ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2028/98

by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Parents' concern about consumption of dangerous toxic substances and alcohol at Uccle European School

At a general meeting of parents at the European School at Uccle on 12 February 1998, parents voiced their deep concern about the increasing consumption of prohibited toxic substances, alcohol and tobacco by pupils on school premises. They also expressed surprise at the distinctly lax discipline and their opposition to the school's decision to stop providing pupils with information about the risks of drug-taking. They also declared their resolve to work with the school in an endeavour to inform and protect the pupils.

Will the Commission make recommendations to the Board of Governors of the European Schools and take measures to ensure that:

1. pupils at the European School at Uccle receive accurate and consistent information about the risks associated with the use of narcotic substances, and

2. the consumption of dangerous toxic substances and alcohol on the Uccle school premises is controlled and ended immediately?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 1998)

The European School Brussels I (Uccle) has implemented an effective policy of informing pupils of the dangers of taking soft drugs. For the last two years, a group of teachers at the school, in cooperation with parents and under the direction of an international expert, has been running a programme dealing with drug abuse. A number of courses on scientific and ethical topics have also been organised in this connection. Each language section has its own drugs programme coordinator, working under the guidance of the group. Two action days were devoted to this problem last year.

On the question of measures to combat the consumption of drugs and alcohol, the school monitors both the pupils and the premises regularly and effectively, despite the problems posed by a school population of 3 500 pupils. The school has imposed severe penalties on those who have failed to respect the rules, and its policy on this subject is well known to pupils and their parents.

The Commission, which is represented on the Administrative Board of the Brussels I European School (Uccle), together with the representative of the Board of Governors of the European Schools, the school administration, and representatives of teachers, parents and the pupils themselves, has paid constant attention to the way the problem raised by the Honourable Member is handled. At the last meeting of the Administrative Board, on 25 May 1998, this subject was again debated at length by all the parties involved.

Appropriations are entered annually in the budget of each school, by decision of the Board of Governors, for the financing of information campaigns on harmful substances and the dangers they entail.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1053/98

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Veterinary inspection of fish consignments

The EU has provisions stating that veterinary inspections of fish exports from third countries will be much more frequent from January 1997.

How frequently on average were consignments of fish from Chile and Canada inspected in 1995, 1996 and 1997?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Council Directive 90/675/EEC of 10 December 1990 lays down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries(1). There are three types of check: documentary checks, identity checks and physical checks. The documentary and identity checks are to be carried out on every consignment. In this respect, therefore, all consignments of fishery products from Chile and Canada were checked at the 100 % level in 1995, 1996 and 1997.

For physical checks, the essential reference is Commission Decision 94/360/EC(2), as last amended by Decision 97/139/EC(3). Since 1 January 1997, the following levels of checks have applied throughout the Community:

- 20 % on fishery products in hermetically sealed containers intended to render them stable at ambient temperatures, fresh and frozen fish and dry and/or salted products;

- 50 % on other fishery products.

Before 1 January 1997, it was up to Member States to determine how often they carried out out checks. According to the general data available to the Commission, levels varied greatly between Member States (from 2 % to 100 %). Establishing averages for 1995 and 1996 would therefore be meaningless.

(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1990. This Directive has been replaced by Council Directive 97/78/EC (OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.).

(2) OJ L 158, 25.6.1994.

(3) OJ L 55, 24.2.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1668/98

by Ben Fayot (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Safe transport of consignments of nuclear fuel

In France, recent checks have shown that, in 1997, over a third of all consignments of spent nuclear fuel transported from EDF power stations to the recycling plant in The Hague were contaminated by radioactivity. Those in charge of Cogema and EDF operations acknowledge that abnormal levels of radioactivity have been detected since the beginning of the 1990s.

These shipments do not affect only France, but also neighbouring countries. Every year 2 500 tonnes of nuclear fuel for recycling is transported from Germany through densely populated regions along the frontiers of Belgium and Luxembourg.

