ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0856/99

by Marilena Marín (UPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Subject: Imprisonment of Venetians for having freely expressed their views

Three Venetians were imprisoned having been refused the option of community service as laid down in the law of 8 March 1999; they took part in an avowedly non-violent and diplomatic demonstration in the Piazza San Marco in Venice in 1997 for greater autonomy for Veneto and are not dangerous; on the contrary, as members of a duly registered association, they take part in cultural, social and political activities organised to discuss regional autonomy, the rights of peoples and human rights.

They have been working since plea-bargaining their sentence and, as the Venice Public Prosecutor ruled against the appeal judges' decision, they enjoy the constitutionally guaranteed principle of presumption of innocence whereby imprisonment is possible only after all the stages of the trial have been completed or in the event of serious danger.

In substance their demands, backed up by non-violent action and inspired by the autonomy of Veneto which has been enshrined in Italian law since 1971, are quite legitimate and topical (viz. the bill adopted by the Italian Council of Ministers this week) and represent their right to peaceful freedom of expression which is constitutionally guaranteed.

What action will the Commission take to guarantee respect for the fundamental rights that form part of the fundamental principles common to the Member States as it is required to do under the provisions of the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

The Commission recalls that the relationship between a Member State and its citizens regarding the respect of human rights is primarily governed by the European Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950. Therefore, the Italian citizens could pursue the matter with the European Court of human rights after all domestic remedies have been exhausted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0345/99

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Subject: Discriminatory ferry tariffs applied by public undertakings

I should like to thank the Commissioner responsible for his reply to question H-1068/98(1) at the sitting of 15 December 1998 and in his letter (No 0207) of 1 February 1999. I agree with him that there has been a breach of EU law by private undertakings without a dominant position on the market.

However, two aspects still require clarification:

1. Do the facts at issue not alo give grounds for suspicion of concerted practices in contravention of Article 85?

2. What difference would it make if a public undertaking were operating the ferry service? Would the ferry operator in question have to be classified as a public undertaking?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 1999)

In order to avoid misunderstanding, it should be noted that the reply and letter to which the Honourable Member refers indicated that the Commission does not consider there has been a breach of the Community competition rules by a non-dominant private undertaking.

1. As regards Article 85 of the EC Treaty, the Commission has no evidence of any horizontal cartel agreement between the operators.

2. Public undertakings are, like other undertakings, bound by the Community competition rules. Article 90 of the EC Treaty requires that in the case of public undertakings Member States shall neither enact or maintain in force any measure contrary to the competition rules, except for reasons given in Article 90, paragraph 2. There does not appear here to be a breach of Community law by a private undertaking, and nor would the situation be different if the ferry service were operated by a public undertaking.

In this case the ferry company to which the Honourable Member refers is a private company neither owned nor controlled by the public authorities. It is therefore not a public undertaking.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 296/99 by Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS Processed cereal-based foods, and baby foods



Official Journal C 341 , 29/11/1999 P. 0084



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0296/99 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (17 February 1999) Subject: Processed cereal-based foods, and baby foods Has Greece notified the Commission of the necessary legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions it has adopted to comply with Commission Directives 96/4 and 96/5/EC of 16 February 1996 and, if so, when? What measures will the Commission take, should it find that those provisions have not been duly implemented?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0078/99

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Directive 95/29/EC on the protection of animals during transport

1. Is the Commission fully satisfied with the transposition, implementation and enforcement of Directive 95/29/EC(1) on the protection of animals during transport?

2. Has it received any formal complaints related to the failure of any Member State to meet their obligations under this Directive?

3. With respect to Questions 1 and 2 above, can it provide details of which provisions of the Directive and which Member States are concerned?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 1999)

1. Most Member States have correctly implemented Council Directive 95/29/EC. Infringement proceedings are still being pursued against two Member States because certain requirements of the Directive were omitted from their national measures. The implementation and enforcement of the Community requirements in the field of animal welfare during transport has been the subject of a series of Commission veterinary inspection missions to the Member States. These missions have reported inadequate implementation or enforcement in several Member States.

2. The Commission receives a lot of correspondence on animal welfare including a number of complaints about failure of Member States to enforce Council Directive 95/29/EC and also complaints against one Member State alleged to be in breach by imposing rules on journey times which are more stringent than those contained in the Directive and another for alleged over-strict rules on sea-going vessels used for animal transport.

3. The complaints have alleged excessive journey times, failure adequately to water, feed, unload and rest animals, overloaded and inadequate means of transport, unnecessary suffering of transported livestock and failure to accompany animals with required documentation. Complaints have involved, at one time or another, all Member States except Finland, Sweden and Denmark, and have concentrated on the areas of high volume traffic such as the transport of porcines between Northern and Southern Europe, the road transport of bovines, ovines and equines from Eastern Europe to the Community and the transport of bovines from the Community to Middle Eastern and North African destinations.

