ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0406/98

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 1998)

Subject: Prescribed Quantity systems

Which Member States have a Prescribed Quantity system which has been investigated, and why did the Commission feel that the existence of a PQ system in the British break market posed a threat to inter-Community trade?

Supplementary answer

given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)

In 1993, the Commission, following Parliamentary question H-228/93 by Mrs von Alemann(1) on the difficulties faced by importers of prepacked bread from Germany, raised the question of the compatibility of the United Kingdom regulations on ranges (Weights and Measures (Miscellaneous Foods) Order 1988 SI 1988/2040) with Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty concerning the principle of the free movement of goods. Since bread is not covered by Directive 80/232/EEC relating to the ranges of nominal quantities and nominal capacities permitted for certain prepacked products(2), Articles 30 to 36 apply to national measures likely to obstruct trade in the products concerned.

The disputed regulations prescribe for prepacked bread the nominal quantity of 400 grams and multiples thereof, thereby excluding the nominal quantity of 500 grams normally used in other Member States.

The Commission regards these regulations as being incompatible with Article 30 of the EC Treaty, since consumer protection and fairness in trading relations can be adequately ensured by a measure which is less obstructing to trade, involving, for example, the indication of the net quantity on the prepacked product. Following a formal notice of complaint in December 1996, the United Kingdom authorities indicated their willingness to amend the regulations in question with a view to including the quantities of 500 grams and 1 kilogram. The procedure to amend the legislation is now under way.

(1) OJ Annex 3-429, 10.3.1993.

(2) OJ L 51, 25.2.1980.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3162/98

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE) to the Commission

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Sickness and care insurance for frontier workers

In cases C-120/95 and C-1548/96 the Court of Justice has ruled that the principles of freedom of movement for goods and services also apply to medical treatment and services. Consider the case of a frontier worker who lives in Belgium but works in Germany where he is also insured in accordance with German law.

1. Regardless of the EU country in which the medical services are used, do the reimbursement rates always depend on the tariffs in the country where the person is insured?

2. If so, does it not run counter to the judgments cited above if the social security scheme of the party insured applies the reimbursement rates only in accordance with the rules of the country of origin?

3. Is it true that, while freedom of the market applies in accordance with the judgments of the Court of Justice cited, above frontier workers are excluded from this and will continue to be subject to EEC Regulation 1408/71?

4. If so, what action is the Commission planning to take to remedy this as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1998)

Under Articles 19 and 20 of Council Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community(1), frontier workers may choose to receive medical treatment in the Member State in which they reside, in accordance with the legislation of that Member State, or in the Member State in which they work, as provided for by the legislation of the latter Member State, without needing to obtain prior authorisation or being limited to services in emergencies.

(1) consolidated by Council Regulation (EC) 118/97 - OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3290/98

by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: Recognition of veterinary qualifications

Would the Commission specify the precise position with regard to the recognition of veterinary qualifications throughout the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 1998)

The freedom of movement of veterinary surgeons within the Community is based on national qualifications awarded upon completion of a full cycle of training satisfying certain common criteria. The provisions of Community law which are applicable in this case are those of Council Directive 78/1026/EEC of 18 December 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in veterinary medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services(1), and of Council Directive 78/1027/EEC of 18 December 1978 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of the activities of veterinary surgeons(2).

(1) OJ L 362, 23.12.1978.

(2) OJ L 362, 23.12.1978.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2972/98

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Chrysotile Asbestos

Given that 10,000s of workers die each year from asbestos related diseases, there is genuine concern across the EU that not enough action has been taken at a European level to halt the use, production and marketing of white asbestos.

Can the Commission confirm that the Plenary session of the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) on the 14-15 September, adopted a formal opinion in which Chrysotile Asbestos was found to be more dangerous than its substitutes?

