ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4049/98

by Eolo Parodi (PPE) and Guido Viceconte (PPE) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Advertising of olive-oil-based margarines and their composition

Recent advertising campaigns in various European countries have been making claims about the dietary benefits of olive-oil-based hard margarine. In actual fact, according to scientific analyses carried out on behalf of a specialized publication, in view of the low percentage of olive oil in the margarine - which consists mainly of saturated fats - it cannot be considered as a solid substitute for traditional olive oil, as the advertisers would have us believe.

Can the Commission therefore say what measures it intends to take to protect consumers and safeguard extra virgin olive oil, its image and its universally acknowledged dietary properties?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 1999)

In the framework of the common agricultural policy (CAP) and on the basis of Council Regulation (EEC) 1970/80 of 22 July 1980 laying down general implementing rules for campaigns aimed at promoting the consumption of olive oil in the Community(1), the Community has carried out promotional programmes since the early 1980s. The aim is to increase the consumption of products in surplus and thereby contribute to the stabilisation of the markets. The seventh campaign to promote the consumption of olive oil in the Community will be launched in spring 1999 and will cover all the Member States with a total budget of approximately 15 million euro a year for three consecutive years for the dissemination of scientific knowledge on nutritional aspects of olive oil, and measures like advertising, public relations and promotion. All information to the public is based on objective and accurate scientific information on the nutritional aspects of olive oil. All communication material is checked by a research institute which specialises in the health-related aspects of nutrition. Olive oil will be promoted in the context of the "Mediterranean diet", which has been proved to have positive effects on health.

Article 2 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer(2) requires that labelling must not be such as could mislead purchasers to a material degree by attributing to foodstuffs effects or properties they do not possess. Ensuring respect for this provision is a matter for the Member States.

(1) OJ L 192, 26.7.1980 and OJ L 288, 31.10.1980.

(2) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3342/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Arrangements for KONVER areas after 1999

Under a 1997 Commission decision, the Konver II Programme was extended until 1999.

1. Does the Commission envisage specific provision for areas eligible for Konver II funding after 1999, i.e. a Konver III?

2. In the absence of a Konver III, does the Commission envisage alternative funding arrangements for these areas?

3. What transitional arrangements does the Commission envisage for areas that have received Konver funding to cover the years immediately after 1999?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1998)

The Commission has not proposed the continuation of the Konver Community initiative beyond 1999. It considers that operations of the type co-financed by Konver should in the future be integrated in the mainstream programmes under the different objectives of the structural funds.

Areas currently eligible for funding under Konver II and which fulfil the eligibility critera for objective 1 and 2 areas will be able to benefit from those programmes. Other areas with socio-economic problems following the restructuring of the defence industry will be able to benefit from objective 3 support measures in favour of employment. The Commission has also proposed that support for interregional co-operation should be possible across the Community under the next generation of Community initiatives.

The Commission does not therefore consider it necessary to offer transitional funding to areas based on their eligibility under the existing Konver initiative.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3844/98

by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: Health warning on tobacco products

In its resolution of 18 December 1997 (A4-0341/97)(1) the European Parliament called for an evaluation of the effectiveness of health warnings on the packaging of tobacco products.

With assistance from the European Programme against Cancer a study has been carried out in three Member States (Belgium, France and Great Britain) to evaluate the effectiveness of such health warnings. The results of the study, published on 27 October, show that the existing system of health warnings is inadequate and that a majority of smokers and non-smokers are in favour of larger and more prominent warnings.

1. Is the Commission aware of the results of this study?

2. How will it follow up the study?

3. Does it intend to submit proposals for more stringent labelling rules for tobacco products? When?

4. If so, in what respects does it envisage revising the existing directive on the labelling of tobacco products (92/41/EEC)?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

At the Health Council on 12 November 1998, the Commission presented an oral progress report following the Commission communication on the present and proposed Community role in combating tobacco consumption(2).

