ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1356/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Proposed USDA standards for organic foods

What action does the Commission intend to take with regard to proposals by the United States Department of Agriculture setting out new standards for all organic agriculture in the USA?

Is the Commission concerned about the extension of foods which can be classified as organic, in particular the inclusion of foods which have been genetically modified? Has the Commission considered the impact these rules could have in the European market and any implications under GATT which could mean that European consumers are no longer able to chose traditional organic foods?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 1998)

Under the arrangement provided under the World trade organisation (WTO) agreement on technical barriers to trade (TBT), the Commission submitted comments to the United States on their proposed regulation for organic farming taking into account the experience on the application of Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs(1) and scientific and technological progress.

The Community has well developed rules for the production and labelling of organic products. Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 provides in Article 11 for a regime of equivalency for products imported from third countries. This regime is managed either by the Commission (Article 11.1) or, as is currently the case for products from the United States, by the Member States (Article 11.6). The Community requirements provide that before products from third countries are placed on the market in the Community as organic products, it must be demonstrated that the products were produced in accordance with production standards and inspection arrangements equivalent to those applied to Community production. Similarly, the draft United States regulations on organic farming include provision for equivalency for imports of organic products from other countries, including the Community, into the United States.

As for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), their acceptance in organic products was in the initial draft American national organic programme and the Community expressed its concern in its comments on the American notification under the TBT. As a result of the comments received, on 8 May 1998 the American agriculture secretary announced that the American department of agriculture would make fundamental changes in their proposed rules for national organic food standards. The inclusion of the products of biotechnology, the use of irradiation in food processing and the application of biosolid will not be included in the revised rules and will not bear the organic label. Such a change will be in line with the Codex guidelines on organic farming which are currently under discussion which provide for a prohibition of the use of GMOs in organic farming.

(1) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Exclusion of AEK football team from UEFA Cup

On 19 May 1998, the Executive Committee of UEFA met in Amsterdam and decided that it was not possible for two clubs with the same owner to take part in the same cup competition "on grounds of credibility". This decision has caused problems for AEK Athens and Slavia Prague, whose majority shareholder is ENIC, as one of the two teams will have to be excluded, even though they have qualified. Subsequently, UEFA took another arbitrary decision and opted to exclude AEK Athens.

The supporters of this historic club, AEK, are not remotely interested in who owns their team and are deeply aggrieved by UEFA's arbitrary, retroactive decision. If this decision ultimately applies for the 1998-1999 season, it will be a disaster for this historic club.

How will the Commission intercede with UEFA to resolve this situation so that the decision applies from the 1999-2000 season for all the European cup competitions organized by UEFA?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 1998)

It is not for the Commission to express an opinion on this matter.

The Commission assumes, however, that the Honourable Member is aware that on 17 July 1998 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), a body primarily concerned with settling disputes between sports organisations, decided to suspend the decision taken by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) to exclude AEK Athens for the 1998/99 season.

The Honourable Member is also referred to the answer which the Commission gave to Oral Question H-661/98 put by Mr Monfils at Question Time during the July 1998 part-session.(1)

(1) Parliamentary Debate (July 1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1625/98 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Fifth framework programme for RTDD (budget for implementation)



Official Journal C 031 , 05/02/1999 P. 0062



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1625/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (27 May 1998) Subject: Fifth framework programme for RTDD (budget for implementation) With regard to the amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision concerning the Fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) and to the amended proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Fifth framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training activities (1998-2002) (COM(97) 439 final - 97/0119 COD - 97/0120 CNS)(1), will the Commission make the allocation of financial resources conditional upon a percentage shift in balance towards action involving exchanges between the academic and industrial spheres, universities and SMEs, major research centres, industrial laboratories and SMEs? (1) OJ C 291, 25.9.1997, pp. 15-16.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2373/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 July 1998)

Subject: Inadmissible actions by the Head of Representation of the Commission in Ankara

The Greek press has published lengthy extracts from a report by Mr Michael Lake who has, for eight years, been the Head of Representation of the European Union in Ankara. While all European Union representatives are undoubtedly entitled to draw up reports on their work containing their opinions, the substance of the document in question shows that he has, on the one hand exceeded his terms of reference and, on the other, directly challenged decisions taken by European Union institutions concerning their position regarding Turkey.

