ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0974/01

by Wilhelm Piecyk (PSE), Reimer Böge (PPE-DE) and Christian von Boetticher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Problems in the cross-frontier labour market as a result of a Danish registration tax for official vehicles

A registration tax for official vehicles in Denmark seems to be causing considerable problems in the cross-frontier labour market between Germany and Denmark.

For example, a German elderly persons' care worker resident in Denmark with a German place of employment is required by Danish law to pay a registration tax for an official car that she uses solely for professional purposes but has to park outside her home in case of emergency calls.

According to our information a group of about 150 people are affected by similar cases in the cross-frontier labour market between Germany and Denmark.

At DKK 60 per day, the tax is so steep that the group of employees is placed at a disadvantage compared with their colleagues living in Germany.

Since the tax may also be creating obstacles to employment that go against the aim of promoting a cross-frontier labour market, the following questions arise:

1. Does the Commission believe that this state of affairs is compatible with freedom of movement in the European Union?

2. What action has it taken or does it intend to take to solve this problem?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question E-1478/00 by Mrs Riis-Jørgensen(1). The Commission is still pursuing the infringement proceedings against Denmark.

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1238/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: An effective treatment for tuberculosis

Could the Commission explain why the European Union in its communication for action(1) Accelerated action on HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis in the context of world poverty reduction, has failed to mention the DOTS- Directly Observed Treatment Short Course strategy, an effective and low-cost treatment for tuberculosis.

(1) COM(2001) 96 final.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

The Commission welcomes the interest of the Honourable Member for the Commission's proposals for accelerated action against the major communicable diseases including tuberculosis (TB) and wish to reassure the Honourable Member that the Commission supports the recommendations of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the expansion of the DOTS approach.

The Commission has produced two recent Communications to guide an accelerated response. The first(1) detailed the global impact of the three diseases, and highlighted underused interventions with potential for greater use. The document did not address the detail of specific interventions but in the case of TB highlighted the Stop TB initiative and its agenda for action of which DOTS is a crucial component. The second Communication(2), the Framework for action, defined how the Commission would meet the challenges of this ambitious agenda.

DOTS is undoubtedly a key part of any successful national strategy to address TB and needs to be nested in a strong health system. Other priorities include the development of new diagnostics, drugs and an effective TB vaccine and action to increase the affordability of second line drugs, needed to treat resistant strains of tuberculosis. The Commission Programme for Action envisages action in all these areas.

(1) COM(2000) 585 final.

(2) COM(2001) 96 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0662/01

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Lisbon European Council and information networks

The 2000 Lisbon European Council invited the Council to strengthen cooperation between Member States by exchanging experiences and best practice on the basis of improved information networks which are the basic tools in this field [social protection]. What specific steps have been taken in this regard and how is progress being monitored?

Reply

(13 July 2001)

Following on from the Lisbon European Council, the Commission submitted on 19 June 2000 a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme of Community action to encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion by improving knowledge, developing the exchange of information and best practices, evaluating experiences, and by promoting dialogue and supporting networking at the European level between relevant bodies and organisations. The Decision has not yet been adopted, the second reading in the European Parliament being currently in progress.

According to the draft action programme, a Committee is to be established to assist the Commission, and it will be regularly informed about progress.

In addition, the activities of the Social Protection Committee have largely the same objective as the action programme, and a close link with this Committee has been foreseen during the implementation of the action programme by the Commission and the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0847/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Blister packs containing medicines

There is concern surrounding the increase in the amount of medication being packaged in blister packs. This has serious implications for blind and partially-sighted people, who cannot distinguish one type of medication from another if, once the external packaging is removed, each strip appears identical.

Has the Commission given any consideration to this problem and to how it might be overcome?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

While aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission recalls that responsibility for the choice of the pharmaceutical form and the packaging of medicinal products lies with the holder of the authorisation for placing the product on the market. Community law does not regulate these aspects beyond requiring that package leaflets and outer packaging give patients information on medicinal products (Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets(1)). Information to be provided on small packaging such as blister packs is also laid down. It should also be stressed that Community law permits information in Braille to be provided on outer packaging.

