ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3611/97 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Textile trade with China

China accounts for 16% of world trade in textiles. As a trading partner, China has a poor record of compliance with agreements, and it has proved difficult to enforce them.

In view of China's strong position on textile markets, to what extent does the Commission consider it fair towards European industry to grant China the status of a developing country, with the associated preferential trading conditions?

In conjunction with this, what is the Commission's view of the way in which China should be admitted to the WTO, either at once or with a transition period? Could phased admission provide a significant means of bringing pressure to bear with the aim of securing compliance with agreements on reform?

To what extent are the negotiations with China likely to bring about an effective reduction in existing non-tariff barriers? How will the Commission ensure that tariff barriers which are prohibited under the WTO are not replaced with non-tariff barriers?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1997)

The negotiations on China's accession to the World trade organisation (WTO) are still in an important phase. They cover a broad field, varying from commitments on tariff levels to the abolition of a very large number of non-tariff barriers as well as the implementation of legal rules for intellectual property and the opening of the services sector. The implementation of its obligations as a result of its WTO membership will bring a new wave of liberalisation in China and push towards further reforms.

According to WTO provisions, valid for all countries, China will implement its liberalisation obligations step by step, with various transition periods.

The Commission - supported by the Member States - is of the opinion that WTO membership is a way to encourage China towards further reforms, the establishment of a market economy and the fulfilment of its international commitments. It can be noted that, since 1995, the WTO has an effective dispute settlement mechanism, which enables it to exert pressure for the implementation of agreements.

Regarding the preferential tariffs for textile import into the Community, they were indeed granted to China, but by the Member States autonomously, without any link with China's accession to the WTO. For the rest, Chinese textiles import receive the same treatment as from the other countries, which means that quantitative restrictions are still in force for import into the Community. These will be liberalised step by step in the framework of the WTO commitments.

The Commission feels that the Chinese government carried out significant economic reforms these past years. Nevertheless, it appears that further measures are necessary to ensure a stable integration of China into the world economy and to open up this market to the goods and services of other countries, according to the terms of the world trade system. In the Commission's opinion, these goals will effectively be supported by the WTO membership.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3460/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: JRC in Ispra

The Ispra JRC does not always appear to be run in a totally transparent manner. In particular, the Italian members of staff do not appear to be accorded their rightful place in the organization.

Would the Commission not agree that it should conduct inquiries into why Italian members of the JRC staff continually lodge complaints pursuant to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations or appeal to the Court of First Instance? Some officials actually have several complaints or appeals pending.

Does the Commission not find it strange that such complaints are confined exclusively to Italian staff and are unheard of among staff of other nationalities?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (20 January 1998)

The Commission's statistics show that staff lodge complaints under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations and appeal to the Court of First Instance without any substantial quantitative differences regarding places of employment. It is understandable in Ispra's case that Italians would avail themselves of these facilities more than other nationalities as there is a higher representation of this nationality than any other in that organisation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4195/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Agenda 2000 and Objective 1: state aid 1993-1997

At the end of November the Director-General of Regional Policy and Cohesion, Eneko Landäburu, suggested, in the presence of press representatives, that 11 European regions, including Valencia (Spain), were to lose their Objective 1 status under the terms of the Commission proposals to reduce the Structural Funds before the accession of new Member States.

Mr Landäburu's calculations were based on the provisional data currently available to the Commission. However, in the specific case of Valencia, official Eurostat statistics show that, in 1993, the Valencia Autonomous Community's GDP was 74.9% of the European average and that, in 1994, the figure was even lower (73.6%). The threshold for Objective 1 eligibility is 75%, hence there are no grounds for supposing that Valencia is going to fail the eligibility test in the near future.

Should the average income of the various regions during the 1993-1997 period be taken as the criterion for calculating GDP, it is important that the macro-economic data for each region should be known for all of the years concerned.

