ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2347/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Connivance between traffickers and anti-drugs authorities

In May 2000, the US Congress committee for the secret services published the conclusions of the parliamentary inquiry into the role of the CIA in the support given to the Nicaraguan Contras in the early 1980s.

During the hearings, which were held in camera, former CIA agents confirmed that the Contras were allowed to benefit from a policy of active tolerance with the blessing of the US secret services, which enabled them to self-finance their armed campaign, thanks to the profits of an extensive cocaine-trafficking network.

Was the Commission aware of these circumstances? Does the Commission consider these dubious practices to be a purely exceptional phenomenon in terms of anti-drugs-trafficking policy, or is it, on the contrary, in possession of similar information for other regions of the world, for recent years or for today? Does the Commission not consider that, in view of the seriousness of this case, it should raise the matter in the relevant international forums, beginning with the UN's anti-drugs authority (the UNDCP)? Does the Commission not also consider that, in view of the seriousness of the matter, it should propose, as a matter of urgency, the revision of the international conventions on narcotics with a view to creating a single legal framework to cover all activities related to the production of marketing

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

The Commission was not informed of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member.

The link between the financing of armed conflicts and drugs stems from considerable illegal profits such trafficking generates. The Commission points out that the European Union's strategy does not accept illegal practices.

Within its sphere of responsibility, the Commission is committed to the fight against illegal activities linked to drugs, whether production, processing or trafficking, both at international level and within the EU.

Since the Commission is not informed of these matters, it considers that it cannot bring them before the appropriate international bodies. However, it is taking resolute action against international crime, on an international level and in co-operation with other partners such as the United States. It cannot propose a review of international conventions on narcotics on the basis of facts about which it has no direct knowledge.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1821/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: The dairy sector in Galicia and the reform of the CAP scheduled for the years 2005-2006

The reform of the CAP scheduled for the years 2005-2006 will lead to a fall in the intervention prices for milk, to be offset by the introduction of a premium granted directly to farmers, which in 2007-2008 and following years will amount to PTA 4,16 per kilogram. However, this premium will only apply to production levels corresponding to each dairy farm's own quota.

Faced with the possible abolition of the system of milk quotas as a result of further CAP reforms, what will be the situation of farms with a large land-based capacity for growth as is the case of most Galician farms which are now hampered in developing their production by a quota system imposed on them years ago, at the precise time when they were optimistically undertaking a process of modernisation? Would a potential and necessary additional production capacity be given financial support comparable to that given to production levels corresponding to the current quotas, assuming that some system of premiums was maintained?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The direct payments to producers planned from 2005 onwards are currently established by tonne of reference quantity (quota) of milk. If the Council decided to discontinue the system of quotas, it would have to take account of all the consequences, including the base for and method of calculation of the direct payments. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that it is premature to take a position on the matter at this stage.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0316/00

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) and Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Council

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Effective measures to combat AIDS

Some 95 % of persons infected with AIDS live in the developing countries of Africa and Asia, the disease is responsible for one in five deaths in Africa and average life expectancy has dramatically fallen owing to the huge scale of the epidemic and the inability of sufferers to meet the high financial cost of drugs to combat the disease. In response to this situation, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director-General of the WHO, has launched an appeal to all the industrialised countries in which she stresses that, while the northern hemisphere has a near monopoly of anti-AIDS drugs the disease is predominantly found in the southern hemisphere, and calls for an end to the inequality in the prevention and treatment of AIDS.

Given the recent aid granted by the USA and Canada ($ 150 million and 50 million, respectively), will the Council say by what means and what special programmes the European Union intends to help the developing countries as regards both AIDS prevention and treatment, so that those suffering from the disease have access to drugs treatment, thereby bringing about a dramatic decline in the number of AIDS deaths, as has occurred in the industrialised countries?

Reply

(29 September 2000)

The Council entirely shares the Honourable Members' concerns regarding the seriousness of the AIDS epidemic, especially in Africa, and agrees with their analysis of its consequences, it has emphasised the need to step up efforts to give more support to national strategies. In particular, this involves support for strategies aimed at more effective prevention of transmission based on education, the promotion of sexual and reproductive health and transfusion safety, along with strategies to help the HIV-positive and the sick, in particular by strengthening health systems and combating discrimination and social exclusion.