Since the adoption of Directive 98/43/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products(3), the Commission has been concentrating efforts in this field on a review of Council Directive 89/622/EEC of 13 November 1989 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco products(4) and Council Directive 90/239/EEC of 17 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the maximum tar yield of cigarettes(5). Following the proposals made in the Commission's communication, the opinion of the Parliament, the recommendations of the high level cancer experts committee, the results of studies such as that financed by the Europe against cancer programme on the effectiveness of health warnings, and in light of comments received from the Member States, this review process is now complete. The Commission's work programme for 1999 envisages that a consolidated text updating and revising existing directives on labelling of tobacco products and maximum tar yields for cigarettes, in the light of experience with their current provisions, will be proposed in the first half of the 1999.

(1) OJ C 14, 19.1.1998, p. 197.

(2) COM(96) 609 final.

(3) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.

(4) OJ L 359, 8.12.1989.

(5) OJ L 137, 30.5.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3599/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Council

(4 December 1998)

Subject: Impediments to freedom of passage through the Straits

Freedom of passage through the Bosphorus Straits is guaranteed by the Treaty of Montreux and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Despite this Turkey is taking unilateral measures to control the passage of shipping through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, on the pretext of ensuring the safety of the Straits. In fact the Turkish Government Journal recently published a new regulation on the passage of shipping through the Straits which has already entered into force. This regulation seeks to create additional impediments for the passage of oil tankers, thus indirectly using blackmail to dictate the route of the planned oil pipeline from the Caspian.

If Turkey is genuinely interested in the safe passage of shipping it could resolve a number of outstanding problems. For example, it could remove two large shipwrecks on the southern coast of the Straits which impede the passage of large vessels, or improve the Vessel Traffic Services System (VTS) which does not work effectively: large ships with dangerous cargoes pass each other in the Straits. It could also change the anchorage place of shipping which is in very deep waters and is also very exposed to adverse weather conditions.

What action does the Council intend to take to prevail upon Turkey to cease its efforts to upset the status quo of freedom of passage through the Straits and instead to improve safety conditions there?

Reply

(30 March 1999)

Article 35(c) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea excludes from the scope of Part III "straits in which passage is regulated in whole or in part by long-standing international conventions in force specifically relating to such straits". This is the case with regard to the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara and the Bosphorus, where passage is regulated by the Treaty of Montreux of 20 July 1936.

On 25 May 1994 the Maritime Safety Committee of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) adopted a traffic separation scheme containing specific rules on shipping in the Straits. Turkey accepted the recommendations.

Turkish regulations to implement the scheme came into force at the end of 1994. Among other things, they provide that the Turkish Minister for Maritime Affairs may temporarily suspend shipping in the Straits for various specific and clearly defined reasons.

Discussions have since been going on at the IMO about the compatibility of these rules with the traffic separation scheme established by the IMO and with the Treaty of Montreux. The Council recalls the principle of freedom of passage and navigation in the Straits and supports all efforts that will lead to satisfactory practices in this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3826/98

by James Janssen van Raay (UPE) , Niall Andrews (UPE) and José Girão Pereira (UPE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Audit of Community funding

1. Is the Commission aware of the criticisms against the Dutch Senator, Mr Jan Nicol Scholten, in his capacity as chairman of the Association of West European Parliamentarians for Action Against Apartheid, the Afrika-Europa Instituut (Africa-Europe Institute), the Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland (Netherlands Refugee Action) and the Refugiado (Refugee) Foundation, made in several reports published in Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Ireland in which cases of misappropriation and embezzlement of funds for personal ends were revealed?

2. Has the Commission granted funding to any of the abovementioned bodies?

3. Is it true that, despite the criticisms made in the above countries, the Commission's assessment of those bodies was favourable?