How much state aid was granted in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 to the 15 Member States and the following regions:

- Anatolia, Macedonia, Thessaly, Crete, Pelopennese, Central Greece, Ipiros, Attica, Ionian Islands, Aegean, Sterea (Greece)

- Hainaut (Belgium)

- Thuringia, Brandenburg, East Berlin, Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony, Munster (Germany)

- Galicia, Extremadura, Castilla la Mancha, Castilla y Leon, Ceuta and Melilla, Valencia Autonomous Community, Asturias, Andalusia, Canary Islands, Murcia (Spain)

- Valenciennes, Avesnes, Douai, Overseas Departments (France)

- Ulster, Connaught, Leinster (Ireland)

- Molise, Apulia, Sicily, Basilicata, Sardinia, Calabria, Campania (Italy)

- Flevoland (Netherlands)

- Burgerland (Austria)

- Northern Region, Alentejo, Algarve, Lisbon, Tagus Valley, Central Region (Portugal)

- Western Isles, Highlands, Merseyside, Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (18 February 1998)

The Honourable Member will find below the available aggregate figures for state aid granted under national regional aid schemes (Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty):

Annual average for the period 1992-94 (in MECU)

>TABLE>

The figures for subsequent years are not yet available. The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it is not provided with a regional breakdown of aid granted under horizontal schemes such as those for research and development (R& D) and for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4088/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (16 January 1998)

Subject: Full details concerning funding for Mediterranean countries

Can the Commission provided analytical tables giving full details to date of funding for Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Cyprus, Malta, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Palestinian territories, if possible from the time of the first Community agreements (1977)?

Can the Commission provide full details concerning funding for each country from all sources (Community budget, horizontal measures, bilateral agreements and financial protocols, European Investment Bank and any other Community initiatives)?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4035/97 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Producer responsibility obligations (packaging waste) regulations, UK 1996

Does the Commission agree that the criminal liability in the UK regulations far exceeds the provisions of Directive 94/62/EC ((OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10. ))?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4033/97 and E-4035/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (24 February 1998)

While directives are binding on Member States, they can choose the form and methods of implementation. In addition, Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to take all appropriate measures to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the EC Treaty. Thus the imposition of sanctions for non-compliance is largely a matter for national authorities to determine. In this regard it is useful to refer to the Court of justice's judgement in case C-58/95. In this case the Court held that Article 5 and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from imposing criminal penalties to ensure compliance with waste directives, provided that those penalties are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and are, in any event, effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3997/97 by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Upper age limit for bus drivers

The upper age limit for bus drivers in Italy is 65 (Article 135(6) of the road traffic code), whereas in other EU countries, such as Austria and Germany, the limit is 70.

This rule also applies if the bus driver in question holds a driving licence from a country in which the upper age limit is 70.

Against this background, does the Commission intend to standardize age limits for bus drivers in the foreseeable future?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (27 February 1998)

Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. )) came into effect on 1 July 1996.

Article 6 harmonises the minimum, but not the maximum, age conditions for the issue of driving licences.

In addition, Article 7.2 of the Directive establishes that 'Without prejudice to provisions to be adopted by the Council in this regard, each Member State shall retain the right to determine, on the basis of national criteria, the period of validity of the driving licences which it issues'.

As far as the recognition of the validity of a driving licence of a holder that takes up residence in another Member State is concerned, Article 1.3 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC states that 'Where the holder of a valid national driving licence takes up normal residence in a Member State other than that which issued the licence, the host Member State may apply to the holder of the licences its national rules on the period of validity of the licences, medical check and tax arrangements and may enter on the licence any information indispensable for administration'.

This means that if a holder of a German driving licence for category D (buses) takes up normal residence in, for example, Italy, then Italy may apply its national rules governing the period of validity of the licence upon that German bus driver's licence.

As Council Directive 91/439/EEC came into effect recently, the Commission has no plans at present to propose additional legislation on driving licences such as the harmonisation of the maximum age of bus drivers.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4193/97 by Maria Berger (PSE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Private ownership of weapons

For some time now there has been a steadily growing number of reports of incidents in the various Member States involving gunmen running amok and causing many deaths. The victims are of very diverse origin,

different kinds of weapon are used (although most of them are fairly readily available) and the perpetrators are of very varying types. Such incidents can probably only be prevented if the private ownership (and in particular the trade in, and the purchase of, weapons for personal use) is subject to uniformly strict EU-wide regulations and restrictions.