After the derailment at Apach (France) on 4 February 1997 of a train transporting nuclear waste from Lintgen (Germany) via Apach to Sellafield (UK), I questioned the Commission concerning the safety of transport arrangements for radioactive material.

Does the Commission intend to turn its attention, via its permanent group on the safe transport of radioactive material, to this serious state of affairs in France to ensure the safety of the people of Europe? Are nuclear energy producers really exempt from thorough checking by outside authorities at all stages of the shipment of radioactive matter?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 1998)

On 5 May 1998 the Commission was informed by the French authority responsible for the safety of nuclear facilities (the DSIN) of contamination problems concerning packages and railway transport wagons in France. These problems were the subject of a communication made by the DSIN representative to the Commission's permanent group on the safe transport of radioactive material at its meeting held on 18 May 1998.

The Commission has expressed its concern regarding this question, which also involves other Member States. The permanent group took note of the proposals made by the DSIN representative for measures to correct the problems. The measures put forward are of a technical and administrative nature. They also concern informing the public.

It is up to the authorities of each of the Member States concerned to apply the necessary corrective measures and to do whatever they consider indispensable to ensure that safety rules are respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1192/98

by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Agricultural surpluses in the European Community

Could the Commission provide a breakdown of the annual figures for 1976 for the disposal of each class of produce from storage, by either:

1. donation to poorer countries; or

2. sale at greatly reduced prices to middle-income countries, such as the Soviet Union; or

3. feeding to animals; or

4. destruction/throwing away.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

The Commission is not able, for the purposes of a reply to a written question, to undertake the long and costly research needed to provide the Honourable Member with the information he asks for in the breakdown he indicates.

Most of the information he seeks has in fact already been published by the Commission in its annual reports on the agricultural situation in the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1462/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: Measures to assist Silopor - Empresa de Silos Portuários, SA

At the end of 1997 the Portuguese Government notified the Commission of measures intended to assist Silopor [= Port Silo Company].

The Commission has since asked the Portuguese Government to provide eleven pieces of additional information which it feels it needs in order to be able to undertake a comprehensive examination of the measures proposed by the Portuguese authorities.

As is normal in such matters, the Commission will make a final statement regarding the measures intended to assist Silopor within two months of receiving the additional information requested.

Has the Portuguese Government already provided the eleven pieces of additional information requested by the Commission? If so, what is the substance of the information?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 1998)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its reply to his written question P-1423/98(1). The situation of the State aid file for the financial restructuring of EPAC mentioned therein is also applicable to the Silopor restructuring programme in view of the connexity resulting from the special relationship between both enterprises.

(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 132 .
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1130/98

by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Human rights in China

In the Commission's opinion, what is the state of human rights in China?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 1998)

Human rights in China play a fundamental role in Community-China relations. The Commission is fully aware of the continuing concerns related to various aspects of the human rights situation in China. These include the fate of individual dissidents, the extent of the use of the death penalty and the suppression of religious and cultural freedoms, including in Tibet. In view of these concerns, the Commission's position, as set out in the latest communication on China, "Building a comprehensive partnership with China(1)" is to engage China in a frank and constructive dialogue on human rights. Whilst it is clear that China has a long way to go in reaching acceptable standards for the respect of human rights, the Commission also recognises the efforts and improvements that have already been made. For this reason, the Commission considers that engagement is more effective than confrontation in producing the desired results in this area.

The Commission has noted that there have been signs in China of greater tolerance of dissident activity as shown in the run-up to the last National People's Congress (the appearance of open letters and petitions etc). There has also been positive movement regarding the release of a number of well-known dissidents. The Commission also welcomes the signature by China, and its announced intention to ratify, the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and China's undertaking to sign the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Commission repeatedly stresses that this must be followed by a full and comprehensive implementation of both United Nations Covenants. China's commitment not to introduce the death penalty in Hong Kong and to allow the Hong Kong authorities to report on their United Nations human rights commitments autonomously are also encouraging.