In cooperation with the Parliament and acting on a proposal from the Commission, the Council adopted a Regulation in March 1997 on HIV/AIDS-related operations in developing countries, particularly in the poorest of those countries. The Regulation provides for a sum of 45 million to implement the anti-AIDS programme for the period 1997-1999. It sets priorities for Community action which basically involve prevention and delay of onset of the disease. The Regulation also defines in considerable detail actions which may be funded to promote the reduction of HIV/AIDS transmission.

On the more specific question of treatment, the Commission has not to date proposed any extension of Community funding to cover the costs of medicines appropriate for the control of AIDS.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/00

by Linda McAvan (PSE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Welfare of chickens reared for meat production

The EU's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (Scahaw) recently published a report expressing concern about the health and welfare of broiler chickens being reared for meat production. The report highlighted how the broiler industry's drive for ever faster growth rates has led to painful leg disorders and sudden death syndrome in birds reared for meat.

Will the Commission consider proposing legislation designed to address the serious health and welfare problems highlighted in the Scahaw report?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1809/00 and E-1848/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

The Commission has asked its scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare (Scahaw) to prepare a report on the welfare of chickens bred and kept for meat production (broilers). The Scahaw adopted a report on 21 March 2000.

In relation to the welfare of broilers a recommendation on domestic fowl adopted on 28 November 1995 by the standing committee of the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes is in force. The Member States and the Community are contracting parties to this Convention and participate in the work of the committee.

In the Community, Council Directive 98/58/EC(1) provides the main principles for the protection of all species of animals kept for farming purposes. It addresses the welfare requirements to be applied for the protection of animals kept for the different types of production, including the keeping of chickens for meat production. The Directive also imposes a responsibility on the owner or keeper of the animals to ensure that their welfare respects the minimum requirements provided.

The Directive also provides a legal base under which proposals for Community measures in relation to the Convention or recommendations made under it are prepared if this is necessary for its uniform application within the Community.

Following the conclusion of the report from the Scahaw and in the light of the above mentioned Directive, the Commission is working on a proposal to establish the welfare requirements for keeping broilers in the Community.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1490/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Restricting the possibilities of members of the Committee of the Regions declaring expenses twice

1. Can the Commission confirm that the expenses incurred by members of the Committee of the Regions in 1998 and 1999 may only be paid directly to those concerned and not to the authorities they represent?

2. Is it true that those entitled to such expenses could only obtain the amounts involved for 1998 and 1999 by means of a cheque drawn on a Belgian bank, so that, if requested, they were unable to provide evidence of the payment in respect of their declarations being entered in their personal bank accounts in their own country?

3. Can the Commission confirm that payments for the years up to and including 1997 and from 2000 are indeed made to the regional authorities involved and not to individuals?

4. Why have the payment arrangements been changed twice as described above?

5. Does the Commission agree with me that in 1998 and 1999 those concerned had no reason whatsoever also to declare their Committee of the Regions expenses to the authorities to which they belong, since this would lead to payment being made twice?

6. Are the authorities from which the members of the Committee of the Regions come also notified directly of direct payments to members and of the amounts involved?

7. When the payment system is changed, are the members of the Committee of the Regions concerned and the authorities to which they belong always informed of the change in good time so as to prevent any possible misunderstandings or even deliberate dual declarations?

8. If the answer to question 7 is yes, how has the relevant information been provided?

Answer given Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

In reply to the question from the Honourable Member, the Commission has obtained the following information from the Committee of the Regions:

1. and 3. There are no statutory requirements concerning the final recipient of the payments, either before 1997 or from 2000. Members of the Committee of the Regions individually receive repayment of expenses they have incurred. The repayment is made either to a bank account notified by the member to the Committee, or, if a member so requests, via the administration which they represent.

2. Up to 31 December 1999, several forms of payment were possible (such as a cheque or a bank transfer). From 1 January 2000, payments are made only by bank transfer.