In view of such incidents in the Member States, is the Commission intending to tighten up the EU directive on weapons?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998)

Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991, on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons ((OJ L 256, 13.9.1991. )), was one of the accompanying measures taken in the context of the achievement of the internal market and aims at ensuring the abolition of internal border controls on people. The Directive deals with the free movement of people together with legally held firearms from one Member State to another. As such the Directive is not principally a measure concerning the harmonisation of the legislation of the Member States in relation to possession and control of guns. These important points are set out clearly in the 3rd, 4th and 5th recitals of the Directive itself.

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member specifically to Article 2 ¶ 1 of the Directive which states that 'this Directive is without prejudice to the application of national provisions concerning the carrying of weapons, hunting or target shooting' and to Article 3 which states that 'Member States may adopt in their legislation provisions which are more stringent than those provided for in this Directive, ...'. These matters, including the determination of which type of weapon and of which calibre may be held (and with which therefore, in principle, it is possible to travel) remain within the sphere of national competence.

The Commission recalls also that by virtue of Article 223 ¶ 1b) of the EC Treaty 'Any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material; such measures shall not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the common market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes.'

The Commission is however bound to prepare for 1998 a report for the Council and the Parliament on the global position with respect to application of the Directive within the Community. The publication of the intended report may include suggested further initiatives in this domain, but limited nevertheless, to the scope of the Directive itself.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3595/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI), Gastone Parigi (NI) and Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Eradication of swine fever in Holland

The outbreak of an epidemic of classic swine fever in the Netherlands has undoubtedly had a major impact on that country and repercussions on the rest of Europe, with continuing risks for the countries of the European Union. Evidence of this are the outbreaks in Italy, Spain, Belgium and in the north of the Netherlands (the original outbreaks were in the southern regions of the country).

Six regulations have successively modified the exceptional market support measures for the pigmeat market.

In view of the complexity and scale of the problem, can the Commission:

1. say whether the results achieved are commensurate with the volume of resources (both human and financial) employed and whether the technical measures carried out were effective and of impeccable quality;

2. confirm whether the administration of the holding registration numbers is really compatible with the spirit and the letter of Directive 92/102 ((OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 32.))?

3. say, with reference to Directive 80/217 ((OJ L 47, 21.2.1980, p. 11.)), what it thinks about the absence of an accurate census of the holdings infected, suspected of being infected or situated in protection and surveillance areas?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3595/97 and E-3596/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 January 1998)

During 1997 the Commission has carefully analyzed the evolution of classical swine fever in the Netherlands. The epidemiological situation has been constantly reviewed with representatives of the Member States during the monthly meetings of the standing veterinary committee.

The Commission has sent a number of missions to the Netherlands to assist the Dutch authorities and to ascertain the effectiveness of the measures taken to eradicate the disease.

During missions it has been noted that great efforts have been made by the Dutch authorities to curtail the epidemic length but problems have also been identified in the management of the epidemics.

These problems concerning the correct use of the uniek bedrijfsnummer (UBN) numbers, the census of the holdings, the efficacy of the audit system used, and the compensation assessment for the pigs slaughtered because infected or suspected of infection, are being carefully examined and they are at present matter for a discussion between the Commission and the Dutch authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4033/97 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Producer responsibility obligations (packaging waste) regulations, UK 1996

Is the Commission aware that the provisions of the UK regulations make it a criminal offence not to comply with the regulations for every company subject to them in the UK and that, therefore, if the UK does not reach Directive 94/62/EC's ((OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10. )) targets, then every company in the UK subject to these regulations is separately liable?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4033/97 and E-4035/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (24 February 1998)

While directives are binding on Member States, they can choose the form and methods of implementation. In addition, Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to take all appropriate measures to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the EC Treaty. Thus the imposition of sanctions for non-compliance is largely a matter for national authorities to determine. In this regard it is useful to refer to the Court of justice's judgement in case C-58/95. In this case the Court held that Article 5 and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from imposing criminal penalties to ensure compliance with waste directives, provided that those penalties are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and are, in any event, effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4183/97 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council (22 January 1998)

Subject: Production and trade in weapons of torture

Does the Council accept that weapons of torture are by definition used only by countries where human rights abuses occur?