In the light of these findings, does the Commission agree that rapid action is required and that the next logical step is a European ban on Chrysotile Asbestos, perhaps taking the form of a technical amendment to existing legislation which already covers the use, production and marketing of other forms of asbestos, which would be speedier and could therefore save lives more urgently?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 1998)

The scientific committee on toxicology, ecotoxicology and the environment (CSTEE) opinion on the comparative risk between chrysotile asbestos and the three main fibrous substitutes for the remaining uses of chrysotile (cellulose fibres, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibres and p-aramid fibres) reads as follows:

"Both for the induction of lung and pleural cancer and lung fibrosis - i.e. the end point conditions investigated to a greater extent - and for other effects, it is unlikely that either cellulose, PVA or p-aramid fibres pose an equal or greater risk than chrysotile asbestos. With regard to carcinogenesis and induction of lung fibrosis, the CSTEE has reached a consensus that the risk is likely to be lower."

This opinion complements the SCTEE's conclusion of 9 February 1998 that "it may be appropriate in the absence of definitive information to assume that there is no safe dose of chrysotile". This conclusion was confirmed in the CSTEE's opinion of 15 September 1998.

However, it is important to note that the potential hazards of other non-fibrous materials, like steel or PVC which can replace pressure pipes, were outside the scope of the CSTEE opinion and that the CSTEE "recommends expansion of research in the areas of toxicology and epidemiology of the substitute fibres as well as in the technology of development of new, thicker (less respirable) fibres".

Nevertheless, on the basis of the current knowledge of the science, the Commission has drawn up a draft directive which would ban chrysotile asbestos, with certain exceptions and transitional arrangements. The draft Commission directive will be discussed with Member States and industry experts in a meeting arranged for 29 October 1998. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, it could be submitted to the voting committee by the end of the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3308/98

by Manuel Escolá Hernando (ARE) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: Problems in the alabaster industry in Aragon

95 % of the world's alabaster production (48 000 tonnes) today takes place in the Autonomous Community of Aragon (Spain), in the area formed by Bajo Martín, Caspe and the lower banks of the Ebro.

However, all of the alabaster mined is exported before the manufacturing stage. This is because the mining rights are in the hands of a small number of companies which are not based in the mining area, and which monopolise the entire market, sending the raw material to their own factories and practising quite unjustified prices.

In some cases, companies located in the mining area have even had to close down, following severe exploitation problems arising from the power of the owners of the mining rights.

This gross concentration of mining rights in the hands of a few is preventing the development of manufacturing enterprises in the places where the alabaster is mined, thus creating obstacles to job creation and population stability.

Is the Commission aware of this monopoly on the market in alabaster?

Does the Commission intend to take measures to stop this state of affairs, in which this raw material is generating no value added in the area where it is mined? If so, what is the nature of these measures?

Can the Commission guarantee supplies of this raw material, in proper free-market conditions and at fair prices, to the enterprises which could be created in the mining area?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1998)

The Commission has no data such as would enable it to confirm that 95 % of the world's alabaster-mining activity is concentrated in the Autonomous Community of Aragon. The Commission has not, to date, observed the existence of a monopoly on the alabaster market.

The Commission does not have the authority to determine where raw materials should be processed. It is up to the companies concerned to decide where to locate their production plants.

The Commission can adopt a decision requiring companies which are abusing a dominant position within the common market as referred to in Article 86 of the EC Treaty to put an end to this infringement. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to establish whether there is any evidence of a dominant position being abused such as would prompt it to initiate proceedings under Article 86 of the Treaty. Up to now the Commission has received no complaints concerning possible abuses of dominant positions in the alabaster-mining industry.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2935/98

by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Compatibility of paragraph 7a of the Road Haulage Act (GüKG) with the EU cabotage Regulation No 3118/93 and other Community legislation

1. Does paragraph 7a, on liability insurance for damage to goods, in the Road Haulage Act comply with the principles of the EU's cabotage Regulation No 3118/93(1)?

2. If so, on what grounds?

3. If not, how does the Commission intend to put the matter right?

4. Do the laws of other Member States of the European Union provide for similar liability insurance for damage to goods?

5. Does the Commission believe such provisions to be compatible with other Community law?

6. Does it constitute an obstacle to the free movement of goods or of services within the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1998)

1. to 3. Yes. Paragraph 7a of the relevant German law obliges the haulier, in cases where loading and unloading both take place on German territory, to take out insurance for damages for which he is liable during any such transport. Article 6.1(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) 3118/93 of 25 October 1993 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road haulage services within the Member State (cabotage regulation)(2) expressly states that, in the area of rates and conditions governing the transport contract, the performance of cabotage transport operations shall be subject to the laws, regulations and administrative provisions in force in the host Member State.

