ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3211/98

by Bernard Castagnède (ARE) to the Commission

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Compensation for banana producers following hurricane Georges

What steps does the Commission intend to take to compensate European and traditional ACP banana producers in the Caribbean whose crops have been devastated by hurricane Georges?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 1998)

Under Council Regulation (EEC) 404/93 of 13 February on the common organisation of the market in bananas(1), the Commission can adopt specific measures if banana supplies to the Community market are affected by exceptional circumstances.

It is first of all necessary to establish whether the circumstances really are exceptional. Those resulting from hurricane Georges¢s passage over Guadeloupe are currently being evaluated, so the Commission is not yet in a position to take a decision in the matter.

The Commission would also inform the Honourable Member that it has received a letter from the Dominican Republic informing it that banana production after the hurricane remains sufficient to supply the Community market as planned.

(1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3968/98 by Glenys KINNOCK to the Commission. 'Improved stove' programmes



Official Journal C 297 , 15/10/1999 P. 0119



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3968/98 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (4 January 1999) Subject: "Improved stove" programmes What investigations has the Commission made into the appropriateness of reliance upon "improved stove" programmes and other fuel-wood demand or supply-side strategies to reduce fuel-wood in areas accommodating refugees?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0316/99

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: Recipients of investments in the pigmeat sector in Ireland

Given that more than EUR 100 million, mostly EU money, was invested in the Irish pigmeat sector in the last fifteen years, will the Commission give a breakdown of which companies in Ireland received this money?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 1999)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0200/99

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Derogations granted by Italy for slaughterhouses

Yet again the deadline for adapting slaughterhouses to health and hygiene standards has been extended by Article 48 of the 1999 "finance law", this time until 31 December 1999. Slaughterhouses have still not complied with the provisions of Directives 91/497/EEC(1) and 91/498/EEC(2) of 29 July 1991, transposed into Italian law by Decree No 286 of 18 April 1994.

This derogation has also been extended to the requirement that animals should be stunned prior to slaughter, as provided for in Directive 93/119/EEC(3) of 22 December 1993, transposed into Italian law by Decree No 333 of 1 September 1998.

In reply to Written Question E-3274/97(4), tabled at the time of the previous extension, the Commission said it would contact the Italian authorities in order to clarify the situation.

Is the Commission aware of this situation and what is its opinion on the matter?

If it ascertains a blatant breach of Community law, will it initiate infringement proceedings against Italy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 1999)

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

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 69.

(2) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 105.

(3) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

(4) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 75.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0089/99

by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 1999)

Subject: Millennium Access Guide

Is the European Commission aware of the Millennium Access Guide published by the Disabled Peoples' International European Union Committee?

What steps does it propose to take in order that the publication may become more widely known to the organisers of Millennium events, thus enabling them to ensure that people with disabilities enjoy the widest possible access to celebrations marking the start of the next 1 000 years?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 1999)

The Commission is aware of the millennium access guide published by the Disabled peoples' international European Union committee, and has helped fund this publication. Copies have been given to the members of the high level group of Member States' representatives on disability with the request that they make it available to appropriate bodies involved in the organisation of millennium celebrations.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0015/99

by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 1999)

Subject: Complaint concerning the Drogenbos incinerator

In its answer to my question (H-0968/98)(1) on the progress reached in the complaint concerning the planned incinerator in Drogenbos, the Commission said on 17 November 1998 that it was examining the information it had received from the Belgian authorities.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Has the examination now been completed? If so, with what result?

2. What is the link between this complaint and the infringement proceedings which the Commission initiated in late December against Belgium concerning failure to transpose in full the directives on the prevention (89/369/EEC)(2) and the reduction of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants (89/429/EEC)(3)?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Following the examination of the complaints about the incinerator referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission has decided to start infringement proceedings against Belgium pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty on account of a presumed infringement of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(4).

There is no link between this case and the existing infringement proceedings against Belgium for failure to transpose properly Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants(5) and Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste-incineration plants(6).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 1998).

(2) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989, p. 32.

(3) OJ L 203, 15.7.1989, p. 50.

(4) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(5) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989.

(6) OJ L 203, 15.7.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0493/99

by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Destruction of the environment on the Greek island of Gavdopoula

According to recently published plans, a harbour complex is to be built on the Greek island of Gavdopoula which will totally destroy the local ecosystem. It is planned to level the entire island to a height of 6 metres above sea level. The material produced in this way is to be used to increase the size of the island in order to enable a private harbour to be built with anchorage facilities for vessels up to 12 metres in length. Industrial buildings, storage halls and administration complexes are to follow.