Without overlooking the difficulties which certain patients encounter, the Commission and the Member States are at pains to ensure that the mandatory information laid down by the regulations is included in the packaging and is legible.

Lastly, it should be noted that blister packs permit better preservation of medicinal products.

(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1960/01

by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: State aids to Electricité de France (EDF)

EDF has acquired sizeable stakes in the electricity industry in the United Kingdom (London Electricity), Germany (ENBW), Italy (Montedison), and Spain (Hydrocantàbrico), having outdone its rivals by offering very high prices in the negotiations. The French electricity market has been opened up to the minimum extent laid down in the electricity Directive, but, at all events, only negligible fractions of demand are covered by companies other than EDF, which is wholly owned by the French State.

European electricity industry sources believe that EDF is underestimating the costs of decommissioning its nuclear installations and because of this is able to charge artificially low selling prices. The procedures for writing off the installations are determined by the French Government, which owns EDF. The accounting data available for EDF show that the interest which the company is paying on its substantial debt is well below the market rates.

In the light of the foregoing, does not the Commission, and in particular its President and the Member responsible for competition, believe that infringement proceedings should be instituted immediately against France on account of the State aids granted to EDF, which are severely distorting trade between countries? Does not the Commission believe that, until such time as the investigation into this matter has been completed, it should exercise the powers accorded to it under Article 3(g) of the EC Treaty to prevent EDF from buying more shares in companies based in other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The Commission is currently examining the French regulatory framework in which Electricité de France (EDF) operates in order to establish whether its provisions contain elements of state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) (formerly Article 92(1)) of the EC Treaty.

In connection with the Green Paper on security of energy supply(1), the Commission is already engaged in preparing a detailed inventory of all forms of financing granted by Member States in respect of various energy products. Once this preliminary examination has been completed, the Question of any funding for the nuclear industry and its compatibility with the relevant rules of the Treaties can be analysed, including the influence of such funding on the operation of the electricity market.

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that any specific information he can supply regarding the facts objected to could speed up matters considerably.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1213/01

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Council

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Protection of Orthodox Christian monasteries in Kosovo

Many monasteries and orthodox churches in Kosovo are being threatened with destruction by Muslim extremists and being targeted in the inter-ethnic conflict on the pretext of being a vestige of Serb presence.

The Holy Trinity Monastery in Musutiste has already been completely destroyed, while the following are seriously at risk: the Orthodox Monastery of Gracanica, the Mother of God Cathedral in Ljevisa, the Church of the Presentation of the Virgin in Lipljan, the Monastery of the Pec Patriarchate together with the churches of the Holy Apostles, Saint Mary Hodegetria and St Dominic, and the Decani Monastery.

In the light of the above, what measures does the Council intend to take to protect the monasteries and orthodox churches in Kosovo, which are part of the heritage of European and Christian civilisation?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council deplores the persistence of episodes of ethnic and religious intolerance in Kosovo and in particular the continuing threats to the integrity of Orthodox Christian monasteries in Serb areas. It reaffirms that it is strongly committed to an open, democratic, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural Kosovo that upholds tolerance and respect for all; the Council condemns all forms of violence, including the destruction of monuments that are part of the cultural heritage.

The Honourable Member is certainly aware that, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244, the EU is not responsible for security and public order in Kosovo, this being the task of UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo) police forces as well as KFOR (NATO force in Kosovo). The Council welcomes and applauds KFOR efforts to ensure permanent protection of the main religious monuments in Kosovo as well as regular patrolling of secondary religious sites.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1305/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Media ownership

1. What restrictions, if any, exist in each Member State in relation to the foreign ownership of particular media (television, radio, newspapers, magazines, journals)?

