army has recently set up in the village of Haberli next to the monastery a checkpoint (which is guarded by tanks) where the names of all the faithful wishing to visit the monastery are recorded.

Will the Commission give its views on this matter and say how it intends to react, since it is now clear that Turkey is emboldened by the inertia shown by the EU whenever the rights of the non-Muslim minorities remaining on Turkish territory are violated and takes even harsher measures to terrorize and persecute them?

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

(10 November 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2159/98 by Mrs Daskalaki(1).

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 128.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2491/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Exploitation of fishing quotas

Can the Commission give a precise indication as to the level of quota, excluding quota swaps, which is exploited by nationals of a Member State other than the one which was originally allocated the quota? If so, can the Commission clarify which countries this involves and to what extent this practice is carried out?

Specifically, can the Commission provide up-to-date statistics on the exploitation of quotas by Dutch nationals, which had previously been allocated to countries other than the Netherlands?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 1998)

The Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member that it is unable to provide him with the information required since this is not available.

For the purpose of management of the total allowable catches (TAC) and quota system, only data relating to each stock's cumulative catch from vessels flying the flag of each Member State are required. Only those data are consequently reported to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2535/98

by André Fourçans (PPE) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Operation of European financial markets

The advent of the euro will result in the increasing integration of Europe's financial markets. The recent announcement of an alliance between the London and Frankfurt stock exchanges is an early indication of this.

Within this new framework which will gradually be established, does the Council consider that a greater harmonization of the rules governing the operation of European financial markets is needed or rather that a European monitoring institution should be set up, modelled on the Security and Exchange Commission in the United States?

Reply

(3 November 1998)

It should be noted that the European Council meeting in Cardiff in June 1998 invited "the Commission to table a framework for action by the time of the Vienna European Council to improve the single market in financial services, in particular examining the effectiveness of implementation of current legislation and identifying weaknesses which may require amending legislation".

Accordingly, the Commission recently submitted a proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the taking up, the pursuit and the prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions.

In addition, following its initial Action Plan for the Single Market, the Commission has just submitted two proposals for European Parliament and Council Directives amending Directive 85/611/EEC relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS).

At present, the Council has no other Commission proposals before it on European harmonisation in the banking and stock exchange sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2661/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Deadline for the completion of the "Ecovia" project

With reference to point 3 of Written Question E-1670/98(1), can the Commission say what new deadline has been set for the beneficiary to complete the "Ecovia" project, for which the original deadline was 30 April 1998?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

The deadline for completion of the Ecovia project is now 30 September 1998.

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2411/98

by Yvan Blot (NI) to the Council

(28 July 1998)

Subject: Famine in North Korea

Alarming reports are reaching Europe on the situation in North Korea, in particular from the German Red Cross or Médecins sans Frontières. The famine has said to have killed two to three million people (about 10 % of the total population) since 1995 and continues to ravage the country, brutally impacting on some 20 % of the population, with a further 75 % barely managing to survive. The state of the population's health is catastrophic, while hospitals lack rudimentary equipment and medicines. International aid on a huge scale appears largely to have been diverted by regime officials, either for resale or to supply the armed forces.

Other, much less alarmist rumours, claim that the situation is no more than one of shortages that have been blown up out of all proportion by media under the Marxist dictatorship's control in order to elicit the international community's generosity as a means of making good the country's economic failings.

1. Can the Council specify the conditions in which European Union "observers" conducted their on-the-spot inquiries, the extent of the territorial area to which they were allowed access and the freedom of movement granted to them by Pyongyang's Marxist regime?

2. Can the Council specify what action, if any, it will take to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches only those who genuinely need it?

3. If the extent of the food-supply catastrophe turns out to have been a lie, what steps will the Council take to cease supporting one of the last and bloodiest of Communist dictatorships in the late twentieth century?

Reply

(22 October 1998)

1. The report of the UK Presidency-led Technical Mission to North Korea from 9 to 16 May 1998 was published at the beginning of June. This extensive report itself covers the conditions under which the mission conducted its enquiries, including access and free movement.

2. The Council shares the concerns of the Honourable Member regarding the distribution of humanitarian aid. The Union's concerns were alleviated by the mission's report, but continuous attention is needed to prevent misuse and to bring home the need for transparency if our assistance is to be effective or, indeed, available. This message has been put clearly in the contacts that the Union has had with North Korea.