4. The decision of the Committee of the Regions on the repayment of travel and accommodation expenses has been amended twice (31 March 1999 and 1 April 2000), to improve payment procedures, especially payment by bank transfer and bring it into line with the new rules of procedure which entered into force in January 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1297/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Withdrawal of Schengen-type visa from Mr Rakhimov

In March 1998, following the publication of reports in sections of the Danish, French, English and Russian media of false information alleging that he was connected with criminal organisations involved in drugs trafficking, Mr Gafur-Arslanbek Rakhimov, an Uzbek businessman, had his Schengen-type visa withdrawn, despite the fact that the secretariat of the file monitoring commission of IOC-Interpol, when approached by the Committee for the Protection of Human Rights in Uzbekistan (Uzbek branch of the International Society for Human Rights) has stated that it holds no information to back up the accusations that have been made, and that the Russian authorities had also indicated to them that they held no information on the individual in question.

Can the Council say on what grounds the decision to withdraw the visa was taken? Will it also check that the decision was taken in accordance with the principles that govern the withdrawal procedure for Schengen-type visas'? If this is not the case, will the Council undertake to act to reinstate Mr Rakhimov's Schengen-type visa?

Reply

(29 September 2000)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that the granting or refusal of a visa is a matter for which responsibility lies exclusively with the Member States.

The procedure and possible remedies where a Member State's diplomatic or consular representation refuses to examine an application or to issue a visa are governed by the national law of that Member State.

The Council is not authorised to take a position on a matter which does not fall within the scope of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2027/00

by Reino Paasilinna (PSE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Position of workers, their legal security and work protection in paedophile cases

A number of difficult paedophile incidents have recently been uncovered in several European Union Member States among persons working with children. These incidents have made the working environment considerably more difficult. Workers who have attempted to help children and demand investigations have often come up against a powerful reaction, for example in the course of court and complaints procedures. In the worst instance a worker was sacked and even had to bear liability for legal costs.

What measures is the Commission taking or does it propose to take at European level to protect the position and legal certainty of workers in cases where a worker has taken measures to protect children and investigate paedophile incidents at his or her place of work?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1152/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

The Commission is to draw up a directive on the components of natural mineral waters and on the conditions of use for the treatment of certain natural mineral waters with ozone-enriched air.

Will the maximum quantities of potential harmful substances laid down for drinking water also apply to natural mineral waters? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1122/00, E-1127/00, E-1128/00, E-1140/00, E-1141/00, E-1142/00, E-1143/00, E-1144/00, E-1145/00, E-1146/00, E-1147/00, E-1148/00, E-1150/00, E-1151/00, E-1152/00, E-1153/00, E-1155/00, E-1156/00, E-1157/00, E-1158/00, E-1160/00, E-1161/00 and E-1162/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member are being studied with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislation according to the time scale set out in the white paper on food safety.

It would be inappropriate at this stage to anticipate the details of each proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0150/00

by Emmanouil Mastorakis (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Community Interreg Initiative

Despite the increase in Interreg funding for the period 2000-2006 compared with the previous period, efforts have clearly been made not to alter the list of Group A recipients, with very few exceptions, the obvious aim being to concentrate the funds as effectively as possible. However, the fact that exceptions have been made prove that there was a need to remedy previously existing injustices and omissions. Notable omissions from the list of recipients in Greece are the prefectures of Arta and Ilia and this despite the inclusion of neighbouring prefectures which could be regarded as falling within the same category.

Can the Commission show understanding in this matter and reconsider the possibility of including these two prefectures, which were unjustly omitted?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0150/00, E-0229/00 and E-0336/00 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2000)

The Commission does not consider that Arta and Ilia are cross-border areas in the meaning of the term under the Interreg III Community initiative and therefore does not feel that they were unjustly omitted from the list of eligible areas.

The guidelines for Interreg III were adopted by the Commission on 28 April 2000(1). Under the cross-border strand of the initiative, eligible areas include all areas along the internal and external land borders of the Community and certain maritime areas as set out in Annex 1 of the guidelines. However, up to 20 % of a programme's total budget may be spent in areas adjacent to eligible areas. As both Arta and Ilia are adjacent to eligible areas, the flexibility exists for the authorities to include them in future cross-border programmes under Interreg III.

(1) OJ C 143, 23.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1093/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Antibiotics in hens' eggs

In November and December 1999, 32 different packages of eggs were purchased by the Italian Altroconsumo consumer magazine from a number of supermarkets in Rome and Milan, and their contents examined. The eggs examined were all classified as category A, meaning that they were intended to be eaten fresh and were supposedly of the highest quality. In nine cases, the presence was detected of sulfonamide and quinoline derivative antibiotics, prohibited in eggs.