2. Are such restrictions compatible with the treaties?

3. What restrictions exist within the United States on ownership of the media by EU citizens or corporations?

4. Are such restrictions compatible with World Trade Organisation or other internationally agreed rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

1. A number of Member States have quantitative restrictions to media control based on the number of channels (Spain, Italy, Portugal, Sweden), the share of audience (Germany, France, United Kingdom), the share of circulation or absolute circulation in the press sector (France, United Kingdom), or the right to vote (Sweden). These types of restrictions may pertain to one kind of media outlet or may be constructed as restrictions of certain combinations of ownership (e.g. Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom).

2. National restrictions in relation to foreign ownership are not being applied between Member States. They are only applicable in case of non-Community foreign operators. For this reason Member States' national restrictions on foreign ownership are not incompatible with the treaties.

3. At the end of the Uruguay Round, the United States have reserved their rights to maintain barriers to foreign investments in radio and TV stations. Such obstacles correspond to the United States Communications Act (1934) which limits direct foreign control over corporations with broadcasting licenses to 20 %. Furthermore, non-American nationals/corporations are not allowed to own more than a 25 % interest in a holding or parent company with a broadcasting license.

4. These obstacles have been listed as a restriction in the list of specific commitments of the United States in the general agreement on tariffs and services (GATS) and have been accepted by the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1766/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Accession of Cyprus

The Helsinki European Council concluded that a political settlement would facilitate the accession of Cyprus to the EU but that if no settlement had been reached by the completion of negotiations the Council's decision on accession will be made without this being a precondition.

However, the Council added the enigmatic words that, in reaching a decision, the Council will take account of all relevant factors.

What decisions have been made by the Commission regarding the interpretation of these words, or by what date does the Commission propose reaching such a decision?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2101/00(1).

The Commission is fully in line with the Union position of strongly supporting the United Nations' (UN) efforts for a political settlement in Cyprus. In the event that no political settlement is reached before the completion of accession negotiations, it will be for the European Council to determine which factors to take into account in the decision on accession.

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2325/01

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Obstacles to the publication of research results which have important public health and consumer implications

In order to conduct research into antibiotic resistance, research laboratories need supplies of antibiotic powder. It is the practice of some pharmaceutical companies to condition sale of this powder on an undertaking by the laboratory not to publish their research results without obtaining permission from the company.

Is the Commission aware of this practice and does the Commission share the view that this restrictive sales practice not only infringes the rules on the free movement of goods, but also raises serious concerns for public health and consumer protection? Can the Commission indicate what action it proposes taking to put an end to this practice?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2001)

As indicated in its answer to written questions P-1509/01 by Mrs Doyle(1) and P-1770/01 by Mrs Banotti(2) respectively, the Commission has already taken contact with several pharmaceutical companies concerning their policies with respect to supplies of antibiotic powder for research purposes. It is the Commission's understanding that, in general, pharmaceutical companies are ready to supply antibiotic substances for research purposes. In addition, the majority of these antibiotic substances may be purchased directly through commercial warehouses.

The Commission understands that it is standard practice for some companies who supply antibiotic free of charge to researchers to request undertakings from these researchers to ensure that the research is legitimate and appropriate vis à vis public health and to request sight of the research results in advance of publication. The Commission has no element to consider that these requests have any impact either on the free movement of pharmaceutical goods or on issues of public health and consumer protection. The Commission does not intend to take any action in this field.

In this respect, it is worth mentioning that the issue of antimicrobial resistance forms an inherent part of the Community's health strategy and comprises actions in all the relevant sectors including public health, veterinary and phytosanitary. In June 2001, the Commission adopted a communication on a community strategy against antimicrobial resistance(3), including details of its proposals in the area of research and product development and a proposal for a Council recommendation on the prudent use of antimicrobial agents in human medicine(4).

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 245.

(2) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001.

(3) COM(2001) 333 final, Volume I.

(4) COM(2001) 333 final, Volume I.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1620/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Statute of the European Foundation

Numerous institutions, bodies and natural and legal persons from various Member States have been asking when they will be able to make use of a legal instrument similar to that governing foundations in the Member States.