3. The aid programmes to North Korea from the European Community and the Member States are of a purely humanitarian nature, though it is hoped that they will also promote our objective of peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula. They are in any event aimed exclusively at alleviating the plight of the North Korean people, and not at supporting the North Korean regime. It should be noted in this context that countries like the Republic of Korea and the US have similar programmes. It remains to be seen how far North Korea's unwelcome decision to spend its own scarce resources on missiles and satellites will affect the approach of the international community to humanitarian assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2318/98

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (ARE) to the Council

(28 July 1998)

Subject: European Troika in Tibet

From 1 to 4 May 1998 an EU delegation consisting of the Troika of ambassadors to Beijing went on a fact-finding mission to Tibet. In the course of the Troika's visit to the Lhasa prison disturbances broke out which resulted in the death of seven Tibetan monks held in the prison and the injury of twenty or thirty other prisoners. More than two months after this mission has taken place the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, whilst it has just adopted the outline of the programme for EU-China relations, has still not made the report on the mission public. Instead, in reply to a question I asked on the subject on 23 June 1998 during a hearing before the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights the minister Lloyd stated, on behalf of the Council, that the report was "in preparation".

1. In view of the fact that exactly two months have gone by since the mission took place, what is the Council waiting for to make the report public?

2. Is the truth not rather that the document is ready but cannot be released because it cannot avoid referring to the tragic events that took place in the Lhasa prison which, it appears, the members of the Troika witnessed?

Reply

(9 November 1998)

The report referred to by Honourable Member was made public on 19 June 1998. The Troika delegation which was in Tibet from 1-10 May indeed paid a visit in Lhasa on 4 May to the Drapchi prison. It reported in detail on this visit with the following introduction remarks about the alleged incidents.

"The main interest was the treatment of political prisoners. It was subsequently reported that there had been a major disturbance in the prison on 1 May. The delegation was not aware of these reports at the time of their visit to the prison. There had been some doubts raised by the Tibetan authorities (paragraph 8) over the visit, but no explanation was given for these, and the delegation formed the impression that this was a negotiating tactic on the part of the Tibetan authorities. The delegation were also briefed, they felt unusually, in the open air outside the inner prison gates before the actual prison visit. Nonetheless, there were no visible signs of the after effects of a riot, and naturally the Prison authorities made no mention of any such incident. As far as could be ascertained the guarding was normal, with no obvious signs of extra guards or heightened security."

In August 1998 further reports of disturbances, including up to 10 deaths, before, during and after the Troika's visit reached the Presidency and some Member States. It has not been possible to confirm these reports so far.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1424/98

by Frode Kristoffersen (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Implementation of the PHARE programme

Does the Commission think that the existing PHARE programme meets its objective in view of the criticism that in its present state it does not have access to sufficient technical expertise? This shortcoming, according to critics, provides an opportunity to favour certain firms because competing firms do not have sufficient possibility to discuss the function and properties of their products at the relevant technical level with those who write the invitations to tender.

Does the detailed procedure for honouring contracts work in a satisfactory and timely fashion?

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

(12 June 1998)

The Commission has sufficient access to technical expertise through both internal and external experts. The latter are called upon when appropriate. Procedures for tendering were strengthened in 1997. The Commission also introduced standard tendering and contract documentation for PHARE in 1997. This provides for greater rigour in several areas, including tender evaluation procedure, the composition of tender evaluation committees, the feedback provided to bidders and stricter rules to avoid conflicts of interest.

In implementing Phare, the Commission respects the provisions of the Financial Regulation(1) including open tendering for works and supply contracts. For service contracts the provisions of Article 118 of the Financial Regulation (as revised in October 1995)(2) apply to ensure that all potential service suppliers have the opportunity to compete on an equal basis. Once a programme has been approved, its summary contents and budget breakdown are published in the Official journal followed by a more detailed description published on the Internet at the moment of tendering of individual service projects. This helps to ensure that all firms have equal access to relevant information. Potential service suppliers are invited to express their interest in project implementation. Firms which meet the minimum standards required for pre-qualification will subsequently be eligible to be short-listed.

Speedy contracting is a constant goal, but the Commission is also committed to ensuring that competition is fair, and cannot and will not compromise on transparency requirements. Sufficient time must be allowed for contracting and tendering to take place with the required level of transparency and fairness.