Evidence of inadequacies in the implementation and enforcement by Member States of their obligations under the Directive has also been obtained as a result of veterinary inspections carried out by the Commission. Non-compliance was established in several areas, such as poor means of transport by road and sea, transport of animals not fit for transport, ill treatment of animals, incomplete supervision by the authorities, and non-respect of the requirements to unload and rest animals on long-distance transport.

The Commission has started to make the mission reports publicly available on its internet site at http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/.

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0695/99

by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 1999)

Subject: Part-time workers' pension cases

In 1995, the British House of Lords referred to the European Court of Justice a test case, one of 45 000 cases pending at industrial tribunals, on the legality of part-time workers' claiming backdated rights against their former employers on the grounds of discrimination resulting in lost pension entitlements.

As some of these pensioners awaiting the outcome are now dying before the result of their appeals are known, can the Commission put pressure on the European Court of Justice to come to a decision in the very near future?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 1999)

The case referred to by the Honourable Member which is pending before the Court of Justice is case C-78/98 (Preston and Others), which reached the Court in March 1998 and was heard on 23 March 1999.

The case concerns the application of Article 119 of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice in the Barber judgment of 17 May 1990(1) and subsequent interpreting judgments, particularly those of 28 September 1994 in cases C-57/93 (Vroege)(2) and C-128/93 (Fisscher)(3). The UK court has consulted the Court of Justice in order to establish the actual scope of the two judgments in question, i.e. the right of part-time workers, the majority of whom are women, to join an occupational pension scheme as from 8 April 1976 (date of the Defrenne judgment(4)).

The Commission is unable to approach the Court of Justice in the manner requested by the Honourable Member.

(1) C-262/98, ECR 1990, I-1889.

(2) ECR 1994, I-4541.

(3) ECR 1994, I-4583.

(4) C-43/75, ECR 1976, 455.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0248/99

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Motorway link west of Wels, Austria

With the North-South artery we are endeavouring to create an integrated road network from the North Sea to Greece. The 1 600 km of road between Hamburg and Belgrade is complete apart from two stretches in Austria. The link west of the town of Wels will join the A8 Innkreis motorway and the A9 Phyrn motorway. At present long-distance traffic has to make a considerable detour or take the ring-road east of Wels, a federal road that passes through a built-up area.

The link west of Wels will greatly increase road safety: the total distance covered by vehicles will be reduced by 100 m km p.a., total driving time by about 900 000 hours. The economic gain is estimated at almost half a billion Schillings. Pollution will be sustainably reduced. Fuel consumption per 5 000 vehicles will then fall by 10 000 tonnes p.a.

The motorway link west of Wels is still at the project stage. How does the Commission intend to support and accelerate the implementation of this project?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 1999)

The road project "Westspange Wels" has been identified as a project of common interest in Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network(1). These guidelines constitute a general reference framework intended to encourage the Member States concerned in carrying out the projects of common interest that they identify.

The decision on implementing the road project in question and its financing is the responsability of the Austrian government.

According to Council Regulation (EC) 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks(2), the Community can support this project, provided that a series of conditions and criteria are fulfilled. Any application for financial aid under this Regulation has to be submitted by the Member State concerned. The criteria on which the selection of measures in view of the granting of Community financial aid are based include, for example, project maturity, the solidity of the financial package or the environmental consequences. Up to now the Austrian government has not requested Community financial aid for the "Westspange Wels" project.

The project has not been considered under the structural funds programmes in Austria as the area concerned is not eligible.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(2) OJ L 228, 23.9.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0657/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(26 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

Regions whose per capita income is less than 75 % of the average Community per capita income are described as "Objective 1 regions" and they receive significant amounts of Community aid.

To determine whether or not this threshold has been exceeded, the draft Council Regulation COM(98) 131 final(1) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds states that the figures corresponding to the last three years for which Eurostat has data available will be used.

At the moment the only figures available are those for the 1994, 1995 and 1996 financial years.

What are the figures for those years for the Valencia Autonomous Community?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0332/99

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Subject: Council Directive 98/58 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes

In Italy the "1998 Community Law" was finally adopted on 28 January 1999 by the Chamber of Deputies.

Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes(1), Article 10 of which provides that the deadline for the transposition of that directive by each Member State into the national legal order is 31 December 1999, is not however included in that law.

It is clear that the next Italian "1999 Community Law", which is due at the end of the year and usually provides that a directive must be transposed within one year from the date of the adoption of that law, would not enable Italy to put into effect this important directive within the prescribed period.

Is the Commission aware of this situation, how does it view it and what measures does it intend to take?

Has the Commission begun the necessary work to comply with the deadline of 30 June 1999 laid down in Article 8 of the abovementioned directive and does it intend also to inform Parliament of the reaction?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 1999)

The Commission was not aware of the problem mentioned. It is Commission practice to remind Member States of the obligation to implement directives by the due date. If a directive is not implemented correctly by that date infringement proceedings are automatically opened.