4. and 5. Yes.

6. No.

(1) OJ L 279, 12.11.1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 279, 12.11.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3227/98

by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Use of baboons in xenotransplantation research in the UK

Is the Commission aware that wild baboons have been used in xenotransplantation (animal-to-human transplantation) research in the United Kingdom? Does the Commission consider that this is compatible with the provisions of Article 7(3), second indent, of Directive 86/609/EEC(1)?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 1998)

The Commission is aware that wild caught baboons have been used for xenotransplantation research in the United Kingdom. The use of animals for experimentation in the United Kingdom is regulated by the Animal Act of 1986 in accordance with Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes(2), and it is the responsibility of the national authorities - and not that of the Commission - that the provisions of the Animal Act are respected.

An exemption to use non-purpose bred animals can be obtained "under arrangements determined by the authority" (Article 19(4) of the Directive) and it is at the discretion of the authorities of the Member States that the applicant sufficiently justifies that "Experiments on animals taken from the wild may not be carried out unless experiments on other animals would not suffice for the aims of the experiments" (Article 7(3), 2nd indent).

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3360/98

by Irene Soltwedel-Schäfer (V) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Eco-audit

1. The eco-audit which has existed in the EU since 29 June 1993 has so far been carried out by about 1960 undertakings. To what extent was Council Regulation (EEC) 1836/93(1) taken into account in the European Parliament's new buildings in Brussels (Rue Wiertz) and Strasbourg?

2. What potential water and energy savings were taken into account in the two new buildings, and what technical means were used to achieve them?

3. What potential energy savings did the installation of solar cell units make possible?

4. What waste avoidance strategies has the European Parliament's administration adopted or implemented for Parliament's buildings?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1998)

As the Honorable Member rightly mentions Council Regulation (EEC) 1836/93 allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) entered into force on 13 July 1993 and was applicable from 13 April 1995. Since then 1962 companies in the industrial sectors mentioned in Article 2 (i) of the Regulation have been registered in the scheme. However the building industry is not amongst the sectors for which the scheme is open. The reason for this was the intention to concentrate on the industrial and manufacturing sector in the first instance.

On 30 October 1998 the Commission adopted a proposal for the revision of the EMAS regulation(2), in which it is proposed to extend the scope of the scheme to all sectors including the building industry. After the entering into force of the proposed revision it will be possible for building companies together with their building locations to register in the EMAS scheme.

As far as the administration of the Parliament buildings are concerned the Commission is not competent.

(1) OJ L 168, 10.7.1993, p. 1.

(2) COM(98) 622 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2128/98

by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: United Kingdom v. Commission, C-106/96

The judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1998 that certain Commission expenditure was illegal because it lacked a legal basis, has had repercussions for a large number of EU programmes and actions, especially in the social and human rights spheres. In its judgment, the Court stated that only non-significant actions could be undertaken without the prior adoption of a legal basis.

What does the Commission understand by non-significant actions?

How does it propose to react to this situation?

What future strategy does it intend to pursue in the light of this judgment?

Will it seek an interinstitutional agreement on this matter?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3152/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Eradication of polio

In 1998 the World Health Organization launched an initiative to eradicate polio by the year 2000. Although there has been a 90 % reduction in the number of cases of polio the ultimate target is still to be reached.

Will the Commission therefore set out its approach to tackling polio in the developing world, and indicate what financial commitments it has so far made towards solving this problem?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3669/98

by Gérard d'Aboville (UPE) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Imports of canned tuna originating in Ecuador

In January 1998, the Commission initiated an investigation of imports of canned tuna originating in Ecuador with a view to reintroducing the Common Customs Tariff duty applicable to that product(1).

Imports of canned tuna originating in Ecuador and put into free circulation with preferential beneit during 1997 have exceeded the annual average of the last three years (1994,1995 and 1996), and that justified the initiation of the investigation pursuant to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) 1256/96(2).

To date, no findings of that investigation seem to have been notified either to the Member States or to the interested parties.