Yet, ultimately, the real test for the state of human rights in China can not only be determined by the signature of international agreements or even the release of particular individuals from detention. The real test is in the everyday administration of justice within China and the way it affects ordinary citizens in concrete and specific ways.

By engaging China in open dialogue together with the use of a variety of co-operation projects the Commission hopes to be able to help strengthen civil society and promote the rule of law.

(1) COM(98) 181 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1970/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Serious irregularities in Commission competition procedures

A notice of competition for assistant administrators at the Commission was published in the Official Journal of 31 March 1998, and 4 May 1998 was given as the deadline for submitting applications. Some potential applicants asked the Commission's offices in Rome and Milan for further information on how to complete the application forms and were told that, on the basis of specific reports received direct from Brussels, the deadline would probably be extended until 15 May 1998. This information subsequently proved to be completely without foundation, so that many of those who applied late were excluded from the selection procedure.

1. Does the Commission intend to conduct an inquiry to ascertain who was responsible for spreading this false information?

2. What will it do to make up for these serious procedural irregularities?

3. Does it not think there is sufficient reason to reopen the competition, whose validity could otherwise be seriously questioned?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 August 1998)

On 31 March 1998 the Commission did indeed publish notices of five Category A open competitions stipulating 4 May 1998 as the closing date for applications. The Commission did not decide to defer the closing date. Had it done so, a notice to this effect would have been published in the Official Journal in all official languages and all Member States.

It is true that erroneous information to the effect that the closing date might be extended circulated within the Commission's office in Rome on the afternoon of Thursday, 30 April 1998 and the morning of Monday, 4 May 1998. The information was discovered and officially denied on the morning of Monday, 4 May 1998. Since Friday, 1 May was a public holiday in Italy, a small number of potential applicants who consulted the Commission office in Rome on the afternoon of 30 April 1998 or the morning of 4 May 1998 may have been erroneously informed as to the closing date for applications. However, none can adduce any official notice, which, as stated above, would have had to take the form of a correction published in the Official Journal in all official languages and all Member States. An immediate investigation revealed that the false information was the result of a computer error in Brussels.

As in the case of other competitions, some of the applications received were posted after the closing date laid down in the notices of competition. Various reasons were given for the delays, including circumstances beyond the applicants' control. As with all competitions, the Commission will examine each case on its own merits in accordance with the standard procedures for such matters.

The decisions on admittance to the preliminary tests will be taken in mid-July 1998.

The Commission has received around 30 000 applications for all five competitions, some 30 % of which have come from Italy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1920/98

by Lutz Goepel (PPE) to the Commission

(18 June 1998)

Subject: Registration of horses

The main significance of existing EU rules on the registration of equidae (Directives 90/426/EEC(1) and 90/427/EEC(2) and Decision 93/623/EEC(3)) is for health controls in national and intra-Community trade.

For the purposes of consumer protection, it makes sense to divide horses into the categories of "horses used for leisure or sport" and "horses for slaughter". Medicinal products might be permitted for the first group that may not be used for an animal intended to be used for food. Reliable registration of the animals is a prerequisite for categorizing them.

1. Can the current field tests on cattle, sheep and goats, involving electronic identification and registration systems, be extended to include horses, or can the results thereof be applied to horses?

2. Does the Commission plan to introduce new European rules on the electronic registration of horses?

3. Will there be separate identification of stud and sports horses, and horses for slaughter?

4. What role will be played in future by the equine passport?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 1998)

1. The current field tests involving electronic identification are performed within the framework of the IDEA project. The scope of this project does not provide for horses and there is currently no such intention. The results of this project will not be available before the end of the year 2000. It is only then that any exploitation of the results can be contemplated.