The fact that Michael Lake exceeded his terms of reference was revealed when he admitted to having "drafted" a speech by Mr Demirel, who was then Prime Minister and is now President of Turkey, and that he influenced newspapers such as the Financial Times in favour of Turkey. In addition, he challenged the European Union institutions by adopting positions diametrically opposed to the decisions of the European Council and Parliament.

1. In accordance with what criteria was Michael Lake appointed to his post as Head of Representation of the Commission in Ankara and kept there for eight years?

2. Was the Commission aware of the activities of its Head of Representation?

3. What action will the Commission take following his admissions?

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

(3 September 1998)

Mr Lake was nominated and executed his function in Ankara according to standing criteria and procedures. His stay in Ankara was prolonged in the interest of the service.

It is not unusual for departing Heads of Delegation to express their personal views in an informal report upon departure from a posting.

Mr Lake's report falls into this category and its contents do, therefore, not necessarily have to confirm in all aspects with the positions of the Community.

After the publications in the Greek press the responsible Commissioner called the Greek Foreign Minister Pangalos in order to ensure that there was no misunderstanding about the nature of the report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2243/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: SOCRATES: Occupational Travellers (Comenius Action II)

Given the success of the Socrates programme in providing innovative educational projects aimed at youngsters from the Occupational Travellers' community, can the Commission offer assurances that specific funds will be designated within the new Socrates programme (2000-2005) to maintain and develop support for the education of Occupational Travellers?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 1998)

The Commission fully shares the positive assessment in regard to the contribution made by Comenius to the educational provision of occupational travellers.

Occupational travellers, as well as other groups with specific educational needs, will remain an important target group of the future Socrates programme.

The Commission proposal on the Decision for Socrates II(1) specifically refers to occupational travellers in the annex to the decision by outlining under action 1.1, paragraph 3 c in regard to school partnerships that activities eligible for Community assistance may include cooperation projects meeting the specific needs of the children of migrant workers, gypsies, travellers and itinerant workers, mentioning under action 1.2, paragraph 3 d, aspects of specific training relating to the integration of the children of migrant workers, gypsies and travellers and itinerant workers as possible eligible activities in the area of staff development.

It is the intention of the Commission to implement the above provisions - and formulate future applicant guidelines - in a way not only to ensure that projects targeting the specific needs of occupational travellers - be they school partnership projects or educational staff training projects - will remain eligible but also that a sufficient number of such projects will receive Community funding.

The Commission will furthermore encourage one of the networks to be established under the future Comenius action (see action 1, second paragraph of Annex to the Socrates Decision) to exclusively target the educational needs of occupational travellers. Taking into account the important contribution made by the European federation for the education of the children of the occupational travellers (Efecot) in this area, the Commission is convinced that Efecot should play the key role in regard to these networking activities.

(1) COM(98) 329.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2601/98

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Violence and sexual harassment at the workplace

A recent report by the International Labour Organization reveals that threats, physical violence and sexual harassment are the main causes of insecurity among workers. The ILO report states that, in Europe, the percentage of women who are subjected to physical assault at the workplace is almost twice the corresponding figure for men, while, in the UK, the number of workers who receive threats is over 53 %. In particular, psychological harassment has assumed alarming proportions in the western world, especially in Austria, Denmark, the UK, Germany and Sweden. As regards sexual assault, France is the world leader, with 20 % of working women having been victims of sexual harassment. In what ways does the Commission intend to intervene and what measures does it propose to take to deal with this serious problem?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member on the disastrous consequences of sexual harassment. The Commission considers that sexual harassment at the workplace may infringe certain provisions of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions(1).

The Commission has long sonce taken several supplementary measures to combat harassment. Thus in 1991 the Commission adopted Recommendation 92/131/EEC of 27 November 1991 on the protection of the dignity of women and men at work(2) and, in 1993, it published a guide on implementing a code of practice to combat sexual harassment.