4. Does the Commission intend to carry out a thorough investigation to discover the truth and ensure that the activities of these bodies are carried out openly?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 1999)

1. The Commission is aware of criticisms in various newspapers, and in at least one evaluation of Association of west-european parlementarians for action against apartheid (AWEPA) initiated by a group of donors to AWEPA and the Afrika-Europa Instituut (AEI).

2. The Commission has provided funds to AWEPA/AEI for specific projects.

3. and 4. The evaluation report, produced by independent consultants for the Commission, was completed in early December 1998. Copies are sent direct to the Honourable Members and to Parliament's Secretariat. The evaluation has shown that several significant reforms need to be made by AWEPA/AEI, but there is no finding of fraudulent use of funds. This conclusion confirms the results of the financial audit carried out in 1997 and the recommendations which are gradually being put into place.

The Commission has already taken steps to ensure that AWEPA fully respects all the conditions applicable to the funds it has provided for specific projects to AWEPA/AEI. As is normal in this type of case, it will insist that AWEPA takes on board the recommendations of the evaluation as a precondition to any further funding.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3339/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: Treatment of zoo animals

After years of complaints about animal welfare at Fuengirola Zoo in southern Spain, the establishment was closed about six months ago. However, the animals, which were impounded by the Council, are reportedly in a sad condition. These include a tiger, snow leopards, chimpanzees and a male elephant. Is there any action which can be taken at EU level to alleviate the continued suffering of these animals?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1998)

There is currently no Community legislation on the disposal of animals on the closure of zoos. The text of a Council common position with a view to adopting a Council directive relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos(1) provides in its article 6 that: "In the event of a zoo or part thereof being closed, the competent authority shall ensure that the animals concerned are treated or disposed of under conditions which the Member States deem appropriate and consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Directive".

For the case cited by the Honourable Member there is therefore no action that could be taken at Community level. The Commission is, however, prepared to draw the attention of the Spanish authorities to this case on the basis of additional information about the circumstances.

(1) COM(95) 619; 95/333/SYN.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3781/98

by Manuel Escolá Hernando (ARE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Aid for family pig farms

Given the current slump in the pigmeat sector in the European Union, due in large part to overproduction, the suspension of exports to Russia and falling demand in Asia, a number of organisations have called for a range of emergency aid to be granted to small family farms in order to ensure their survival.

For instance, various agricultural organisations have proposed providing livestock farms with linear aid amounting to 75 000 pesetas per breeding sow, up to a maximum of 120 sows per farm.

Ad hoc measures such as this are designed to assist the weakest part of the sector, which at the same time generates the most jobs.

Does the Commission believe that it could fund proposals such as this? Could a fund be set up to support initiatives of this nature, enabling small-scale livestock farmers to cope with the current market situation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 1999)

The common organization of the market in pigmeat in Council Regulation (EEC) 2759/75 of 29 October 1975(1) does not contain provisions for aids for pig farms of any size.

It should be noted that any national aid programmes for pig farmers should be compatible with the common market having regard to Article 92 of the EC Treaty and should be notified to the Commission.

(1) OJ L 282, 1.11.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4029/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 January 1999)

Subject: Export refunds in respect of traditional cheeses

According to information received, export refunds are available for traditional cheeses (with designations of origin), but only for ones whose fat content does not exceed certain levels.

This rule means that hardly any Portuguese cheeses made from sheep's or goat's milk (which account for a significant number of the designation-of-origin cheeses produced in Portugal) are entitled to any export refund.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

1. Is the Commission aware of the fact that the current rules prevent virtually all traditional Portuguese cheeses made from sheep's or goat's milk from receiving any kind of export refund?

2. If so, is the Commission considering any changes to those rules in order to put an end to this discriminatory state of affairs?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 1999)

The Commission does not believe that the export refunds system discriminates against particular Portuguese cheeses made from sheep's or goat's milk.