Pharmaceuticals are administered to the animals during rearing and to prevent disease. Eggs that are laid during that period or immediately thereafter must of course be destroyed. The same also applies if the treatment is suspended. It is absolutely essential for a necessary transition period to be allowed to lapse to enable the substances administered to pass out of the hens' systems, a requirement clearly not complied with in these cases. Consumption of eggs contaminated with antibiotics results in certain bacteria becoming more resistant and in human beings adapting to the substances, whereby the effectiveness of antibiotics when used to treat sickness is undermined.

Will the Commission state if it is familiar with this problem and if it proposes to take action to guarantee consumer protection in this connection, thereby protecting the health of European Union citizens?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

According to Annex II of Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and products(1), surveillance of antibacterial substances, including sulfonamides and quinolones, must be done in eggs, regardless of whether or not these substances have already been authorised to treat laying hens.

The Commission has not received the Italian national report of results for 1999 on the surveillance programme.

Following the Honourable Member's question, a request has been addressed to the Italian authorities about this incident and, depending on the reply, appropriate measures will be taken.

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1700/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: National taxes and levies on imported cars

Can the Swedish Government impose an equally high sales tax on an imported used car as on a new Swedish car? The same question applies to the imposition of environmental and scrapping levies. Can the Swedish Government impose an equally high levy on an imported car as on a new Swedish car?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Court of Justice has ruled that if a Member State charges tax on vehicles from other Member States based on a value generally higher than their real value, while similar domestic vehicles are taxed on their

real value, that constitutes discrimination within the meaning of Article 90 (formerly Article 95) of the EC Treaty. In practice, the extra tax to which this ruling relates generally applies to second-hand cars, while new vehicles are usually taxed according to their real value.

The Court's judgments make it clear that the rulings in question apply to taxes levied on the value of the vehicle(1). The charge imposed on vehicles in Sweden, on the other hand to which the Honourable Member implicitly refers is not a tax on value but a flat-rate fee of SEK 700 ( 84,43), irrespective of the value of the vehicle, which is intended to cover in advance the cost of scrapping the vehicle (when its useful life is over and it is ultimately taken off the market). All Swedish-registered vehicles are subject to this scrapping fee when they are first put on the road there, whether they are new or second-hand. The fee is linked to that Member State's environmental policy, which is intended to ensure that vehicles are not dumped off-road when their useful life is over but scrapped in accordance with environmental regulations by approved operators. For this purpose, the Swedish administration offers a form of partial refund of the fee (SEK 500) if the vehicle is scrapped by an approved operator.

In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the relevant fee charged by the Swedish administration when a vehicle is first put on the road in Sweden is not incompatible with Community law.

Apart from that tax and VAT, the Commission is not aware of any other taxes applied to the sale or first registration of vehicles in Sweden.

(1) In particular the Court's judgments of 11 December 1990 in Case C-47/88 Commission v. Denmark, [1990] ECR I-4509; 9 March 1995 in Case C-345/93 Fazenda Pública and Ministério Público v. Américo João Nunes Tadeu, [1993] ECR I-479 and 23 October 1997 in Case C-375/95 Commission v. Greece, [1997] ECR I-5981.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1992/00

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: TvDanmark

On 5 April 2000, the Danish TV station, TvDanmark A/S, lodged a complaint with the Commission against Danish TV2 accusing the station of using its privileged position on the Danish commercial TV market in a manner that distorts competition.

When does the Commission expect to reach a decision on the TvDanmark A/S complaint against TV2 for distortion of competition and failure to keep licensing and advertising revenue separate?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission confirms that it has received a complaint from TvDanmark concerning infringements of Community competition rules by the public broadcaster TV2.

As regards both the state aid and the antitrust aspects of the complaint, the Commission has started to analyse the allegations, in order to assess whether they may be relevant under Articles 82, 86 and 87 EC Treaty (ex Articles 86, 90 and 92).

At this stage, and taking into account the complexity of the matter, the Commission is examining whether a formal investigation procedure is necessary. It is not possible to provide any timetable for a decision at this stage.