In 1996 and 1997, the Commission consulted the social partners and invited them to negotiate a European-level agreement on the possibility of designing a global policy at Community level to combat sexual harassment at work. Unfortunately the social partners did not respond positively to the Commission's invitation.

At the same time the Commission commissioned two in-depth reports on sexual harassment in all the Member States (definition, persons concerned, victim profile, consequences of harassment, legislation, anti-harassment measures) from two research institutes. These two studies corroborate the points raised in the Honourable Member's question.

Following the social partners' refusal to negotiate at European level, the Commission intends, as an initial step, to publish these two studies once they have been translated. These studies highlight in particular the need to alert people to the significance of the phenomenon of sexual harassment and to work more actively to combat it. The Commission is already considering other supplementary awareness-raising measures, including the possibility of organising or subsidising a conference on this problem.

(1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976.

(2) OJ L 49, 24.2.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1187/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Effect of US bank holidays on intra-EU bank transfers

Is the Commission aware that certain commercial banks in the UK do not credit sums transferred from another Member State to their customer's account on the day after receipt of such funds, as is normal practice, when such days coincide with a bank holiday in the United States of America? In such cases, the money, which is already in the possession of the bank, is only credited to the customer on the first working day after the American bank holiday (which, in the event of weekends and UK holidays, may actually be several days later).

Does the Commission agree that the transfer of funds from one Member State of the Union to another should not be affected by a bank holiday in a third country?

If not, how does it justify such a situation?

Will it change when the euro is introduced?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 1998)

On 27 January 1997, the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 97/5/EC on cross-border credit transfers(1). The Directive will apply to cross-border credit transfers up to ECU 50.000 (and hence EUR 50.000 from 1 January 1999) and the equivalent sum in the national currencies of the Member States. It will enter into force on 14 August 1999, but Member States have promised best efforts to anticipate this to 1 January 1999.

Article 6 of the Directive requires an institution to execute a credit transfer within the time scale agreed with its customer. In the absence of such an agreement, default time scales are set out, stipulating, inter alia, that funds are to be made available to the beneficiary not later than the banking business day following the day on which the funds were credited to the account of the beneficiary's institution (Article 6, paragraph 1, 2nd sentence of the Directive). This means, that in the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, British banks, unless they agree otherwise with their customers, should make funds available to the beneficiary on the day following receipt of funds in the context of a transfer. While the term "banking business day" is not defined in the Directive, the Commission takes the view that it should be determined with reference to regulations or practices regarding banking holidays in the country where the receiving bank is located. In the circumstances described by the Honourable Member this would mean that British holiday rules should apply and that American bank holidays should not enter into account. This, however, will not immediately settle the question raised by the Honourable Member as the transposition period of Directive 97/5/EC (14 August 1999) has not yet expired. However, the Member States have promised their best endeavours to implement the Directive by 1 January 1999 and the Commission will make efforts to achieve the earliest possible transposition.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/98

by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Structural Fund

Could the Commission please state its opinion as to the likely breakdown of the share of structural funding between the proposed new Objectives 2 and 3?

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

(20 July 1998)

Appropriations cannot be allocated to Objectives 2 and 3 until the Council has agreed on financial guidelines for the period 2000-06. As in 1989 and 1993, a Commission decision on allocation will follow adoption of the Structural Fund Regulations.

The Commission's decision would have to be taken in line with Article 7 of the proposed Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1).

This stipulates that:

- the resources available for commitment for Objective 1 regions shall be about two-thirds of the total Fund appropriation;

- the Commission shall, using transparent procedures make indicative breakdowns by Member State of 90 % of the commitment appropriations available for programming;

- 5 % of the commitment appropriations for the Funds will be devoted to the Community Initiatives and 1 % to innovative measures and technical assistance.