The island of Gavdopoula and the surrounding region are protected by the FFH (Fauna, Flora and Habitat) Directive, and the Greek Government accorded this region special protection status a long time ago. It is an important resting place for migratory birds on the way to Africa. 14 species of land snail which exist nowhere else on earth and other rare species are to be found on the island. Mediterranean monk seals and seaturtles live in the surrounding waters. Antiquities which are an important part of Europe's cultural heritage have also been found there.

1. What view does the Commission take of the level of protection imposed on the region of Gavdopoula by the provisions of the FFH Directive, and does it consider that this is adequate at least to prevent the degradation of the local environment, as the Directive demands?

2. Does it consider that the plans for the region of Gavdopoula are acceptable in the light of European environmental protection standards?

3. Does it consider that the environmental impact studies carried out in connection with the above plans meet the standards set down by European legislation in this area?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0396/99 and E-0493/99 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-669/98 by Mr Ephremidis during question time at Parliament's July 1998 part-session(1), as well as to its answers to Written Questions E-741/98(2) by Mr Papayannakis and E-3607/98(3) by Mrs Schroedter.

Further to those replies, the Commission has now sent a formal letter to Greece asking for precise information on the matter. According to the response of the Greek authorities, the Commission will consider the follow-up to be given to this case.

(1) Debates of the Parliament (July 1998).

(2) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 27.

(3) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 88.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0701/99

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

(26 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 Asturias in each of the years in question?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1111/99

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(15 April 1999)

Subject: Competition in the common market in surfboards

The objective of EU competition rules is to secure a competitive European internal market and prevent the harmful consequences of a dominant position on the common market by one or more undertakings. A large number of producers guarantees free competition and ensures free access to the market, thereby also securing fundamentally more jobs than monopolistic or oligopolistic structures.

German sources report than the surfboard producing sector has been characterised by increasing market concentration since the takeover of individual suppliers.

How does the Commission assess the market in surfboards and what shares of that market does it think should be held by individual suppliers (if necessary without naming names but citing country of origin)?

What intended takeovers have been notified to the competition authority in the last six months?

Does the Commission consequently perceive a need to act in this connection, and what action has already been taken or is about to be taken?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 1999)

Under European merger control rules (Council Regulation (EEC) 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings(1)) only large concentrations (mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures) which have a Community dimension have to be notified to the Commission. A concentration has a Community dimension if the turnover of the undertakings concerned exceeds certain thresholds. Normally the aggregate worldwide turnover of all the undertakings concerned has to be more than [fmxeuro] 5 000 million and the Community-wide turnover of at least two undertakings concerned more than [fmxeuro] 250 million. Concentrations that do not meet these thresholds fall under the jurisdiction of the Member States' competition authorities (such as the Bundeskartellamt in Germany). This is the case for the vast majority of concentrations.

In its case practice to date, the Commission has not gained in-depth knowledge on the market for surfboards. The Commission has not received any notification of a takeover concerning the surfboard producing sector during the last six months, or any indication that a concentration has taken place in this sector which would have to be notified under Council Regulation (EEC) 4064/89. Therefore, no merger control procedure concerning the surfboard sector is pending. It may be that national competition authorities have dealt with relevant cases and can provide relevant information.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0696/99

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

(26 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.

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

When will the figures corresponding to 1994 be replaced by those from 1997 in the regions which are seeking to qualify as "Objective 1 regions"?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 1999)

Estimates, for 1997, of regional gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, expressed in purchasing power standards, should be available in December 1999.

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0463/99

by Maria Cardona (UPE) to the Commission

(24 February 1999)

Subject: EU aid to farms in Madeira which have suffered storm damage

In the second week of January, Madeira was battered by violent storms which wreaked havoc in virtually all parts of the island and affected all farms, particularly those in the south whose main crop is bananas - the region's main source of agricultural prosperity.

The cost of the damage has been estimated at over 1 billion escudos (over 5 million euros) and the situation is truly disastrous; the loss of income, particularly in the case of small- and medium-scale landowners, will almost certainly lead to serious social problems.

With reference to this state of affairs which, on account of its social aspect, is genuinely worrying, could the Commission say whether any aid (financial or otherwise) has already been granted or will in the near future be granted to the farms concerned, so that any further loss of income in Madeira (already one of the poorest regions in the EU) can be prevented?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 1999)

The Portuguese Government has already applied to the Commission for aid, in response to which the Commission has sought more detailed and quantified information on the type of weather hazard that struck the island and its consequences for the region's crops and agricultural and forestry production potential.

Turning to the structural measures, Article 5(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) 4256/88, as amended by Regulation (EEC) 2085/93 of 20 July 4256/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) 2052/88 as regards the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guidance Section(1), lays down that the EAGGF may provide financial assistance to restore agricultural and forestry production potential damaged by natural disasters. In this context Community assistance could be released within the overall budget of the Community support framework for Portugal.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0796/99

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: Pre-packaging of milk in 180 ml bottles

Directive 75/106/EEC(1) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepackaged liquids permits the pre-packaging of milk and milk products (apart from yoghurt) only in particular quantities, the smallest being 200 ml and 250 ml.