2. The Commission currently has no plans to introduce Community legislation for the electronic registration of horses as priority is given to other species (such as cattle, sheep and goats) where field trials are already scheduled (IDEA project).

3. Registered horses are identified in the Community by means of a passport as established by Commission Decision 93/623/EEC of 20 October 1993 establishing the identification document (passport) accompanying registered equidae. This passport has also been recognised at international level by the International office of epizootics (OIE) for movement of competition horses. With regard to slaughter horses, Community rules require that such horses imported into the Community are clearly and indelibly marked by a hot branded "S" of not less than 3 centimetres in size of the hoof of the left front leg.

4. It is expected that in the future the equine passport laid down by Decision 93/623/EEC for registered horses will replace the health information necessary for trade of registered horses within the Community.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 42.

(2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 55.

(3) OJ L 298, 3.12.1993, p. 45.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1132/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Drift gill nets

What are the reasons preventing the adoption of a decision to ban the use of drift gill nets by the EU fleet when fishing for tuna and swordfish?

Why is this matter left unresolved, even though the use of such nets is known to have a detrimental effect on fisheries resources?

What action is the Commission promoting in order to convert the fisheries fleet which would be directly affected by such a ban?

What is the Commission intending to do in order to ensure that the Council of Fisheries Ministers reach an agreement at their meeting in June which will bring about a ban that is both desired and desirable?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 1998)

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to note the answers it has been giving for more than four years on the reasons preventing a successful outcome to its 1994 proposal(1). Recent progress in the Council was reported on in its reply to questions E-503/98, E-505/98, E-507/98, E-509/98 and E-511/98 by Mr Souchet(2).

As regards accompanying measures the Commission is at present looking, in close liaison with the national administrations concerned, at how to facilitate conversion to other safer and economically attractive techniques, avoiding those resources which are already overexploited. For the Atlantic it is concentrating on other methods of fishing for albacore.

The Commission will continue to make every effect to secure a rapid and equitable decision.

(1) COM(94) 131 final.

(2) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1975/98

by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Discriminatory charging for higher education

The United Kingdom authorities wish to charge tuition fees for the full four years of university courses in Scotland to students who come from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Students from Scotland and other European Union countries will be charged fees for only three years.

Do these discriminatory charges contravene any European directives, particularly those on freedom of movement and the single European market.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

Article 6 of the EC Treaty prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality.

This principle also extends to the free movement of services as enshrined in Article 59 of the EC Treaty, which covers not just persons providing services but also the persons for whom the services are intended.

However, the situation described by the Honourable Member does not constitute discrimination that is incompatible with Article 59 of the EC Treaty. Students from other Member States wishing to study at a Scottish university would not seem to be disadvantaged in relation to students from the United Kingdom. The difference in treatment between Scottish students and students from other UK regions is a purely internal matter for the United Kingdom and is not covered by Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2037/98

by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann, North Rhine- Westphalia

Regarding the allocation of EU resources to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann in North Rhine-Westphalia, can the Commission indicate:

1. the sum of EU structural resources received and their breakdown by Funds and the various Community programmes and initiatives and of EU resources allocated to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann from other budget lines since 1994 for pilot projects, measures or - as direct allocations - universities, research establishments, undertakings and other bodies,

2. the number of jobs created or preserved with the aid of these resources?

Supplementary answer

given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

Further to its answer of 6 July 1998(1), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2036/98(2).

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 129.

(2) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1661/98

by Rainer Wieland (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Subsidies for the Stuttgart region and for Germany

What subsidies and amounts from all programmes and funding from the European Union, with a break-down by year, type and district, have been allocated since 1990 to the districts of Rems-Murr, Göppingen, Ludwigsburg, Böblingen, Esslingen and the urban district of Stuttgart?

What subsidies and amounts from all programmes and funding from the European Union, with a break-down by year, type and Land, have been allocated since 1990 to the Federal Republic of Germany and the Land of Baden-Württemberg?

Supplementary answer

given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.