(1) COM(98) 131 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2259/98

by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: The EAGGF Guarantee Section in Luxembourg from 1986 to 1995

Can the Commission indicate the total amount received by Luxembourg under the EAGGF Guarantee Section from 1986 to 1995 and provide a breakdown of expenditure:

- by heading (arable crops, sugar, fibre plants and silk worms, other plant products, wine products, tobacco, milk and milk products, beef/veal, sheepmeat and goatmeat, pigmeat, eggs and poultry, other measures concerning animal products, refunds on certain goods obtained by processing agricultural products, refunds in connection with Community food aid, distribution of agricultural products to deprived persons, accompanying measures, rural development measures linked to markets, other measures, income aid, and the European Fisheries Guarantee Fund); and

- by type of aid (export refunds, price compensating aids, acreage aid, aid for livestock, guidance premiums, private storage aid, withdrawals and similar operations, monetary compensatory amounts, measures accompanying reform of the CAP, and public storage costs)?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1923/98

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 June 1998)

Subject: Implementation of the Directive on the use of standards for the transmission of television signals

Article 1 of Directive 95/47/EC(1) states: "Member States shall take appropriate measures to promote the accelerated development of advanced television services including wide-screen television services, high definition television services and television services using fully digital transmission systems." Article 8 of the same Directive provides that Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for them to comply with this Directive by 23 August 1996 and shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field governed by this Directive.

Will the Commission say whether Greece has notified it of the measures it has taken to comply with the provisions of Directive 95/47/EC and, if so, when, and if not, whether it intends to initiate proceedings against Greece before the European Court of Justice for violating the Directive in question?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(3 August 1998)

According to a letter dated 5 December 1997 from the Greek authorities, a draft presidential decree has been prepared to implement the provisions of the Directive. This decree, in order to be adopted, has to go through the procedure before the Council of State.

To the Commission's knowledge, these measures have still not yet been adopted and since no other information has been communicated, the Commission is compelled to conclude that Greece has not yet adopted the provisions necessary to comply with the Directive. The Commission is currently preparing a reasoned opinion to be communicated as the next stage in the proceedings.

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 51.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1365/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Zero Emissions Research Initiative

The Zero Emissions Research Initiative (ZERI) Foundation aims to design corporate strategies and industrial policies based on the principle of sustainable social and economic development. The Japanese Government has recently appointed 42 academics at Tokyo University to work on the theoretical framework for zero emissions.

Does the Commission have any plans to sponsor similar research into the zero emissions programme at the ZERI Foundation?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2257/98

by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: The EAGGF Guarantee Section in Belgium from 1986 to 1995

Can the Commission indicate the total amount received by Belgium under the EAGGF Guarantee Section from 1986 to 1995 and provide a breakdown of expenditure:

- by heading (arable crops, sugar, fibre plants and silk worms, other plant products, wine products, tobacco, milk and milk products, beef/veal, sheepmeat and goatmeat, pigmeat, eggs and poultry, other measures concerning animal products, refunds on certain goods obtained by processing agricultural products, refunds in connection with Community food aid, distribution of agricultural products to deprived persons, accompanying measures, rural development measures linked to markets, other measures, income aid, and the European Fisheries Guarantee Fund); and

- by type of aid (export refunds, price compensating aids, acreage aid, aid for livestock, guidance premiums, private storage aid, withdrawals and similar operations, monetary compensatory amounts, measures accompanying reform of the CAP, and public storage costs)?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1470/98

by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: Update of the report on the operation of EURATOM safeguards 1991-1992

Was the Commission's "Report on the Operation of EURATOM Safeguards 1991-1992"(1) the last one to be submitted to the European Parliament and made available to the public?

After 1992, did the Commission maintain "its intention to prepare such an operations report on a biennial basis"(2)?

If so, is the Commission willing to submit the operations reports covering the period 1993-1996 to the European Parliament and make them available to the public?

If not, why has the Commission changed its mind?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 1998)

The Commission confirms that the report covering the period 1991-1992 (published in 1994) was the last submitted to the Parliament and made available to the public.

The Commission is currently preparing a report on the operation of Euratom safeguards covering the years 1993 to 1997 which it will submit to the Parliament and will make available to the public.

(1) COM(94) 282 final, 6 June 1994.

(2) COM(94) 282 final, 6 June 1994, Explanatory Memorandum.