Can the Commission indicate the reasons for this lack of transparency? Has the investigation been completed? If so, what were its findings? Why have they not been notified to the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1998)

In response to the high level of EC imports of canned tuna from Ecuador to which the Honourable Member refers, a Member State invoked the safeguard clause in Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) 1256/96 of 20 June 1996 applying multiannual schemes of generalised tariff preferences from 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1999 in respect of certain agricultural products originating in developing countries. Note, however, that the quantitative aspect is additional to the criterion stipulated in Article 14, which is that the imports "cause serious difficulties to Community producers." In the course of an investigation in which the Commission worked closely with the Member States on the Committee on Generalised Preferences, no evidence was produced to show that such difficulties were being or might be caused. The Member State concerned let its request drop and the Commission wound up the investigation without taking action. The notice of termination (98/C357/06) was published in the Official Journal(3) to which the Honourable Member is invited to refer.

(1) OJ C 8, 13.1.1998.

(2) OJ L 160, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

(3) OJ C 357, 21.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3643/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Council

(4 December 1998)

Subject: Electromagnetic pollution and limits to be adopted

Italy has recently adopted legislation placing limits on electromagnetic emissions which allows a specific absorption rate (SAR) for radio frequencies of 0,04 W/kg, corresponding to a value of 20V/m as regards thermal effects.

Environmental and consumer associations believe that the Italian delegation to the next meeting of the Council on 12 November 1998 will supply the other members of the Council with data that far exceed these limits.

At the same time, there have been a large number of complaints from Italian citizens about the constant growth in the number of radio transmitters, particularly since the two existing mobile phone operators have recently been joined by a third operator which does not have access to the existing relay systems and transmission signals. This effectively encourages the installation of new transmitters in the immediate vicinity of urban areas, schools, markets (as is the case in Pianura, a working-class district of Naples), without any kind of precaution being taken to avoid the lethal public health consequences, such as an increase in cases of childhood leukemia and many types of tumour.

Can the Council say:

1. whether the Italian delegation has submitted studies whose conclusions differ from those that form the basis of the European legislation, from the recommendations of the European Parliament, or which have not been properly thought through;

2. whether the uncontrolled installation of GSM and other radio-frequency transmitters constitutes a threat to the health of the local populations;

3. what the Council intends to do to prevent electromagnetic pollution in the European Union becoming even worse?

Reply

(22 and 23 February 1999)

1. The Council has no knowledge of the studies referred to in the Honourable Member's question.

2. and 3. The Council is currently examining the proposal for a Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields 0 Hz-300 GHz, the purpose of which is to provide a common framework for a high level of protection from the acute thermal effects of electromagnetic fields.

It should be pointed out, in this context, that it will be for the Member States to evaluate situations where there is exposure to electromagnetic fields and to take such appropriate steps as are necessary to protect the public.

It will also be recalled that on 3 July 1998 the Council decided to consult the European Parliament on the proposal for a Recommendation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3476/98

by Luisa Todini (PPE) and Claudio Azzolini (PPE) to the Council

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Right to a fair trial

The Constitutional Court of the Italian Republic issued a ruling on 2 November stating that Article 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, passed by the Italian Parliament by an overwhelming majority in July 1997, was in part unlawful.

In view of the fact that this ruling, which applies retroactively, has made it virtually impossible for trials to be conducted on an adversarial basis (a principle that safeguards the right of the accused to a proper defence, and is sanctioned by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights) can the Council prevail upon the Italian Government to restore this principle which is one of the fundamental components of a fair trial?

Reply

(22 and 23 February 1999)

The Council of the European Union is not competent to deal with the matter raised by the Honourable Member of the European Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3367/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Bathroom goods from third countries marketed in the EU

The Panhellenic Association of Sanitary Goods Dealers alleges that thousands of boxes of tiles manufactured in Turkey and Egypt are being marketed in Greece as products of EU Member States. The illegality of this operation consists in the falsification of the information concerning the origin of the tiles and sanitary goods imported from the above countries so that they appear as EU products: this severely damages the interests of EU manufacturers.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of the above state of affairs, what action it intends to take to identify those responsible and whether the necessary recommendations will be made to the authorities of the countries of origin of the above-mentioned sanitary goods?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.