(1) OJ L 356, 31.12.1977.

(2) OJ L 240, 7.10.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2101/98

by Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Measures to prevent the illegal importation of extra-Community citrus fruit

Citrus fruit continue to be imported illegally from third countries, often with the complicity of Member States (Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands) that naturalize produce from third countries and then admit it to Community territory as though it were their own.

By ministerial decree 126 of 22 December 1993 Italy was declared a "protected area" so that citrus fruit from third countries cannot be introduced on to its territory for plant health reasons.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to protect Italian citrus fruit producers and consumers against fraudulent and illegal imports?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

The current phytosanitary regime applicable to the import of citrus fruit into the Community is specified in Council Directive 77/93/EEC of 21 December 1976 on protective measures against the introduction into the Member States of harmful organisms of plants or plant products(1) and against their spread within the Community, as last amended by Commission Directive 98/2/EC(2).

According to Commission Directive 95/40/EC of 19 July 1995(3) amending Directive 92/76/EEC recognizing protected zones exposed to particular plant health risks in the Community(4), the protected zone which aimed at protection against unspecified harmful organisms and for which a ban on the introduction of third country citrus fruit was introduced, expired on 1 April 1996. Such recognition was not further extended on the grounds that a protection against unspecified organisms was inappropriate under internationally established principles and could not be justified scientifically. Thus, in order to comply with the Community's international obligations under the World trade organisation (WTO) the said phytosanitary regime for the import of citrus fruit into the Community including protective measures against citrus canker, citrus leaf spot and citrus black spot, became applicable to all parts of the Community.

The Community phytosanitary regime has recently been improved by Directive 98/2/EC to ensure continued adequate protection to all citrus production areas of the Community. Within the phytosanitary responsibilities of the Commission, activities are carried out for the purpose of ensuring the correct and uniform application of the provisions of the said Council Directive 77/93/EEC.

Moreover, the non-application of Community legislation by Italy and the action taken by Italy to continue to ban the introduction of the relevant citrus fruit originating in third countries is at present subject to detailed examination by the Commission in order to determine the appropriate steps to be envisaged.

(1) OJ L 26, 31.1.1977.

(2) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.

(3) OJ L 182, 2.8.1995.

(4) OJ L 305, 21.10.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2046/98

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Export of calves from the United Kingdom

In 1995 the French government initiated a formal inquiry into the allegation that a significant number of calves exported from the UK to France had failed to reach the final destination stated on the route plan submitted by virtue of the Council Directive 91/628/EEC(1) to the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This inquiry apparently also examined the allegation that after arriving in France, some UK calves were being "converted" into Irish animals with the use of forged Irish health certificates and ear-tags.

Would the Commission announce the results of the French government's inquiry? Moreover, in the light of the possible forthcoming lifting of the ban on the export of beef from Britain, what steps does the Commission propose to take to ensure that live calves exported from the UK do arrive at the final destination given on the route plan drawn up under Council Directive 91/628/EEC and that the location of such calves remains traceable until they are slaughtered?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 1998)

The Commission has not been made aware of the findings of the French authorities' inquiry referred to by the Honourable Member.

On 21 and 22 June 1996 the Florence European Council approved a Commission proposal on introducing a framework for the eradication of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United Kingdom and for the restoration of a single market in beef. The plan was to lift the ban gradually, stage by stage, and the Commission does not at present intend to reauthorise trade in live bovine animals from the United Kingdom.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2875/98

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Measures to reduce tobacco consumption

Commissioner Flynn stated in his reply to my Written Question E-3455/97(1) that the Commission would bring forward proposals for actions and measures to reduce smoking in the light of Parliament's opinion on the reduction of tobacco consumption.

What measures has the Commission taken in this matter?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1998)

The Commission has issued several requests for information to Member States on their rules and practice concerning various aspects of smoking prevention and tobacco control. The replies will form part of its evaluation of the need for specific measures and actions at the Community level.

The Commission will shortly also make a report to the Council and the Parliament on the follow-up to its 1996 communication on combating tobacco consumption(2).

(1) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 167.

(2) COM(96) 609 final.
91998E2113

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2113/98 by Glenys KINNOCK to the Commission. Subsidies for EU wine producers



Official Journal C 096 , 08/04/1999 P. 0039