The smallest bottles available in Austria for the pre-packaging of milk are those of 250 ml. This quantity has proved too large, particularly for deliveries to nursery schools. Bottles with a capacity of 180 ml also exist, but these are strictly speaking intended for the pre-packaging of yoghurt. It would not be worthwhile for the producers or for the schools' suppliers to purchase 200 ml bottles. The pre-packaging of milk in yoghurt bottles seems, on the other hand, to be an economically sensible solution.

Does the Commission see any way of interpreting or amending the Directive in order to permit the pre-packaging of milk in 180 ml bottles in the exceptional circumstances described above?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

Directive 75/106/EEC of 19 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain pre-packaged liquids sets out in Annex III the "optional"(2) ranges of nominal volumes for all liquids(3). Member States may therefore in their national legislation transposing the directive allow the placing on the market of liquids with volumes not falling within these ranges (such as milk bottles of 180 ml) as long as the legal conditions on fair trade and consumer protection are respected.

As to Annex III itself, it can only be modified through a co-decision procedure on basis of a proposal of the Commission.

(1) OJ L 42, 15.2.1975, p. 1.

(2) This optionality is defined as follows in Article 5.1 "Member States may not refuse, prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of prepackages which satisfy the requirements of this Directive on grounds related to mldr the nominal volumes where these are set out in Annex III, column I".

(3) except for specific alcohols for which the volumes are mandatory.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0477/99

by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Regulatory framework for natural cosmeceutical products

Manufacturers of cosmeceutical products - i.e. products which are neither a medical nor purely cosmetic product - are facing difficulties in gaining licences for their products as no regulatory structure exists at European level. Is the Commission aware of this problem, and what action would it consider taking to introduce a regulatory framework to enable such products to be sold across the single market?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 1999)

The concept of "cosmeceutical" products is not recognised in Community law; the Commission considers that this type of product should be classified within the framework of existing regulations, whether as a medicinal product, under Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965, on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products(1), or as a cosmetic product under Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products(2).

A product is classified as a medicinal product on the basis of its actual function (possessing therapeutic or curative properties) or on the basis of its presentation (the consumer believes that the product in question is a medicinal product, or the manufacturer presents it as such). In this case, authorisation must be obtained prior to placing on the market. On the other hand, curative or therapeutic properties must not be ascribed to a cosmetic product the function of which is exclusively or mainly to clean the various external parts of the human body, the teeth and mucous membranes of the oral cavity, to perfume them, to change their appearance, to protect them or to keep them in good condition, or to correct body odour. No authorisation prior to placing on the market is required for cosmetic products.

(1) OJ L 22, 9.2.1965.

(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0040/99

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(20 January 1999)

Subject: Trade in cat and dog fur

On 13 December 1998, from 10.55 p.m. to 11.45 p.m., German RTL Television broadcast a documentary entitled Cats and dogs: the fur scandal - consumer advertising and cruelty to animals, reporting the existence of a growing trade in cat and dog fur.

The fur is reported to be used in producing such items as decorative collars, cuddly toys, leather jackets, shoes, golfing gloves, etc.

Hundreds of thousands of cat and dog pelts are reported to be traded in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland in particular.

Can the Commission state whether the trade in and processing of cat and dog fur is lawful in the European Member States?

Can the Commission confirm that both the trade and the processing business are growing strongly?

Does the Commission not consider that this is a reprehensible development, not least because nearly all cats and dogs are domestic animals and an expanding trade in these animals' fur increases the risk of stray family pets being stolen?

Is the Commission prepared simply to prohibit this trade and the associated processing in the European Union so that members of the public need have no fear of their pets being caught and killed to satisfy the needs of this trade?

Supplementary answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 1999)

The documentary to which the Honourable Member refers was televised on the German television channel RTL and concerns cruelty in the methods of killing cats and dogs for the purposes of skin production in certain Asian countries. The Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member that animals should not be treated in a cruel manner.

The Commission is not collecting any specific information concerning trade and processing of such furs. It is therefore not possible to confirm whether this business is growing. Similarly there is no information available on whether the demand for dog and cat furs actually leads to an increased risk of stray family pets being stolen.

There is no binding international agreement in force which lays down minimum standards for the killing of fogs and cats. Under World trade organisation (WTO) rules as currently interpreted, animal welfare provisions cannot be made a condition for imports from third countries. However, in the context of the determination of the Community negotiating objectives for the next stage of the WTO negotiations, the Commission will examine the possibility of addressing animal welfare concerns more generally.