A wide range of non-profit activities require a joint effort and commitment on the part of citizens of more than one EU Member State, in order to carry out non-commercial activities of an altruistic nature.

A Statute of the European Foundation would provide them with a legal instrument for carrying out their activities of cultural sponsorship, etc, in the general interest and on a non-profit basis.

Can the Commission describe the present situation as regards the project for a Statute of the European Foundation? On what basis does the Commission believe such a Statute could be fully operative for the purposes outlined above, in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

In 1992 the Commission presented three proposals for Statutes for the creation of a European Co-operative, European Mutual Society and European Association(1). These were amended in 1993 in the light of opinions of the European Parliament and Economic and Social

Committee(2). These texts closely paralleled the Statute for a European Company(3) with regard to the rules concerning the structure, powers and obligations of their organs. However they take into account the specific characteristics of co-operatives, mutuals and associations. Foundations are specifically included amongst the types of legal entity that may benefit from the proposal for a statute creating a European Association.

The Commission believes that the Statute for a European Association will satisfy the need for legal instrument for any organisation engaging in non-commercial and socially committed activities in the general interest and on a not-for-profit basis.

The political agreement on the Statute for a European Company in the Council in December 2000(4) has enabled negotiations on the other statutes to be re-opened in the Council, and the European Co-operative Statute is now under discussion. The Commission will make its best efforts to ensure that the text of the Statute for a European Association is ready for discussion as soon as agreement has been reached amongst the Member States' on the European Co-operative Statute.

(1) Original proposal OJ C 99, 21.4.1992.

(2) Amended proposal OJ C 236, 31.8.1993.

(3) Amended proposal OJ C 176, 8.7.1991.

(4) Press Release: 489, No 14671/00.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2365/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Revision of the Framework Agreement

In paragraph 1 of its resolution of 4 April 2001 containing observations as part of the decision concerning discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for 1999, Parliament called for the revision of the Framework Agreement, to be governed by the following principles:

(a) Confirmation of the right of any Member of Parliament to demand and receive confidential information, too, where necessary, from the Commission pursuant to Article 197 EC,

(b) Unreserved application of the provisions of Annex VII to the Rules of Procedure on the consideration of confidential documents, which includes the right of any committee member to consider the confidential documents,

(c) Forwarding of complete original documents without prior alterations or obliterated text.

What steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take to comply with this request?

Is the Commission prepared to apply the principles set out by Parliament, pending an official revision of the Framework Agreement? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2001)

1. Article 4 of Annexe III to the Framework Agreement contains a very specific procedure to be followed for its possible revision. More precisely, Article 4 of Annex III stipulates that In the light of experience acquired, the Presidents of the two institutions may propose that additions or changes be made to this Annex.

2. The 1999 discharge procedure was thee first to which the Framework Agreement concluded on 5 July 2000 applied. The Commission intends to continue applying this agreement fully and loyally.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1900/01

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Subject: Plans for future outbreaks of diseases like foot-and-mouth

Can the Commission indicate what plans it has in the event of future outbreaks of diseases such as foot-and-mouth with regard to containment of the disease and the slaughter and disposal of infected and potentially infected animals, bearing mind that, in future, burial and/or burning of carcasses is likely to be very unpopular amongst the population and may be banned altogether?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

In case of the occurrence of certain animal diseases such as foot and mouth disease, (FMD) Community legislation provides for a number of control measures, including:

- preparation and implementation of contingency plans in each Member State, so that all necessary disease control measures may be properly and rapidly applied;

- slaughtering and destruction of animals in infected and, if necessary, suspected farms, as these animals may very easily spread the infection to healthy animals in other farms;

- restrictions of movements of animals in the infected areas, as these animals may be incubating the disease;

- use of vaccine, if it is deemed that the measures above are insufficient to contain the outbreak.

The Commission will carry out a thorough review of the Community policy on FMD once the current outbreak has been eradicated. In this framework the use of FMD vaccines will also be re-examined, taking into account the most recent knowledge and experience and the development of new diagnostic tools.