The Commission has started to prepare the report to submit to the Council before 30 June 1999 under Article 8 of Council Directive 98/58/EC of 25 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes(2). The Commission has requested all third countries which are allowed to export animals or animal products to the Community to send information about any legislation or other provisions which they apply concerning the welfare of animals kept on farms, during transport and at the time of slaughter. Once this information has been received, it will be assessed in the light of both Article 8 of Directive 98/58/EC and World trade organisation (WTO) obligations. The report will also be made available to the Parliament.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.

(2) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0992/99

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(15 April 1999)

Subject: aid to Kazakhstan

In the wake of reports that areas of Kazakhstan are still suffering the horrific after-effects of nuclear testing by the former Soviet Union, does the Commission intend to make aid available through TACIS and similar programmes to ease the problems which Kazakhstan is now facing?

A recent survey has shown that the area where the nuclear testing took place, over 20 years ago, is now one of the most polluted in the world. An estimated 1,5 million people are believed to have been affected by cancer, respiratory diseases and mental illness but due to poor economy those worst affected cannot receive proper medical treatment or move elsewhere. In the light of facts such as these, has the Commission proposed any kind of humanitarian aid package?

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

(5 May 1999)

The Commission is well aware of the effects of nuclear testing by the former Soviet Union in Kazakhstan. In May 1998, during the joint committee meeting, the Kazak vice minister for environment showed a file about the effects of nuclear tests in Kazakhstan. In November 1998, the minister of Ecology of the Kazak Republic, visited Brussels and informed the Commission about the situation in Semipalatinsk, the area where the nuclear test took place. He asked for Tacis support for his region.

The Commission showed willingness to support a project if this would be requested by the Kazak authorities during the negotiations of the 1999 action programme. However, the Kazak government did not include in the negotiations of the TACIS action programme, a request concerning the effects of nuclear tests in Semipalatinsk, and consequently no project has been included in the 1999 TACIS action programme.

During the preparation of the next action programme, the Commission will remind the Kazak government that projects linked to the effects of the nuclear tests could be considered.

Concerning humanitarian aid, the Commission has also been contacted by the Kazak authorities about these problems. It informed them that it was ready to consider, within its mandate, any requests related to these issues that were submitted by eligible partners. However, because of the scale of the problem, any programme should also include a capacity building component and be presented and implemented by a non governmental or international organisation which are its partners. Unfortunately, the Commission has not received so far any proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0136/99

by Antoni Gutiérrez Díaz (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: The CFA franc

With the arrival of the euro, the French franc and the French Central Bank will disappear. At the 27th ACP-EU Joint Assembly of 21 to 24 September 1998, a final resolution was adopted on the issue of the euro and the CFA franc, calling on the Commission to study the potential effects of including the CFA franc in the euro.

What currency will the CFA franc have in future, and who will control this franc, which is used in all the former French colonies? Which bank will take receipt of and hold payments made by companies importing African products, when the companies concerned are located outside the ACP countries and France?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 1999)

France had concluded a number of exchange rate agreements with the "Union économique et monétaire ouest-africaine" (UEMOA), the "Communauté économique et monétaire de l'Afrique Centrale" (CEMAC) and with the Republic of the Comores. Given that since 1 January 1999, the Community has exclusive competence for exchange rate matters for Member States which have adopted the euro, a Council decision was required to confirm the continuation of the present arrangements concerning the CFA franc and the Comorian franc.

Following consultations with Member States, the Commission has on 1 July 1998 adopted a recommendation for a Council decision to confirm the future relations between the euro and the CFA franc and the Comorian franc. Following consultation of the European central bank, the Council has adopted the decision on 23 November 1998.

The decision confirms that France may continue its present agreements with the UEMOA, the CEMAC and the Comores. It also stipulates that France and the African signatories to the agreements shall retain sole responsibility for the implementation of these agreements. This implies that the legal status of the CFA franc and the Comorian franc has not been altered by the introduction of the euro and that the central banks of the UEMOA, the CEMAC and the Comores continue to be obliged to hold a part of their foreign assets in their operations accounts with the French Treasury according to the provisions of the agreements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0715/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the average Community inhabitant are classed as "Objective 1 regions" and are entitled to substantial Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation, COM(98) 0131 final(1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

The Director-General of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) disclosed at the meeting of Parliament's Subcommittee on Monetary Affairs of 17 February 1999 that the statistical data corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 already included the data corresponding to the hidden economy of the regions analysed, although he did not say exactly what criteria had been followed in order to estimate or assess this type of activity.

What proportion of the regional income corresponds to the "hidden economy" and what proportion to the "regular economy" in Ceuta in each of the years in question?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0710/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the average Community inhabitant are classed as "Objective 1 regions" and are entitled to substantial Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation, COM(98) 0131 final(1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

The Director-General of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) disclosed at the meeting of Parliament's Subcommittee on Monetary Affairs of 17 February 1999 that the statistical data corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 already included the data corresponding to the hidden economy of the regions analysed, although he did not say exactly what criteria had been followed in order to estimate or assess this type of activity.

What proportion of the regional income corresponds to the "hidden economy" and what proportion to the "regular economy" in La Rioja in each of the years in question?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.