Such cheeses exist in several Member States, but they have not brought similar complaints to the Commission's attention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3578/98

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 December 1998)

Subject: Tourist overcrowding and island regions

In October of this year an international conference convened by the World Tourism Organisation on sustainable tourism in small, developing island states and on other islands was held in Lanzarote. Speakers at the conference warned of the potential environmental problems associated with the increasing interest amongst tourists in small islands whose capacity to cope with visitors is limited, and the consequent danger of their becoming overcrowded with tourists.

Many of the hundreds of small islands which belong to EU Member States have built up a large tourist industry which, whilst offsetting the decline in traditional sectors of the economy, has also created serious difficulties, including excessive and chaotic urbanisation, waste production and other environmental problems.

Is the Commission aware of the problems peculiar to these island regions, caused by the growth of the tourist industry?

Does it intend to look into, or experiment with, measures designed to introduce into these fragile areas sustainable development strategies capable of combining the conservation of their natural resources with a sensitive form of tourism which values such conservation?

Answer by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 1999)

The Commission is well aware of the special problems posed by tourism in island regions. It has already launched or supported several ventures that can contribute to sustainable tourism development in these regions; for example, with regard to tourism and the environment, including fragile areas, integrated management and the integrated administration of the quality of tourist destinations.

The conference in Lanzarote on 25-28 October 1998, to which the honourable Member refers, dealt mainly with sustainable tourism in developing countries. On this matter, the Commission had just adopted a communication(1) and, in the meantime, the Council has adopted a resolution.

As for areas within the Community, concern for the sustainable development of tourism clearly appeared in the proposal put forward by the Commission for a first multiannual programme to assist European tourism entitled "Philoxenia"(2). This aspect was also stressed following discussion of the proposal by the Council. These concerns had already been considered when DG XXIII (Enterprise Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives) was being reorganised. A directorate for tourism was created, with one of its three units primarily responsbile for promoting sustainable tourism.

(1) COM(98) 563.

(2) COM(96) 168.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3261/98

by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Subject: German care insurance

On 5 November 1996, I asked the Commission (E-3178/96(1)) about the German authorities' decision to withdraw the right to care insurance for persons who, although they had made the relevant social security contributions, had left German territory, a decision which mainly affected migrant workers from other Member States.

The Commission's reply of 21 January 1997 stated that it proposed to await the preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice as to whether German care insurance provisions were compatible with Community law (Case C-160/96, Molenaar).

Now that the Court of Justice has handed down its judgment of 5 March 1998, which states that "Articles 19(1), 25(1) and 28(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) 1408/71(2) of 14 June 1971 ... as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) 2001/83(3) of 2 June 1983, do prevent entitlement to an allowance such as the care allowance, which constitutes a sickness benefit in cash, from being subject to the condition that the insured person resides in the territory of the Member State where he is insured", what action has been or will be taken by the Commission to establish equal treatment for workers in Germany?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

In its judgment of 5 March 1998 in case C-160/96 (Molenaar), the Court of Justice ruled that the care allowances in question are sickness benefits in cash.

This interpretation means that anyone who receives only a German pension and resides in another Member State may benefit from the right to export care benefits (Article 28 of Council Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community(4)). However, where a person receives two or more pensions, the first issue is to decide which Member State is responsible for sickness benefits in cash. If a person resides in a Member State which also pays him or her a pension, it is that Member State which is responsible (Article 27 of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71).

Under these circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that a person who receives a German pension but, for example, resides in and receives a pension from his or her Member State of origin may not be entitled to export German care benefits.

Under Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71, a person working in Germany is entitled to enjoy the same benefits under German legislation as German nationals.

In the action plan for free movement of workers(5), the Commission has undertaken to propose improvements to the general legal framework (including a reform of the rules on the coordination of social security schemes), to promote cooperation between national authorities, and to improve information for European citizens.

(1) OJ C 138, 5.5.1997, p. 32.

(2) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

(3) OJ L 230, 22.8.1984, p. 86.

(4) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

(5) COM(97) 586 final.