Does it therefore also accept that, further to the criteria adopted by the Council in 1991 and 1992 governing arms sales, as well as our obligations under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment for Punishment, the production of and trade in such torture equipment by companies based in the EU should be immediately stopped?

Answer (11 May 1998)

The Honourable Member will agree that it is extremely difficult to identify precisely all instruments and products which could be used for torture purposes. No definition of 'torture instrument' exists in any of the relevant Conventions adopted by the United Nations and the Council of Europe. However, it is clear that if an instrument is used for purposes of torture, this can only occur in countries that do not respect human rights.

With regard to the eight criteria defined by the European Council in Luxembourg in June 1991, and Lisbon, in June 1992, among which is the respect of human rights in the country of destination, it should be pointed out that they apply to arms exports and, therefore, do not necessarily cover all goods, including dual-use ones or others, which could be used for torture purposes.

Nevertheless, Member States may * and some do * restrict or prohibit, on a national basis, the export of some products (e.g. portable devices aiming at inflicting electric shock or pain), which can be used as weapons of torture.

The Council is currently examining the most appropriate way to control, in a coordinated manner, the export of such instruments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4162/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (22 January 1998)

Subject: Concern about the human rights situation in Suriname

1. Is the Council aware of the arrest of 27 civilians and military personnel on 25 October 1997 in Suriname in response to the planning of an alleged coup?

2. Is the Council prepared to disclaim the action of the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs who gave the order to hand over to the Suriname judicial authorities one of the alleged suspects who came to the Netherlands embassy in his underwear to apply for asylum in October 1997 given the fact that, in relation to a previous alleged coup on 8 December 1982, it is known that 15 people who were arrested on allegations of involvement in a coup were summarily executed in Paramaribo?

3. Is the Council aware of the fact that the Suriname state councillor Desi Bouterse has publicly accused a number of leading figures in Suriname of treason, including the human rights activist Stanley Rensch and the journalists Iwan Brave and Johny Kamperveen and the newspaper Ware Tijd and what consequences does the Council draw from this?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4160/97, E-4161/97, E-4162/97 and E-4163/97 (18 May 1998)

The Council is only aware of the information provided by the Suriname authorities. According to this information, a number of persons have been arrested in the weekend of 25 October 1997 allegedly planning a coup.

The Council is also aware of a letter of the human rights organisation Moiwana 86 to the Inter American Commission on human rights concerning the case mentioned by the Honourable Member of Parliament.

In so far as the Council has been able to obtain information in relation to the case of the alleged suspect who came to the Netherlands Embassy in October 1997, that person was not seeking asylum.

The Council is of the opinion that should a hostage-taking case occur in Suriname the necessary measures would have to be taken in order to try to find a peaceful solution to an action of this type.

The Council is unaware of the allegations and accusations to which the Honourable Member refers to as having been made by Desi Delano Bouterse.

Furthermore, taking into account the fact that the judicial investigations referred to by the Honourable Member are still pending, the Council is not in a position to comment on this subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4042/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Council (15 January 1998)

Subject: European Cities of Culture

Does the Council of Ministers of Culture of the European Union intend at an early date to decide on the city or cities which will hold the title of Europe's cultural capital in the year 2001?

If so, which cities will be applying for the nomination?

What will be the criteria for selecting the city or cities which will become Europe's cultural capital in the year 2001?

Answer (27 April 1998)

1. The designation of the European City of Culture for 2001 is an intergovernmental decision, and the event itself and the rules governing it were decided on by the Ministers for Culture meeting within the Council.

2. The decision for 2001 will therefore be taken not by the Council but once again by the Ministers responsible meeting within the Council.

3. The proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing a Community initiative for 'The European City of Culture' event which is under examination in the Council should not apply before 2002.

4. It would be premature at this stage to attempt to predict when the Ministers meeting within the Council will take a decision for 2001 or whether that decision * for which consensus is required * will relate to one city only.

The United Kingdom Presidency is keen to have a decision taken as soon as possible.